    [Senate Hearing 112-731]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-731

                                                            Senate Hearings

                                     Before the Committee on Appropriations

    _______________________________________________________________________

    Department of the Interior,
    Environment, and
    Related Agencies
    Appropriations

                                                           Fiscal Year 2013

                                             112th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

                                                                  H.R. 6091

    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

         Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
                              Appropriations, 2013
                             (H.R. 6091)--Part 1

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-731

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                                   H.R. 6091

       AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
    ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
                        30, 2013, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                           Department of Agriculture
                           Department of the Interior
                        Environmental Protection Agency
                           Nondepartmental Witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations

                                   __________

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    72-332PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                       DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
    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, February 29, 2012

                                                                       Page

    Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary..............     1

                           Wednesday, March 14, 2012

    Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management............    77
    Department of the Interior: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management....    86
    Department of the Interior: Bureau of Safety and Environmental
      Enforcement....................................................    91

                           Wednesday, April 18, 2012

    Department of Agriculture: United States Forest Service..........   125

                            Wednesday, May 16, 2012

    Environmental Protection Agency..................................   175
    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   235

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2012

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Reed, Leahy, Tim Johnson, Tester,
    Landrieu, Murkowski, Alexander, Cochran, Collins, and Hoeven.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            DAVID J. HAYES, DEPUTY SECRETARY
            PAMELA 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 and on
    behalf of the members of the subcommittee I'd like to welcome
    the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Secretary, thank you very
    much for taking time to be with us this morning and to talk
    about the fiscal year 2013 budget for the Department of the
    Interior.
        I would also like to take a moment to thank you for all the
    time that you spent in our States during the past year visiting
    our shared priorities. I very much appreciated your trip to
    Rhode Island last summer and your support to create the John H.
    Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Historic Park.
        I am also grateful for your participation, you and your
    staff, along with Senator Murkowski, for our very interesting
    and informative trip to Alaska. And I would also like to thank
    Senator Murkowski not only for her gracious hospitality in
    Alaska, but for her extraordinary efforts last year on a
    bipartisan basis to bring forward an Interior bill which I
    think was a good one. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski,
    for your great work and for the work of your staff.
        Mr. Secretary, I also want to thank you for your intense
    interest in all these issues and for your accessibility and
    collaboration with us throughout the process last year, and we
    look forward to the same collaboration going forward this year.
        Turning to the budget, it appears that the administration
    is seeking $10.4 billion for Interior programs under the
    jurisdiction of this subcommittee. That is an increase of $139
    million, or about 1 percent more than the equivalent fiscal
    year 2012 enacted level.
        Within that amount, funding for the operations of our
    national parks, refuges, and other public lands is essentially
    flat at $4.56 billion. Tribal programs are also flat-funded at
    approximately $2.53 billion.
        The budget request does include a few new investments,
    including a $115 million increase for the Interior Department's
    Land and Water Conservation (LWCF) programs, for a total of
    $332 million. That amount is a 53-percent increase more than
    the fiscal year 2012 level and includes a new emphasis on
    landscape-scale projects in Montana, Wyoming, and Florida.
        I look forward to discussing how this proposal fits in with
    other land acquisition priorities particularly since I notice
    that there are no projects in some of our States, Rhode Island
    included, with respect to land acquisition. And it is very
    important, I think you recognize this, for urban parks and
    refuges and also for the whole country that we have an active
    acquisition process going forward.
        The budget request also includes $222 million for the
    Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), a 13-
    percent increase for inspections and enforcement. I understand
    the Department intends this funding increase to continue the
    transformation of its offshore energy program.
        The request also proposes substantial increases in science,
    including a 3-percent increase in the U.S. Geological Survey's
    (USGS) budget for a total of $1.102 billion. Within that amount
    is $18.5 million for hydraulic fracturing research to support a
    multi-agency research effort to address environmental questions
    related to energy development.
        Of course, as is often the case during these fiscally
    difficult times, the administration's budget request also
    contains reductions to other important programs, including a
    19-percent cut to land management agency construction programs
    and an additional 14-percent cut to the construction of tribal
    schools. And finally, it requires yet another round of belt-
    tightening by the Department's Bureaus to produce $80 million
    in administrative savings.
        As we discuss the details of this request, it is very
    important to note that, for decades, resources provided to the
    Department through the Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies appropriations bill have created jobs by enabling oil
    and gas development, supporting outdoor recreation, and
    building facilities, roads, and trails on our public lands.
        The Department now has the opportunity to spur economic
    growth through new sectors like renewable energy, and that fact
    makes it even more important that the right resources and
    policies are in place to permit these projects to proceed
    quickly and responsibly.
        In particular, I would like to have a conversation about
    the role of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in
    permitting new offshore wind projects, which have the ability
    to create hundreds of new assembly and manufacturing jobs all
    across our coastal areas, but in particular at Quonset Point,
    Rhode Island. I think some of my colleagues also have some
    interest in those projects.
        We have worked in Rhode Island and in adjacent States, but
    particularly Rhode Island, to develop an ocean special area
    management plan (SAMP), first in the Nation effort to
    streamline the planning process for the siting of these
    facilities. And despite all this work, I am concerned that
    BOEM's environmental assessment and planning process for Rhode
    Island is falling behind schedule, that we are not keeping pace
    with other areas of development.
        And finally, I would also expect to discuss how the
    Department's budget request will support and expand other types
    of energy development. The subcommittee has been very involved
    in the reorganization of offshore oil and gas programs, and I
    am anxious to hear a progress report from the Secretary
    regarding how the Department's three new Bureaus are addressing
    their management challenges.
        I anticipate that we will also discuss the changes the
    Department is proposing to its onshore energy development
    budget, including a proposal for a new inspection fee for oil
    and gas development on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands,
    and I look forward to a good conversation on all of these
    important issues.
        And now, Mr. Secretary and colleagues, I would like to turn
    to the ranking member for any of her comments.
        Senator Murkowski.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
    the panel.
        We had the opportunity yesterday to have Secretary Salazar,
    Assistant Secretary Hayes, and Ms. Haze before the Energy
    Committee. So I had a chance to do some warm-up questions then,
    but it is good to welcome you back to this subcommittee.
        And Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the trip that we took to
    Alaska this summer. I, too, want to thank the Secretary and
    thank you and your staff. Peter Kiefhaber, who is no longer
    with the subcommittee, but did a great job with us as we worked
    that Interior package last year. So thank you not only for the
    time that you took to look at some issues that are very
    important to my State and to the country, but also for the good
    work of your staff as we built that bill last year.
        This morning, Mr. Chairman, I think we recognize that this
    is just the first of several of our subcommittee hearings that
    we will engage in an oversight role we exercise during these
    hearings. It is especially critical in this challenging fiscal
    climate where we are forced to make some very difficult
    decisions, difficult choices between many worthy programs that
    are funded by this bill and by others.
        It is imperative that we work with the executive branch to
    improve the efficiency and the quality of the programs that are
    administered by all of the agencies that are under our
    jurisdiction. I think we all recognize that in this time we are
    all having to figure out how we do more with less.
        As you have indicated, Mr. Chairman, the Department's
    budget request is essentially flat at $10.4 billion. But before
    I describe some of the concerns that I might have, I want to
    applaud you, Mr. Secretary, for including the full amount of
    contract support costs for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    request.
        These funds are absolutely, absolutely critical for the
    delivery of so many programs to Native Alaskans. As you know,
    this is a top priority for me, and I hope that we can encourage
    Indian Health Services to adopt your approach in future
    requests. So I thank you for that.
        There are a number of concerns that I have with the
    Department's budget proposal for fiscal year 2013. Similar to
    last year, it does propose to increase by 39 percent the amount
    for LWCF programs while at the same time we are cutting the
    construction accounts for all of the land management agencies
    and BIA.
        I think it is somewhat shortsighted to continue
    underfunding essential construction and maintenance programs
    while at the same time we are increasing the operational
    demands on the Department by expanding the amount of land under
    its jurisdiction. That was something that I had noted
    yesterday.
        I do find it curious that at the same time that the budget
    proposes to dramatically expand Federal land acquisition that
    it eliminates the National Wildlife Refuge Fund, which
    compensates States and localities for the loss of tax revenue
    due to Federal ownership.
        And while the budget proposes to extend mandatory Payments
    in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) that expire this fiscal year by just 1
    additional year, it doesn't provide for offsets. I think that
    before we commit funds to additional land acquisitions that we
    should make sure that we have got a definitive way to honor our
    existing commitments to States and counties that already have a
    large Federal land base which is not subject to property taxes.
        I was in Ketchikan on Friday. It is the southernmost
    community in southeastern Alaska, sits in the middle of the
    Tongass National Forest. I was reminded that in Ketchikan, only
    1/30th of 1 percent of the Ketchikan borough is taxable, is
    subject to any taxation, 1/30th of 1 percent.
        So when we cut back on PILT, when we cut back on Secure
    Rural Schools program funding, there is no way to expand their
    tax base. They are sitting in the middle of a national forest.
    So it was a good reminder to me of the importance of some of
    these mandatory payments.
        Also, a number of troubling proposals in the request for
    new fees that would raise the cost of domestic energy
    production, mining, and livestock grazing. I am concerned with
    what I would describe as a budget gimmick, and this relates to
    the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP).
        There is an offset of current discretionary programs by
    rescinding the $200 million within CIAP. This was established
    by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in recognition of the direct
    impacts that are caused by Federal offshore Outer Continental
    Shelf (OCS) development on our OCS-producing States.
        Alaska, for instance, would lose $16 million of the
    remaining $45 million that it is entitled to under the program
    for environmental mitigation and infrastructure improvements.
    This is an unacceptable situation in my opinion, particularly
    in light of the fact that we have yet to enact legislation that
    would provide for State revenue sharing for OCS-producing
    States so that the projects that are currently supported by
    CIAP would continue to have a funding source.
        On a positive note, and as I said yesterday, you can't have
    conversations like this without--and being critical in areas
    without recognizing where we truly have made significant gains,
    and I thanked you for the contract support. But I would also
    like to thank you, Mr. Secretary, and the Department for the
    approval of Shell's Arctic spill prevention plan on the 17th of
    this month. I am very, very hopeful that after a number of
    false starts on this exploration of both the Beaufort and the
    Chukchi Seas that we can actually begin this summer.
        And again, Mr. Hayes, I thank you for your very personal
    efforts. You have been engaged at a level at the Secretary's
    request that I think has helped to facilitate this process.
        I am also very optimistic that language that was included
    in last year's Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriation bill that transfers the authority over air
    quality issues in Arctic OCS from the Environmental Protection
    Agency to the Department of the Interior will finally provide
    some much-needed regulatory certainty for the environmentally
    safe and timely development of our resource.
        So I thank you for your assistance in many of these areas.
    Look forward to furthering our conversation today.
        And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
        Mr. Secretary, while we anticipate your testimony, I would
    like to give my colleagues present here an opportunity to make
    a brief statement before you begin.
        Senator Collins.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS

        Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, Mr. Chairman, let me say how much I look forward to
    working with you and the ranking member this year in crafting
    this important appropriations bill. And of course, it is always
    a pleasure to welcome back to the subcommittee our former
    colleague Secretary Salazar. I told Secretary Salazar this
    morning that he was my favorite Cabinet member, to which my
    colleague Senator Alexander quickly replied that I tell all the
    Cabinet members that.
        Senator Collins. But truly, we do have a special
    relationship from having served together. I also want to thank
    the Secretary for traveling to Maine last August to see the
    exciting new deepwater offshore wind technology that is being
    developed there.
        While I have looked forward to learning more about the
    broad range of activities included in the Department's budget
    request, I am particularly interested in discussing the BOEM's
    efforts with regard to leasing and permitting deepwater
    offshore wind, an issue that I know is of great interest to the
    chairman of this subcommittee as well. Specifically, I look
    forward to discussing BOEM's efforts in Maine, including the
    Renewable Energy Task Force and Statoil's unsolicited lease
    application.
        I know that you share my interest in streamlining the
    development of our offshore wind resources permitting so that
    we do not lose the global race in the development of this
    abundant, renewable energy source.
        In addition to advancing our goal to responsibly develop
    our energy resources, partnerships are paramount for striking
    the right balance in meeting our shared conservation goals. On
    that foundation, our open spaces, recreation, and working lands
    can continue to coexist for the benefit of future generations.
        One of the most important Federal programs to assist in the
    preservation of recreational and environmental resources is the
    LWCF. Secretary Salazar, you have been such a leader in this
    area, and I know you well recall how hard we worked together in
    this area to increase funding during your time in the Senate. I
    appreciate the administration's continued commitment to LWCF,
    which has funded the acquisition of key parcels within Maine's
    treasured Acadia National Park and strategic forest legacy
    projects.
        In addition, I am pleased to see partnerships highlighted
    in the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, including two
    community-led signature projects in Maine, the Keeping Maine's
    Forests and the Penobscot River Restoration Project. The
    Penobscot River Restoration Project is the largest river
    restoration project ever undertaken in the eastern part of the
    United States. It has been a true private-public partnership.
        I look forward to working together, particularly
    considering the challenging budget constraints, to ensure that
    the Department continues to provide technical assistance and
    seed money to help match the considerable private funding that
    has been raised to complete these flagship projects.
        These are just some of the issues I hope to touch on today,
    and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to give an
    opening statement.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Collins.
        Are there any other colleagues that wish to give an opening
    statement? Senator Tester.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER

        Senator Tester. I will be brief. I want to thank you,
    Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski, for holding this
    hearing.
        And I want to thank Secretary Salazar, flanked by the two
    ``Hay-zes'' here today. I appreciate the work you have done.
        I just want to look back. I think we had an incredibly
    successful year last year with wolf delisting, with the Cobell
    settlement, with the Crow water settlement. And I think that
    the ground-up strategy that you folks have used for land
    management, I think, is critically, critically important, and I
    applaud you on that.
        As we flesh out this budget, I think we need to continue to
    work to make things as good as we can for your Department and
    for the Federal lands around the country.
        So thank you very, very much.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
        And I am going to try to abide by the early bird rule with
    one exception. Senator Leahy has asked that he be recognized in
    the proper democratic order when he arrives, and I will do that
    and wanted to let my democratic colleagues know that.
        And with no----
        Senator Alexander. Wait. Could I make a brief statement?
        Senator Reed. Absolutely. Senator Alexander, please.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

        Senator Alexander. Mr. Chairman, I want to join in the
    welcome of Secretary Salazar, who is well known and well loved
    here in our--in the Senate and thank him for his travels,
    including to the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, where he
    appeared with, among others, Dolly Parton, rendering everybody
    else who was present unimportant.
        But, one, I want to remind the Secretary and this
    subcommittee of the disparity in funding of our great national
    parks. The Great Smokies is the only park, only big park, that
    was actually given to the United States. It wasn't carved out
    of Federal land. And as a result of that, we don't collect a
    fee on people who come into the Great Smoky Mountain Park. So
    we have about one-half as much money to spend and two or three
    times as many visitors as even the big western parks in the
    Great Smokies.
        Last year, $35 million for Yellowstone National Park, $29
    million for Yosemite National Park, 19 million Federal dollars
    for the Smokies. And the people in the area have worked hard
    to--and of course, at Yellowstone National Park and Yosemite
    National Park, you have the fees on top of that. And at
    Smokies, you don't.
        Now we make up for that with a lot of volunteer work on the
    trails and efficient management. But I would hope, Mr.
    Secretary, you would look for ways to recognize the Smokies
    doing so much for itself, and you and I have talked about the
    joint curatorial collection facility there that would benefit
    five national park properties, which is competing for
    construction funds, which I know are diminishing, but a place
    to put important papers from the area, including President
    Andrew Johnson's papers.
        And we hope it has a priority and maybe a little equity
    since the park is not as well funded as others, even though it
    has two or three times as many visitors as other parks.
        The second thing I will be asking you about are fish
    hatcheries, which supply--one of which supplies the whole
    country. And I learned a long time ago that there are probably
    more people with hunting and fishing licenses in Tennessee than
    who vote. And so, this is serious business for us, and I will
    be asking you if you will give me some assurance you will not
    close the two fish hatcheries in Tennessee until we find a
    funding solution.
        We are working with the Corps of Engineers (COE), the
    Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), to try to find a solution to
    this. We understand you will have to reduce some Federal
    funding. But if they close before we find a solution, that will
    be very, very disappointing.
        So I welcome you, and I look forward to my opportunity to
    ask questions at a later time.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary before you begin, I want to
    again recognize Deputy Secretary Hayes and Deputy Assistant
    Secretary Haze.

                        SUMMARY STATEMENT OF KEN SALAZAR

        Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Reed, and
    thank you for the recognition of my colleagues, members of the
    subcommittee, Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes and Pamela K.
    Haze, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Finance,
    Performance, and Acquisition.
        Ranking Member Murkowski, Senator Susan Collins, Senator
    Alexander, Senator Johnson, and Senator Tester, as I appear
    before you this morning--and I hope I am your favorite
    Secretary, Senator Collins--I can only tell you that when I
    look at the five of you, six of you, you are some of my
    favorite Senators.
        Secretary Salazar. I think if the rest of the U.S. Senate
    were like the six of you who are here today, I think we could
    solve every problem in the world. So I just wish there were
    more of you, both Democrats and Republicans.
        Let me also just acknowledge the great work of your staff.
    Rachael, congratulations on your appointment. We will miss
    Peter, but we know you will carry on and do a great job, and
    the great bipartisan relationship that you also have on the
    subcommittee reflects back on the staff. It has been great
    working with you as well and the staff on both sides.
        Let me say in this position as Secretary, I am very, very
    honored to be able to be the custodian of America's natural
    resources and the custodian of America's heritage. From the
    Crown of the Continent in Montana to the Great Smoky Mountains,
    to Mount Rushmore and the Dakota Grasslands to Acadia and the
    Penobscot River, to Mount Denali and the North Slope down to
    the Blackstone National Heritage Area, you reflect much of my
    job in the work you all do on behalf of your States. I very
    much have enjoyed visits to your States and spending time with
    you, working on solving problems because I think all of you and
    I are committed to doing that.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET

        Let me just spend a few minutes talking about the budget
    proposed for fiscal year 2013. It is a squeeze budget. It is a
    tough choices and painful cuts budget. Senator Reed made the
    statement that it is a basically a flat budget, but there are
    also some very significant cuts to make the budget balance.
        It is a budget that cuts Government and asks us to do more
    with less. That is what the President has directed us, and as
    we all deal with these tough fiscal times, that is just a
    reality we have to face. It is a budget that supports huge job
    creation in energy, both in conventional energy, oil and gas,
    as well as renewable energy, where we have all made some major
    strides.
        It is a budget that supports conservation and tourism and
    the major dollars that are brought into each of your States
    from the conservation and outdoor recreation program, including
    all those hunters and anglers, bikers and hikers, and wildlife
    watchers. It is a budget that also does as much as we possibly
    can to honor the principle of our responsibility on the trust
    relationship with Native Americans.
        Now look at this budget in context. It is 3-percent less
    than where we were in fiscal year 2011. That is 3-percent less
    than. As Senator Reed remarked, it is about flat with where we
    were in fiscal year 2012. I want to spend a few minutes on some
    of the key points of this budget.

                             CUTS AND EFFICIENCIES

        The first are cuts and efficiencies in Government. This
    budget, as it has been presented, will result in a reduction of
    the Federal workforce at Interior by 591 full-time equivalents
    (FTE). We continue to look at how we do the job assigned to us
    by this Congress over the years and to do it in the right way
    with, frankly, fewer people. We are asking a lot of our people.
        We also move forward with some program terminations and
    downsizing. Some of these cuts are painful cuts and they end up
    reflecting a $517 million cut.
        In administrative efficiencies, we have taken a hard look
    at how we are doing information technology, procurement, and
    other functions of the Department, and there is a total of $207
    million of administrative efficiencies that are also set forth
    in this budget. Cuts and efficiency in Government, we are going
    to be doing more. We are going to be doing it with less.

                             OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION

        On jobs, with respect to energy, it is one of the hottest
    issues here in the Capitol these days. We continue to move
    forward with onshore oil and gas production, as well as
    offshore oil and gas production. The President has directed us
    and we are implementing the program to move forward with the
    program that produces America's domestic energy.

                                     ENERGY

        The budget reflects $662 million for conventional energy
    resources. We are moving forward with a number of initiatives
    in the Gulf of Mexico. As Senator Murkowski said, we may be
    moving forward with some programs also in the Beaufort and the
    Chukchi Seas in Alaska and onshore in Alaska in places like the
    National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, which had basically not been
    developed, and we are moving forward there as well. We have an
    aggressive program for oil and gas development, both onshore as
    well as offshore.

                                RENEWABLE ENERGY

        The renewable energy effort contemplates $86 million, which
    is really only about 1/10th of what we are putting in the
    conventional energy area, but still there. Our high priorities
    are to move forward with both offshore wind energy, as well as
    onshore solar, geothermal, and wind energy. By the end of this
    year, we expect to be at more than 10,000 megawatts permitted
    onshore in the United States of America. The 2005 energy bill
    that I worked with you all on had a goal of less than that, and
    we actually will be surpassing the goals that were set forth in
    the act.

                                    TOURISM

        Let me finally just say outdoor recreation and tourism, it
    is important for all of you to note that wherever I have gone
    around the country, including with Senator Collins as we stood
    there at L.L. Bean, we spoke about the importance of tourism
    and conservation and job creation. Independent studies have
    indicated tourism and conservation, outdoor recreation, and
    historic preservation bring in about 8 million jobs to this
    country every year.
        A report from McKinsey International indicates we can grow
    the economy from where it is today with an additional 2.1 to
    3.3 million jobs over the next 10 years by investments in
    conservation and outdoor recreation. Hence, the request we have
    for LWCF and other investments in conservation.

                                 INDIAN COUNTRY

        Let me finally just say on tribal homelands, I am proud of
    the work we have done there. I think Assistant Secretary Larry
    Echo Hawk and his team have led the effort to make some of the
    most dramatic changes. Senator Tester spoke about some of the
    achievements just in the State of Montana. That has swept the
    country, and the Deputy Secretary, David Hayes, has been
    involved in many of those initiatives.
        It is a new beginning in our relationship with Indian
    country. The 566 tribes of the United States recognize that. We
    recognize we have a lot more work to do. But when you look at
    programs like the beginning of the Navajo water supply pipeline
    that will bring for the first time potable water to the 70,000
    Navajos on the reservation, we are making significant progress
    there. I am very proud of the work that we have done there.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished friends and
    members of this subcommittee, this is a tight budget. It is a
    squeeze budget. There are painful cuts included.
        I don't like many of them, frankly. I would rather be doing
    a lot more if we had that luxury. But it is a budget that is
    balanced, and it invests in job creation through energy,
    conservation--not just in this subcommittee, but also in other
    committees on the water side. We are doing a lot with water,
    tribal homelands, and I appreciate all the great work that all
    of you did in getting a fiscal year 2012 budget that allowed us
    to move forward with the plans for 2012.
        So thank you all very much.
        [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 fiscal year 2013 budget
    request for the Department of the Interior. I want to thank the members
    of this subcommittee for your efforts to enact a fiscal year 2012
    appropriation. The fiscal year 2012 appropriations process was
    challenging for the Congress and the agencies--it required a coming
    together of diverse philosophies and views. We appreciate the support
    of this subcommittee for our priorities including the America's Great
    Outdoors Initiative, which enhances our efforts to be responsible
    stewards of the Nation's lands and resources, expanded responsible
    development of domestic energy sources with reforms in the oil and gas
    programs, high levels of youth hiring and education in all of our
    programs, and support for improved living and economic conditions for
    American Indians and Alaska Natives. Last, I appreciate the ongoing
    support of this subcommittee and your strong interest in our programs.
    Although we may not always share the same views, we have been able to
    accomplish a lot in these last 3 years.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget builds on this strong foundation with
    $11.5 billion requested in the President's budget for the Department of
    the Interior. This includes $10.5 billion for programs under the
    jurisdiction of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    Subcommittee and included in the Interior bill. The budget for current
    appropriations is $140.3 million or 1 percent more than the fiscal year
    2012 level. The request includes reductions and savings of $516.8
    million. We made difficult choices in this budget, sacrificing in many
    areas, deferring projects, and programming savings for efficiencies in
    order to maintain funding for key priorities and investments that will
    contribute to strengthening the economic vitality and well-being of the
    Nation.
        As the President has detailed in his ``Blueprint for an America
    Built to Last'', the budget proposes investments in an economy that
    works for everyone. Our budget request supports responsible domestic
    energy development, advances an America's Great Outdoors Initiative to
    maintain our legacy and stimulate new opportunities, applies science to
    address the most formidable natural resource challenges, and invests in
    self-determination and economic development to strengthen tribal
    nations. This subcommittee has been an active partner in advancing
    these priorities. I look forward to our continued collaboration during
    the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and
    manage the responsible use of America's natural resources, support our
    cultural heritage, and honor the Nation's trust responsibilities to
    American Indians and Alaska Natives.
        Interior's people and programs impact all Americans. According to a
    Department study, in 2010, Interior programs and activities supported
    more than 2 million jobs and approximately $363 billion in economic
    activity. The Department is the steward of 20 percent of the Nation's
    lands. Interior manages the resources of the national parks, national
    wildlife refuges, and public lands and assists States, tribes, and
    others in the management of natural and cultural resources.
        Interior manages many of the Nation's natural resources, including
    those that are essential for America's industry--oil and gas, coal, and
    minerals such as gold and uranium. On public lands and the Outer
    Continental Shelf (OCS), Interior provides access for renewable and
    conventional energy development and manages the protection and
    restoration of surface mined lands. The Department of the Interior
    oversees the responsible development of 24 percent of America's
    domestic oil and gas supplies, while striving to ensure safety and
    environmental protection and the effective collection of revenue from
    this development. We estimate that energy and minerals development on
    Federal lands supported 1.3 million jobs and $246 billion in economic
    activity in 2010.
        The Department is also the largest supplier and manager of water in
    the 17 Western States, promotes and assists others to conserve water
    and extend water supplies, and provides hydropower resources used to
    power much of the Country. The Department estimates that the use of
    water, timber, and other resources produced from Federal lands
    supported about 370,000 jobs and $48 billion in economic activity.
        Interior works to ensure that America's spectacular landscapes,
    unique natural life, and cultural resources and icons endure for future
    generations, tells and preserves the American story, and maintains the
    special places that enable the shared American experience. In 2012,
    visitors made 476 million visits to Interior-managed lands and
    supported an estimated $47 billion in economic activity.
        Interior manages and delivers water, arbitrates long-standing
    conflicts in water allocation and use, and actively promotes water
    conservation. As one of the Nation's primary natural and cultural
    resource stewards, the Department makes decisions regarding potential
    development on the public lands and offshore coastal areas that can
    greatly impact the Nation's energy future and economic strength.
    Factored into this balance is the Department's unique responsibility to
    American Indians and Alaska Natives. The Department supports cutting-
    edge research in the earth sciences--geology, hydrology, and biology--
    to inform resource management decisions at Interior and organizations
    across the world and in earthquake, volcano, and other hazards to
    protect communities across the Nation. Maintaining and building the
    capacity to carry out these responsibilities on behalf of the American
    people is Interior's primary focus.

                           POWERING AMERICA'S ECONOMY

        Stewardship of America's lands and natural resources is at the
    heart of the national spirit and the economy--from the responsible
    management and development of natural resources and increasingly, the
    economic power of outdoor recreation.
        In 2011, the Department of the Interior generated a total of $13.2
    billion in receipts benefiting the U.S. Treasury--from a combination of
    fees, royalties, rents and bonuses from mineral, timber, and other
    natural resource development. The Department estimates that
    conventional and renewable energy produced on Interior lands and waters
    results in about $230 billion in economic benefits each year. In 2011,
    of the total receipts generated by the Interior, $11.3 billion was
    collected from energy production on public lands, tribal lands, and
    Federal offshore areas--a $2 billion increase more than the previous
    year--with receipts disbursed and revenues shared among Federal, State,
    and tribal governments.
        Since 2008, oil production from the Federal OCS has increased by 30
    percent, from 450 million barrels to more than 589 million barrels in
    2010. Balancing the need for safety and environmental enforcement,
    Interior currently manages 35 million acres of the OCS under active
    lease. A recently proposed 5-year oil and gas leasing program would
    make more than 75 percent of undiscovered technically recoverable oil
    and gas estimated on the OCS available for development.
        Onshore, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) held 32 onshore oil
    and gas lease sales in 2011. BLM offered 1,755 parcels of land covering
    nearly 4.4 million acres. Nearly three-quarters or 1,296 of those
    parcels of land offered were leased, generating about $256 million in
    revenue for American taxpayers. This was a 20-percent increase in lease
    sale revenue more than 2010, following a strong year in which leasing
    reform helped to lower protests and increase revenue from onshore oil
    and gas lease sales on public lands. BLM recently has seen a 50-percent
    jump in industry proposals to lease for oil and gas exploration. Oil
    and gas companies nominated nearly 4.5 million acres of public minerals
    for leasing in 2011, up from just under 3 million acres the year
    before. Industry nominations are the first step in the BLM leasing
    process. After evaluating the parcels, BLM may offer them at auction.
    Successful bidders can then apply to drill for oil and gas.
        Interior is moving aggressively to put the President's energy
    strategy, ``Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future'', into action and
    expand secure energy supplies for the Nation--a strategy that includes
    the responsible development of renewable energy sources on the public
    lands. At the start of this administration, there were no solar energy
    facilities sited on the public lands, and wind energy development was
    relatively limited compared to development on private lands. Since
    March 2009, 29 onshore projects that increased approved capacity for
    production and transmission of power have been approved including the
    first ever utility-scale solar project, five wind projects, and eight
    geothermal projects. The Cape Wind Energy Project, approved for
    construction and operation, is the first ever offshore commercial wind
    operation. The 2013 budget reflects an expansion of these
    accomplishments with the goal of permitting 11,000 megawatts by the end
    of 2013.
        The President's ``Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future'' recognizes
    the economic potential of renewable energy development. The economic
    benefits could be particularly significant in America's remote and
    rural places near public lands. The Department's 2010 estimates
    identified nearly $5.5 billion in economic impacts associated with
    renewable energy activities, a growing economic sector that supports
    high-paying jobs.

                          GROWING THE ECONOMY OUTDOORS

        Interior is at the forefront of the administration's comprehensive
    effort to spur job creation by making the United States the world's top
    travel and tourism destination. In a recent statement, President Obama
    cited Department of Commerce figures showing that in 2010,
    international travel resulted in $134 billion in U.S. exports.
    International travel to the United States is the Nation's largest
    service export industry, with 7 percent of total exports and 24 percent
    of service exports. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates
    that every additional 65 international visitors to the United States
    can generate enough exports to support an additional travel and
    tourism-related job. According to the travel industry and BEA,
    international travel is particularly important as overseas or ``long-
    haul'' travelers spend on average $4,000 on each visit.
        President Obama has asked me to co-chair an interagency task force
    with Commerce Secretary John Bryson to develop a National Travel and
    Tourism Strategy to expand job creation by promoting domestic and
    international travel opportunities throughout the United States. A
    particular focus of the task force will be on strategies for increasing
    tourism and recreation jobs by promoting visits to the Nation's
    national treasures. The Department of the Interior manages iconic
    destinations in the national parks, wildlife refuges, cultural and
    historic sites, monuments, and other public lands that attract
    travelers from around the country and the globe. According to a
    Departmental study, in 2010, 437 million visits were made by American
    and international travelers to these lands, contributing $47.9 billion
    in economic activity and 388,000 jobs. Eco-tourism and outdoor
    recreation also have an impact on rural economies, particularly in
    Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon,
    Utah, and Wyoming.
        Interior is working to maximize the benefit of the outdoors for the
    millions of Americans at home. Hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation
    contribute an estimated $730 billion to the U.S. economy each year.
    More than 12 million Americans hunt; more than 30 million Americans
    fish; and 3 out of 4 Americans engage in some kind of healthy outdoor
    activity. One in 20 U.S. jobs is in the recreation economy.
        Through the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, the administration
    continues to expand opportunities for recreation--through partnerships
    with States and others and the promotion of America's parks, refuges,
    and public lands. The fiscal year 2013 budget requests $5.1 billion in
    support of this initiative, a $145.6 million increase compared to
    fiscal year 2012. Funding is focused on programs supported through the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) land management operations, and
    other grant and technical assistance programs that promote conservation
    and improve recreational access.
        By encouraging innovative partnerships in communities across the
    Nation, the administration is expanding access to rivers and trails,
    creating wildlife corridors, and promoting conservation while working
    to protect historic uses of the land including ranching, farming, and
    forestry. As part of the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, Interior
    is supporting 101 signature projects in all States across the Country
    to make parks accessible for children, create great urban parks and
    community green spaces, restore rivers, and create recreational
    blueways to power economic revitalization. Projects were selected in
    concert with Governors, tribal leaders, private landowners, and other
    stakeholders, and were evaluated based on the level of local support,
    the ability of States and communities to leverage resources, and the
    potential to conserve important lands and promote recreation.
        An example of a multi-State partnership project is the Blackstone
    River Valley Greenway. This project, completed in partnership with
    Rhode Island and Massachusetts, will create a 50-mile blueway and
    greenway trail along the Blackstone River and the historic Blackstone
    Canal, connecting Providence, Rhode Island and Worcester,
    Massachusetts, and 12 cities and towns in between. Visitors and
    residents will experience the history of the American industrial
    revolution, enjoy nature and take advantage of numerous outdoor
    recreation options, including bicycling, walking, and canoeing. The
    project will celebrate and preserve what makes the Blackstone River
    Valley National Heritage Corridor a special place to live, work, and
    visit.
        A key component of nearly all of the 101 projects is to increase
    access to the outdoors for the public. In Alaska, the Kachemak Bay
    Water Trail is proposed as a 125-mile designated water route, a key
    component of which is to maintain access to the bay. For the
    communities near Kachemak Bay, the water trail is envisioned as a new
    and sustainable economic driver. The trail would provide a logical
    route for boaters to explore the bay, promoting outdoor recreation,
    connecting people along the Bay, and expanding a culture of marine
    stewardship.
        The America's Great Outdoors Initiative is being implemented in
    partnership with communities and stakeholders across the Country. In
    January of this year, I accepted the first donation of land in south-
    central Florida to officially establish the Everglades Headwaters
    National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area--conserving one of the
    last remaining grassland and longleaf pine savannah landscapes in
    Eastern North America. The new refuge and conservation area--the 556th
    unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System--was established with the
    support of local ranchers, farmers, and landowners who are working
    cooperatively with Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to
    conserve the wildlife values on their lands while retaining their right
    to raise livestock or crops, an approach championed by the Obama
    administration.
        The Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation
    Area is one example of the new parks and refuges Interior has recently
    established to protect key natural and cultural resources for future
    generations. In addition to 650 miles of new national trails,
    designation of several national natural and historic landmarks,
    Interior welcomes the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington,
    DC; the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in New Jersey;
    the Fort Monroe National Monument in Virginia; the Dakota Grassland
    Conservation Area in North and South Dakota; New Mexico's first urban
    national wildlife refuge, the Middle Rio Grande National Wildlife
    Refuge in Albuquerque; and a signature America's Great Outdoors project
    in the Crown of the Continent Conservation Area in Montana. Interior
    launched significant efforts to protect America's enduring icons
    including upgrading the Statue of Liberty, initiating repairs to
    earthquake damage at the Washington Monument, and withdrawal of more
    than 1 million acres in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon from
    additional uranium and hardrock mining, to protect and preserve the
    natural beauty of the Grand Canyon.
        Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget request for appropriations from
    the LWCF includes a total of $450 million for Interior and United
    States Forest Service (USFS) program. The budget requests $212 million
    for Federal land acquisition within national parks, national wildlife
    refuges, and BLM public land boundaries, including $83.6 million for a
    collaborative program to support landscape-scale conservation projects
    developed in a collaborative process conducted by the USFS and Interior
    land management bureaus. Investments in ecologically important
    landscapes will be coordinated with State and local efforts to maximize
    ecosystem benefits, support at-risk species, and create wildlife
    corridors. The request includes $128.4 million for acquisition to
    facilitate protection of parks, refuges, and BLM designated areas based
    on bureau mission-specific priorities.
        The 2013 Federal land acquisition budget for BLM includes funding
    to will improve access for hunters and anglers to the public lands.
    Often these sportsmen and women are frustrated by complicated
    ``checkerboard'' land ownership and are unable to access BLM lands that
    provide recreation opportunities. The budget includes $2.5 million that
    will be used to purchase easements to alleviate these challenges and
    provide improved access for public recreation.
        An additional $120 million is proposed for key grant programs
    supported by the LWCF, including $60 million each for the Cooperative
    Endangered Species Conservation Fund program and State LWCF grants.

                 SPURRING GROWTH AND INNOVATION THROUGH SCIENCE

        Investments in research and development promote economic growth and
    innovation, ensure American competitiveness in a global market, and are
    critical to achieving the mission of the Department of the Interior.
    Investments in Interior's research and development will improve
    management of U.S. strategic energy and mineral supplies, water use and
    availability, and natural hazard preparedness. Sustainable stewardship
    of natural resources requires strong investments in research and
    development in the natural sciences.
        Research and development funding is increased by nearly $60 million
    in the fiscal year 2013 budget, with research and development funding
    increases among all of the Interior bureaus, and particularly the
    United States Geological Survey, FWS, Bureau of Safety and
    Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), BLM, and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).
    With these investments, Interior will support research that addresses
    critical challenges in energy production and the management of
    ecosystems, invasive species, public lands, and water.
        Recent technology and operational improvements have led to
    increased use of hydraulic fracturing in developing natural gas
    resources. To ensure the prudent and sustainable development of this
    important source of domestic energy, economic development, and job
    creation, the fiscal year 2013 budget invests in research and
    development that proactively addresses concerns about the potential
    impacts of hydraulic fracturing on air, water, ecosystems, and
    earthquakes. The fiscal year 2013 budget supports a $45 million
    interagency research and development initiative by the USGS, the
    Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    aimed at understanding and minimizing potential environmental, health,
    and safety impacts of shale gas development and production through
    hydraulic fracturing.
        The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is working with the
    University of Texas and a team of arctic researchers on a 5-year
    comprehensive study of the Hanna Shoal ecosystem in the Chukchi Sea off
    Alaska's northwest coast. Past studies have identified this area as an
    important biological ecosystem, which supports a high concentration of
    marine life. Valuable data on physical and biological processes in the
    area obtained from this research effort will be combined with the
    results of previously conducted studies. The resulting information will
    be used by industry, as well as by BOEM in decisions regarding energy
    development in this region, and will be included in future National
    Environmental Policy Act analyses.
        In 2011, USGS used cutting-edge technology to complete the genome
    sequencing of the fungus that causes the skin infection that is a
    hallmark of the white-nose syndrome, which is decimating bat
    populations across the country. This sequencing will support further
    research that is necessary to develop management strategies to mitigate
    the spread of the syndrome among bats. Recognizing the impact of this
    is not limited to wildlife health, USGS and university partners
    produced a study which determined that bats contribute $3.7 billion to
    the agricultural economy by eating pests that are harmful to
    agricultural and forest commodities. The fiscal year 2013 budget
    provides $1.8 million for USGS to conduct further research and
    development to address this critical issue.
        In fiscal year 2013, the budget requests a $2 million increase in
    the BLM wild horse and burro program to fund research on contraception/
    population control. Research may include topics such as studies on herd
    genetics, animal behavior, and overall rangeland use as it relates to
    sterilization and other population growth suppression techniques. The
    goal of the research will be to develop additional methods to minimize
    wild horse population growth and maintain herd health.

                  DELIVERING SUSTAINABLE GROWTH THROUGH WATER

        Although BOR is within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water
    Development Subcommittee, it plays a critical role in addressing the
    Nation's water challenges which are of interest to the subcommittee.
    BOR maintains 476 dams and 348 reservoirs with the capacity to store
    245 million acre-feet of water. BOR manages water for agricultural,
    municipal and industrial use, and provides flood control and recreation
    for millions of people. BOR's activities, including recreation,
    generate estimated economic benefits of more than $55 billion and
    support nearly 416,000 jobs.
        These facilities deliver water to 1 in every 5 western farmers to
    irrigate about 10 million acres of land, and provide water to more than
    31 million people for municipal and industrial uses and other
    nonagricultural uses. The water managed by Interior irrigates an
    estimated 60 percent of the Nation's vegetables each year. BOR
    facilities also reduce flood damages in communities where they are
    located and thereby create an economic benefit by sparing these
    communities the cost of rebuilding or replacing property damaged or
    destroyed by flood events.
        WaterSMART, established in 2010, has assisted communities in
    improving conservation, increasing water availability, restoring
    watersheds, resolving long-standing water conflicts, addressing the
    challenges of climate change, and implementing water rights
    settlements. The program has provided more than $85 million in funding
    to non-Federal partners, including tribes, water districts, and
    universities, including $33 million in 2011 for 82 WaterSMART grant
    projects. In December, Interior released a report on the effectiveness
    of the WaterSMART program, which demonstrates the importance of this
    work to the sustainability of resources in the Colorado River Basin.
        Another example of Interior's efforts to stretch water resources is
    the Yuma Desalting Plant in Arizona. BOR recently completed a year-long
    pilot operation of the plant in collaboration with California, Arizona,
    and Nevada water agencies. The pilot demonstrated the capability of the
    plant to augment Lower Colorado River supplies and produced sufficient
    water for use by about 116,000 people in a year. BOR and the regional
    water agencies are reviewing the results of this effort to evaluate the
    potential for long-term and sustained operation of the desalting plant.

     ENCOURAGING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY AND HONORING TRUST
                                RESPONSIBILITIES

        The Department has a unique responsibility to American Indians and
    Alaska Natives, which is upheld by Interior's support for a robust
    Government-to-government relationship as demonstrated by a new
    comprehensive and transparent consultation policy that ensures there is
    a strong, meaningful role for tribal governments. The Department and
    the President hosted the third White House Tribal Nations Conference in
    December 2011, bringing together tribal leaders from across the United
    States and enabling tribal leaders to interact directly with
    administration representatives and identify priority actions for
    American Indians and Alaska Natives.
        In 2011, Interior began planning to implement the landmark $3.4
    billion settlement of the Cobell v. Salazar lawsuit, and appointed a
    Secretarial Commission on Trust Administration and Reform to oversee
    implementation of the settlement agreement. The commission is
    undertaking a forward looking, comprehensive evaluation of Interior's
    management of nearly $4 billion in American Indian and tribal trust
    funds--with the goal of making trust administration more transparent,
    responsive, customer focused, and accountable.
        The Department held regional consultations across the Country to
    set the framework for the Cobell land consolidation program. The
    settlement establishes a $1.9 billion fund for the voluntary buy-back
    and consolidation of fractionated land interests to provide individual
    American Indians with an opportunity to obtain cash payments for
    divided land interests and consolidate holdings for economic and other
    uses, a significant benefit for tribal communities. Almost 4 million
    individually owned interests involving nearly 9 million acres have been
    identified as part of this effort.
        To further encourage and speed up economic development in Indian
    country, the Department took a significant step forward announcing the
    sweeping reform of antiquated, ``one-size-fits-all'' Federal leasing
    regulations for the 56 million surface acres the Federal Government
    holds in trust for tribes and individual Indians. The proposed rule
    identifies specific processes--with enforceable timelines--through
    which the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) must review leases. The
    regulation establishes separate, simplified processes for residential,
    business, and renewable energy development, so that, for example, a
    lease for a single family home is distinguished from a large solar
    energy project. The proposed regulation incorporates many changes
    requested by tribal leaders during extensive consultations this past
    year to better meet the goals of facilitating and expediting the
    leasing process for trust lands. During the initial consultation period
    more than 2,300 comments were received from more than 70 tribes as well
    as several Federal agencies, including the Departments of Housing and
    Urban Development, and Agriculture, and the Internal Revenue Service.
    The BIA regulatory drafting workgroup is expected to review the
    comments and publish the final rule in 2012.
        The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 settled the Cobell lawsuit and
    four settlements that will provide permanent water supplies and
    economic security for the five New Mexico Pueblos of Taos, the Crow
    Tribe of Montana, and the White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona. The
    agreements will enable construction and improvement of reservation
    water systems, irrigation projects, a regional multi-pueblo water
    system, and codify water-sharing arrangements between Indian and
    neighboring communities. The primary responsibility for constructing
    water systems associated with the settlements was given to the BOR and
    BIA is responsible for the majority of the trust funds.
        BOR is requesting $21.5 million in fiscal year 2013 for the
    continued implementation of these four settlements and $25 million for
    the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project. In total, the BIA budget
    includes $36.3 million for ongoing Indian land and water settlements,
    which includes $9.5 million for the seventh and final payment for the
    Nez Perce/Snake River Water Rights Settlement.
        A key responsibility for BIA is ensuring and improving the safety
    of Indian communities. Some Indian reservations experience violent
    crime rates that are twice the national average. The high crime rates
    are a key issue for tribal leaders as they degrade the quality of life
    for residents, attract organized crime, and are a real disincentive for
    businesses to consider these communities for economic development.
    Fiscal year 2011 was the second year of a 2-year pilot at four
    reservations to conduct expanded community policing, equip and train
    the law enforcement cadre, partner with the communities to organize
    youth groups and after school programs, and closely monitor results.
    The results exceeded expectations with a 35-percent overall decrease in
    violent crime in the four communities. Information about the four
    reservations is being analyzed and the program will be expanded in 2013
    to an additional two communities. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes
    $353.9 million for public safety and justice programs, a program
    increase of $8.5 million to support this expansion and other public
    safety activities.

                          INTERIOR'S BUDGET IN CONTEXT

        President Obama has challenged agencies to encourage American
    innovation, employ and educate young people, rebuild America, and
    promote economic development. Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget
    invests in areas that are responsive to these challenges and more. This
    budget continues funding for important programs that will protect the
    Nation's significant natural resources and cultural heritage, makes
    strategic investments in energy development, advances partnerships to
    leverage resources, and seeks improved outcomes for Indian communities.
    At the same time, this budget recognizes the need for fiscal
    responsibility. The priority programs that are level funded with fiscal
    year 2012 and limited strategic investments proposed in fiscal year
    2013 are balanced by reductions in lower-priority programs, deferrals,
    and planning efficiencies.
        Taking Fiscal Responsibility.--Interior made its fiscal year 2013
    budget decisions in the context of the challenging fiscal environment.
    The fiscal year 2013 budget of $11.5 billion, including BOR, eliminates
    and reduces lower-priority programs, defers project start-ups, reduces
    duplication, streamlines operations, and captures savings. The fiscal
    year 2013 request is $97.9 million, essentially level with fiscal year
    2012 enacted and $280.4 million less than 2011.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget contains $516.8 million in program
    terminations, reductions, and savings from administrative efficiencies.
    Staffing reductions of 591 full-time equivalents (FTEs) are planned for
    fiscal year 2013, a reduction of 741 FTEs from fiscal year 2011 levels.
    These personnel reductions are focused on areas where there are funding
    reductions. Staffing reductions will be achieved through attrition and
    buy-outs in order to minimize the need to conduct reductions in force
    to the greatest extent possible.
        This budget is responsible, with strategic investments in a few,
    targeted areas, and maintains the core functions that are vital to
    uphold stewardship responsibilities and sustain key initiatives. The
    budget also continues efforts to shift program costs to industry where
    appropriate. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of
    existing legislation without further action by the Congress results in
    an additional $6 billion, for $17.5 billion in total budget authority
    for Interior in fiscal year 2013.
        Administrative Savings.--As part of the administration's Campaign
    to Cut Waste, the Department will achieve additional administrative
    efficiencies that result in cumulative savings of $207 million from
    fiscal year 2010 to 2013. These reductions are being implemented
    throughout Interior and result from changes in how the Department
    manages travel, employee relocation, acquisition of supplies and
    printing services, and the use of advisory services. The proposed
    savings in administrative functions will not have an impact on
    programmatic performance, and to the greatest extent possible savings
    will be redirected into priority programmatic areas.
        The Department's 2013 budget reflects a freeze on Federal salaries
    for fiscal year 2012 and a 0.5 percent pay increase in 2013. The budget
    fully funds fixed costs for the civilian pay increase, anticipated
    changes in the Federal contributions to health benefits, rent
    increases, changes in workers and unemployment compensation costs,
    programs financed through the Working Capital Fund, and specific
    contract requirements for Public Law 93-638 agreements with tribes.
        Cost Recovery.--Significant portions of Interior's budget are
    funded by cost recovery, offsetting collections, and discrete fees
    linked to uses of lands and resources. The budget proposes to increase
    cost recovery to offset the cost of some resource development
    activities that provide clear benefits to customers. The proposed fees
    on oil and gas inspections are consistent with the recommendations of
    the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
    Offshore Drilling. The Commission's report stated 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.''
        The budget includes $48 million from new inspection fees to be paid
    by onshore oil and gas producers. Instituting these fees will allow for
    a $10 million program increase to be used to strengthen the BLM
    inspection program, along with a $38 million decrease in current
    appropriations for BLM as a whole. Similar fees were proposed in fiscal
    year 2012, but not adopted due to concerns about impacts on the
    producers. The fees would be on average, 0.2 percent of the annual
    income collected by the producers. In addition to the proposed onshore
    inspection fees, estimated fee collections from the offshore oil and
    gas inspections instituted in fiscal year 2012 are slightly increased
    in fiscal year 2013 to $65 million. This fee-based funding is critical
    to maintaining the administration's aggressive implementation of a
    robust offshore safety program.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a new grazing administrative
    fee of $1 per animal unit month (AUM) on a 3-year pilot basis. The fee
    is estimated to generate $6.5 million in 2013 and will be used to
    assist BLM in processing grazing permits. During the period of the
    pilot, BLM would work through the process of promulgating regulations
    for the continuation of the grazing fee as a cost-recovery fee after
    the pilot expires.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget continues an offsetting collection
    initiated in 2012, allowing the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) to
    retain coal mine permit application and renewal fees for the work
    performed as a service to the coal industry. An estimated $3.4 million
    will be collected in 2013.

                 MAJOR CHANGES IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 REQUEST

        The Department's fiscal year 2013 budget request totals $11.5
    billion in current authority including $10.5 billion for programs
    funded by the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012. This is $140.3 million, or 1.4
    percent more than the fiscal year 2012 level. The fiscal year 2013
    request for BOR including the Central Utah Project Completion Act,
    funded in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2012, is
    $1 billion in current appropriations, $42.4 million or 3.9 percent less
    than the fiscal year 2012 level.
        Interior continues to generate more revenue for the U.S. Treasury
    than its annual appropriation. In fiscal year 2013, Interior will
    generate receipts of approximately $13.9 billion and propose mandatory
    legislation with a total net savings of roughly $2.5 billion over 10
    years.
        Bureau of Land Management.--The fiscal year 2013 request is $1.1
    billion, essentially level with the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget.
    This includes a decrease of $8.2 million for BLM's two operating
    accounts, an increase of $11.2 million for land acquisition, and a
    reduction of $3.6 million that eliminates the construction account.
        To advance the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, the request
    includes $6.3 million in programmatic increases for recreation,
    cultural resources, and the National Landscape Conservation System for
    BLM to expand and improve opportunities for recreation, education, and
    scientific activities while enhancing the conservation and protection
    of BLM-managed lands and resources.
        BLM will continue to promote and facilitate the development of
    renewable energy on public lands, as part of the New Energy Frontier
    Initiative. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes a program increase of
    $7 million for renewable energy to support wind, solar, and geothermal
    energy. An additional $13 million in program increases are requested to
    maintain and strengthen management of the oil and gas program, along
    with a requested $10 million increase in mandatory funding specifically
    focused on strengthening BLM's oil and gas inspection program. These
    increases would be more than offset by $48 million in proposed
    inspection fees to shift the cost of the oil and gas inspection and
    enforcement activity from taxpayers to the oil and gas industry.
        The other major program increase is $15 million to implement sage
    grouse conservation and restoration measures to help prevent the future
    listing of the species for protection under the Endangered Species Act.
    BLM will use $10 million of the requested increase to incorporate the
    necessary protections into BLM's land use plans to address conservation
    of the sage grouse. These plans will guide energy development,
    transportation, and other uses and ensure conservation of sage grouse
    habitat. The remaining $5 million funds on-the-ground projects to
    restore and improve sage grouse habitat and additional inventory,
    monitoring, and mapping efforts to delineate areas of highest-priority
    habitat in the range of the sage grouse. Other program increases in the
    BLM budget include $1.5 million for the Secretary's Western Oregon
    Strategy, $2 million for research and development on population control
    in the Wild Horse and Burro Management program, and $4.4 million in the
    Resource Management Planning program to support high-priority planning
    efforts.
        A $15.8 million program decrease is proposed in the Rangeland
    Management program, however, the impact of this funding decrease will
    be mitigated by a new grazing administrative processing fee of $1 per
    AUM that BLM proposes to implement on a pilot basis through
    appropriations language, estimated to raise $6.5 million in 2013. The
    fiscal year 2013 budget reduces programmatic funding for the Alaska
    Conveyance program by $12.4 million from the fiscal year 2012 level.
    Interior will explore opportunities to further streamline the program.
    A $3.5 million program reduction is proposed in the Public Domain
    Forest Management program.
        Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.--The fiscal year 2013 operating
    request is $164.1 million, including $62.7 million in current
    appropriations and $101.4 million in offsetting collections. This is an
    increase of $3.3 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget includes program increases of $2
    million from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level for activities to
    promote offshore conventional and renewable energy development that is
    safe and environmentally responsible. Increased funding will be used to
    develop baseline characterization and monitoring capabilities in the
    Gulf of Mexico that are required as a result of the Deepwater Horizon
    incident, as well as to support renewable energy lease auctions.
        Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.--The fiscal year
    2013 operating request is $222.2 million, including $96.3 million in
    current appropriations and $125.9 million in offsetting collections.
    This is an increase of $24.8 million more than the fiscal year 2012
    enacted level. The $4.8 million increase for offsetting collections
    includes an estimated $3 million increase in inspection fee
    collections.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget includes funds to increase operational
    safety capabilities, develop the National Offshore Training and
    Learning Center for inspectors, and conduct research and development
    activities on critical safety systems associated with offshore oil and
    gas development.
        Office of Surface Mining.--The fiscal year 2013 budget request is
    $140.7 million, a decrease of $9.5 million from the fiscal year 2012
    enacted level. The reduction reflects decreases in grants to States and
    tribes to encourage regulatory programs to recover costs from fees
    charged to the coal industry and finalize the transition of abandoned
    mine land reclamation from discretionary to mandatory funding.
        I signed a Secretarial Order on October 26, 2011, to review certain
    functions of OSM and BLM for potential consolidation. As part of this
    effort, I asked the Directors of OSM and BLM and other Interior
    officials to report by February 15, 2012 , on the results of
    discussions with the BLM's employees, congressional committees, and
    interested parties, such as tribes, State regulatory officials,
    industry representatives, and representatives of communities affected
    by coal mining. Our efforts in consolidation will respect existing law
    and identify actions that will strengthen these two bureaus.
        United States Geological Survey.--The USGS budget request is $1.1
    billion, $34.5 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    The President's budget supports science, monitoring, and assessment
    activities that are critical to understanding and managing the
    ecological, mineral, and energy resources that underlie the prosperity
    and well-being of the Nation. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes a
    program increase of $51 million to fund research and development
    priorities in disaster response, hydraulic fracturing, coastal and
    ocean stewardship, and ecosystem restoration. The budget also supports
    the Secretary's initiatives in responsible energy development and
    further resolution of water challenges with funding more than the
    fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
        The USGS budget also includes investments in important science
    programs to help meet societal needs. A program increase of $13 million
    more than fiscal year 2012 for the WaterSMART Program will be used to
    conduct research on predictive models on regional water availability,
    explore methods of integrating and disseminating data through science
    platforms, and establish a National Groundwater Monitoring Network.
        A program increase of $8.6 million is requested to improve rapid
    disaster response to natural disasters. Funding will be used to improve
    capacity to provide timely and effective science and information
    products to decisionmakers, in order to minimize the risks hazards pose
    to human and natural systems. Funding will be invested in capability
    improvements to the USGS monitoring networks for rapid response to
    earthquakes, volcanoes, volcanic ash, debris flow, tsunamis, floods,
    hurricanes, and other potential threats to populations and
    infrastructure.
        The budget includes a program increase of $13 million to support
    the hydraulic fracturing research and development effort with the
    Department of Energy and EPA to understand and minimize potential
    adverse environmental, health, and safety impacts of shale gas
    development through hydraulic fracturing. New work will build on
    existing efforts and address issues such as water quality and quantity,
    ecosystem impacts, and induced seismicity.
        With a program increase of $16.2 million, USGS will conduct science
    in support of ecosystem management for priority ecosystems such as the
    Chesapeake Bay, California Bay-Delta, Columbia River, Everglades, Puget
    Sound, Great Lakes, Upper Mississippi River, and the Klamath Basin.
    With an increase of $2 million, the USGS will address overarching
    ecosystem issues related to the invasive brown tree snake, white-nose
    syndrome in bats, and coral reef health. These increases will provide
    information management and synthesis and land change science support
    for these ecosystem activities. Included in the total above is $500,000
    identified for research efforts through the Department of the Interior
    Climate Science Centers to enhance work with tribes to understand the
    impacts of climate change on tribal lands. Funding increases will also
    support priorities in sustaining our national environmental capital,
    including development of the first coordinated multi-departmental
    effort of its kind to develop a standardized ecosystem services
    framework.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget also provides a program increase of
    $6.8 million to sustain and enhance existing activities and for a new
    initiative on Science for Coastal and Ocean Stewardship that supports
    priority objectives of the National Ocean Policy in the areas of marine
    and coastal science, resource and vulnerability assessments, ecosystem-
    based management, and providing science based tools to inform policy
    and management. The USGS will work with partners to provide access to
    comprehensive maps and assessments of seabed and coastal conditions and
    vulnerability. The increase will improve the integrated science needed
    to inform development of resources while conserving the Nation's
    coastal and marine ecosystems.
        Fish and Wildlife Service.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes
    $1.5 billion, an increase of $72 million more than the fiscal year 2012
    enacted level. In addition, the budget includes a $200 million
    cancellation of prior year unobligated balances in the Coastal Impact
    Assistance program. The budget includes America's Great Outdoors
    Initiative increases of $20.9 million in the Resource Management
    account and $52.3 million for land acquisition. There is a $3.9 million
    increase in the North American Wetlands grants program, a component of
    the America's Great Outdoors Initiative. State and Tribal Grants are
    funded at $61.3 million, level with fiscal year 2012. Funding for the
    construction account is reduced by $3.9 million.
        The budget proposes a program increase of $4 million for activities
    associated with energy development. This enables FWS to participate
    fully in priority landscape level planning and assist industry and
    State fish and wildlife agencies as they plan for renewable energy
    projects and transmission corridor infrastructure. The fiscal year 2013
    budget continues the commitment to ecosystem restoration by including
    $13.5 million for the Everglades, an increase of $3 million; $4.9
    million for California's Bay-Delta, level with fiscal year 2012; $10.2
    million for the gulf coast, level with fiscal year 2012; $10.3 million
    for the Chesapeake Bay, a program increase of $145,000; and $47.8
    million for the Great Lakes, a program increase of $2.9 million.
    Funding for the Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science
    activity is $33.1 million, an increase of $856,000. This funding
    supports the operation of 14 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.
        The budget includes $994.7 million available under permanent
    appropriations, most of which will be provided in grants to States for
    fish and wildlife restoration and conservation.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a reduction of $14 million to
    eliminate the discretionary contribution to the National Wildlife
    Refuge Fund payments to counties to offset local tax loss due to
    Federal land ownership. An estimated $8 million in mandatory receipts
    collected and allocated under the program would remain. Payments
    collected by counties can be used for nonconservation purposes and as
    such, this Fund does not provide the high-priority conservation
    benefits delivered by other FWS programs. The budget also proposes the
    cancellation of $200 million in prior year balances within the Coastal
    Impact Assistance Program.
        National Park Service.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $2.6
    billion, $1 million less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    Within the total available for National Park Service in 2013, $2.4
    billion is for programs that support the goals of the America's Great
    Outdoors Initiative. The budget proposes strategic increases to advance
    the goals of the initiative, including increases of $13.5 million for
    park operations and $17.5 million for land acquisition and State
    assistance. The budget proposes reductions of $7.8 million in the
    national recreation and preservation account from the National Heritage
    Areas program, and $24.2 million from construction. The request for the
    Historic Preservation Fund is level with fiscal year 2012--grants to
    States and tribes are continued at the fiscal year 2012 level of $55.9
    million.
        Select programmatic increases in the park operations account
    include $5 million for Climate Change Adaptive Management tools, $2
    million for U.S. Park Police operations including $1.4 million in
    support of the Presidential Inauguration, $1.2 million for National
    Capital Area parks in support of the Presidential Inauguration, and
    $610,000 for the Challenge Cost Share program. These increases are
    offset with strategic reductions of $24.8 million to park operations
    and service-wide programs.
        Funding for land acquisition and State assistance totals $119.4
    million and includes a programmatic increase of $2.5 million for
    Federal land acquisition. The land acquisition proposal includes $9
    million for matching grants to States and local entities to preserve
    and protect Civil War battlefield sites outside the National Park
    System. The budget also requests a programmatic increase of $15.1
    million for the State Assistance Grant program. The $60 million request
    for State Grants includes $20 million for competitive grants that
    support urban parks and green spaces, blueways, and landscape-level
    conservation projects in communities that need them the most.
        Funding for construction includes a programmatic reduction of $25.3
    million for line-item construction projects, however, the budget
    proposes funding for the most critical health and safety projects in
    the National Park System. It also includes programmatic reductions of
    $1.5 million from construction program management and planning,
    $760,000 from the housing improvement program, $443,000 from
    construction planning, $450,000 from management planning, and $228,000
    from equipment replacement.
        Bureau of Indian Affairs.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes
    $2.5 billion for BIA programs, a decrease of $4.6 million from the
    fiscal year 2012 enacted level. This includes an increase of $11.7
    million for Operation of Indian Programs and a decrease of $17.7
    million in the construction account. The budget includes an increase of
    $3.5 million in Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements and a decrease
    of $2.1 million in the Indian Guaranteed Loan program.
        In fiscal year 2013, the largest increase, $8.8 million, is in
    Contract Support Costs and the Indian Self-Determination Fund, both
    high priorities for tribes. Public safety and justice activities
    receive a program increase of $8.5 million to support additional police
    officers and detention corrections staff.
        The budget proposes program increases of $7.8 million for the Trust
    Natural Resources programs and $7 million for Trust Real Estate
    Services programs. Funding increases for Trust Land Management programs
    are proposed to assist tribes in the management, development, and
    protection of Indian trust land and natural resources. The budget
    proposes a $2.5 million program increase to support increasing
    enrollment at tribal colleges.
        The fiscal year 2013 request reflects a reduction of $19.7 million
    as the Bureau will undergo a consolidation in 2013 to streamline and
    improve oversight operations. The BIA will engage in extensive
    consultation with tribes to identify strategies that will ensure tribal
    needs and priorities are addressed. Following consultation, BIA will
    construct an implementation plan for a streamlined, cost-effective
    organization. The budget also includes $13.9 million in administrative
    savings from reductions to fleet, travel, contractors, and awards.
        Departmental Offices and Departmentwide Programs.--The fiscal year
    2013 request for the Office of the Secretary is $261.6 million, a
    reduction of $266,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Of this,
    $119.6 million is for Office of Natural Resources Revenue including a
    program increase of $1.2 million to complete termination of the
    Royalty-in-Kind program and a program decrease of $2.3 million for
    completed information management system upgrades. The budget for the
    Office of the Secretary includes a program increase of $1.6 million for
    minerals receipts modeling development to improve revenue estimation
    and reporting capabilities and a program increase of $2 million for
    facilities rent necessitated by the delay in the Main Interior Building
    modernization project. Other changes include a general program
    reduction of $3.7 million and the transfer of the Indian Arts and
    Crafts Board from the Office of the Secretary to BIA resulting in a
    reduction of $1.3 million.
        The Department's fiscal year 2013 request for the Working Capital
    Fund appropriation is $70.6 million, an increase of $8.7 million from
    the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Within this request is $62.1
    million to continue deployment of the Financial and Business Management
    System including implementation of the acquisition and financial
    assistance functionality as recommended by an independent assessment of
    the program. The budget proposes an increase of $3.5 million to improve
    Interior's stewardship of its cultural and scientific collections and
    an increase of $2.5 million to expand collaboration similar to the
    Service First to improve delivery and operating costs. Proposed
    reductions include $5 million to reflect the shift of the Department's
    Information Technology Transformation initiative from appropriated
    funds to the Departmental Working Capital fund and $2.5 million for
    completion of the Department's Acquisition Improvement Initiative.
        Major changes in other Departmental programs include an increase of
    $243 million in the Wildland Fire Management program. The net increase
    is comprised of a program increase of $195.8 million that fully funds
    the 10-year suppression average and a program reduction of $39 million
    in the Hazardous Fuels Reduction program reflecting a refocusing of the
    program toward treatments in the wildland-urban interface.
        The budget request for the Office of Insular Affairs is $88
    million, a decrease of $16.4 million from the fiscal year 2012 enacted
    level. The budget includes $5 million to mitigate the impacts and costs
    of Compact migration and $3 million to implement energy projects
    identified by the territories' sustainable energy strategies. Funding
    of $13.1 million for the Palau Compact is not requested for 2013 as it
    is expected the Compact will be authorized in 2012.
        The Office of the Special Trustee request is $146 million, $6.1
    million less than the 2012 enacted level. The fiscal year 2013 request
    includes a program increase of $3 million for the Office of Trust
    Review and Audit to conduct compliance audit reviews for Interior
    bureaus. The budget includes program decreases of $9.9 million for
    streamlining, administrative savings, and the completion of certain
    trust reform activities.

                              MANDATORY PROPOSALS

        In fiscal year 2013, Interior will collect $13.9 billion in
    receipts and distribute $6 billion in permanent funding without further
    appropriation for a variety of purposes, under current law. The budget
    includes 13 legislative proposals that will be submitted to the
    Congress to collect a fair return to the American taxpayer for the sale
    of Federal resources, to reduce unnecessary spending, and to extend
    beneficial authorities of law. Together these proposals will save a net
    total of approximately $2.5 billion over the next decade.
        Reform Coal Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation.--The administration
    proposes to reform the coal Abandoned Mine Lands program to reduce
    unnecessary spending and ensure the Nation's highest-priority 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 because these payments do not contribute to
    abandoned coal mine lands reclamation. Second, the budget proposes to
    reform the distribution process for the remaining funding to
    competitively allocate available resources to the highest-priority coal
    abandoned mine lands sites. Through a competitive grant program, a new
    Abandoned Mine Lands Advisory Council will review and rank the
    abandoned coal mine lands sites, so OSM can distribute grants to
    reclaim the highest-priority coal sites each year. These reforms will
    focus available coal fees to better address the Nation's most dangerous
    abandoned coal mines while saving taxpayers $1.1 billion over the next
    10 years.
        Create a Hardrock Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.--To address the
    legacy of abandoned hardrock mines across the United States, the
    administration will propose legislation to create a parallel Abandoned
    Mine Lands program for abandoned hardrock sites. Hardrock reclamation
    would be financed by a new abandoned mine lands fee on the production
    of hardrock minerals on both public and private lands. 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. This proposal will hold hardrock mining companies
    accountable for cleaning up the hazards left by their predecessors
    while generating $500 million in savings over 10 years.
        Reform Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands.--The administration will
    submit a legislative proposal to provide a fair return to the taxpayer
    from hardrock production on Federal lands. The legislative 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. One-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. Holders
    of existing mining claims for these minerals could, however,
    voluntarily convert claims to leases. ONRR will collect, account for,
    and disburse the hardrock royalty receipts. The proposal is projected
    to generate revenues to the U.S. Treasury of $80 million 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 on lands and waters would provide a financial incentive
    for oil and gas companies to either get their leases into production or
    relinquish them so 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 companies diligently develop their Federal leases.
    Although the report focused on administrative actions 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 $13 million in fiscal year
    2013 and $783 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 2014. 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
    fiscal year 2013, this net receipts sharing deduction from mineral
    revenue payments to States would be implemented as an offset to the
    Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act, 2012, consistent with identical provisions included
    in the act since 2008. Permanent implementation of net receipts sharing
    is expected to result in savings of $44 million in 2014 and $449
    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 2014. Section 365 diverted mineral leasing
    receipts from the U.S. Treasury to a BLM Permit Processing Improvement
    Fund and also prohibited 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 fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to continue
    this practice. Upon elimination of the fee prohibition, BLM will
    promulgate regulations to establish fees for applications for permits
    to drill administratively, with fees starting in 2014. In combination
    with normal discretionary appropriations, these cost recovery fees will
    then replace the applications for permits to drill fees currently set
    annually through appropriations language and the mandatory permit fund,
    which would also be repealed starting in 2014. Savings from terminating
    this mandatory funding are estimated at $18 million in 2014 and $36
    million over 2 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 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act, 2010. 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
    $4 million in 2013 and $50 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 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 drop 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 royalty payments will be
    properly accounted for in the future. 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 could
    not be initiated at some point in the future.
        Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.--The administration
    proposes to reauthorize this act that expired July 25, 2011, and allow
    lands identified as suitable for disposal in recent land use plans to
    be sold using the act's authority. The sales revenues would continue to
    be used to fund the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and
    to cover 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 2013. Increasing the cost 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
    2013. Total acres acquired for 2013 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
    2009. The fiscal year 2013 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 support 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 2013-2022 is $184 million.
        Extension of Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--Payments in Lieu of Taxes
    (PILT) payments are currently authorized only through fiscal year 2012.
    The budget proposes a 1-year extension of mandatory PILT payments at
    the current authorization levels in fiscal year 2013. These payments
    support local government services in counties that have significant
    Federal lands within their boundaries. The administration looks forward
    to working with the Congress to develop a longer-term strategy for
    providing sustainable levels of funding for PILT payments, in light of
    overall constrained budgets and the need for appropriate offsets for
    new mandatory spending. This extension utilizes the current PILT
    payment formula that is prescribed by law and based on population,
    certain receipt sharing payments, and the amount of Federal land within
    an affected county. The cost for this proposal in fiscal year 2013 is
    estimated at $398 million.

                        OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS AND FEES

        The budget includes several proposals to increase cost recovery
    fees, so that industries share some of the cost of regulation.
        Fee Increase for Offshore Oil and Gas Inspections.--Through
    appropriations language, the administration proposes to continue the
    current offshore inspection fee levels authorized by the Congress in
    fiscal year 2012. These fees are estimated to generate $65 million in
    fiscal year 2013, up from $62 million in fiscal year 2012, from
    operators with offshore oil and gas drilling facilities that are
    subject to inspection by BSEE. The increased fees will fund an expanded
    inspection program, and as enacted for fiscal year 2012, operators will
    now be charged for the inspection of drilling rigs in addition to
    production platforms. These inspections are intended to increase
    production accountability, human safety, and environmental protection.
        New Fee for Onshore Oil and Gas Inspections.--Through
    appropriations language, the administration proposes to implement an
    inspection fee in fiscal year 2013 for onshore oil and gas drilling
    activities that are subject to inspection by BLM. The proposed
    inspection fee is expected to generate an estimated $48 million in
    fiscal year 2013, $10 million more than the corresponding $38 million
    reduction in requested BLM appropriations, thereby expanding the
    capacity of BLM's oil and gas inspection program. The fee would support
    Federal efforts to increase production accountability, human safety,
    and environmental protection.
        Onshore Oil and Gas Drilling Permit Fee.--The fiscal year 2013
    budget proposes to continue a fee for processing drilling permits
    through appropriations language, an approach taken by the Congress in
    the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts. A
    fee of $6,500 per drilling permit was authorized in fiscal year 2010,
    and if continued, would generate an estimated $32.5 million in
    offsetting collections in fiscal year 2013.
        Grazing Administrative Fee.--The fiscal year 2013 budget includes a
    new grazing administrative fee of $1 per AUM. BLM proposes to implement
    the fee through appropriations language on a 3-year pilot basis. The
    budget estimates the fee will generate $6.5 million in funds that will
    assist the BLM in processing grazing permits. During the period of the
    pilot, BLM would work through the process of promulgating regulations
    for the continuation of the grazing fee as a cost-recovery fee after
    the pilot expires.
        Surface Mining and Reclamation Permit Fee.--The fiscal year 2013
    budget continues an offsetting collection initiated in fiscal year
    2012, allowing OSM to retain coal mine permit application and renewal
    fees for the work performed as a service to the coal industry. The fee
    will help ensure the efficient processing, review, and enforcement of
    the permits issued, while recovering some of the regulatory operations
    costs from the industry that benefits from this service. The fee,
    authorized by section 507 of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
    Act, would apply to mining permits on lands where regulatory
    jurisdiction has not been delegated to the States. The permit fee will
    generate an estimated $3.4 million in offsetting collections in fiscal
    year 2013.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal
    year 2013 budget request for the Department of the Interior. We have a
    tremendous opportunity to invest in America's energy independence and
    economic growth. This budget balances forward looking investments with
    fiscal restraint. For America to be at its best, 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. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        We will take 6-minute rounds, and I fully anticipate at
    least two rounds. But I am prepared to stay as long as my
    colleagues are here asking questions.

                                 OFFSHORE WIND

        Let me begin with a topic that both Senator Collins and I
    touched upon. That is development of offshore wind power. Mr.
    Secretary, you started with your Smart from the Start
    Initiative, a very aggressive approach to thoughtfully and
    carefully beginning the process of leasing these sites so that
    we can develop power offshore and create jobs onshore.
        My concern is that in Rhode Island we are really falling
    behind in the timing of the environmental assessment while the
    Mid-Atlantic region seems to be going forward rapidly. And that
    is troubling to me in one particular aspect. It seems as if we
    have done so much preliminary work over the last 5-7 years in
    terms of the ocean SAMP, where we have, I believe, a much
    better scientific basis with respect to tidal conditions,
    fishing practices, and the whole geographic and geological
    areas, we seem to be not at the front of the line. We seem to
    be in the back of the line.
        So I would ask you, could you commit to help us expedite
    this timeframe, get the environmental assessment done in the
    same sort of period that Mid-Atlantic States are, and then move
    forward to leasing? Can you help us with that?
        Secretary Salazar. Absolutely, Senator Reed. Because I know
    many of you, you and Senator Collins in particular, are very
    interested in Atlantic wind, if I may take just a few minutes
    to speak about the effort in general?
        Senator Reed. Of course.
        Secretary Salazar. I have, from day one as Secretary of the
    Interior, thought that Atlantic wind was one of the most
    promising renewable energy programs for the United States of
    America for the ease of transmission because of the high
    quality of the wind, because of the topography off the
    Atlantic.
        Our Smart from the Start Initiative is intended to stand up
    offshore wind in the Atlantic. The President has been very
    supportive and has been leading the effort in making sure we do
    everything we can. We have set up task forces in each of the
    States, and they are moving with us to make sure we are
    deconflicting the uses of the ocean that we can stand up
    offshore wind in a real way.
        With respect to Rhode Island, just last week I think the
    Deputy Secretary and BOEM's Director and others announced what
    we have done in terms of marking those areas, more than 200,000
    acres, which are ready offshore to be developed. We are moving
    forward with the environmental assessment, and we hope to be
    able to publish that this summer in the State of Rhode Island,
    and we will do everything we can to get it done.
        The State of Maine, the disappointing news from Statoil was
    that they were perhaps planning on not moving forward with
    their deepwater application. I have asked my staff to have a
    meeting with me and Statoil to see whether we can keep up their
    interest in the deepwater because I think what Maine has done
    at its center with Senator Collins's leadership has been
    extraordinary, and I think the future for that project is very
    bright. I would be delighted to work with Senator Collins on
    that effort.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        An ancillary question. As you know, we have two major
    projects, one in Federal waters and one in State waters off of
    Block Island. The Department of the Interior and COE and others
    have to give us approval for a transmission line from the State
    project, Block Island essentially to the mainland. Would you
    also commit to helping us expedite from Interior and BOEM's
    position those approvals?
        Secretary Salazar. The answer is absolutely yes. I would
    like David Hayes to speak a little bit to the Rhode Island
    issue because he has been working very closely with BOEM to
    make sure we are moving as fast as we can and we are cutting
    down the permitting time on what we are doing, both in Rhode
    Island as well as in other States.
        Senator Reed. Thank you. And I want to thank Deputy
    Secretary Hayes for his great work in this effort. Thank you.
        Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Senator.
        I think the Secretary really said it all. We are very eager
    to move forward with Rhode Island and also with the deepwater
    work in Maine. With regard to Rhode Island, I will just comment
    that the SAMP work the State has done and you have encouraged,
    will absolutely pay dividends in terms of the schedule for
    getting steel in the water off Rhode Island.
        We expect the environmental assessment process to move
    forward much more quickly because of the groundwork that has
    been done, the good science done by the State. Certainly, once
    we get an application in, every applicant is going to be able
    to do an environmental impact statement more quickly and more
    solidly because of that terrific work the State has done with
    your leadership and support.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much.

                            BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY

        Very quickly, Mr. Secretary, turning to the Blackstone
    Valley Park, as you know, last year the National Park System
    put out a tentative approval, and we are waiting for the final
    version. And can we get some indication of when the final study
    from NPS will be released? Because without that, it is
    difficult for us to seek the kind of authorization that is
    necessary.
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Reed, I will do everything to
    get the study sprung. It is essentially completed, and there is
    a process underway. There is no doubt the center that founded
    the Industrial Revolution of America and all the history you
    have in the Blackstone area, the support of your Governor, both
    Senators, the support of Massachusetts as well, all that is in
    our calculus. I think it would be a great addition to our
    National Park System.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                             CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

        Mr. Secretary, I mentioned in my comments my appreciation
    for the funding in the budget for contract support costs within
    BIA's budget. You are--it is estimated at full funding to cover
    the costs, and again, I thank you for that.
        But the same account for IHS, which provides for the
    administrative cost to healthcare, is severely underfunded. So
    we are looking at this and saying, okay, we are making good
    headway on Department of the Interior's side through BIA, but
    through IHS we are not seeing things sync up.
        Can you tell me whether or not there is any coordination
    between BIA--your Department and on IHS to deal with this as we
    seek to conduct the tribal consultation? And if there is not,
    if there is some way that we could look at this to see if we
    might be able to line some things up better?
        Secretary Salazar. We would be happy to do so, and you and
    the President have attended some of these conferences. Every
    year we brought Nations from the country together. On law
    enforcement, Attorney General Eric Holder and I have an ongoing
    conversation about what we are doing on law enforcement issues
    in Indian country, on health issues as well with Secretary
    Kathleen Sebelius.
        Now the specifics in terms of our budget on the BIA and
    health services at HHS maybe Pam will be able to answer those
    questions, or I will get some additional information to you.
    But at the end of the day, our approach, Senator Murkowski, has
    been to bring the whole of Government to deal with some of the
    most significant issues facing Indian country.
        Certainly, the healthcare issue that is faced almost in
    every Indian reservation is one of the biggest challenges we
    face. It is important we have the whole Government behind it.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, and as we talk about tribal
    consultation, it makes sense to have that consultation with all
    of the affected agencies. So if we could just try to better
    understand how this coordinates because on paper it doesn't
    look like it is working as efficiently as we should.

                                  477 PROGRAM

        On another issue as it relates to tribal funding, last year
    in the Interior bill, we had placed language that would require
    the existing program within the 477 program. You will recall
    that this is the program for Indian employment for training and
    related services. There was a new requirement for auditing that
    really lacked a level of flexibility, lacked any effort with
    consultation with the tribes.
        So, in last year's appropriations bill, we included
    language that stated that consultation with the tribes must
    occur before any changes to the 477 program moved forward. Do
    you have any updates in terms of how that consultation is
    coming along, whether or not we can expect some kind of
    agreement with the tribes through this process that will help
    with the program accountability?
        Secretary Salazar. According to my Budget Director and my
    Deputy Secretary, we have workgroups meeting every week on this
    issue, and we hope to get to some good resolution.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. So we will await an update from
    you or from your staff. I thank you for that.

                              HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

        Let us move over to the energy side here. In the Interior
    budget, you are seeking a $13 million increase to USGS to
    support hydraulic fracturing research. But in looking through
    the rest of the President's budget, we see that within the
    Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Fuel, they are also
    proposing an increase in that very limited fossil fuel budget
    to study hydraulic fracking on the impacts of water quality.
    And apparently, also within the EPA budget, there are
    additional monies devoted to fracking research.
        And I guess the question is, as we are looking to eliminate
    redundancies within the budget, can you explain the need for at
    least three different agencies now to be devoting extra money
    in a very tight budget year to seemingly be doing the same
    research?
        If it is not the same research, I would be curious to know
    where we are going with it. But can you fill me in on that?
        Secretary Salazar. We have a very good working relationship
    in the cross-cutting budget that OMB approved for DOE, as well
    as EPA and Interior, relating to hydraulic fracking. All the
    efforts on research from all of the agencies--the USGS, DOE,
    and EPA--will be coordinated so we have a comprehensive look at
    the issues of hydraulic fracking.
        Senator Murkowski, I have often said in places around the
    country and in my meetings with the oil and gas industry and
    other stakeholders, that the President has been very strong on
    supporting the future of natural gas. It is an abundant
    domestic resource. We have a 100-year supply.
        As you will recall, even in 2009, we were very strong in
    supporting the trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline. We are still
    working on it, and hopefully, some of that will happen.
        But as we look at the bright future of natural gas, it is
    my view as Secretary, where through the BLM we oversee about
    700 million acres of the mineral estate of the country, that
    unless we are able to bring about the confidence of the
    American people in hydraulic fracking, it could be the Achilles
    heel for the promising energy resource we see. The rules we are
    in the process of putting together in their final stages will
    require three things.
        First, it will require disclosure so everybody knows what
    is being injected into the Earth. So we don't have the kind of
    reaction that essentially has a potential for stopping natural
    gas development as we have seen happening in some of the
    States.
        Second, well bore integrity. Each member of this
    subcommittee I have had conversations with at different times
    about the Deepwater Horizon and the Macondo oil spill. Well,
    the well integrity issues were part of what was going on there.
    We need to ensure well integrity with respect to hydraulic
    fracking so we don't have contamination of water supplies. It
    seems to me is common sense.
        Third, every time you frack a well, you inject the fluids
    into the well, and you have flowback water and materials come
    back from the well. Our proposed rule will actually address the
    monitoring of what happens with flowback water so it is not
    contaminating our streams.
        When I have spoken to members of the industry, including
    the leading oil and gas companies, when I speak to them one-on-
    one, they are supportive of those kinds of common sense rules.
    If you look at what has happened in the State of Wyoming and in
    the State of Colorado now, in the State of Texas, there are
    rules on the books in those States that will allow that to move
    forward.
        So hydraulic fracking I know will be an issue here in this
    Senate in the days ahead. Our intention is to move forward with
    the kind of a program at the Department of the Interior,
    knowing that, at the end of the day, the North Star guiding us
    and I know guiding you, Senator Murkowski, is that we need to
    make sure we are fully using the great promise we see in
    natural gas here in the United States.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I thank you for that, and I would
    just, again, urge that we ensure that we don't have duplication
    of efforts across the agencies at a time when we have got tough
    budgets. I would concur with you. We need to get this right. We
    need to make sure that it is right, and your agencies are
    charged with that.
        But just from a budget perspective, let us look carefully
    at whether we have got overlap. But I am sure you are looking
    at that.
        Thank you.
        Secretary Salazar. Absolutely.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        Senator Johnson.
        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to my good friend Secretary Salazar for being
    here today. And welcome Deputy Secretary Hayes and Ms. Haze.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        Though I have some concerns about parts of the budget
    request, I do appreciate the administration's recognition of
    the value of conservation, tourism, hunting, and fishing to our
    Nation's economy. I especially appreciate the boost in funding
    for the LWCF and also note that the LWCF from the Department of
    the Interior is responsible for Wind Cave National Park being
    able to complete acquisition of the 5,500-acre Casey Ranch that
    will provide access to a historic buffalo jump and preserve a
    valuable natural resource.

                      AMERICA'S GREAT OUTDOORS INITIATIVE

        I also note that you, Secretary Salazar, have also
    identified the Blood Run site in South Dakota and the Dakota
    Grasslands Conservation Area as priority projects in the
    America's Great Outdoors Initiative.
        As you well know, we have been long making the piece for
    better investment in infrastructure projects like rural water
    systems. While the budget request for rural water is much
    better this year than last, we are still losing ground to
    inflation in projects like Lewis and Clark.

                                  RURAL WATER

        In the 2006 Rural Water Supply Act, the Congress directed
    Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation to develop a report
    assessing the status of authorized rural water supply projects
    like Lewis and Clark and the plan for completion. When can we
    expect to see this report, and what can you tell us about the
    long-term plans to complete these vital projects?
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Johnson, first, thank you for
    your Herculean efforts on behalf of the people of South Dakota,
    and thank you for your support of the LWCF. I think the
    projects you speak about are very huge economic generators for
    the State of South Dakota from the Wind Caves National Park to
    Blood Run to the Dakota Grasslands.
        As I travel around the country and I speak to both the
    business community and the conservation community, I often use
    those projects as great examples of how job creation and
    conservation go hand-in-hand. And certainly, the Dakota
    Grasslands are the duck factory of the United States of
    America. Fifty percent of the migratory birds go through that
    area, and it would be, frankly, 50 years from now a major
    setback for conservation in our world if we are not able to
    join you and your leadership in your efforts in protecting the
    Dakota Grasslands.
        On rural water, it is a hugely important issue for us. I
    wish we could do more on the Lewis and Clark project. We have
    put in, I think, $4.5 million, more or less, into next year.
        Obviously, we could put a lot more in if we had the money.
    But again, Senator Johnson, this is one of those tough choices
    and painful budgets, and I believe in the rural water supply
    arena alone we could use probably 100 times the amount of money
    made available. We are having to make some really, really tough
    choices where we put the money.
        South Dakota, Lewis and Clark, a multi-State project is a
    great example where we should have the money because the
    States' local water users have already put up their share of
    the money for the project. But we don't have the money on the
    Federal side to be able to complete it. We are trying to do as
    much as we can to move the project forward.

                       INDIAN SCHOOL EQUALIZATION PROGRAM

        Senator Johnson. I would also like to touch on the Indian
    School Equalization Program (ISEP). According to the last
    census, Indians younger than the age of 18 had a spike in
    population in my home State of South Dakota. How do you explain
    that from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013 more than 60
    percent of the BIE's schools in South Dakota received a
    decrease in their ISEP funds? Does the ISEP formula need
    review?
        Secretary Salazar. First, let me say the President,
    Secretary Duncan--and Keith Moore--the Director of the Bureau
    of Indian Education, have been working very hard with the
    tribes to make sure we are moving forward with reforms that,
    hopefully, will address the very painful and difficult
    circumstance we face in Indian schools around the country. We
    hope to be able to have some reform efforts that will help us
    get there.
        In terms of the money itself, my understanding is that the
    formula that funds the equalization is driven by enrollment,
    and I think in those schools that you mention, there has been a
    significant decline in enrollment. But I would be happy to look
    into this issue further and to supplement my answer to you and
    your staff.
        Senator Johnson. Please do.
        Senator Johnson. I yield back.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson.
        Senator Collins.
        Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                 OFFSHORE WIND

        First, Mr. Secretary, I know that you were very impressed
    when you came to the University of Maine and saw the cutting-
    edge lab that has been developed to test composite wind
    turbines that can withstand the heavier, more persistent
    offshore winds and all the work that is being done with the
    consortium that is supported by private companies, the State,
    the university system, other States as well, and the Federal
    Government.
        And I think that is the kind of partnership that we need to
    ensure that the United States wins the race to develop offshore
    deepwater wind energy. And I would point out that race also
    includes thousands of manufacturing jobs to make the new
    composite wind turbines that are going to be necessary. So it
    is very important not only from an energy perspective, but an
    American manufacturing jobs perspective as well.
        I look at what other countries are doing to foster the
    development of offshore wind, and I can't help but ask whether
    we should be doing more. For example, the United Kingdom,
    Germany, and Portugal have all established test sites for ocean
    energy. They have funded the environmental permitting studies
    and provided electrical infrastructure, including underseas
    cabling and grid interconnection for these test sites.
        Then private industry in those countries, working with the
    research institutions, have then access to these sites that are
    all ready for them to build and test advanced offshore wind
    turbines and other ocean-energy-harvesting devices. And that is
    for still further commercial development.
        So my question is, what potential role do you see for the
    Interior Department to develop plans similar to those that are
    being pursued in other countries, in our competitor countries,
    to work with States to actually establish the national offshore
    wind test sites? Do you, for example, envision a role for the
    Department in helping to provide the critical funding necessary
    to construct the grid interconnection for these national test
    sites?
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Collins, we are doing everything
    we can on Atlantic offshore wind and are actually now
    processing an application on transmission for the Mid-Atlantic
    States called the Atlantic Connection. We will do everything we
    can because it is highest priority for the President of the
    United States and for me to move forward.
        We control, obviously, the land base and have a partnership
    arrangement, memorandum of understanding, with DOE as well in
    terms of some of the research efforts that are going on. If
    there is anything we can do that we are not doing within the
    resources we currently have, I would be delighted to have those
    conversations with you and members of the subcommittee because
    we are doing everything we can.
        I would note your eloquence in your statement. It seems to
    me that if the United Kingdom, Portugal, and Denmark could move
    forward with these kinds of efforts, there is no reason why we
    in the United States should not. This is part of the race we
    cannot cede to the rest of the world.
        I think, especially when you look at the Atlantic, when you
    look at Maine, and you look at the attributes you have there,
    it is an opportunity we ought not to let pass from us.
        Senator Collins. Thank you. I couldn't agree with you more.

                       NORTH WOODS NATIONAL PARK PROPOSAL

        I also want to take this opportunity to give you an update
    on a very controversial issue in Maine with which you are very
    familiar, and that is a proposal to establish a North Woods
    National Park.
        Since your visit to Maine in August, the proponents have
    been trying hard to gain support for the completion of a
    feasibility or reconnaissance study. But I will tell you that
    the harder they have pushed, the stronger the resistance has
    become. Statewide, the Maine legislature passed a joint
    resolution opposing the creation of a national park in Maine's
    North Woods. Locally, the Millinocket town council approve a
    resolution in opposition.
        East Millinocket actually had a vote, and the voters
    overwhelmingly opposed a feasibility study for this proposed
    national park. And the proposal is now opposed by the Maine
    Forest Products Council, the Maine Snowmobile Association, the
    Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, Great Northern Paper Company,
    the United Steelworkers Local 137, and many of the smaller
    communities, as well as the two principal, three principal
    communities in the area.
        So I would also point out that the National Park Regional
    Citizen Evaluation Committee, which had supported the park, has
    recently become inactive, reflecting the dwindling support for
    this plan.
        What we have found in Maine works best is working with
    private owners to ensure public access, and we have been very
    fortunate over the centuries in Maine--Maine is the most
    heavily forested State in the Nation--to have that kind of
    public-private partnership without having Federal control and
    Federal ownership.
        So I wanted to give you that update since your visit that
    the support that may have existed, which was always a minority
    level of support, has declined significantly. And I am hoping
    that you will assure me that NPS, which has so many demands on
    its funds, will not be looking into funding a reconnaissance
    study for this region.
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Collins, first, let me say we
    have no plans to move forward on a reconnaissance study on the
    proposal from Ms. Quimby on the national park. There is no
    effort underway to do any of that.
        When we look at the two projects that are part of the
    America's Great Outdoors Initiative, which I have identified as
    2 per State and 1 for the District of Columbia--101 projects--
    the 2 in Maine reflect the approach you have been advocating to
    me for a number of years, and that is grounds-up.
        If you look at the Penobscot River, as you so eloquently
    stated, it is one of the most significant river restoration
    projects in the world, and we are getting close to getting that
    done. You look at the State project which is moving forward in
    part through your support and our advocacy on Keeping Maine's
    Forests, that is also a grounds-up kind of approach there.
        I hope to visit those America's Great Outdoors Initiative
    projects with you soon. But on your point with respect to the
    Roxanne Quimby proposal, we are not moving forward with a
    reconnaissance study of any kind.
        Senator Collins. Thank you very much.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Senator Collins, thank you.
        Senator Tester.
        Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I will be as quick as I can getting to it. Welcome,
    Secretary Salazar.

                              SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

        The funding for the BIE's construction program was at $140
    million in fiscal year 2011, down to $71 million in fiscal year
    2012, and now $52 million in fiscal year 2013. The schools, at
    least in Montana, are in dire need of repair. Dilapidated might
    be a word that comes to mind.
        I know you have put forth a budget that is--has a lot of
    cuts in it, and as you said in your opening remarks, painful
    cuts in many, many cases. I want to bring that to your
    attention, and I want to get your response very quickly on it
    if I could.
        Secretary Salazar. I wish we had the money to work on all
    these schools. We put significant amount of money from the
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into the construction
    projects. We have made significant progress from where we were
    in 2009, and more than 60 percent of the BIE schools are now
    rated in good condition. Well, that is not enough because that
    means 40 percent are in poor condition.
        Senator Tester. That is right. Yes.
        Secretary Salazar. It is just a matter, Senator Tester, of,
    frankly, not having the money to be able to move forward.
        Senator Tester. Okay. We will look for opportunities as it
    goes forward together on this.

              AUTOMATED STANDARD APPLICATION FOR PAYMENTS PROGRAM

        The Automated Standard Application for Payments program,
    which I think you are familiar with. I hope I am calling it the
    right thing, A-S-A-P. It is an online reimbursement program
    designed for Government payments to go to corporations,
    nonprofits, universities--a paperless reimbursement.
        The program was not designed for private land owners. It is
    kind of a one-size-fits-all policy, which treats family farms
    and ranches the same as large corporations when it comes to
    reimbursement. You, being an agricultural guy yourself,
    understand that, well, I mean, in most cases, we do have access
    to the Internet. But a lot of times, we are a little bit
    suspicious when it comes to transferring money online, and so,
    it is a deterrent.
        Is there any ability to put some flexibility in that?
    Because from my perspective, the land owners' buy-in is the
    most important part of this equation.
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Tester, I absolutely agree with
    you, and I have asked Director Ashe from the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) to work with Pam Haze to see whether we can come
    up with some kind of a resolution. There are now 29 States with
    ranching organizations for conservation, much like you have in
    the Crown of the Continent, and I believe we need to do
    everything to encourage that kind of ``working lands
    conservation'' approach to conservation.
        Senator Tester. Okay. Good.

                              HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

        I want to just touch on the fracking thing just to
    reinforce what you already know. And we have got a big play
    with the Bakken in eastern Montana. It is creating jobs. It is
    creating energy security. It is doing a lot of good things.
        But hydraulic fracking is something I hear about when I
    come home all the time, and folks want to know if we have
    adequate inspectors to determine whether that case, the
    cementing that is going on in the casing is actually going to
    keep what is going on 2 or 3 miles down out of our groundwater.
        Can you say with any kind of certainty that we have
    adequate inspections to make sure that that cement is done in a
    proper way to assure that we are not going to be polluting our
    drinking water?
        Secretary Salazar. Our rule will so require, and I am going
    to have David, the Deputy Secretary, speak to the inspector
    issue.
        Mr. Hayes. Senator, certainly on our public lands, we are
    prioritizing inspections to deal with potential high-risk
    issues, and that includes ensuring well construction is done
    with the appropriate integrity. The proposed rule the Secretary
    is referring to will require an additional certification by the
    operators to ensure they are using the proper cementing and, as
    you say, walling off the well from lower aquifers.
        Senator Tester. And we have got adequate people on the
    ground to make sure that happens, or is it a self-inspection
    reporting?
        Mr. Hayes. It is both. We are giving a lot of attention to
    the inspector issue. We could use more inspectors, but BLM does
    do an enormous number of inspections a year. We want to
    supplement it with the certification by the operator.

                           HUNTING AND FISHING ACCESS

        Senator Tester. Okay. When I return to Montana, I also hear
    from sportsmen and women about access. It is the number-one
    issue amongst our sportsmen out there--access to go fishing,
    access to go hunting. Because of that input, I adopt--drafted a
    bill that sets aside 1.5 percent of land and water conservation
    funding to secure access for existing public lands.
        Not to put you on the spot, but I will. Would you support
    this effort?
        Secretary Salazar. We have money. It is $2.5 million with
    BLM to try to provide public access. I think the concept makes
    tremendous sense and would be happy to work with you on it.
        Senator Tester. Okay. I appreciate that very much.

                              OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT

        With that, I would just like to say when I talked to you, I
    guess it has been a bit ago, about the offshore spill and what
    all transpired on there, I know you were under a lot of
    pressure. Probably lost a few follicles of hair that you
    couldn't afford to lose.
        But the bottom line is, is that as we talk about opening up
    offshore production again, which we all want to be energy
    independent and we all want to make sure that this--that we
    develop the resources appropriately here at home, are you
    confident that what happened with the spill in the gulf won't
    happen again?
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Tester, first, let me say from
    those days, I think I did lose follicles of hair for that
    reason and probably many other reasons as well. I am proud of
    the fact we have weathered that storm. Now, there are 60
    permits issued in the Gulf of Mexico just in the last 12
    months; the rigs are up and working, and we have led the
    greatest overhaul in the Nation's history in terms of offshore
    oil and gas production in America's oceans.
        We are doing more to make sure prevention is prioritized so
    we don't see a Macondo well oil spill again. It means we have
    worked with industry and several corporations that have been
    set up, the Helix Corporation and Marine Well Containment
    Company, to make sure if something like that were to happen,
    there would be a quick response. Third, we have overhauled the
    efforts in terms of dealing with oil spill response as well.
        Now to your question, because I think that is an important
    question to all the members of this subcommittee, including
    Senator Landrieu, who sees so much of the energy production of
    the United States coming from the Gulf of Mexico. Can we be
    100-percent safe that something is not going to happen? No.
        We can do as much as we can to minimize the risk, and we
    certainly have done that, I believe, in the Gulf of Mexico.
        It is important, if I may, Senator Reed, and I know I
    probably am taking a little more time than I should here. It is
    important when you look at the map of the Gulf of Mexico to
    also recognize that between the United States and Mexico, we
    probably have about 98 percent of the land mass. We can control
    what happens in United States waters, but we can't, frankly,
    control what happens on the Mexican side of the border.
        So, when you think about the huge potential for oil and gas
    resources, and Mexico is moving very aggressively into the
    deepwater, it is important we have the kind of relationship
    with them where they also learn the lessons and have the kind
    of system we have here in the United States.
        Secretary Clinton and I signed an agreement with our
    counterparts in Mexico last Monday that will usher in this era
    of cooperation and resolve longstanding issues in the Gulf of
    Mexico. We are making significant progress, and I know probably
    Senator Murkowski, who is on top of these things in the Arctic,
    is also very cautious in terms of how we are moving forward
    with the most cautious program that has ever been put together
    in terms of any exploration.
        Senator Tester. Well, I want to thank you once again, Mr.
    Secretary.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thanks, Senator Tester.
        Senator Alexander, please.
        Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, welcome.

                      JOINT CURATORIAL COLLECTION FACILITY

        I mentioned earlier and we have talked before that these
    great national parks, Yellowstone National Park gets $35
    million, Yosemite National Park $29 million, the Great Smoky
    Mountain National Park $19 million, counting all funding,
    including fees. Yet the Great Smoky Mountain National Park has
    three times as many visitors. I say that in a way of suggesting
    that a point in favor of the joint curatorial collection
    facility, which would benefit the Great Smoky Mountain National
    Park and four other national parks by holding hundreds of
    thousands of artifacts and archival records, that could be a
    point in its favor.
        I don't expect an answer from you on that right now, but I
    simply want to raise the importance of it. I appreciate your
    considering, the Department's considering it, and it is a sound
    project.

                                FISH HATCHERIES

        I have two areas of question. One has to do with fish
    hatcheries. And I mentioned a little earlier that at one point
    I noticed that the number of Tennesseans who have hunting and
    fishing licenses exceeded the number who voted in the last
    election. So this is serious business for us.
        The Erwin National Fish Hatchery provides eggs for
    hatcheries all over the country, and Dale Hollow produces 60
    percent of the trout stocked in Tennessee. In your tight
    budget, you are having to cut from $3.2 million from mitigation
    hatcheries, which would, if left alone, would close those
    hatcheries with very serious consequences for Americans.
        My question is, well, we are working with TVA and with COE
    to help share in the funding of those hatcheries so that you
    will be able to keep them open. So my question is, can you
    assure me the hatcheries won't close until we have an
    opportunity to try to secure joint funding for them?
        Secretary Salazar. Absolutely, Senator Alexander. I look
    forward to working with you and TVA and COE to see how we can
    keep these hatcheries open. They are, as you say, very
    important to the anglers of Tennessee and beyond Tennessee. I
    am happy to work with you on that.

                      JOINT CURATORIAL COLLECTION FACILITY

        Just a quick note on the curatorial effort, I have asked
    NPS to see what we can do, and I do know, as we have
    communicated, the plan is done. I think nearly $1 million of
    the $4 million is already in the bank, and we will turn over
    every stone to see how we can figure out a way of making the
    difference.
        Senator Alexander. I thank you for that. And you are
    exactly right. The five parks have worked together to try to
    squeeze every $1 they can to minimize the money that is
    responded, and $2 million is what is left.

                                     ENERGY

        Now I would like to ask you a question about equal
    treatment for different forms of technology, which the
    administration is moving toward. The President is talking about
    all of the above, and I think increasingly those of us who deal
    with energy and environment are saying we ought to treat all
    our different forms of energy as equally as possible.
        For example, you propose to raise fees on oil and gas
    production in this budget. Do you intend to raise fees on wind
    and solar energy production at the same time and by the same
    amount?
        Or let us take a second area. Let us take birds. In reading
    about Teddy Roosevelt, I was reminded that his whole
    conservation career began with birds and the protection of
    birds. And we have in our law a law that says if you kill
    eagles, you can go to jail. And then we have the Migratory Bird
    Treaty Act, if you kill migratory birds, you can go to jail.
        And in 2009, Exxon Mobil killed 85 birds that had come into
    contact with crude oil in uncovered tanks or wastewater
    facilities, and they paid $600,000 in fines and fees. Well, I
    noticed the other day the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
    denied plans for a 48-turbine wind farm because of concerns
    about birds, bats, and bald eagles. And we all know that these
    big wind turbines have become sort of Cuisinarts in the sky for
    birds, especially golden eagles in California.
        And I understand that that wind farm has even applied to
    the Department of the Interior, to the FWS for a ``taking
    permit''. So they can take a certain number of birds when the
    turbines start to roll.
        So am I to understand that if you are going to treat forms
    of energy production equally that Exxon Mobil ought to be
    applying for taking permits for the next golden eagles it
    kills? Or if not, why would you not apply to wind turbines and
    other forms of energy the same rules you apply to oil and gas
    production?
        So my question on this is equal treatment for forms of
    energy production. If you are going to raise fees on production
    of oil and gas, will you do the same for wind and solar? And
    will you apply to wind turbines the same laws that exist for
    killing birds that you apply to oil and gas production?
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Alexander, first, on the revenue
    side for renewable energy projects, we have moved forward with
    rules and in our right-of-ways, which is what we grant to
    renewable energy projects onshore as well as in the offshore,
    to make sure the principle of a fair return to the taxpayers is
    adhered to, and that is the same principle we have with respect
    to oil and gas production, both onshore as well as offshore.
        On your second concern relative to wind energy projects and
    birds, we are working on developing a set of guidelines from
    FWS to deconflict the wind projects that are being proposed
    around the country with the avian issues we care so much about
    at the Department of the Interior.
        Many of the projects, which were built 20, 30 years ago,
    including the one you cite in California, were projects that,
    first of all, didn't have the technology we have today. The
    technology being used now for wind blades and wind turbines is
    much better than the ones in place then. In fact, some of the
    projects in California have already turned over into the new
    technology because they recognize the issues, the lethality of
    their projects on avian populations.
        Second, and perhaps more importantly, what we are working
    on with FWS is to try to identify those corridors which we know
    are of high use for avian populations so, in those areas, we
    would not be permitting wind projects. We are in the process of
    trying to come up with a plan to deconflict our mandate for
    conservation, which is a legal one, as you say, under the law,
    and at the same time honoring the priority to develop
    alternative sources of energy.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        If I can prove to you we have lots of birds in the Great
    Smoky Mountains, will you keep the wind turbines out?
        Secretary Salazar. I can guarantee you, Senator Alexander,
    that there will never be a wind farm built in the Great Smoky
    Mountain National Park.
        Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
        I want to recognize Senator Leahy, but I also want to thank
    Senator Landrieu. Because of Senator Leahy's schedule, he asked
    to be recognized when he arrived.
        Senator Leahy, please.
        Senator Leahy. I apologize, and I do thank Senator Landrieu
    also.
        I also want to thank Senator Reed for holding this
    important hearing. I should tell you, Mr. Chairman, that
    Secretary Salazar is a rock star in Vermont. People still talk
    about his visit up there, and I appreciate that.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        But I am hoping that today's hearing doesn't simply focus
    on energy issues related to drilling and permits, and Senator
    Alexander has obviously related one. I would like to see us
    refocus our attention on LWCF, the bipartisan promise we made
    to land conservation in 1965 to allow us to invest in our
    natural areas in historic preservation.
        Some of our country's most treasured places have been
    acquired using the LWCF, including the Grand Canyon National
    Park, Denali National Park, many historic Civil and
    Revolutionary War battlefields, the Appalachia National Scenic
    Trail, which runs through Vermont as well as States of three
    other subcommittee members--from Georgia, through Tennessee and
    Maryland, Vermont, ending in Maine. In fact, our four States
    make up 35 percent of it.

           SILVIO O. CONTE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LAND ACQUISITION

        I worry that if we don't use it right, we could lose
    natural resources forever, and I was concerned in hearing about
    the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge that they
    have a number of resources that are ready to be acquired with
    the $6.5 million that was in the President's fiscal year 2012
    request and the $1.5 million in fiscal year 2013.
        Now I know you don't want to draw out too long some of
    these acquisitions. But I challenge the claims that have been
    made the Conte refuge is not able to spend the entire request
    that was made by the President last year.
        They span four States. They encompass the entire 7.2
    million acre Connecticut River watershed. Conservation in this
    area is essential. A Vermont Fish and Wildlife survey yesterday
    detected four or five Canadian lynx in the Nulhegan Basin of
    the Conte refuge. Now this is an endangered species and almost
    never seen, and they are coming back.
        So, Mr. Secretary, can you explain the difference between
    what I am hearing on the ground in Vermont and throughout the
    Conte refuge regarding the number and cost of tracks of land
    available for acquisition with the $6.5 million in your fiscal
    year 2012 request and what I am seeing in your reprogramming
    request?
        I mention that because it is a critical part of the
    America's Great Outdoors Initiative. It crosses four States. It
    is an area under enormous pressure from developers. Is it a
    case where we have the money, and now the money is being taken
    away?
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Leahy, first, let me thank you
    and Marcelle for the wonderful welcome that you always give me,
    including into the great State of Vermont just last summer. I
    hope to be up there again. Vermont is one of the great States
    in terms of hunting and fishing and environmental education.
        Two, I support your efforts and applaud your leadership as
    well on the LWCF. The true needs of it, even though there will
    be debate, I am sure, in this subcommittee, are probably more
    in the neighborhood of $5 billion a year. So, when we look even
    at our request at $450 million in the fiscal year 2013 budget,
    it is not meeting the needs that are out there for conservation
    programs. And every one of our areas around the country from
    the Grand Tetons National Park to Yellowstone National Park to
    Silvio O. Conte National Park have needs.
        What we have done with the Silvio O. Conte National Park
    area, and it is such a great wildlife refuge, and in the
    connectors that we are working on through the America's Great
    Outdoors Initiative, there are $4 million in acquisitions ready
    to go. We will make those acquisitions in the fiscal year 2012
    budget.
        Now the delta between the $4 million and the $6.5 million
    and our reprogramming request before this subcommittee comes as
    a result of the fact there were significant cuts that were made
    to LWCF in the fiscal year 2012 budget. The budget we had put
    forward had a request of $900 million, which was full funding
    for the LWCF.
        When it came out of the fiscal year 2012 process, it was
    down to approximately $300 million, and we have had to make
    some realignments. But recognizing the importance of Silvio O.
    Conte National Park, Senator Leahy, what we have done is we are
    ready to go for the $4.5 million, and we have the other $1.5
    million requested in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
        Senator Leahy. We may have to have further discussions on
    it. I fought like mad to get that money in the budget, and I
    would hate to have it go right back out. So we will have some
    more discussions, I will with the chair, on questions of
    reprogramming.

                                  STREAMGAGES

        And I will put for the record, and I really want answers on
    this, to give--our floods we had in Vermont, and we had an
    important Interior Department tool that both we and New York
    used. Those were the gages the USGS had, the river and lake
    gages.
        I think we would have lost a lot more property, a lot more
    lives if we had not had those. So I will have questions. I will
    have questions on that, and I will thank you again on putting
    in money for white-nose syndrome among bats.
        When I first started raising this question, people thought
    I was referring to a movie character that I have some
    familiarity with. But this is decimating, the loss of these
    bats are hurting agriculture throughout many, many, many
    States. And so, it is important that we keep working on this,
    and I applaud you for that.
        Secretary Salazar. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        I am going to recognize Senator Cochran--we are going back
    and forth--and then Senator Landrieu. Excuse me again, Senator
    Landrieu.
        Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, welcome. It is good to see you and to be
    here to congratulate you on your fine job as Secretary of the
    Interior. We have enjoyed having the opportunity to work with
    you on a number of programs for wildlife habitat protection,
    NPS, LWCF programs, all very important in our State.

                       COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

        One in particular, though, has come in for substantial
    reduction or deletion of funds that we had seen recommended for
    this agency is in the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP).
    This is particularly important in the Gulf of Mexico. We have
    been through a lot of challenges in that area, as everybody
    knows. And it just seems to me to assume a savings of $200
    million by rescinding unspent balances in the CIAP gave me
    pause when I saw that as kind of the lead description of this
    request.
        Is there any way to reconsider that? How locked in are you
    to reducing the funding for that program at this critical point
    in the gulf's history?
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Cochran, let me say that I
    appreciate your leadership on conservation and your work on the
    Migratory Bird Conservation Commission and our meetings every
    couple of months in that effort.
        On CIAP, you may recall I was one of those supporters for
    CIAP when I was a U.S. Senator working with all of you. It is a
    very important program. It was not functioning well under the
    former Minerals Management Service. I moved it over to the FWS,
    and we are getting the money out in very significant amounts.
    The monies are going to the States.
        In terms of the budget itself, it will take congressional
    action to adopt the proposal in the budget. It is one of those
    times where the whole budget is being combed for places where
    we can find some money to be able to balance the budgets. As I
    said in my opening remarks, Senator Cochran, it is painful to
    think we are having to do some of these things.
        Senator Cochran. Well, you wouldn't urge the President to
    veto the bill if we added some of that money back in the
    budget, would you?
        Secretary Salazar. I think it is a long way from today
    until we get to the point where we have a budget, an
    appropriations bill presented to the President. The Gulf of
    Mexico and coastal impacts and the restoration of the Gulf of
    Mexico, Senator Cochran, are an area where I would say it is
    probably the single most important conservation initiative on
    where I spend my time, at least in the last 3 years.
        Senator Cochran. Well, we appreciate your service, and you
    have been very generous in allocating some of your travel time
    to come to our State and to reassure us of the attention that
    the national leadership of the Department is giving to
    challenges that we face in the Deep South.
        And I want to thank you for mentioning the wildlife
    programs where you and I both have served as Members of
    Congress. It has been a great pleasure working with you over
    the years, and we look forward to a continuation of that good
    relationship.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
        Senator Landrieu, and again, thank you for your patience.
        Secretary Salazar. If I may, Senator Reed, Mr. Chairman
    Reed, just one comment to Senator Cochran?
        Senator Reed. Yes.
        Secretary Salazar. One, I very much appreciate your help
    and leadership on the fiscal year 2012 budget, as well as
    members of this subcommittee, because we did make a huge
    difference on that. And number two, Sam Hamilton was a Hercules
    of wildlife and conservation and a great advocate for hunting
    and fishing. We appreciate your leadership in having a national
    wildlife refuge named in his honor, a bill which the President
    has now signed.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much for that mention, and
    particularly remembering Sam Hamilton. Thank you.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                              OIL AND GAS REVENUES

        I wanted to ask, Mr. Secretary, the total amount of your
    budget before us today is about $11 billion. Is that correct?
        Secretary Salazar. That is, approximately.
        Senator Landrieu. What was the amount of money collected
    from oil and gas severances, both onshore and offshore, last
    year? Do you have those numbers, Ms. Haze?
        Secretary Salazar. I think I may. Off the top of my head,
    they were in the $9 billion range.
        Senator Landrieu. So it is fair to say that the production
    of oil and gas in this country and the severances that are
    collected, the severance taxes--not the corporate income tax
    that is paid, not the payroll tax that is paid, not the
    indirect sales tax that is paid--literally funds the entire
    Interior Department of the United States? Is that roughly
    correct?
        Secretary Salazar. It is roughly correct.
        Senator Landrieu. Do you know where 80 percent of the
    offshore funding comes from, off the shores of what three
    States would those be?
        Secretary Salazar. Most of our offshore energy production,
    as you well know, Senator Landrieu, is in the Gulf of Mexico.
        Senator Landrieu. And what States exactly are those
    offshore?
        Secretary Salazar. Well, the five States of the gulf--
    Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Texas.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, it is not off of Florida, and it is
    Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi. Very little off the
    Alabama coast and none off the Florida coast because it is off
    limits except for the section 181 that we had to struggle to
    open.
        My point being that a large chunk, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member Murkowski, of the money that goes to fund this entire
    budget comes from Senator Cochran's shore and my shore. So you
    can imagine my horror when I pick up the budget and just read
    through the pages, starting here, page F1, this is the LWCF,
    land acquisition. These are all the States that I see--Arizona,
    California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah.
        Let us flip the page. Wildlife and fisheries--California,
    Florida, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, Washington, Dakota, Upper
    Mississippi River. Not a penny for the lower Mississippi River.
        Let us go to land acquisition. Arizona, California,
    Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. I don't know how long this
    subcommittee expects me to be a cooperative member. I really
    don't know how long this administration expects me to continue
    to try to be supportive. I cannot express anymore that we have
    had enough.
        The second point I want to make is that when you said you
    did the greatest overhaul of oil and gas drilling in this
    country, you most certainly did. I guess the incident required
    it. But there was a tremendous amount of pain from Senator
    Cochran's State and my State that was contributed to that
    overhaul. For the record, I want to read it in. A study was
    just released.
        This is not Exxon. This is not Mobil. This is not BP. These
    are the 2,000 independent oil and gas producers in my State
    alone. I am sorry I don't have the numbers for Mississippi,
    Secretary Salazar. And I want to tell you what they reported to
    an independent administration.
        Forty-one percent of these businesses are no longer making
    a profit. Seventy-six percent have lost their cash reserves.
    Forty-six percent have moved away from the gulf coast, and 82
    percent of these business owners have lost personal savings
    trying to live through the overhaul of this Interior
    Department.
        So, on two points--and you are my friend, and I respect you
    personally--I strongly disagree with the policies of this
    administration. One, for underchanging the region of the
    country that contributes most to your entire budget. Where is
    Mississippi listed in this budget? Where is Louisiana listed in
    this budget?
        And following up on what Senator Cochran said, the place we
    are listed, you are taking $200 million away from us. That is
    not going to happen. The CIAP money, which you know because you
    voted for it, was my bill. I fought like a tiger to get the
    money, and we got it.
        The first, the first money that the gulf coast has ever
    gotten to do restoration, and we shared it with Alaska. We
    shared it with California. And we shared it with Florida, even
    though they don't produce one barrel of oil. Mr. Chairman, that
    money cannot leave the gulf coast.
        And I want to say just one more thing. In 1965, the LWCF
    was created using the severance taxes that come out of oil and
    gas drilling offshore, not onshore. The bill was passed by
    Senators Mark and Tom Udall's family that served here.
        They said let us take the oil and gas resources, put them
    together, and create great conservation land for the country.
    We support that. What we cannot support is taking that money
    off the shores of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, saving
    everyone else while we are literally drowning.
        Do you all remember the water, how high it was for Katrina?
    Do I have to explain to anyone on this subcommittee that south
    Louisiana is going underwater? Can I find one dime in this
    budget?
        I have had it. I don't know what I am going to do, but I am
    going to use all the power that I can to stop any funding for
    any programs as long as the money is coming off the coast of
    Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. You all can go find the
    money elsewhere.
        Go get it from Wyoming. Go get it from the interior States.
    Wyoming yesterday--I want to correct this, and I am going to
    finish. Wyoming, they have plenty money. They have 500,000
    people. I have 4.5 million, 1 million of them lost their homes
    and went underwater. I don't remember anyone losing their home
    in Wyoming.
        Mr. Chairman, last year they kept from their revenue
    sharing $971 million Wyoming put in their general fund. There
    are no restrictions as to how that money is spent. They can do
    anything with it. The law does not allow them--gives them all
    freedom.
        They can spend it on education. They can reduce taxes. I
    can't get one penny of the $6 billion that we send off the
    coast of Louisiana to fund this entire budget. And when I ask
    for it, it is given reluctantly. It is given with all kinds of
    ``Oh, my gosh, we can't keep giving those people down there
    money.''
        My city has gone underwater. My State is underwater. We
    have lost more land than any State in this country, and it has
    got to stop.
        So go get your money, Mr. Secretary, from the West. They
    have plenty of it, and just let us use our money to save
    ourselves.
        Thank you.
        Secretary Salazar. Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Salazar. May I respond? First, let me say there
    is no doubt everyone here in this subcommittee and everyone in
    the administration recognizes the passion that my good friend
    Senator Mary L. Landrieu has for Louisiana and for the Gulf
    States.

                              GULF STATES FUNDING

        And I can tell you that with respect to the gulf States
    that include all the five States of the gulf, we have put
    significant resources into both our national parks and our
    wildlife refuges. There are more than 40 of them in that part
    of the country. They have some of the most incredible extensive
    wildlife habitat, as Senator Cochran knows from his service on
    the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. And we will
    continue to make sure those investments, which create jobs in
    New Orleans and other places, are investments we continue to
    make.
        Specific to Louisiana, one of the projects which Senator
    Landrieu has long championed is Lake Pontchartrain and the
    restoration efforts there. We are working very hard to make
    that project a reality. We have prioritized an urban water
    initiative in New Orleans that will connect up the downtown. We
    are working very hard to try to make sure we are taking care of
    the Gulf States.

                                  OIL AND GAS

        The other point I would make is I disagree very much with
    my friend Senator Landrieu in terms of the overhaul on the oil
    and gas industry in America's oceans. Without the overhaul that
    we have undertaken, we wouldn't be able to say there are 60
    permits that have been granted just in the last year in the
    Gulf of Mexico.
        Senator Landrieu lived through the horror of the Macondo
    spill. I was with her and Senator Murkowski and Senator
    Bingaman and others as we flew over on C-130s over the Gulf of
    Mexico. That was a national crisis, and our oil and gas
    industry offshore is doing very well today.
        We are producing significant amounts of oil and gas, and it
    is less than 2 years from the date when the Macondo well blew
    up. We have continued to move forward in a cautious way, as
    Senator Murkowski knows, to try to put the resources in place
    for two seas in the Arctic, which she has been an advocate of
    for a long time.
        So I would only say that President Obama and I are very
    serious about moving forward with an ``all-of-the-above''
    energy strategy, and it does, in fact, include oil and gas, and
    it includes oil and gas in America's oceans. Now I will say
    this to Senator Landrieu's point that I think is an important
    one to note.
        When she argued very hard for the Gulf of Mexico Energy
    Security Act legislation which I helped pass in the Senate, she
    was making the point about the impacts of oil and gas
    production on the Gulf Coast States, and that is a policy
    debate which will go on in this chamber and the U.S. Senate. My
    hope is when we work our way through the issues in front of us,
    including the litigation we now are involved in, in the Gulf of
    Mexico against those responsible for the oil spill, we will see
    the most significant ecosystem restoration project in the Gulf
    of Mexico we have ever seen.
        So your part of the country is near and dear to my heart,
    even though I know that you are mad.
        Senator Reed. Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, good to see you again. Welcome.
        Secretary Salazar. Governor.

                            STREAM BUFFER ZONE RULE

        Senator Hoeven. I would like to talk to you about the
    stream buffer zone rule, which the Department of the Interior
    is promulgating and implementing, as I understand it. I believe
    that this is a rule that you are developing and implementing as
    a result of some conditions in the Appalachian region of the
    country. But I am concerned that you are also implementing it
    in our part of the world as well, and obviously, the coal
    mining is different throughout the country.
        And so, I am concerned that the stream buffer zone rule
    will require additional monitoring requirements on the part of
    our companies, tougher reclamation procedures, and also it
    provides a broader definition of streams and damage. So I guess
    my first question is how many existing American jobs does the
    Department of the Interior expect will be eliminated as a
    result of this?
        Well, let me step back. First, why are we kind of using
    this one-size-fits-all? In other words, if you are trying to
    address an issue in one region of the country, in the
    Appalachian region, why are you implementing the same approach
    in North Dakota, for example, where the coal is different and
    the mining procedures are different?
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Hoeven, Governor Hoeven, thank
    you for your service to the country and to North Dakota.
        Let me just say we still do not have a rule. It is still in
    the process of being formulated, and the economic analysis will
    certainly be a part of that rule. The Deputy Secretary has been
    working with Office of Surface Mining (OSM), Joe Pizarchik, the
    Director of the OSM, and I would like him to comment on the
    substance of the rule and the concerns you raised.
        Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Senator, I would just like to emphasize we do not have a
    proposal on the street. We are hearing your concerns and the
    concerns of others, and we are still doing the evaluation, both
    economic and environmental. We want to work with you, and
    certainly before a rule comes out, we will want to sit down and
    talk to you about it.
        A new rule is not imminent. A new proposed rule is not
    imminent. When the proposal comes out, there will be an active
    comment period. This process is extremely important to your
    State and to many other States and to the Department. I can
    assure you that we will work with you on it.
        Senator Hoeven. Where are you in the process?
        Mr. Hayes. We are continuing to prepare the environmental
    impact statement associated with the proposed rule. That is
    ongoing right now. We do not have a proposal over to Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB) for review yet. So we are not even
    at the stage where we are engaged with OMB, which is, of
    course, the office we work through before we can put a proposed
    rule on the street.
        Senator Hoeven. What is your intent? What do you intend to
    do?
        Mr. Hayes. We are still internally evaluating the
    environmental impact statement and the proposed rule. We have
    not made a decision as to when we will go to OMB with a
    proposal. If we do go, it typically takes an extended period of
    time of discussion back and forth before a proposed rule hits
    the street.
        Senator Hoeven. Are you willing to have either you, Mr.
    Secretary, or your designee come out to my State and actually
    take a look on the ground at the situation and talk to some of
    our companies before you proceed?
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Hoeven, I am happy to do that
    and, in fact, I spent a good deal of time with your Governor
    just two nights ago, speaking about a number of North Dakota
    issues, including the Bakken formation where we have been very
    pleased to work with you, when you were Governor, and with the
    State in terms of the USGS information that has been provided
    on the Bakken.
        I also noted to the Governor that it is the only place in
    the country where we actually have enhanced oil recovery
    through CO2 capture.
        Senator Hoeven. Right.
        Secretary Salazar. And so, North Dakota is a very important
    State. A number of issues there to be addressed. I hope to be
    out there, and when I am out there, we can certainly have a
    meeting around the coal issues as well.
        Senator Hoeven. I do want to say that you have been very
    good about coming to our State. Very good both just on these
    types of issues, but also when we have had flooding and some
    emergencies, and you have been out there a number of times. And
    we really appreciate it. So I do want to commend you for that
    and thank you for that.
        On this rule, I am asking, again, that you or your designee
    come out and meet with us and look through this before you
    determine how best to proceed. I mean, again, this is
    information. This is fact finding, and hopefully, it will be
    beneficial both to you and to the companies out in our part of
    the country that do mining.
        We are number one in the country in land reclamation. We
    are number one in terms of how we handle the water. We meet all
    ambient air quality requirements. So we believe in producing
    energy, but we believe in taking care of the environment, too.
        So let us try to work together on this, and this is an
    opportunity to do so. And----
        Secretary Salazar. That is a fair request, and we will be
    happy to do that.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you.

                              HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

        And then, I am pleased to hear that you were talking with
    Governor Dalrymple. Undoubtedly, he brought up the fracking
    issue to you. Obviously, it is a hot topic around the country.
    It is an important topic.
        We want to do it safely and well. We want good
    transparency. We want people to understand it and be
    comfortable with it. But we are producing an incredible amount
    of oil and gas and more energy not just in North Dakota, but
    around this country. And we can do so much more with good
    environmental stewardship. But we have to understand business
    practices and how they work.
        So for you to bring forward a rule that says that--excuse
    me, Mr. Chairman, I will try to wrap up here. But for you to
    bring forward a rule that says, okay, that the exact
    specifications in every frack job have to be submitted to you
    30 days before that is done, and then they can't make any
    changes whatsoever to that frack fluid mix when they undertake
    fracking, that is the kind of thing that does not work for
    business.
        So, again, full transparency. We have no problem requiring
    that our companies provide what is in that frack fluid so that
    people know and it is fully transparent. You can go on the Web
    and find it. That is the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
    Commission (OIGCC) model that we developed. But the idea that
    they can't change that once they have submitted the exact
    specifications to you 30 days after when they are out on a well
    site, trying to produce a well, and the conditions change as
    they develop that well--I know you understand this--that has to
    be taken into account.
        So, again, it is about regulation that is understandable,
    straightforward, protects the environment, but that empowers
    businesses and investors and so forth to do the--undertake the
    development, but do it right. And so, this is an example of
    where we are going to have to do more work on your frack
    regulation.
        And again, from the point of understanding, let us make it
    workable. Sure, let us know what is going into the ground, but
    let us make sure it is a workable regulation.
        Secretary Salazar. We very much agree with you, Senator
    Hoeven. It has to be a workable regulation. In fact, much of
    the time over the last year has been spent on gathering
    information, including a meeting I had with oil and gas
    industry and other experts at the Department of the Interior
    over a year ago, hearings that BLM has had, including the one
    in North Dakota, to get input.
        When the rule does come out that will address the issue of
    transparency to disclosure and the other matters I spoke about
    earlier here in this subcommittee, it still will only be a
    proposed rule. It needs to work.
        I think this is one area where I do hope we can transcend
    the hot politics of the time and say we agree that our North
    Star here has to be to use the abundant resource of natural
    gas, which is an American resource, and that in order to do so,
    we need to make sure we are providing confidence to the
    American people that we are doing it right.
        Most of the companies I deal with, Senator, come and talk
    to me about the requirements we are talking about on
    disclosure, well integrity, and flowback water, are in
    agreement that we are moving in the right direction. But we
    will continue to listen to you, as well as to industry, as well
    as to other stakeholders before any rule is finalized.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        And we can help you with that. Cost-benefit needs to be
    part of it. But we can work together on this and I think get it
    right. And so, we appreciate your willingness to work with us
    on it and look forward to it.
        Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.

                            OFFSHORE INSPECTION FEES

        Mr. Secretary, if I may, there has been some discussion of
    offshore production of oil and gas. You have taken significant
    efforts to reform the inspection process, the leasing process,
    et cetera. One of those was the result of last year's budget,
    we increased inspection fees $62 million.
        Will you realize the full $62 million increase this year?
    Is that your expectation?
        Secretary Salazar. Yes. And let me say thank you, thank
    you, thank you to you and Senator Murkowski and the members of
    this subcommittee for making sure we get the additional
    resources to be able to do the job right. We are pushing hard
    on the hiring of the inspectors and moving forward with the
    program that you have enabled us to implement.
        Senator Reed. And as you suggest, Mr. Secretary, 50 percent
    of these new fees are required to be used to improve permit
    reviews and related oversight activity. So there is a direct
    correlation between the increased fees and we hope the
    effectiveness of the inspections and the oversights, which
    after the Macondo spill, clearly, we need a more effective
    system. And your goal is to implement this effort?
        Secretary Salazar. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Reed. And you had indicated also, that your budget
    reflects a cut in personnel to the Department of the Interior,
    but you are actually hiring more inspectors because of the
    increase in fees for the offshore production?
        Secretary Salazar. The offshore oil and gas programs will
    see increases in the number of FTEs. Just a quick reminder, no
    increase from I think 1981, 1982 until what we have done in the
    last several years. It is necessary, and it is such an
    important part of our economy that we need to keep investing in
    that program.

                              OIL AND GAS REVENUES

        Senator Reed. And just a technical point, I believe, that
    all of the proceeds from production--from the gulf, from the
    Chukchi, from Bering, from Beaufort--all of those go to the
    Treasury of the United States. They do not go to the Department
    of the Interior?
        Secretary Salazar. That is correct.
        Senator Reed. And they fund a range of efforts. You do not
    have a restricted receipt account where the Department gets all
    the proceeds?
        Secretary Salazar. I wish we did. It would make it easier.
        Senator Reed. It would make it simpler. It would make it
    much more simple for this subcommittee. This could be a very
    short hearing, Mr. Secretary.

                            ONSHORE INSPECTION FEES

        Turning now from offshore to onshore. One of the proposals
    that we discussed quite seriously in the appropriations process
    last year, was an onshore inspection fee, that the BLM would be
    able to charge, an increase in fees, for that effect. That fee
    would be to increase their ability to inspect, to permit, in
    fact, to provide the kind of certainty and responsiveness that
    the business community really should have.
        That was not successful, but I think, in the context
    particularly of the emphasis on making sure we get these
    fracking regulations done right and not just the regulations
    and the reporting, but the inspections, my feeling is that this
    fee increase would be appropriate and would be used for the
    same purpose. That purpose would be to facilitate both the
    exploration and recovery of these resources, while doing it
    safely so that we don't have contaminated water and don't have
    unexpected consequences. Is that your view also?
        Secretary Salazar. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. And would you be supportive of the proposal
    in the budget to increase the fees on land-based as well as
    offshore?
        Secretary Salazar. Yes.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        Let me just turn quickly to the LWCF because it has been
    mentioned before. It seems that the increases are focused in
    several specific areas--Montana, Wyoming, and in Florida. And
    the question really has been raised by a number of my
    colleagues, that this is a national program, and we understand
    that certain projects have particular needs and appeal and
    urgency. But there has to be, I believe, a much more even-
    handed or a comprehensive approach to try to fund projects
    across the country.
        I could pick out urban projects in a number of places in
    the country. I could pick out projects that are east coast,
    south coast, et cetera. How can we help you provide a more
    comprehensive approach, based on merit, of course, than what
    seems to be appearing in the first cut of this budget?
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Reed, Chairman Reed, let me say
    the way in which we could move forward with the true
    conservation agenda that fulfills the dreams of many in the
    conservation world would be to have enough money to be able to
    do many more of these landscapes. At the end of the day, this
    is about landscape-level planning.
        When we look at the Crown of the Continent, from
    Yellowstone National Park up to Glacier and all of the work
    going on at three now national conservation areas there, we
    believe that with a collaborative effort, as opposed to
    operating in the silos of the agencies--the United States
    Forest Service, FWS, the BLM, and NPS--we can actually get that
    done.
        The same thing is true with the longleaf pine in Georgia
    and Florida. And the same thing, frankly, would be true in a
    number of other landscapes that we would like to do the same
    thing with.
        When I make the pitch, and it is not so in Senator
    Murkowski's case in Alaska, because Alaska is a world unto
    itself, very different situation than when you look at the
    lower 48. But there are landscapes, including many of those in
    the Northeast, which could benefit from this kind of investment
    and this kind of collaborative planning.
        Criticism from some about investments in the LWCF, I will
    just say he is not on this subcommittee, but Senator Barrasso
    and Senator Enzi from Wyoming are great beneficiaries of the
    LWCF because the Grand Teton National Park alone would swallow
    up several hundred millions of dollars just to be able to buy
    out the in-holdings within Grand Teton National Park.
        The need is tremendous, and the big problem we struggle
    with is how can we be most effective in implementing a
    conservation agenda that protects these landscapes of America
    and do it in a way that is going to be done in a timely manner?
        So the Dakota Grasslands, the Flint Hills of Kansas, the
    Silvio O. Conte Connecticut River areas, all those are
    tremendous areas where there is just a huge need. I would hope,
    with the leadership of this subcommittee, that we can see some
    august, robust support for the LWCF.

                           GRAZING ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

        Senator Reed. Just a final question. The budget includes a
    proposed increase in grazing fees on BLM lands of $1 from $1.35
    per horse to $2.35--or per animal, I should say to be accurate,
    per animal to $2.35. Even with such an increase, my presumption
    from what I have seen, would only cover a fraction of the BLM's
    cost to maintain this facility. I would also assume that
    comparative or relative to leasing private grazing property,
    even with this increase, there would be a very, very small
    charge. Is that a fair estimate, based on your analysis?
        Secretary Salazar. That is very accurate, Chairman Reed.
    The fact of the matter is, and I know ranchers, including in my
    family, who rent lands for probably $10, $11 an Animal Unit
    Month (AUM), $12 in the State of Colorado. So when you think
    about the public lands being leased out at $1.35 an AUM, adding
    the $1 administrative fee at $2.35 still gives a tremendous
    benefit and advantage to part of the heritage of this country,
    which is the ranching heritage of America.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                            OFFSHORE INSPECTION FEES

        I just have a small handful of questions remaining here.
    But I want to follow on the chairman's questions about the
    increased fees that were placed in last year's appropriations
    bill, 50 percent of which to fund the personnel and the
    mission-related costs. You have indicated that you are pushing
    to get additional personnel brought on. We greatly appreciate
    that.
        With that, are you seeing that the amount of time that it
    takes to approve the plans, the approvals, are they moving
    forward as you are able to add more on? Are we seeing any
    noticeable gains yet in that?
        Secretary Salazar. If you look back just at the last year
    from today to February this day a year ago, we have seen a
    number of exploration plans approved. We have seen permits
    issued, including I think more than 130 in the shallow water in
    the gulf and 60 in the deepwater. We are moving forward with
    that effort.
        On the hiring part, we are putting a lot of emphasis on it.
    In fact, we were having a conversation this morning about how
    Admiral Watson and Tommy P. Boudreau will make sure we are
    expediting the hiring of these people, and the flexibility you
    gave us in the budget to be able to pay 25 percent more for
    petroleum geologists and others who have the expertise will
    help us get the job done.
        Senator Murkowski. So you are still working to get there,
    is what you are saying?
        Secretary Salazar. We are on the case, but it is not
    stopping us from moving forward.
        Senator Murkowski. All right. Thank you.

                              ONSHORE ROYALTY RATE

        Yesterday, in the Energy Committee, I asked a couple
    questions about the onshore leases and the increase in the
    royalties, and the chairman has alluded to that in his
    question, et al. You mentioned that yesterday you were looking
    at several studies and mentioned the Government Accountability
    Office (GAO) study, I guess it was. But you said you were going
    to be taking that all into account.
        And I left the hearing thinking, well, wait a minute. If
    you are going to be taking into account these various studies
    that are out there, but yet the budget makes very clear that
    you are going to be raising the rates 50 percent for all
    onshore oil and gas production, it seems like you have already
    made up your mind on doing this.
        So I guess I have a question in terms of why are you going
    back and doing the studies now if you have already made the
    decision that you are going to move forward, or is that still
    in flux, the decision as to whether or not you bump up the fees
    an additional 50 percent?
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Murkowski, it is still in flux
    in the sense there is additional information and study to be
    done. As you know, when you put a budget together, you are
    forecasting what may be happening, and that is what OMB did in
    this particular case.
        At the end of the day, North Dakota just increased its
    royalty rates on State lands I think more than 18 percent. We
    know the numbers out of Texas and Wyoming, and I think the GAO
    was correct in making its finding at the 12.5-percent royalty
    rate, which has been in place since 1920, that the American
    taxpayer was not getting a fair return.
        I believe we need to make sure we honor that principle of
    getting a fair return.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, we all want a fair return. But I
    would again urge you to make sure that we are taking into
    account what we are paid for those initial leases, to make sure
    that is factored in because that, clearly, is a return that
    comes to the taxpayers. And again, to ensure that where we are
    not going to be in a situation where we are not competitive.

                         NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FUND

        I wanted to ask you about the National Wildlife Refuge
    Fund. I mentioned it in my opening statement. Apparently, the
    mandatory portion of this fund is going to continue to go to
    the local counties, but you are proposing to eliminate the
    discretionary portion of the program.
        And again, I will take you back to my rhetorical question,
    I guess, in my opening, which was what do you do for States
    like Alaska where we really are very limited in terms of our
    options? You have got the PILT payments coming. You are
    suggesting that it is going to be a 1-year continuation.
    Offsets haven't been identified. How do we deal with this, and
    can you tell me why you have chosen to eliminate the
    discretionary side from the National Wildlife Refuge Fund?
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Murkowski, we still will have I
    think it is $8 million set aside for the payments to the
    counties, which are a form of PILT, as you mentioned.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Secretary Salazar. In terms of the other $14 million cut
    for the refuge fund that is in the budget, I will only say
    that, again, as one of those cuts which is a painful cut to
    take, I wish we didn't have to do it. At the end of the day,
    the concerns some of you have with the cuts proposed in this
    budget, they will all sort out relative to how the United
    States, the Congress, the President move forward with respect
    to dealing with some of the debt, deficit, and revenue issues
    needed to fund the Government.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, we will continue to talk about
    that one. We have got to figure out a good path forward. I
    appreciate the budget constraints that you are dealing with.
        I have got a couple questions about wood bison in Alaska
    and Unimak Island that relates to the caribou, but I will give
    you those in written format.

                      GEOLOGICAL SURVEYING OF AFGHANISTAN

        Senator Murkowski. But I do have one. I think this is
    really quite interesting. Apparently, in September of last
    year, USGS issued a press release that described the process
    that had been made in the geological surveying of Afghanistan,
    and they used some hyperspectral imaging and indicated in the
    release that more than 96 percent of Afghanistan is now mapped
    using this advanced technology.
        And I mean, that is all good, and clearly, the work is
    important. But we also have great opportunities with our own
    resources here in this country, certainly in Alaska. And of
    course, we all have to figure out, well, how do you pay for
    this type of mapping?
        In comparison to the 96 percent of Afghanistan that
    according to USGS has been geologically surveyed using these
    technologies, we are told that only 5 percent of the United
    States has been mapped using the same technologies. I don't
    know if this is true. I don't know if you can give me this
    answer today.
        But if it true, if you really do have this very stark
    difference between what we know about mineral-related
    investments that this administration is making in Afghanistan
    versus Alaska, do we know whether in this budget we have
    sufficient funding to start focusing on the United States
    mapping? I don't know if it is in there.
        But this is, again, one of those interesting data points
    that you say, well, gosh, if we can afford to be mapping
    Afghanistan, we would assume that this country is mapped, and I
    know for a fact that it is not. So can you help me out with
    that one?
        Secretary Salazar. On Afghanistan, obviously, because there
    has been huge investment both by the Bush administration and by
    President Obama's administration in Afghanistan, those were all
    reimbursable costs, as I understand, to the USGS.
        I will note, Senator Murkowski, the USGS just developed a
    study that looked at shale gas in Alaska, including the
    important areas of the North Slope, which you care so much
    about. I take your comment seriously, and one of the things I
    will do is I will talk to Dr. McNutt and to Bob Abbey to see
    whether there are some ways in which the technology that has
    been developed with efforts here in the United States, we have
    a good foundation from which to start.
        But maybe even taking the lessons from Afghanistan to be
    able to deal with some of the other mapping and surveying
    issues which you have talked about. Let me take that under
    consideration, see whether there is something we might be able
    to do.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. I would recommend you start
    alphabetically with the States.

                           GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION

        Senator Murkowski. We got a lot that we can cover up North.
    And then, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, what do you think
    about the proposal to move the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) from the Department of Commerce to the
    Department of the Interior?
        Secretary Salazar. Well, Senator Murkowski, first, the
    President was very clear in asking for the authority to be able
    to reorganize the Government. That is first and foremost
    because with that authority, there are probably other areas in
    Government that do need to be consolidated. We still have much
    of our Government which was created 100 years ago and really
    hasn't caught up to the 21st century.
        President Ronald Reagan had the authority to do
    reorganizations and consolidations. I think it is a simple
    request from the President.
        On the question of NOAA and the Department of the Interior,
    there are synergies that could be developed if there was such a
    consolidation. But we are not at this point looking at it until
    we get the authority from the Congress to move forward.
        Senator Murkowski. So you really haven't invested any time
    or effort to see how those synergies might come together?
        Secretary Salazar. I have seen studies from outside groups
    that indicate it would be a good idea, but any reorganization
    undertaken is always a difficult one and takes time to do it
    right. I tried to do a little consolidation with OSM and BLM,
    and we know what happened with that.
        Secretary Salazar. A reorganization of the kind that would
    bring NOAA and the Interior together, it would be an effort
    that would take a significant amount of time to do it right.
    Where the President is on this issue and where I am and my
    colleague Secretary Bryson are is we are supportive of giving
    the President the authority.
        It doesn't make sense for us to engage in any kind of study
    on any of these reorganizations until we have that authority.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I just might point out that if fisheries were
    under the Secretary's jurisdiction here, we could probably
    ensure better salmon dinners, and we will work with you on
    that.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you very much, and your colleagues,
    for your testimony today.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        We will leave the record open until next Wednesday if there
    are additional statements or questions by any of my colleagues,
    and would ask you, Mr. Secretary, you and your staff to respond
    as quickly as possible.
        [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

                                 OFFSHORE WIND

        Question. Rhode Island has been helping lead the way on offshore
    wind in developing its ``pilot-scale'' offshore wind project in the
    State waters off Block Island, which will provide important engineering
    and environmental expertise for these new technologies in the water.
    How will the Department of the Interior (DOI) partner with Rhode Island
    on these efforts?
        Answer. Rhode Island continues to be a valuable partner at the
    forefront of offshore renewable energy development with DOI. Rhode
    Island's work in developing its Special Area Management Plan provided
    essential information to support DOI's decisions. The Bureau of Ocean
    Energy Management (BOEM) Rhode Island OCS Renewable Energy Taskforce
    continues to be an effective means of expanding this partnership at the
    Federal, State, local, and tribal levels. Through its Environmental
    Studies Program, BOEM is addressing issues and concerns identified by
    Rhode Island. For example, BOEM is partnering with the University of
    Rhode Island to develop protocols and modeling tools to support
    offshore wind development. Ongoing and future studies funded by BOEM
    through the Environmental Studies Program will investigate changes to
    recreation and tourism activities that may result from offshore wind
    energy development. BOEM is also conducting a study of best management
    practices to foster compatible development of offshore energy with
    fishing activities. BOEM also engages routinely with the Rhode Island
    Fishery Advisory Board and Habitat Advisory Board. Finally, to ensure
    an efficient and responsible environmental review, BOEM is combining
    its review of the transmission cable system with the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineer's (COE) review of the pilot project under the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and required consultations under
    Federal law.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that the commitment you made
    in the hearing to expedite BOEM's efforts to process right-of-way
    applications for the transmission line between Block Island and the
    Rhode Island mainland. Would you also make a similar commitment to
    expedite the consultation of any agency within DOI, such as the
    National Park Service (NPS), with other Federal agencies including COE
    that would have a role in the siting and approval of the State water
    project?
        Answer. Yes. The President has directed that all Federal agencies,
    including NPS and COE, do everything that can be done to expedite
    consultation and to be supportive in siting and approving projects in
    State waters. In these times of fiscal restraint, partnering between
    Federal agencies ensures that resources are spent more efficiently and
    are directed to those areas of greatest concern. Partnering also
    ensures the maximum use of collaboration between all stakeholders at
    the Federal, State, and local levels. In keeping with our ``Smart from
    the Start'' Initiative, I am committed to accelerating the leasing
    process changes in order to build a robust and environmentally
    responsible offshore renewable energy program that also creates jobs
    here at home.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

                                     CADIZ

        Question. Last November the Interior Department's Solicitors office
    issued a memorandum known as the ``M Opinion'' which stated that
    railroad companies lack authority to permit activities along their
    right-of-way unless the projects directly benefit railroad operations.
    The proposed Cadiz water project in the Mojave Desert has proposed
    using the Arizona & California Railroad's Right of Way to construct a
    43-mile long pipeline connecting their project site with the Colorado
    River Aqueduct. The project's Draft Environmental IR suggests that the
    water pipeline would benefit the railroad because it would allow them
    to place fire hydrants along the route for fire suppression. Can you
    tell me are fire hydrants typically placed along the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM) granted-railroad right-of-ways?
        Answer. We are not aware of any hydrants placed on BLM-granted
    railroad rights-of-way. We would need to review each authorization to
    determine if hydrants are present.
        Question. Do they exist along any railroad right-of-way in the
    desert southwest?
        Answer. We can only speak to those railroad right-of-way grants
    that we approved. We do not know if other railroad grants involve
    hydrants. The Federal Railroad Administration or Surface Transportation
    Board may be able to clarify this.
        Question. What steps has the Department of the Interior to taken to
    assess Cadiz' proposed use of the right-of-way as it relates to the ``M
    Opinion'' or assert its jurisdiction to regulate the use of the Right
    of Way for nonrailroad purposes?
        Answer. BLM is currently in the process of assessing Cadiz'
    proposed use of the right-of-way as it relates to the ``M Opinion.'' As
    part of that assessment, the BLM California State Office has taken the
    following steps:
        On January 10, 2012, the BLM California State Office sent a letter
    to all railroad companies with rights-of-way authorized under the
    authority of the 1875 Railroad Act in California, including the Arizona
    & California Railroad, which has entered into a lease for a pipeline
    for the Cadiz project. The letter requested the companies to disclose
    agreements for third-party easements within 30 days. The Arizona &
    California Railroad (ARZC) responded to this request on February 15,
    2012, requesting additional information about specific ROWs and the
    areas for which BLM is interested.
        On February 13, 2012, BLM's California State Director sent a letter
    commenting on the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by the
    Santa Margarita Water District and Cadiz, to comply with the California
    Environmental Quality Act. The comment letter requested copies of the
    plan related to water conveyance along the railroad, the Longitudinal
    Lease Agreement between Cadiz and ARZC and all other supporting
    documentation. BLM received a response letter from the Santa Margarita
    Water District which included copies of the Longitudinal Lease
    Agreement, an amendment to this agreement and correspondence between
    the Railroad and Cadiz.
        On May 4, 2012, BLM sent a letter to ARZC, along with a copy of the
    Longitudinal Lease Agreement between ARZC and Cadiz requesting the
    company provide more information on how the proposed pipeline described
    in the Agreement furthers railroad purposes, and whether these design
    features are consistent with standard railroad industry practices.
        On May 22, 2012, ARZC provided a response letter to BLM's May 4th
    request describing the ``proposed water pipeline as a unique
    opportunity to bring fire suppression resources to ARZC's critical rail
    improvements in an efficient and cost-effective manner, as well as
    providing collateral rail operating benefits.'' It also asserts that
    ``with respect to hydrants, fire suppression capability is a chronic
    and historical challenge in the rail industry, most particularly on
    rural lines with trestles and bridges.'' BLM is currently coordinating
    with FRA to understand the feasibility of these water features, and
    whether they meet the objective of furthering railroad purposes.

                            PRIVATE LANDS PERMITTING

        Question. Secretary Salazar, I am concerned that the permitting of
    renewable energy projects on disturbed private lands remains more
    difficult than the process for permitting a similar project on pristine
    public land. The Conference Report accompanying the Department of the
    Interior's fiscal year 2012 appropriations legislation asked you to
    address this, stating:

        ``In order to facilitate better species protection and stewardship
    of public resources, the conferees expect that (the new Renewable
    Energy Permitting Office in the Fish and Wildlife Service) will develop
    permitting policies that make it less difficult and time-consuming to
    permit projects on disturbed private lands than on pristine public
    lands . . . . The conferees . . . support efforts by the Service to
    establish a pilot fee program using the Service's existing
    authorities.''

        Please describe how the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has
    implemented this congressional directive to date, and please describe
    the Interior Department's strategy to address this matter during fiscal
    year 2013.
        Answer. FWS has met this congressional directive by realigning
    support for renewable energy work in the Carlsbad, Ventura, and Nevada
    Fish and Wildlife Offices (FWOs). FWS opened an office in Palm Springs
    in August 2011, which is closer to where many renewable energy projects
    are located. The office covers southwestern San Bernardino County, and
    all of Riverside and Imperial counties. The Palm Springs FWO works on
    renewable energy projects in the desert area, including the Desert
    Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP). FWS has two offices working
    on renewable energy permitting in Nevada, one in Reno and one in Las
    Vegas. The Secretary of the Interior recently signed an agreement to
    finish the DRECP by 2013. FWS is developing the DRECP to address
    private lands impacts and to serve as the programmatic permitting
    mechanism for renewable energy projects in the desert in California
    while sustaining the conservation of listed species.
        To help us be more responsive to renewable energy projects on
    private lands, the Service recently finalized a package of template
    documents and instructions that can be used by local FWS offices to
    establish reimbursable agreements with non-Federal entities that would
    provide additional funding. The additional funding can then be used to
    hire additional staff so that the Service can provide more timely
    environmental reviews of the projects.

                                     GAMING

        Question. Mr. Secretary, I am deeply disappointed that the
    Department was delinquent in responding to this subcommittee about the
    two controversial casinos that were approved in California last
    September. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 provided a 60-day
    window to respond; this deadline was missed by more than 2 weeks.
        The Committee report language gave your Department an opportunity
    to verify the claim of strong local support for these projects, despite
    the fact that only 3 of 33 elected officials or public entities
    expressed support for the casinos. I find it hard to believe that three
    support letters constitute ``strong local support'' as your document
    claims, particularly when Yuba County voters expressed opposition to
    one of the casinos in an advisory measure.
        Since Californians continue to be puzzled by the claim of ``strong
    local support'' for these casinos, I would like to follow up on the
    Committee Report.
        Of the 33 elected officials and bodies that you are required to
    consult with, how many have expressed support, in writing, for the
    casino projects?
        Answer. The Department received six express declarations of support
    from local units of government, with respect to the Enterprise
    Rancheria's application for a Secretarial Determination under the
    Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. These statements of support were
    discussed in the Department's September 1, 2011, decision at page 25.
    It is important to note that these supportive comments were submitted
    by the City of Marysville and Yuba County, in which the Enterprise
    Rancheria's proposed gaming facility would be located. These local
    units of government would experience the most significant impact of the
    tribe's proposed gaming facility. The Department previously provided
    the subcommittee with a copy of the September 1, 2011, Secretarial
    Determination for the Enterprise Rancheria on March 8, 2012, as an
    appendix to our response to House Conference Report No. 112-331
    Directive.
        The Department received seven express declarations of support from
    local units of government, with respect to the North Fork Rancheria's
    application for a Secretarial Determination under the Indian Gaming
    Regulatory Act. These statements of support were discussed in the
    Department's September 1, 2011, decision at pages 43-45. It is
    important to note that these supportive comments were submitted by the
    City of Madera and Madera County, in which the North Fork Rancheria's
    proposed gaming facility would be located. These local units of
    government would experience the most significant impact of the tribe's
    proposed gaming facility. The Department provided the subcommittee with
    a copy of the September 1, 2011, Secretarial Determination for the
    North Fork Rancheria on March 8, 2012, as an appendix to our response
    to House Conference Report No. 112-331 Directive.
        Question. How many have expressed opposition?
        Answer. The Department received three express declarations of
    opposition from local units of government, with respect to the
    Enterprise Rancheria's application. These statements of opposition were
    discussed in the September 1, 2011, Secretarial Determination at pages
    26-27.
        The Department received two express declarations of opposition from
    local units of government, with respect to the North Fork Rancheria's
    application. These statements of opposition were discussed in the
    September 1, 2011, Secretarial Determination at page 44.
        It is important to note that the Department provided a meaningful
    opportunity for local units of government to comment on the tribes'
    applications, pursuant to our regulations at 25 CFR part 292. A
    majority of those local units of government declined to submit comments
    to the Department on the tribes' applications.
        Question. How much weight was given to Yuba County Measure G, the
    advisory vote rejecting the proposed casino in Yuba County?
        Answer. The Secretarial Determination issued on September 1, 2011
    for the Enterprise Rancheria contains a discussion of how the
    Department considered Measure G in reviewing the tribe's application at
    page 25.
        Question. What needs to be done to ensure that county voters and
    residents can have their voices heard in this process?
        Answer. On June 13, 2011, the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs
    issued a memorandum explaining how the Department would consider tribal
    applications for Secretarial Determinations under the Indian Gaming
    Regulatory Act. In that memorandum, the Assistant Secretary noted ``In
    my view, IGRA and the Department's regulations, at 25 C.F.R. Parts 151
    and 292, adequately account for the legal requirements and policy
    considerations that must be addressed prior to approving fee-to-trust
    applications, including those made pursuant to the ``off-reservation''
    exception. Specifically, the recently enacted part 292 regulations
    require exacting review of requests for off-reservation gaming.''
        Part 292 regulations were promulgated pursuant to IGRA and other
    statutory authorities. Under the IGRA's ``off-reservation'' exception,
    a tribe may conduct gaming on lands acquired after October 17, 1988
    only if:

        ``The Secretary, after consultation with the [applicant] Tribe and
    appropriate State and local officials, including officials of other
    nearby Indian Tribes, determines that a gaming establishment on newly
    acquired land would be in the best interest of the Indian Tribe and its
    members, and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community.''

        The Department continues to believe that existing law and
    regulations ensure a careful review of tribal applications for
    Secretarial Determinations under IGRA, which will allow for a
    meaningful opportunity for local communities to participate. It is
    important to note that Secretarial Determinations issued pursuant to
    IGRA are subject to the concurrence of the Governor of the State in
    which tribal gaming activities would occur.
        Question. Some of the most vocal opposition to these casinos has
    been from tribes, especially those who believe that new casinos should
    be built on the tribe's aboriginal lands--not in the most profitable
    location. This is consistent with the position of the National Indian
    Gaming Association. To what extent did you engage in consultation with
    these tribes and how did you respond to their concerns?
        Answer. The Assistant Secretary's June 13, 2011 Memorandum on
    processing tribal applications under IGRA's Secretarial Determination
    Exception was issued after thorough consultation with tribal leaders
    throughout the United States over a period of 3 months. Similarly, the
    Department's regulations at 25 CFR part 292 were promulgated in 2008
    after years of tribal consultation, as well as after a period of public
    notice and comment.
        With respect to the applications of the Enterprise Rancheria and
    the North Fork Rancheria, the Department adhered to the requirements
    set forth in governing regulations. In an effort to be transparent and
    inclusive, the Department even considered comments submitted by tribes
    outside the scope of what is required by our regulations. The September
    1, 2011, Secretarial Determination for the Enterprise Rancheria
    contains a discussion of comments submitted by other tribes at page 27.
    The September 1, 2011, Secretarial Determination for the North Fork
    Rancheria contains a discussion of comments submitted by other tribes
    at page 45.
        Question. Are the proposed casino sites on land that is within the
    undisputed aboriginal territory of the appropriate tribe?
        Answer. Neither IGRA nor the Department's regulations, at 25 CFR
    part 292, require a tribe's proposed gaming facility be located within
    its ``aboriginal territory.'' Nevertheless, the Department's
    regulations require us to evaluate the existence and extent of a
    tribe's ``significant historical connection'' to a proposed gaming site
    when making a Secretarial Determination under IGRA. The September 1,
    2011, Secretarial Determinations for both the Enterprise Rancheria and
    the North Fork Rancheria concluded that both tribes established a
    ``significant historical connection'' to their respective proposed
    gaming sites.
        The September 1, 2011, Secretarial Determination for the Enterprise
    Rancheria contains a discussion of the tribe's significant historical
    connection to the proposed gaming site at pages 13-14. The September 1,
    2011, Secretarial Determination for the North Fork Rancheria contains a
    discussion of the tribe's significant historical connection to the
    proposed gaming site at pages 11-17.

        BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SOLAR SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC
                         ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

        Question. Last October, BLM issued its Draft Supplemental Solar
    Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), which includes
    large amounts of ``variance'' lands outside the solar zones. It is my
    understanding that while applicants are strongly encouraged to pursue
    projects within the identified solar zones, BLM will also consider
    permitting development in these ``variance'' areas. While some
    flexibility to consider lands beyond the zones may be necessary, I find
    it highly problematic that an estimated 50,000 acres of land that were
    donated or purchased with Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars have
    been included in the variance lands. Given that these lands were
    intended to be preserved in perpetuity, I do not believe they should be
    open for development. Can you tell me what is the process by which the
    BLM will consider and grant permission for solar projects to be
    constructed on ``variance'' lands?
        Answer. The process for considering solar projects on ``variance''
    lands has been delineated in the Supplemental Draft Solar PEIS in
    detail. However, no final decision has been made. In addition, there
    might be market, technological, or site-specific factors that make a
    project appropriate in a non-solar energy zone area. BLM will consider
    variance applications on a case-by-case basis based on environmental
    considerations; consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local
    agencies, and tribes; and public outreach. All variance applications
    that the BLM determines to be appropriate for continued processing will
    subsequently be required to comply with National Environmental Policy
    Act (NEPA) and all other applicable laws, regulations, and policies at
    the applicant`s expense. Applicants applying for a variance must assume
    all risk associated with their application and understand that their
    financial commitments in connection with their applications will not be
    a determinative factor in BLM's evaluation process.
        Question. Why have donated and LWCF-acquired lands been included
    among the ``variance'' lands and what steps are being taken to avoid
    their development?
        Answer. Comments received on the Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS
    have requested that donated and LWCF-acquired lands be identified as
    exclusion areas for utility-scale solar energy development. BLM is
    currently considering this request, but no decision has been made yet.
    We would be available to brief your office directly in more detail at
    your request.

                             CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

        Question. Last week the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) released its
    initial water allocations for Central Valley Project (CVP) water users.
    Given the low precipitation and Sierra snowpack we have experienced in
    California, the 30-percent water allocation for agricultural service
    contractors is disconcerting, but not altogether surprising.
    Significant carry-over storage appears to have helped boost reservoir
    supplies, but it is unclear whether those supplies are sufficient to
    provide all the water necessary to meet the needs of farms and
    communities for the remainder of the year. Can you tell me:
        If there is not significant additional precipitation in the
    remaining weeks of the wet season, how will this affect future water
    allocations for the remainder of the water year?
        Answer. The initial 30-percent allocation to agricultural water
    service contractors in February 2012, was due to very dry hydrologic
    conditions. December, typically one of the wettest months in
    California, ended up being one of the driest on record. The dry pattern
    continued through mid-March. Since mid-March, improved precipitation in
    the Sacramento Valley and improved snowpack in the Northern Sierra
    resulted in increases to the allocation for CVP San Joaquin Exchange
    and Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, wildlife refuges,
    agricultural, and municipal and industrial water service contractors in
    April. As of May, the allocation for north of delta agricultural water
    service contracts was 100 percent, but the allocation south of delta
    agricultural water service contractors remained lower at 40 percent.
    The lower allocation south of the delta is a reflection of constraints
    on exports from the Delta and the loss of pumping windows during the
    winter when conditions were much drier. In the San Joaquin Valley,
    precipitation did not improve as significantly as it did in the
    Sacramento Valley. The initial allocation to Friant Class I contractors
    was 35 percent which increased to 55 percent as of May 24. The Friant
    Class II allocation remains zero.
        Question. What administrative actions can BOR take to help ensure
    adequate water supplies to San Joaquin and Sacramento farmers this
    year?
        Answer. BOR developed a series of actions in the CVP Water Plan
    2012 to help support water management efforts this year. The plan,
    available at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/pa/water, identifies actions
    related to Joint Point of Diversion, Exchange Contractors' transfers,
    and California Aqueduct/Delta-Mendota Canal Intertie operations. BOR
    also worked with the water community to identify opportunities for
    transfers and administrative actions to better manage available
    supplies.

                                 YUROK FUNDING

        Question. Secretary Salazar, Yurok Chairman O'Rourke recently wrote
    to your Department seeking assistance with the historic and continued
    under-funding for Yurok tribal government, law enforcement and
    transportation needs. I share his concerns and hope that your staff
    will give his request for additional funding all due consideration.
        To help clarify some outstanding questions raised by Chairman
    O'Rourke, I hope that you can provide me with answers to the following
    questions.
        Has your Department reviewed and analyzed the Yurok Tribe
    Justification and Request for Increased Base Funding, which was
    provided to the Regional Office and conveyed to the Assistant Secretary
    earlier this month?
        Answer. The Department received and reviewed the ``Yurok Tribe
    Justification and Request for Increased Base Funding.'' The Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA) has examined the request, and we hope that our
    explanation of the issues raised by the tribe are addressed in the
    explanation of Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) which are below.
        Question. Do you agree with the conclusions reached in this
    document, particularly that the tribe is disproportionately
    underfunded?
        Answer. In general, the distribution of TPA funds is sound. Tribes
    with historically larger populations and/or larger reservations receive
    proportionately larger shares of TPA funds. Adjustments reflecting
    treaties, court decisions, executive policy decisions, and
    congressional acts are also factored into the distributions.
        The allocation of resources among the regions and tribes is based
    on a complex set of historical, geographical, demographic, political
    and programmatic factors. Today, ``base funding'' identifies the basic
    contract amount of services on which a tribe can rely from 1 year to
    the next--the base amount from which budget increases or decreases are
    calculated. The base funding amount is the result of years of
    legislation, appropriations, and BIA administrative polices.
        At various times, especially in the past several decades, the
    Federal Government has emphasized the development of certain natural
    resources and provided additional funding for those programs.
    Additional funds were provided only to tribes owning such resources,
    and those funds were made part of the tribe's recurring TPA base
    funding. On the other hand, several programs were removed from tribal
    recurring bases, as well. These programs included the Housing
    Improvement Program and Road Maintenance program; many tribes had
    ranked these programs as top priorities and had allocated a substantial
    amount of their funding for them. When these funds were reduced or
    eliminated from the TPA base, tribes that had these programs listed as
    top priorities lost significant portions of their base funding.
        At various times, the BIA has emphasized certain programs, such as
    Human Services. At those times, the BIA has requested additional
    funding for those programs. Tribes with higher populations received a
    high proportion of these funds, which were then made part of their
    recurring TPA base to meet ongoing needs. However, increased tribal
    enrollment, whether through changes in membership criteria, or natural
    population growth, has not been considered a factor in distributing
    additional funds for TPA programs. Migration to and from reservations,
    particularly as economic opportunities change, has not been accounted
    for in any calculations of TPA funding.
        As a result of treaties, court decisions, executive policy
    decisions, and congressional acts, the legal obligations and funding
    for particular tribes have resulted in unique recurring funding levels
    for those tribes. Additionally, these funds were incorporated into
    various tribes' bases to address the prospect of litigation from these
    tribes against the Federal Government for failure to support certain
    activities required by treaty, statute, or the Government's trust
    responsibility.
        Question. What is the minimum per-capita funding that a rural,
    nongaming tribe should receive?
        Answer. The BIA does not establish a minimum per-capita funding
    level for any tribe, regardless of locality or gaming status. However,
    the Small Tribes Initiative was established to address a funding
    allocation process that consistently failed to take into consideration
    the basic funding needs of small tribes. These tribes have small
    memberships and most have little or no land or natural resources. The
    initiative attempts to ensure that all tribes, regardless of population
    size, land base, or natural resources, will receive a recurring base of
    $160,000 for tribes in the continental United States. The base funding
    amount is considered sufficient to enable small tribes to put in place
    and maintain the management systems necessary to account for funds and
    ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The funding
    also permits tribes to establish and maintain administrative mechanisms
    sufficient to establish viable tribal office operations and service
    delivery systems.
        Question. If a per-capita formula is inappropriate, please explain
    what formula your Department does use any why it is the more
    appropriate funding mechanism.
        Answer. A per capita formula is inappropriate to use. At one time,
    the Government Accountability Office (GAO) developed an analysis of the
    TPA base funding per tribe. Their analysis showed that there is
    considerable variation in per capita funding between regions and
    tribes. For example, in the comparison between regions, GAO found the
    average TPA funding per capita Nationwide was $601; however, in Eastern
    Oklahoma TPA per capita was $121 and in Northwest TPA per capita was
    $1,020. This level of analysis, though, ignores that the Eastern
    Oklahoma Tribes tend to have small land bases while the Northwest
    Region Tribes have both reservations and significant natural resources
    held in trust.
        The only funding formula that the Department uses for the
    distribution of base funding is the TPA process. Many difficulties
    arise in any effort to develop an allocation system that takes into
    account the relative means of the tribes. Determining the type, extent,
    and magnitude of tribal revenues is the first difficulty. In an era
    when the BIA had a continuous presence on the reservation and managed
    an Indian Tribe's affairs, BIA personnel knew about all tribal business
    activities. In the current era of Self-Determination and Self-
    Governance, the BIA often does not know the extent of tribal
    businesses. There is no assurance that the financial statements and
    reports even exist for all tribal business. Even if they exist, there
    is no assurance the format and content of the statements and reports
    may be readily compared or that the tribes would give BIA the
    information.
        The current TPA process is the most appropriate due to the efforts
    of the BIA in consulting with tribes and tribal leaders in the early
    development stages of the TPA process.
        Question. As a small and needy tribe, what supplemental funding can
    be identified to address this shortfall?
        Answer. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance is a valuable
    resource because it identifies programs which identify tribal
    governments as eligible applicants. These programs are available and
    the BIA has seen increased outreach efforts by a number of Federal
    agencies, which is an indicator that tribal participation in these
    other programs may show steady increases and a bridged gap in
    shortfalls.

                         SAN LUIS REY WATER SETTLEMENT

        Question. In 1988, the Congress passed the San Luis Rey Indian
    Water Rights Settlement Act which provided a framework for resolving
    the decades old water dispute in Northern San Diego County. Within the
    last 2 years the five Indian Bands and the cities of Escondido and
    Vista have reached an agreement on how to proceed, however the
    Department of the Interior--as the bands' trustee--has yet to approve
    the deal.
        What are the primary unresolved issues which prohibit you from
    approving this settlement?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior believes that the proposed
    settlement agreement drafted by the Bands and the local entities is
    inconsistent with the 1988 San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement
    Act (``Settlement Act'') and contemplates obligations for the United
    States which exceed the authority and intent of the Act. The
    Department's position on the core issue in dispute, discussed below,
    was conveyed to the Bands as early as 2004, and has been reiterated
    multiple times across at least two administrations.
        The central point of contention concerns the scope and effect of
    the Settlement Act. The Department believes that the Settlement Act
    fully and finally quantified and resolved all of the Bands' Federal
    reserved water rights. The Department believes this position is fully
    supported by both the plain language of the Settlement Act and the
    congressional record behind the enacted legislation. In full settlement
    of the Bands' reserved water rights claims and to satisfy the
    obligations of the United States to the Bands as trustee, the
    Settlement Act established a $30 million trust fund and also required
    the Secretary to acquire and deliver 16,000 acre-feet per year of
    imported water to the Bands. The Bands and local entities disagree with
    this interpretation and rely on language from, and the legislative
    history behind, prior unenacted bills to assert that, in addition to
    the 16,000 acre-feet per year of imported water identified in the
    Settlement Act, the Bands retain claims to reserved water rights in
    waters originating within the San Luis Rey River basin.
        Question. What is the timeline for you to resolve these issues?
        Answer. The Department is committed to the expeditious development
    of a settlement agreement consistent with the Settlement Act, should
    the parties wish to pursue such an agreement. The Department has
    engaged in dozens of settlement discussions with the parties over the
    last several years and has offered multiple approaches to fashioning an
    agreement which would make the benefits of the Settlement Act available
    to the Bands. The Department views the quantity of water together with
    the specific exchange authority provided by the Settlement Act as an
    exceptional asset that holds the potential to provide the Bands with a
    permanent and reliable water supply unobtainable through any other
    means. If the parties are willing to pursue an agreement based upon the
    benefits explicitly set forth in the Settlement Act, the Department is
    hopeful that a final agreement could be developed this year.
        Question. Does the 16,000 acre/feet of water provided by the
    Settlement have federally reserved status?
        Answer. The Congress directed the United States, through the
    Secretary of the Interior, to acquire and deliver 16,000 acre-feet of
    water to the Bands in settlement of the Bands' reserved water rights
    claims. This water cannot be forfeited or abandoned and is federally
    protected water that, in the Department's view, constitutes a trust
    asset.
        Question. Under your interpretation of the Settlement Act, does it
    preclude tribes from using existing ground and surface water on their
    reservations?
        Answer. No. All five Bands have historically used either local
    surface water, ground water through domestic or community wells, or
    some combination of both. These uses have never been challenged. There
    is no reason that these uses could not continue following
    implementation of the Settlement Act.
        Question. Does this water have federally reserved status?
        Answer. The purpose of the Settlement Act is ``to provide for the
    settlement of the reserved water rights claims of the la Jolla, Rincon,
    San Pasqual, Pauma and Pala Bands of Mission Indians'' by providing the
    Bands with 16,000 acre-feet per year of supplemental water and a $30
    million trust fund. Against the backdrop of this congressional intent,
    the United States would not assert Federal reserved water rights on
    behalf of the Bands to local water sources.
        Question. The Settlement Act provides the authority to exchange
    settlement water for water from other sources. Once this exchange
    occurs, is the federally reserved status of the water maintained?
        Answer. The Settlement Act resolved the Federal reserved water
    rights claims of the five Bands by directing the Secretary to acquire
    and deliver 16,000 acre-feet of water imported annually to supplement
    the waters under dispute in the basin. The Department takes the
    position that this water is a trust asset to which the obligations of
    the United States attach. The Congress further authorized specific and
    limited authority for exchanges of the imported water for water from
    other sources for use on the Bands' reservations. If the water provided
    by the United States is exchanged consistent with the authority of the
    statute for water from another source, the Department believes that the
    trust asset character of the water can follow the exchange and be
    applied to this new source and that the Bands' use of water from this
    source could be protected as such.

                     FEE TO TRUST PROCESS AND APPLICATIONS

        Question. One of the most common concerns I hear expressed by
    tribes in California is the length of time it takes the Department to
    make decisions on fee to trust applications.
        In some cases I believe the Department acts responsibly in
    conducting a deliberative process, especially when gaming is involved.
    But in other cases, I believe the Department could and should move more
    quickly. This will require a more open, transparent process, and better
    communication with local interests.
        How many trust applications are pending in California? How many are
    for gaming?
        Answer. California has 134 applications pending, of which 13 are
    for gaming.
        Question. What has been the average length of time it takes to
    process a trust application for a California tribe in the last 10
    years?
        Answer. The time it takes complete an application varies depending
    upon a number of factors, including the stated purpose of the
    acquisition, comments from interested parties, environmental concerns,
    and concerns stemming from the Supreme Court's decision in Carcieri v.
    Salazar. Some applications can be completed in less than 2 years, while
    others have taken up to 5 years.
        Question. On average, how long does it take the Department to
    notify the local interests of a new trust application in their area?
    What steps are you taking to improve notifications?
        Answer. On average, it takes the Department 6 months to notify the
    local interests. Actions that have been taken to improve the
    notification process include the development of a national policy
    identifying timeframes associated with the process, revising the Fee-
    to-Trust Handbook, implementing guidance to process mandatory
    acquisitions, replacing the Fee-to-Trust tracking system with an
    improved collaborative system, and developing performance measures for
    senior executives to process applications.
        Question. To what extent do gaming acquisitions slow the process of
    trust land approvals in general?
        Answer. Gaming applications require more work/information/approval
    levels and require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
    rather than an Environmental Assessment. The tribe must coordinate
    processing with the State and local governments and applications
    generally receive more scrutiny for compliance with NEPA, IGRA, and
    applicable gaming and land acquisition regulations.
        Question. Do the same staff analyze both gaming and nongaming
    applications? Does this create a situation where nongaming trust
    applications receive less staff time because of the more intensive
    process required for gaming acquisitions?
        Answer. Yes, staff does perform work on both gaming and nongaming
    applications. The nongaming applications do compete for staff time as
    the gaming acquisitions are labor intensive.
        Question. Is it possible for a parcel taken into trust using the
    nongaming procedure to ever be used for gaming activities?
        Answer. Yes, in some circumstances. Section 20 of IGRA provides
    that for lands that are within reservation boundaries or contiguous
    thereto, BIA has the authority to take land into trust that can
    subsequently be used by a tribe for gaming purposes. Requests for
    gaming must still be approved using section 20 of IGRA, whether the
    land is being taken into trust for that purpose or it is in existing
    trust status.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

        Question. Secretary Salazar, an important Interior Department tool
    that Vermont and many other States, including New York, used during the
    floods caused by Hurricane Irene were the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
    river and lake gauges. These gauges helped our first responders save
    lives and property by providing real-time information as the waters
    rose. In addition, the gauges also provide a long-term value by helping
    track changes in our rivers and lakes for ongoing water quality control
    monitoring and improvements. Nonetheless the USGS has flagged 18 river
    and lake gauges in the Champlain watershed of Vermont and New York to
    be discontinued for lack of funding.
        Do you agree with the assessment that the USGS river and lake
    gauging network in the United States represents one of the greatest
    return-on-investments of any dollar spent by your Department? Can you
    tell me what is needed to avoid any further damage to this critical
    network in Vermont and nationwide?
        Answer. Yes, the USGS streamgaging network provides a great return
    on the American taxpayer's dollar. Information on the flow of water in
    America's rivers and streams is fundamental to national and local
    economic well-being, the protection of life and property, and the
    efficient and effective management of the Nation's water resources.
    According to the National Research Council (2004), ``streamflow
    information has many of the properties of a public good, because
    everyone benefits whether they pay or not, and benefits to additional
    users come at no additional cost.'' There are many uses of streamflow
    information including:
      --water resource appraisal and allocations;
      --managing interstate agreements and court decrees;
      --engineering design of bridges, culverts, and treatment facilities;
      --the operation of reservoirs, powerplants, and locks and dams;
      --evaluating changes in streamflow due to climate and land-use
            change;
      --flood forecasting (warning) and flood plain mapping (planning);
      --support of water quality evaluations; and
      --assessing in-stream conditions for habitat assessments and
            recreational safety and enjoyment.
        For many of the uses of streamflow information, it is difficult or
    impossible to assign an economic benefit to the information, though in
    many cases the benefits are evident. The National Weather Service (NWS)
    is one agency that reports an economic benefit on the use of streamflow
    data. NWS reports that over the last 30 years, there has been, on
    average, 94 deaths and $7.8 billion in damages in personal and public
    property per year due to flooding on the Nation's rivers. Without
    streamflow information to calibrate and verify NWS forecast models, NWS
    would be ``flying blind'' in making flood forecasts, implying that the
    number of deaths and magnitude of loses to property would be much
    higher.
        Question. The National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP), as
    authorized in the SECURE Water Act of 2009, was designed to provide
    stability to the national streamgage network by providing a federally
    funded ``backbone'' network of streamgages to meet Federal needs for
    streamflow information. This backbone is supplemented with streamgages
    that are funded through partnerships to more fully meet State, tribal,
    and local needs for streamflow information. The enacted funding level
    for fiscal year 2012 for the NSIP is $29.4 million and the proposed
    funding level for fiscal year 2013 is $32.5 million. This increase
    during a time of fiscal constraints represents a commitment to
    increasing funding for the Nation's streamgages and greater
    implementation of the NSIP as described in the SECURE Water Act.
        Has the Department's Climate Change Response Council, which you
    chair, analyzed the impact of these gauge closures in the face of
    potential climate change impacts which are likely to bring about new
    and greater flood risks?
        Answer. Yes, the Department takes the issue of climate change very
    seriously with respect to water and other natural resources and
    hazards.
        The effects of climate change in any given area are often widely
    debated. It is likely that certain areas of our Nation will be at
    greater risk of floods, while other areas are at greater risk of
    droughts, and some may see no change at all. Some of the first
    scientific work demonstrating the occurrence and consequences of
    climate change was produced through analysis of long-term streamflow
    information. For example, it was demonstrated that in the Northeast,
    river flows were getting higher earlier in the year as a consequence of
    snow pack melting sooner, and late summer flows were getting lower,
    while there was no discernible change in the average or peak flows. In
    other areas, such as the Southwest, it appears that stream flows are
    decreasing. Without an adequate number of streamgages located in
    optimal locations and providing comparable high-quality data, it will
    be increasingly difficult to detect and predict the consequences of
    climate change on water supply and hydrologic extreme hazards.
        Question. With regard to white nose syndrome (WNS), which is still
    spreading across the country at a fast rate and has the potential to
    cost our Nation's farmers and consumers billions of dollars, can you
    tell me how the Department's request to reduce the Endangered Species
    Recovery account by more than $1 million will impact the work being
    done on white nose syndrome and other important endangered species
    recovery work?
        Answer. While our fiscal year 2013 budget request seeks a net
    overall reduction of $1.59 million, the decreases are specifically
    targeted at discontinuing the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Program
    and reducing funding for the State of the Birds activities in fiscal
    year 2013 in order to fund higher-priority conservation activities
    elsewhere in the budget request, such as the Cooperative Recovery
    Initiative. Through the Cooperative Recovery Initiative, the Service is
    requesting $5.35 million to support a cross-programmatic partnership
    approach to complete planning, restoration, and management actions
    addressing current threats to endangered species on and around National
    Wildlife Refuges. In addition, the Service is continuing to place a
    high priority on addressing white nose syndrome (WNS) and bat
    conservation. In fiscal year 2012, the Service will allocate $995,000
    in State and Tribal Wildlife Grants for WNS research and monitoring by
    the States. In addition, $485,000 in Refuge Inventory and Monitoring is
    estimated to be spent on work related to WNS monitoring and control on
    Refuges. The total amount being spent by the Service in fiscal year
    2012 for WNS research and response activities will be at least
    $4,855,000. Additional funding may also come from Cooperative
    Endangered Species Section 6 Grants or Adaptive Science competitive
    grants, if projects addressing WNS are chosen to be funded.
        Question. In August, you announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) would take full responsibility for sea lamprey control on
    Lake Champlain. In this context, can you explain when we will see the
    funding required to implement the program become a part of the
    President's budget request so that your Department's commitment can be
    entirely fulfilled?
        Answer. FWS funds a wide array of aquatic invasive species control,
    management, and prevention responsibilities across the country.
    Protecting the health and vitality of Lake Champlain and the
    significant fisheries resources, economic benefits, and jobs it
    provides is a high priority for FWS. The fiscal year 2013 President's
    budget includes $380,000 in base funding for Sea Lamprey in Region 5
    which supports 3.5 FWS base-funded full-time equivalents (FTEs) and
    four temporary/term FTEs based in the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife
    Resources Office in Essex Junction, Vermont. Through a reimbursable
    agreement, FWS currently works with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission,
    which receives funding from the State Department, to administer the Sea
    Lamprey control program.
        Question. The White River National Fish Hatchery remains the best
    cold water National Fish Hatchery in New England and the Northeast.
    White River is the lynch-pin to Federal fishery restoration work from
    Lake Ontario all the way to Maine, but it is currently out of
    commission and requires approximately $5 million in repairs as a result
    of damage caused by Hurricane Irene.
        Can you confirm that repairs to the White River Hatchery will be a
    priority? Are sufficient funds requested in your budget proposal, and
    programmed, as needed, for the repairs to this hatchery to proceed
    without delay?
        Answer. The White River National Fish Hatchery sustained
    approximately $5.2 million in damages resulting from Hurricane Irene.
    Repairing the White River National Fish Hatchery will be among the
    highest priorities for the Fisheries Program. Emergency clean-up
    operations have already been completed. Additionally, the Northeast
    Region immediately redirected approximately $620,000 in fiscal year
    2011 deferred maintenance funding to initiate emergency mission-
    critical repairs. The President's fiscal year 2013 proposed budget
    includes $1.9 million to reconstruct the water infiltration gallery and
    to demolish and reconstruct the fish-tagging building. Upon completion
    of the aforementioned projects, 100 percent of fish-rearing capacity
    and operational capacity will be restored. An additional $2.6 million
    in damages to critical support infrastructure (e.g. roads, septic
    systems, etc.) will remain, which will need to be addressed through the
    application of annual deferred maintenance funds.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson

        Question. As you know, both the EROS Data Center, located in my
    home State, and the Landsat series of satellites are very important
    resources, not only for South Dakota, but for our entire Nation and the
    international community. Lead time is required for developing these
    satellites, and it's important that we look now at how to proceed
    beyond Landsat 8, which is scheduled for launch next year. The budget
    request excludes funding for Landsat 9 mission development, which is
    very concerning to me. How does the United States Geographical Survey
    (USGS) envision the program to function beyond Landsat 8, and what
    coordination activities are currently underway with the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other agencies in
    examining how to continue the Landsat missions program and ensure
    mission continuity?
        Answer. USGS received $2 million in the 2012 omnibus appropriations
    bill to support program development activities for Landsat satellites 9
    and 10. In fiscal year 2012, these funds are being used to consider
    options to obtain, characterize, manage, maintain, and prioritize land
    remote sensing data and to support the evaluation of alternatives for a
    Landsat 9 mission and other means for acquiring data. The fiscal year
    2013 budget request includes $250,000 to continue these efforts.
        USGS is working closely with the Landsat user community, the
    Department of the Interior, the White House Office of Science and
    Technology Policy, and NASA to identify and consider all available
    options for maintaining the continuity of moderate-resolution land
    observation data for the Nation. USGS recently posted a Request for
    Information to solicit information and options for providing a
    dependable, long-term source for Landsat-like data to follow Landsat 8.
    Mission concepts may include revolutionary ``clean-slate'' technical
    approaches, as well as evolutionary upgrade approaches. Approaches may
    involve single- or multiple-satellite acquisitions, commercial data buy
    arrangements, public/private partnerships, hosted payloads,
    international collaboration, small satellites, or architectures
    utilizing combinations of space-based sensors. USGS is also supporting
    a National Research Council study on programmatic and operational
    alternatives for establishing a long-term source of Landsat-like data
    for the Nation. These efforts include a ``Meeting of Experts'' to
    examine the feasibility of new and emerging technology that might be
    applicable for sustaining global land observations.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson

        Question. Secretary Salazar, could you provide an update on the
    Platte River Recovery Program?
        As you know, Platte River Recovery Implementation is a basin-wide
    effort undertaken by the Department of the Interior (DOI) in
    partnership with the States of Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming to
    provide benefits for endangered and threatened species.
        I know you've included $8 million for implementation in your
    request which I appreciate.
        I was serving as Governor in 1997 when Nebraska entered into the
    Cooperative Agreement for Platte River Recovery Implementation. A
    little more than a decade later we were able to successfully authorize
    implementation as part of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act signed
    into law in 2008.
        I believe the first increment of the program is to last a bit over
    a decade--wrapping up in 2019. What's the Department's assessment so
    far? What progress are we making and are we on the right track?
        Answer. The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (Program)
    continues to be a highly successful collaborative process, and also
    continues to receive broad support from water users, environmental and
    conservation entities, the States of Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming,
    as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of
    Reclamation (BOR).
        The Program has made significant and steady progress during the
    first 6 years of the 13-year First Increment. The most recent Program
    success has been the completion of the Pathfinder Modification Project,
    which was declared substantially complete on January 11, 2012. The
    Pathfinder Modification Project raised the spillway at Pathfinder Dam
    (a BOR facility) by approximately 2.4 feet in order to recover storage
    space in Pathfinder Reservoir which had been lost to sedimentation. The
    Pathfinder Modification Project is a contribution to the Program by the
    State of Wyoming, and no Federal appropriations were required to modify
    the spillway at Pathfinder Dam. The Pathfinder Modification Project's
    Environmental Account in Pathfinder Reservoir will provide up to
    approximately 34,000 acre-feet (AF) of water for the benefit of the
    Program's target species.
        The Program will implement the Land Plan in order to protect, and
    where appropriate, restore 10,000 acres of habitat by no later than the
    end of the First Increment. To date, the Program has acquired an
    interest in approximately 9,150 acres of land for habitat purposes,
    leaving approximately 850 acres left to acquire by the end of the First
    Increment.
        The Program will implement water projects under the Water Action
    Plan capable of providing at least an average of 50,000 AF per year of
    shortage reduction to target flows, or for other Program purposes, by
    no later than the end of the First Increment. The Program, through an
    agreement with the State of Wyoming, has acquired 4,800 AF of water per
    year from the Wyoming Account in Pathfinder Reservoir through the
    remainder of the First Increment; however, the Program and the State
    are still in the process of determining the final yield of the 4,800 AF
    for the benefit of the target species at the associated habitat. The
    Program is also currently negotiating a water service agreement with
    the State of Nebraska (Nebraska) and the Central Nebraska Public Power
    & Irrigation District (CNPPID) to acquire water from the proposed J-2
    Project. The J-2 Project, if constructed, could have the ability to
    retime approximately 40,000 AF of excess flows for the benefit of the
    target species. Under the proposed agreement, the 40,000 AF would be
    shared 25 percent (approximately 10,000 AF) for Nebraska and 75 percent
    (approximately 30,000 AF) for the Program. This agreement is a vital
    aspect of achieving the Program's Milestone of providing at least an
    average of 50,000 AF per year of shortage reduction to target flows.
        The Program continues to be successful, and many of the Program's
    Milestones have been achieved. The implementation of the Program and
    the achievement of the Milestones provides measures to help recover the
    four target species, which in turn provides critical Endangered Species
    Act (ESA) compliance for the continued operation of existing water
    projects in the Platte River Basin. The Program also provides ESA
    compliance for the development of certain new water projects within the
    Platte River Basin.
        Due to the amount of land that the Program has acquired an interest
    in, it is very likely that the Program will achieve the Land Milestone
    of 10,000 acres by the end of the First Increment. The one remaining
    major Program Milestone to be achieved by the end of the First
    Increment is developing water projects capable of providing at least an
    average of 50,000 AF per year of annual shortage reduction to target
    flows. Significant funding from DOI will need to be contributed to the
    Program over the remaining years of the First Increment for the
    development of these water projects, including the aforementioned water
    service agreement with Nebraska and CNPPID. Adequate funding in the
    future for this project and other water projects will be critical in
    order to achieve the Program's Water Milestone by the end of the First
    Increment.
        Question. I am regularly reminded by Nebraska constituents that
    additional wind power development will require new investments in the
    transmission system along with more efficient and flexible operation of
    the grid. I would appreciate your thoughts on ways the Federal
    Government may assist in expanding and improving the transmission
    system.
        Answer. Transmission remains one of the largest barriers to the
    development of renewable energy potential in this country. This
    administration is taking steps to improve coordination and streamline
    processing of Federal permits through interagency agreements to
    expedite and simplify permitting on Federal lands. In addition, in
    2009, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the United States Forest
    Service (USFS), the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy
    issued a final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that
    evaluated issues associated with the designation of energy corridors on
    Federal lands in 11 Western States. Using this information, the BLM
    designated transmission corridors on BLM lands by amending 92 land-use
    plans in the Western States. Designation of corridors provides
    preferred locations for developers to site major linear facilities
    (such as transmission lines) and specifically identifies lands that are
    available for that purpose.
        BLM will continue to actively coordinate with the Western
    Electricity Coordinating Council to ensure their transmission planning
    and grid reliability initiatives are in harmony with BLM initiatives
    related to land-use planning, designation of utility corridors, policy
    development, and timely review and permitting of high-voltage
    transmission lines.
        BLM's 2009 transmission corridor designations were limited to BLM-
    managed lands. BLM manages only 6,354 acres in Nebraska so it was not
    practical to designate any corridors in that State.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        Question. I see that inspection fees for offshore oil and gas
    facilities are being increased from $62 to $65 million. Will this money
    be used to provide more personnel for inspections, in order to relieve
    delays? If it is not being used to alleviate delays, what will this
    increased fee be directed toward?
        Answer. The amount of individual inspection fees has not changed.
    The $3 million increase in inspection fee collections is the result of
    differences in assumptions about the timing of fee collections, not an
    increase in the fees themselves. In fiscal year 2012, inspection fees
    were assessed for the inspection of drilling rigs for the first time.
    The revenue from monthly drilling rig inspections that occur in the
    last quarter of the fiscal year may not be received until the following
    fiscal year. In fiscal year 2013, actual receipts will include fees
    from inspections in the final quarter of fiscal year 2012 and the
    Bureau will therefore receive a full year of inspection fee revenue. It
    is also important to remember that these are estimates and that actual
    fee collections will vary depending on changes in the number of
    applicable Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) operations in a given year.
    All fee revenue will be used to address important mission-related
    priorities. As required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012,
    not less than 50 percent of the inspection fees collected by the bureau
    will be used to fund personnel and mission-related costs to expand
    capacity and expedite the orderly development, subject to environmental
    safeguards, of the OCS pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
    Act, including the review of applications for permits to drill.
        Question. With industry still struggling with slow permitting and
    delays in the permit submission process, and in light of the
    President's stated desire to increase domestic production, what efforts
    are you making to fix the problems with the permit process?
        Answer. Respectfully, the Department does not agree that the
    industry is struggling with slow permitting and delays in the permit
    submission process. As of May 4, 2012, the Bureau of Safety and
    Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) approved 128 new shallow water
    permits, 412 deepwater permits requiring subsea containment, and 66
    deepwater permits not requiring subsea containment.
        BSEE has worked very hard to help industry better understand the
    permitting requirements and improve the efficiency of the application
    process. Among the steps taken to improve the process, BSEE has:
      --Held permit processing workshops for industry, including one in
            April 2012, which has improved the quality and thoroughness of
            applications;
      --Published a permit application completeness checklist to make it
            clear to industry what information is required, and to reduce
            the frequency with which operators submit incomplete
            applications;
      --Established priorities for reviewing permit applications--assigning
            the highest priority to permits for ongoing operations or
            emergency operations;
      --Begun to balance workloads for its engineers by taking some permit
            applications and reassigning them to different districts;
      --Allowed authorized users of BSEE's online permit application system
            to track the status of their applications, which provides
            operators with greater transparency in the permitting process.
        As a result of these steps and the industry's increasing
    familiarity with the process, permit review times have decreased
    significantly in the past year.
        Question. In light of the fact that production on public lands and
    waters have decreased and with Federal OCS production dropping 441
    million barrels in 2011, down from 588 million in 2010. What is being
    done to increase the speed at which permits are reviewed and approved?
    Would it be wiser to direct more of the money allocated to Bureau of
    Energy Management (BOEM) and BSEE to hire more staff to review permit
    applications?
        Answer. With respect to production from the Federal OCS, the data
    you reference is incomplete. Production data is not required to be
    submitted by operators until 45 days after the end of the month of
    production, so the spreadsheet on BSEE's Web site presenting production
    figures as of January 25, 2012, is missing nearly all the production
    from December 2011. Furthermore, production is not included in that
    spreadsheet until after the reported production volumes are verified,
    which can take several months. The final production numbers for 2011
    will be substantially higher than the values you reference.
        BSEE intends to hire significantly more personnel with the funding
    provided by the Congress in fiscal year 2012, including a significant
    number dedicated to reviewing permits. The hiring and training process
    takes time, and it will be several years before engineers hired this
    year are fully trained to evaluate the breadth of issues required as
    part of the full permitting process. However, BSEE is committed to
    continuously monitoring and improving its permitting process, while
    conducting thorough reviews to ensure that all safety requirements are
    met. In the meantime, as indicated by the permit information available
    on BSEE's Web site, the Bureau is successfully reviewing permit
    applications and doing so in a timely fashion.
        Question. I see that a fee of $4 per acre is being proposed on
    nonproducing, but leased, Federal lands. I am curious why this fee is
    being proposed, when it would appear that the greatest impediment to
    production on these lands is the slow pace of permitting. What was the
    rationale behind this fee?
        Answer. The administration believes this legislative proposal will
    encourage energy production on lands and waters leased for development.
    A $4 per-acre fee on nonproducing Federal leases 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 adjusted for inflation
    annually. In October 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    issued a report critical of past efforts by the Department of the
    Interior to ensure that companies diligently develop their Federal
    leases. This proposal is similar to other nonproducing fee proposals
    considered by the Congress in the last several years and this fee is
    projected to generate revenues to the U.S. Treasury of $13 million in
    2013 and $783 million over 10 years.

                                  WILD HORSES

        Question. Mr. Secretary, since passage of the Wild Free- Roaming
    Horse and Burro Act of 1971, more than 20 million acres of wild horse
    habitat has been removed from Herd Management Areas. At least 5 million
    of those acres could be suitable for reintroduction of wild horses.
    When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is spending more than $40
    million per year on wild horse and burro holding costs and continues to
    remove almost twice as many animals as it can reasonably adopt each
    year, why hasn't the BLM re-evaluated those 20 million acres and
    seriously considered reintroducing horses and burros to those areas?
        Answer. No specific amount of acreage was set aside for the
    exclusive use of wild horses and burros under the 1971 Wild Free-
    Roaming Horses and Burros Act. The Act directed the BLM to determine
    the areas where horses and burros were found roaming, and then to
    consider managing the animals within the boundaries of those areas. Of
    the 22.2 million acres no longer managed for wild horse and burro use,
    6.7 million acres were never under BLM management. There are a number
    of reasons why the BLM has not considered reintroducing wild horses and
    burros to the remaining acres. These reasons include:
      --48.6 percent (7,522,100 acres) are intermingled (``checkerboard'')
            land ownerships or areas where water was not owned or
            controlled by the BLM, which made management of wild horses
            infeasible;
      --13.5 percent (2,091,709 acres) are lands transferred out of the
            BLM's ownership to other agencies, both Federal and State,
            through legislation or exchange;
      --10.6 percent (1,645,758 acres) are lands where there were
            substantial conflicts with other resource values;
      --9.7 percent (1,512,179 acres) are lands removed from wild horse and
            burro use through court decisions, urban expansion, highway
            fencing (causing habitat fragmentation), and land withdrawals;
      --9.6 percent (1,485,068 acres) are lands where no BLM animals were
            present at the time of the passage of the 1971 Act or places
            where all animals were claimed as private property. (These
            lands should not have been designated as lands where herds were
            found roaming and will be removed from the totals in future
            land use plans.); and
      --8 percent (1,240,894 acres) are lands where a critical habitat
            component (such as winter range) was missing, making the land
            unsuitable for wild horse and burro use, or areas that had too
            few animals to allow for effective management.
        Question. Equine geneticists have concluded that a minimum wild
    horse herd size to sustain genetic viability is 150-200 adult animals.
    Most wild horse herds are less than this minimum level. The BLM budget
    request includes an additional $2 million with your stated goal of
    maintaining herd health. Can you provide more information about how BLM
    intends to address herd health and viability considering herd
    populations are lower than recommended by experts?
        Answer. The proposed number of animals (150-200) in a genetically
    viable wild horse herd is a size that is estimated by some to minimize
    genetic loss. Genetic diversity is lost through time in any isolated
    population of animals, but is slower in larger populations.
        Although some of the herds on BLM lands are smaller than this
    recommended size, there are other factors that make these herds
    genetically viable. Herds that are associated with or border other
    herds experience the exchange of genetic material. Many BLM herds fall
    into this category. A small amount of exchange (through a few
    individuals) can have a large impact on overall genetic diversity. The
    exchange of individuals through management intervention is also
    possible should the need arise.
        During gather operations, the BLM frequently collects hair samples
    from individuals in a herd for genetic testing. The geneticist who does
    the testing provides BLM with a report evaluating the level of genetic
    diversity and recommending actions that BLM should take, if any,
    including when additional genetic monitoring should be conducted. For
    instance, should a herd genetics report indicate low genetic diversity,
    the BLM can adjust the herd composition by removing and relocating some
    of the brothers and/or sisters (genetic redundancy likely to cause
    genetic malformities) to keep them from breeding. Depending on herd
    population size relevant to appropriate management level within the
    herd management area, the BLM may also bring in horses with other
    genetics from similar herds.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander

                   U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE--BACKGROUND

        Question. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission recently denied
    plans for a 48 turbine wind farm because of concerns about the impact
    on birds, bats, and bald eagles. According to the American Bird
    Conservancy, this project was the first ever wind farm project to apply
    to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for a ``taking'' permit for
    bald eagles. Thankfully, there is growing awareness that wind turbines
    kill not just migratory birds and bats, but also bald eagles.
        If the Department moves forward with plans to allow construction of
    wind farms on public land, how do you plan to address this problem?
        Answer. FWS has promulgated a regulation at 50 CFR 22.26 (the Eagle
    Take Regulation) under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act that
    authorizes issuance of programmatic eagle take permits to
    unintentionally take golden eagles, bald eagles, or both, at sites such
    as wind facilities. However, the permits will be issued only if FWS
    determines that any take is compatible with the preservation standard
    for eagles set in the Act by Congress.
        FWS established an approach to ensure that permitted take meets the
    preservation standard in our National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    analysis for the Eagle Take Rule. Further, FWS has developed Eagle
    Conservation Plan Guidance that provides recommendations for wind
    developers on how to reduce impacts to eagles by using robust survey
    techniques to select project sites, establishing appropriate monitoring
    of eagle use areas, employing adaptive management measures, and if
    necessary, offsetting impacts to eagles through compensatory
    mitigation. FWS believes that using the Guidance and working with the
    Service will reduce likely eagle take by wind energy projects to levels
    compatible with the preservation standard for eagles set in the Act by
    Congress.
        Additionally, FWS is developing training on how to evaluate wind
    projects in light of FWS guidance and regulations. The training will
    initially be targeted at Service staff, but the FWS plans to expand the
    training and make it available to industry in the near future. The
    draft training outline was provided to private stakeholders for comment
    in an effort to ensure it will meet industry's needs.
        Question. Will wind farm projects be expected to apply for a permit
    to kill bald eagles?
        Answer. Take of a bald eagle or a golden eagle without a permit is
    a violation of the Act. FWS's Guidance relative to Eagle Take Permits
    applies to both species. The Guidance encourages a wind project
    developer at a site at which take of bald eagles is predicted to seek
    an Eagle Take Permit.
        Question. Will wind farm projects be required to submit mitigation
    plans to make up for the killing of bald eagles?
        Answer. Any wind energy facility that receives a permit from FWS
    will be required to work through the mitigation hierarchy as defined
    under the FWS's Mitigation Policy. Avoidance and minimization are the
    essential components of the Mitigation Policy, while compensatory
    mitigation may be appropriate if avoidance and minimization cannot
    reduce take to acceptable levels. In order to qualify for a permit, the
    new regulations require applicants to demonstrate that they have
    avoided and minimized take of eagles to the maximum degree achievable.
    In many areas of the country, FWS has determined that some take of bald
    eagles can be authorized without risk of violating the preservation
    standard set by the Congress. In these locations, additional
    compensatory mitigation for take is not mandatory, but in other
    locations compensatory mitigation may be required to qualify for an
    eagle take permit.
        Question. What about other species that might be endangered or
    threatened?
        Answer. Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act prohibits the take
    (which includes killing) of endangered wildlife and that prohibition is
    generally extended by regulation to threatened wildlife. Wind farm
    projects that are expected to take listed wildlife species would
    therefore need to receive an authorization to take listed species.
    Information regarding these procedures may be found in Appendix 5
    ``Procedures for Endangered Species Evaluations and Consultations'' in
    the 2003 ``Service Interim Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife
    Impacts from Wind Turbines.''
        Additional information regarding Consultations and Habitat
    Conservation Plans may be accessed at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
    what-we-do/consultations-overview.html and http://www.fws.gov/
    endangered/what-we-do/hcp-overview.html respectively.

                   U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE--BACKGROUND

        Question. Tennessee is home to two very important mitigation fish
    hatcheries, the Erwin National Fish Hatchery in Erwin, Tennessee and
    the Dale Hollow National Fish Hatchery in Celina, Tennessee. The Erwin
    hatchery provides eggs for hatcheries all across the country, and the
    Dale Hollow hatchery produces 60 percent of all the trout stocked in
    Tennessee.
        The Department's fiscal year 2013 budget request proposes to cut
    $3.2 million from the mitigation hatcheries, and Ed Carter, director of
    the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, has said that if these
    hatcheries close the impact on Tennessee will be devastating.
        Will the Department work with the Corps of Engineers (COE) and
    other Federal agencies to continue to fund mitigation hatcheries and
    ensure that these critical hatcheries will not be closed until a
    funding solution is in place?
        Has the Department considered the economic benefits of maintaining
    the fish hatcheries?
        Answer. FWS's mission-driven priority is to protect and restore
    native fish species and habitat. At a time when budgets are tight and
    available resources limited, we need to focus our resources on these
    high-priority outcomes. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget
    proposal would move nonreimbursed mitigation activities toward a user-
    pay system, similar to the President's fiscal year 2012 budget
    proposal. This approach puts all of the mitigation hatcheries on the
    same footing, and represents a more efficient use of Federal funds.
    Federal water development agencies are the appropriate entities for
    mitigating the adverse effects of the projects they operate and the
    impact of those projects on recreational fisheries. The Department is
    aware of the significant economic benefits of fish hatcheries and will
    continue to work with COE, the Tennessee Valley Authority and other
    Federal agencies to receive full reimbursement for mitigation
    activities. We understand that the fish supplied by these hatcheries
    provide important economic opportunities to States and recreational
    community, and we support the continuation of mitigation work. Our goal
    is to keep our mitigation fish hatcheries open, and to continue to
    provide fish as we have in the past in the most efficient and effective
    way possible. However, the Service's policy is to move toward a user-
    pay system.

           U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY--DISASTER PREPAREDNESS--BACKGROUND

        Question. Tennessee experienced record flooding in Nashville and
    middle Tennessee in May 2010 and in Memphis and west Tennessee in 2011.
    The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) played a critical role in these
    flooding events, and it is welcome news that the Department is
    requesting increased funding for USGS to prepare for future disasters.
        USGS has doubled the number of monitoring stations in the Nashville
    area, and is working closely with local government and other Federal
    agencies to ensure the right information gets to emergency managers as
    quickly as possible. Other communities in Tennessee, including
    Chattanooga and Memphis, hope to work with USGS to improve their flood
    management as well.
        Question. Could you tell us how the Department plans to use the
    additional funds?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2013 proposed budget for the National
    Streamflow Information Program (NSIP) provides funds to be invested in
    activities that will help protect life and property from hydrologic
    hazards, including flooding. These activities include developing and
    producing streamgages that can be rapidly, but temporarily, deployed to
    locations that are currently or forecast to be in flood or drought
    conditions to provide streamflow information over a broader area. This
    information would be used by forecasters, flood-management agencies,
    and first responders, who must make decisions regarding flood-fighting
    and evacuation, and would provide a better understanding of hydrologic
    extremes. The fiscal year 2013 proposed budget also provides for
    activities related to producing flood inundation maps. These maps show
    the extent and depth of flood waters for streams at USGS streamgages
    that serve as National Weather Service flood-forecast locations. The
    maps will assist home owners, business owners, and first responders to
    anticipate and respond to flooding. Since the recent flooding in the
    Nashville area, the USGS has been involved in a cooperatively funded
    pilot project that developed more than 1,000 flood inundation maps for
    that community.
        Question. Will funds be available for additional monitoring
    stations?
        Answer. The proposed NSIP budget for 2013 provides funds for
    ecosystem restoration activities in the upper Mississippi and Columbia
    River basins that likely will include providing streamflow information
    for use in the design and implementation of techniques and processes to
    restore ecosystems to more natural conditions.
        In addition to these activities the 2013 request includes funding
    for the operation and maintenance of about 100 streamgages, which are
    part of the Federal backbone needed for flood forecasting. Many
    streamgages are currently funded through the Cooperative Water Program
    (CWP). Reductions in the budget of the CWP could lead to a net loss of
    270 to 300 streamgages nationwide. Proposed funding increases in the
    budget for NSIP will help to bring more stable funding to those 100
    streamgages.
        Question. What steps will the Department be taking to address
    earthquake hazards along the New Madrid fault, which impacts Memphis
    and west Tennessee?
        Answer. USGS supports a seismographic network in the New Madrid
    seismic zone in cooperation with the University of Memphis and Saint
    Louis University. The location, depth, time, and felt area of all
    earthquakes in the region above approximately magnitude 1.7 are
    automatically posted to a public USGS Web site in near real time. The
    USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps depict the regional elevated hazard
    in the region. More detailed earthquake hazard maps are currently
    available for the urban areas of Memphis, Tennessee, and Evansville,
    Indiana and a map of the St. Louis metropolitan area is nearing
    completion. These maps show the amplification of seismic shaking caused
    by local geologic deposits. Data from a network of geodetic stations
    supported by the USGS shows that there is small but significant slow
    ground deformation in the region capable of producing damaging
    earthquakes.

                     OIL AND GAS LEASE REVENUES--BACKGROUND

        Question. In 2011, the Department generated $11.3 billion from
    energy production on Federal lands--a $2 billion increase more than
    2010. Since 2008 oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf has
    increased by 30 percent. Despite this progress, gas prices are on the
    rise and domestic production is not keeping up.
        What steps are being taken to expand oil and gas leases on public
    land?
        What impact will the Department's proposal to impose new inspection
    fees and raise other collection fees have on oil and gas production?
        Answer. Facilitating the efficient, responsible development of
    domestic oil and gas resources is part of the administration's broad
    energy strategy that will protect consumers and help reduce our
    dependence on foreign oil. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is
    working on a variety of fronts to ensure that development is done
    efficiently and responsibly including implementing leasing reforms;
    increasing leasing opportunities in the National Petroleum Reserve in
    Alaska (NPR-A); adopting new processes to process drilling permits more
    quickly; and improving inspection, enforcement, and production
    accountability. BLM can only speculate as to why the operators have not
    produced more on Federal Lands. Oil and gas drilling and development
    are market-driven activities, and the demand for leases is a function
    of market conditions. Market drivers include prevailing and anticipated
    oil and gas prices, bidder assessments of the quality of the resource
    base in a given area, the availability/proximity of necessary
    infrastructure, and the proximity of the lease to local, regional, and
    national markets and export hubs. The shale formations that currently
    have high industry interest for development, such as North Dakota's
    Bakken shale, Texas's Eagle Ford shale, and the Marcellus and Utica
    shales of the Eastern United States, are primarily in areas with a high
    proportion of non-Federal land. These areas have seen increased
    development recently due to a favorable mix of the factors noted above.
    As drilling priorities shift due to changes in technology or markets,
    an operator may choose different areas for development. Further, BLM
    lands are primarily gas-prone. Recent national rig counts (by Baker
    Hughes) indicate that rigs drilling for gas are at an ``all-time low''
    (by percentage) and the gas is selling at ``a record discount to
    crude.'' (Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2012).
        Approximately 38 million acres of Federal land are leased for oil
    and gas development. Not all leases have equal production potential,
    and not all leases have optimal transmission capacity where the oil or
    gas is being extracted. Approximately 12 million acres are producing
    oil and gas, and active exploration is occurring on an additional 4
    million acres. We are encouraged by increasing production on Federal
    leases. BLM, specifically, has approved approximately 7,000
    applications for permit to drill that are not being used by industry.
        The proposed new inspection and enforcement fee is consistent with
    the principle that users of the public lands should pay for the cost of
    both authorizing and oversight activities. These fees are similar to
    fees now charged for offshore inspections, and to numerous cost-
    recovery fees charged for other uses of Federal lands and resources.

                        WHITE NOSE SYNDROME--BACKGROUND

        Question. In May 2011, FWS unveiled a national plan to address the
    growing threat posed by white-nose syndrome (WNS), which has killed
    more than 5 million bats since it was discovered in 2006. Since then,
    the fungus has spread throughout the bat population and is now reported
    in 18 States and Canada, including Tennessee. In 2010, Austin Peay
    State University's Center of Excellence for Field Biology was tasked by
    the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to monitor WNS at Land Between the
    Lakes, and the Center is currently engaged in a number of research
    efforts to combat this disease.
        The Department has invested millions to support monitoring,
    research, and the development of protocols to reduce transmission.
    However, most of this funding has been targeted for northeastern States
    where the WNS was first discovered, but funding is not making it to the
    States and universities in the South, where WNS is rapidly expanding.
        Question. What is the Department doing to help wildlife researchers
    in States like Tennessee to reduce the spread of WNS?
        Answer. WNS is a disease associated with massive bat mortality in
    the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic United States. Affected hibernating
    bats often have white fungal growth on their muzzles, ears, and/or wing
    membranes as the result of infection by a newly described species of
    fungus (Geomyces destructans), which causes skin erosions and ulcers
    and can invade underlying connective tissue. There is no clear
    indication of any natural resistance to WNS in the affected bat
    populations.
        Since first observed at four bat hibernacula (hibernation areas) in
    New York in winter 2006-2007, WNS has been detected in 16 States and
    four Canadian Provinces. The most recent surveys of hibernacula near
    the epicenter of the outbreak show that since 2007, mortality is
    approaching 100 percent at some sites. Six cave-hibernating bat
    species, including four federally listed species, are directly affected
    or at risk from WNS. The fungus causing WNS is responsible for the
    death of more than 6 million bats.
        During the winter of 2011-2012, USGS conducted video-monitoring of
    bats in caves and mines in New York and Tennessee to test whether
    fungal skin infection triggers unsustainable energy-consuming behaviors
    during hibernation. USGS is working with USFS to conduct detailed
    characterizations of fungi associated with bat hibernation sites to
    better understand the microbial ecology of WNS.
        For fiscal year 2012, USGS has allocated $692,882 for WNS research
    studies. Modeling software is being developed by USGS that will help
    forecast the consequences of alternative actions for the persistence
    and recovery of bats. The USGS fiscal year 2013 budget includes a $1
    million increase that would be used to enhance surveillance and
    diagnostic capability to detect the continued spread of WNS; bolster
    research on environmental factors controlling persistence of the fungus
    in the environment; develop management tools, particularly the
    development of a vaccine; and conduct research on mechanisms by which
    WNS causes mortality in bats, focused on immunology and pathogenesis.
        In fiscal year 2012, the Congress directed FWS to spend $4 million
    from endangered species recovery funding to combat WNS. FWS has
    proposed to reprogram $625,000 of this funding to other critical
    endangered species recovery actions, and to utilize funding from the
    State and Tribal Wildlife grant program and from the National Wildlife
    Refuge program for WNS. Under this proposal FWS will dedicate a minimum
    of $4,855,000 for WNS efforts in 2012. The fiscal year 2013 FWS budget
    includes $1.9 million (not including any competitive grants that may be
    awarded) for work on WNS, including $995,470 to continue funding WNS
    coordinator positions, and $901,530 to fund critical WNS research.
        WNS continues to spread and is projected to appear in the highly
    dense and diverse bat populations in additional Southern and Midwestern
    States in the very near future. Predictions for spread to western
    States and the affect of WNS on bats there is less certain.

             NATIONAL PARK SERVICE--MAINTENANCE BACKLOG--BACKGROUND

        Question. The National Park Service (NPS) budget request for fiscal
    year 2013 is $2.6 billion, $1 million less than the fiscal year 2012
    enacted level. Within this amount, the Department seeks to increase
    park operations funding by $13.5 million, but proposes to reduce line
    item construction funding by $25.3 million and funding for National
    Heritage Areas program by $7.8 million.
        Question. National parks are already underfunded by $600 million
    each year. What progress is being made to address this issue?
        Answer. NPS does not quantify shortfalls in park operations.
    Funding for the main operating account of the NPS has stayed fairly
    level in nominal dollars since 2010, but there have been unavoidable
    cost increases in recent years due to inflation, rise in nonpersonnel
    fixed costs, and the added responsibility for five new parks. NPS is
    focusing funding on programs that are most central to the NPS mission,
    implementing management efficiencies, and undertaking administrative
    cost savings to optimize the use of appropriated dollars.
        Question. What is being done to address the deferred maintenance
    backlog and how long can we continue to ignore the problems facing our
    national parks?
        Answer. The current backlog of deferred maintenance (DM) associated
    with NPS constructed asset components considered critical to their
    function, such as roofs, foundations, road surfaces, etc., is
    approximately $4.1 billion. The fiscal year 2013 budget request
    maintains funding for operational DM at fiscal year 2012 levels. The
    request includes $71 million for the highest-priority DM repair and
    rehabilitation projects and $96.4 million to prevent additions to the
    DM backlog through cyclic maintenance projects. The line-item
    construction proposal funds the highest-priority construction projects
    to address critical life safety, resource protection, and emergency
    needs and does not add any new assets to the NPS asset portfolio. These
    projects address long-standing DM needs.

         FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON OUTDOOR RECREATION--BACKGROUND

        Question. According to Tennessee's Commissioner of Tourism, Susan
    Whitaker, tourism has a $13 billion impact on Tennessee. Tourism
    supports a lot of jobs in Tennessee, and since the Great Smoky
    Mountains National Park is our Nation's most visited national park, the
    new Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation is welcome news.
        It is very encouraging to see the Department of the Interior
    working with the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture to boost
    tourism and outdoor recreation, but one of the biggest challenges our
    international visitors face is getting a visa. If it takes months to
    get a visa to come to the United States and only 1 week to get a visa
    to go somewhere else, people will go somewhere else.
        Is the Department working with the State Department to decrease the
    amount of time international visitors have to wait before they can come
    visit our national parks?
        Answer. In the same Executive order that established the Task Force
    on Travel and Competitiveness (which is co-chaired by the Secretary of
    the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce), the President directed the
    Department of State in conjunction with other agencies and White House
    offices to take actions to enhance and expedite travel to and arrival
    in the United States by foreign nationals, consistent with national
    security requirements.
        The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) is the flagship of our national
    tourism strategy. More than 60 percent of all travelers to the United
    States come under the VWP, generating more than $60 billion in annual
    tourism revenue and representing about 60 percent of all tourism-
    related expenditures in the United States from overseas travelers.
    While VWP remains the largest travel facilitation program, the Obama
    administration is also committed to easing travel for the approximately
    35 percent of international travelers who currently require visas and
    border crossing cards to enter the United States. Building on the
    progress made over the past several years and in response to the
    President's Executive order, the Obama administration is facilitating
    legitimate travel to America while maintaining security by:
          Tracking the Increasing Arrivals.--The Department of Homeland
            Security continues to monitor the number of arriving travelers.
            Comparing the first 6 months of fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year
            2011, arrivals of travelers using VWP have increased by 8
            percent and arrivals of travelers from China and Brazil have
            increased by 33 percent and 18 percent, respectively. Total
            nonimmigrant admissions, travelers not including U.S. citizens
            and returning residents, have increased by 4.5 percent.
          Shortening Visa Interview Wait Times.--Around the world, wait
            times for visa interviews are generally short, and have dropped
            dramatically in some of the busiest travel markets where demand
            for visas has increased. Now, travelers wait just 2 days for an
            appointment at United States consulates in China, 2 weeks or
            less in Brasilia, Recife, and Rio de Janeiro, and 35 days or
            less in Sao Paulo. In anticipation of the summer travel season,
            the Department of State is adding staff and streamlining its
            operations to continue to reduce wait times.
          Streamlining the Visa Process.--Tens of thousands of travelers
            want to visit the United States, and a new pilot program is now
            underway to streamline processing will help facilitate the
            demand by freeing up more interview slots for first-time
            applicants. Consular officers may waive in-person interviews
            for certain low-risk, qualified individuals, such as those
            renewing their visas within 48 months of the expiration of
            their previous visas. Consular officers may also waive
            interviews for Brazilian applicants younger than the age of 16
            and age 66 and older, but retain the authority to interview any
            applicant in any category if security or other concerns are
            present.
          Building Capacity in China and Brazil To Meet Demand.--The
            Department of State is doubling the number of diplomats
            performing consular work in China and Brazil over the next year
            and is investing approximately $40 million in 2012 on existing
            facilities in Brazil and $18 million in China--adding interview
            windows, expanding consular office space, and improving waiting
            areas. On April 9, President Obama announced that the United
            States will establish consulates in Belo Horizonte and Porto
            Alegre, Brazil, while major expansion projects are underway in
            China.
          Increasing Consular Staffing and Implementing Innovative Hiring
            Programs.--To address immediate growth in demand, the
            Department of State is sending consular officers from all over
            the world to Brazil and China to adjudicate visa applications.
            The Department of State is doubling the number of diplomats
            performing consular work in China and Brazil over the next
            year, to ensure that the United States can continue to offer
            timely visa services to qualified applicants. Similarly, the
            first group of newly hired consular adjudicators recently
            arrived at United States consulates in Brazil and China. These
            adjudicators were hired under a landmark program targeting
            recruits who already speak Portuguese or Mandarin.
        Additionally, Interior agencies have made it easier for more
    partners to become third-party vendors of the ``America the Beautiful''
    $80 pass which provides visitor access, including international
    visitors, to hundreds of public lands destinations nationwide. They are
    actively reaching out and encouraging partners to both sell the pass
    online, at trade shows, and in other tourism venues as well as to
    develop promotions for buying and using the pass. The goal is to
    increase sales to both Americans and international visitors, who will
    then have an incentive to visit more destinations and lesser known
    locations, and to extend their stays.
        Question. How has COE worked with the Department to support the
    outdoor recreation initiatives promoted by the interagency council?
        Answer. Through the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, seven
    agencies were identified for inclusion in the Federal Interagency
    Council on Outdoor Recreation including:
      --COE;
      --National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Commerce);
      --USFS (Agriculture);
      --NPS;
      --FWS;
      --Bureau of Reclamation; and
      --BLM (Interior) to coordinate Federal land and water recreation
            management efforts.
        The Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation (FICOR) has
    worked closely with existing Federal Advisory Committee Act bodies that
    support recreational activities, including the Wildlife and Hunting
    Heritage Conservation Council, the 21st Century Conservation Service
    Corps Committee, the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, the
    First Lady's Let's Move! Initiative, and the President's Council on
    Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition to promote better integration and
    coordination among the Federal agencies in support of providing outdoor
    recreation opportunities for Americans. FICOR has identified two high-
    priority actions, including support for the National Travel and Tourism
    Strategy to promote domestic and international tourism on Federal lands
    and waters, and enhancements to the Federal Interagency Recreation Web
    site--recreation.gov.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

        Question. States have complained that the length of the Coastal
    Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) grant approval process is too long and
    cumbersome. For years I have relayed the frustration Mississippi
    coastal communities have experienced with this program. Last year, the
    administration transferred management to the Fish and Wildlife Service
    (FWS) stating that this would lead to a more efficient process and
    expeditious delivery of funds. Can you please provide details on the
    progress being made in addressing these concerns?
        Answer. To address these concerns, FWS began meeting with all of
    the affected States starting in May 2011, to discuss the issues and
    develop a transition plan to minimize the impact on States and Coastal
    Political Subdivision (CPS) operations. As a result of these
    discussions, on October 1, 2011, FWS began to encourage submission of
    CIAP applications and the obligation of funds. We centralized the grant
    administration into the Washington office and hired and trained a
    professional grants management team to review and award grants.
    Additionally, we have added a technical guidance function in each of
    the States to provide a State liaison to work closely with the
    recipients of CIAP funds. Five of the six States presently have a State
    liaison, with the sixth in the process of being hired. The State
    liaisons in the four gulf States are co-located with State staffs. In
    California and Alaska, the liaisons are located in local FWS offices in
    Sacramento and Anchorage, respectively, to encourage communication and
    expeditious handling of technical questions on planning and proposed
    project issues. The Washington office staff is responsible for the
    technical review, including programmatic and financial aspects that are
    integral to the grant award process. The State liaisons are working
    with the recipients in the pre-award phase to guide the planning
    process, develop project proposals and to help improve the quality of
    initial grant application submissions to alleviate the time consuming
    process of supplemental information requests during review.
        In addition, we have held a national webinar and two national
    teleconferences with CIAP applicants. We have completed a CIAP training
    session in Alaska and are in the process of scheduling training
    workshops for States and CPSs for better CIAP grants management. We
    expect to hold these workshops April through August 2012 in the
    eligible States.
         Question. It is my understanding that the Department of the
    Interior has changed the definition of ``obligated funds'' under CIAP.
    Why?
        Answer. The Department has not changed the definition of obligated
    funds.
        Question. The administration has been quick to highlight increased
    levels of domestic oil and gas production. How much of this is
    attributed to production increases on State and private lands as
    opposed to Federal lands?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior does not administer oil and
    gas from State and private lands. However, as reported by the U.S.
    Energy Information Administration in its March 2012 report ``Sales of
    Fossil Fuels Produced from Federal and Indian Lands, Fiscal Year 2003
    Through Fiscal Year 2011'',production of oil from onshore Federal lands
    in fiscal year 2011 was 112 million barrels, an increase more than the
    108 million barrels produced in fiscal year 2010. Natural gas
    production from Federal lands in fiscal year 2011 was 2,955 billion
    cubic feet, nearly level with the 3,068 billion cubic feet produced in
    fiscal year 2010. Average oil production from Federal lands from fiscal
    year 2005 through fiscal year 2008 was 103 million barrels. Average oil
    production increased from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2011 to
    108 million barrels. Average gas production from Federal lands from
    fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008 was 2,892 billion cubic feet.
    Average gas production, too, increased from fiscal year 2009 through
    fiscal year 2011 to 3,064 billion cubic feet.
        Question. The President has called for an ``all-of-the-above''
    approach to addressing our Nation's energy challenges, and while I have
    always supported energy diversification, it seems to me that this
    budget and the proposed offshore oil and gas leasing plan for 2012 to
    2017 does not reflect that. Can you speak to what the Department is
    doing to explore and develop new energy resources, in the Gulf of
    Mexico specifically, that could lower gas prices and strengthen our
    energy security?
        Answer. When President Obama took office, the United States
    imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. The President has put forward
    a plan to cut that by one-third by 2025. The administration is taking a
    series of steps to execute the Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, a
    broad effort to protect consumers by producing more oil and gas at home
    and reducing our dependence on conventional energy resources by using
    cleaner, alternative fuels and improving our energy efficiency. The
    Blueprint is a plan that calls for an ``all-of-the-above'' approach.
    The administration is moving ahead with a comprehensive energy plan for
    the country that is enhancing our energy security, creating jobs, and
    improving protections for the environment. In 2011, American oil
    production reached its highest level since 2003, and total U.S. natural
    gas production reached an all-time high.
        The Department of the Interior plays an important role in advancing
    domestic production. Last November, I announced a proposed Outer
    Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017 that
    would make areas containing more than 75 percent of undiscovered
    technically recoverable oil and gas resources estimated in Federal
    offshore areas available for exploration and development. The proposed
    program focuses on six offshore areas where there are currently active
    leases and/or exploration, and where there is known or anticipated
    hydrocarbon potential. Three of the six areas are in the Gulf of
    Mexico, which is and will remain one of the cornerstones of America's
    energy portfolio and is central to our country's energy security. The
    gulf, in particular the deepwater areas, already has several world
    class producing basins and there have been a number of significant new
    discoveries in the last year. We estimate that the Central Gulf of
    Mexico holds more than 30 billion barrels of oil and 133.9 trillion
    cubic feet of natural gas yet to be discovered. This is nearly double
    the estimated technically recoverable resource potential of the Chukchi
    Sea. The Western Gulf of Mexico is just behind the Chukchi with more
    than 12 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and nearly 70
    trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas.
        We have been providing incentives to spur efficient oil and gas
    development where possible using administrative action. Offshore,
    existing authorities make it possible to shorten the base term of
    leases, where appropriate, and reward diligent development efforts with
    lease extensions, providing industry with an incentive to develop its
    existing leases. The proposed 2012-2017 lease sales in the Gulf of
    Mexico consider offering all the unleased available acreage, including
    the small portion of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area that is
    not under congressional moratorium pursuant to the Gulf of Mexico
    Energy Security Act of 2006.
        Moving ahead with the ``all-of-the-above'' strategy will reduce
    dependence on foreign oil, thereby enhancing energy security and
    helping us as we transition to a cleaner energy future. However, it
    will not have a direct impact on the price of gasoline, which is
    overwhelmingly dictated by the global price of crude oil. There are
    other actions that the administration has taken that can have longer-
    term impacts on the demand for gasoline, which is why the President set
    an ambitious goal that by 2015 we would have 1 million electric
    vehicles on the road, becoming the world's leader in advance vehicle
    technologies. To help reach this goal, the President is proposing bold
    steps to improve the efficiency of all modes of transportation and to
    develop alternative fuels. The administration continues to push forward
    on fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. The President has
    proposed to speed the adoption of electric vehicles with new, more
    effective tax credits for consumers and support for communities that
    create an environment for widespread adoption of these advanced
    vehicles in the near term. These actions are already helping to lower
    transportation costs by reducing dependence on oil, provide more
    transportation choices to the American people, and revitalize the U.S.
    manufacturing sector.
        Question. I am curious to know if the Historic Preservation Fund
    contains any public-private partnership opportunities to fund bricks
    and mortar projects, previously carried out by grants from Save
    America's Treasures program?
        Answer. Development (bricks and mortar) projects are an eligible
    activity under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). State and
    Tribal Historic Preservation Offices may choose to use their annual
    Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) grants to fund development activities
    at National Register listed properties. Additionally, the NHPA requires
    that States direct 10 percent of their annual HPF allotment to
    Certified Local Governments (CLGs). Each State sets the parameters of
    the types of projects CLGs can complete with this funding, and may
    choose to allow CLGs to fund development projects.
        Most States and tribes, however, currently use the majority of
    their HPF grant funds to carry out nondiscretionary activities mandated
    by the NHPA, including consultation with Federal agencies on the impact
    of Federal undertakings (section 106 compliance), survey and inventory
    of historic properties, listing properties in the National Register,
    and administering CLGs. After this work has been completed, little
    funding generally remains to complete development projects. Similarly,
    few States currently choose to include development projects as an
    eligible project type for CLGs subgrants, because the amount each State
    distributes to CLGs is small. The average CLG subgrant in fiscal year
    2011 was $2,600. The projects CLGs complete generally include survey of
    historic properties, National Register listings, and educational
    resources.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Reed. With that, again, thank you, and the hearing
    is concluded.
        [Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., Wednesday, February 29, 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 2013

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2012

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Reed, Tester, and Murkowski.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                           Bureau of Land Management

    STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT V. ABBEY, DIRECTOR

                     OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

        Senator Reed. Let me call the hearing to order. Good
    morning. I want to welcome our witnesses to the subcommittee's
    oversight hearing on Federal offshore and onshore energy
    development programs within the Department of the Interior.
        On behalf of the members of the Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies Subcommittee, I'd like to welcome our panel
    and thank everyone for joining us here today.
        Now, before us, we have the Honorable Robert V. Abbey,
    who's the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); the
    Honorable Tommy P. Beaudreau, Director of the Bureau of Ocean
    Energy Management (BOEM); and the Honorable James Watson,
    Director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
    (BSEE). Gentlemen, thank you.
        Director Beaudreau and Director Watson, this is your first
    hearing before the subcommittee as heads of these two new
    bureaus which were created in October of last year, so we
    wanted to offer a special welcome to both of you.
        As many of you know, the subcommittee was fortunate to have
    the opportunity to discuss many aspects of energy development
    when Secretary Salazar appeared before us 2 weeks ago. In
    particular, I'm especially grateful that we had the opportunity
    to discuss with him the potential for offshore wind development
    to create new manufacturing and assembly jobs and to generate
    renewable energy in my home State of Rhode Island and in other
    States.
        However, and I know that many of my colleagues on both
    sides of the aisle will agree, there is much more to discuss
    about energy policy, which is why we've convened this hearing
    today.
        Making sure that the right resources and policies are in
    place and that safe and responsible energy development on
    public lands is a significant part of this subcommittee's
    jurisdiction. The three agencies that we have before this
    subcommittee today all play a huge role in ensuring the success
    of the President's energy strategy by overseeing both
    conventional and renewable energy development on Federal lands
    and in our Federal waters.
        We must ensure that these three agencies have the right
    resources with staffing in place to perform their permanent
    inspections and enforce their duties. That is why I think it's
    important to start with an overview of where these agencies are
    in terms of their fiscal year 2013 budget requests.
        For the offshore perspective, the budget proposed a large
    increase to BSEE for a total of $222.2 million. That's a 13-
    percent increase or $24.8 million more than fiscal year 2012
    funding levels.
        The President's request also continues the inspection fee
    program that the Congress established last year and proposes to
    collect $65 million in inspection fees from drilling operations
    to offset the appropriations request.
        The budget request also includes a total program level for
    BOEM of $164.1 million. That's a $3 million increase more than
    the fiscal year 2012 levels, or approximately 2 percent.
        Finally, the budget includes a program level of $173.4
    million for BLM energy program. That's a $33 million increase
    more than the fiscal year 2012 level or approximately 23
    percent.
        The budget request also includes a new $48 million
    inspection fee program similar to the one we enacted last year
    for BSEE that will offset the appropriations request. I'm
    anxious to hear from Director Abbey how these fees would be
    used to strengthen energy development on BLM lands.
        We're also going to take a look this morning at the
    progress that's being made to better process offshore and
    onshore permits and efforts that these agencies have made to
    recruit, hire and train new petroleum engineers and inspection
    personnel.
        Since the Deepwater Horizon incident less than 2 years ago,
    major reforms have been made to the way the Interior Department
    oversees the planning, leasing, and permitting processes for
    offshore energy development. I understand that concerns are
    being raised about whether the administration is acting quickly
    enough to exploit our offshore energy reserves.
        It is also important to note that lease sales are underway
    and permits have in fact been approved since the incident
    including a total of 325 deepwater drilling permits and an
    additional 116 shallow water drilling permits approved in the
    Gulf of Mexico as of Monday, March 12.
        As we move ahead, I think the administration must strike
    the proper balance between the speed of processing and ensuring
    that industry is drilling responsibly and safely especially in
    the context of the largest oil spill in our Nation's history
    which we saw with the Deepwater Horizon incident.
        The same can also be said for making sure that we are
    addressing onshore energy development in a thoughtful and
    environmentally sensitive manner. I look forward to discussing
    efforts to improve the BLM inspection process, particularly
    related to the steep rise in the use of hydraulic fracking on
    public lands.
        Now, before we hear from our panel, I'd like to recognize
    Ranking Member, Senator Murkowski, and other colleagues if
    they'd like to speak.
        Senator Reed. Senator Murkowski.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
    our witnesses. I appreciate all that each of you do. It was
    nice to visit with you, Director Beaudreau. It's always nice to
    have an Alaskan at the helm. You clearly understand what we're
    faced with so on many of these issues. But, again, welcome to
    each of you.
        As Americans face steeply rising energy costs, it's
    important that this subcommittee ensure that the agencies that
    sit before us today have the resources that they need and the
    right policies are in place to maximize domestic production
    from our Federal lands in an environmentally responsible
    manner.
        Now, a number of new authorities were included in last
    year's Interior bill that I hope will give your agencies the
    tools necessary to improve the pace of permitting and increase
    our domestic production.
        For example, new fees on offshore operators were authorized
    and 50 percent of these collections must be used to expand
    capacity and expedite the development of the Outer Continental
    Shelf (OCS). Authority was also given to pay higher salaries
    for certain critical job positions in order to address the
    problems with hiring sufficient numbers of key personnel to
    review the exploration plans and the process permits in a
    timely fashion, as the chairman has mentioned.
        Finally, the responsibility for reviewing air quality
    issues in the Arctic OCS was transferred from the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) to BOEM to deal with egregious
    permitting delays, almost 6 years in one case. I'd like to hear
    from all of you today about how these new authorities are being
    utilized, and whether you believe that you've got the tools
    that you need to improve the pace of permitting and increase
    production both on and offshore.
        Improving the Department's performance is particularly
    important to me in light of recent Department of the Interior
    reports that indicate that while overall production
    domestically is at an all-time high, but it's not necessarily
    the case on Federal lands and waters.
        ENE News recently reported the production of natural gas
    declined by 11 percent in fiscal year 2011 and oil production
    declined by 14 percent. A significant portion of this is
    clearly the result of the moratorium that was put in place in
    the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon.
        So I would like to explore with you today what the current
    pace of permitting is in the gulf; how many drilling rigs are
    operating; whether the improvements have been made to improve
    and accelerate the approval of exploration plans and drilling
    permits.
        I think there is a difference of opinion out there between
    the Department and the industry on whether or not things are
    improving. So I would like to hear your perspective on that.
        The discrepancy between production on State and private
    lands versus Federal lands also concerns me as I look at the
    new policies that are proposed in the fiscal year 2013 budget
    that will make leasing on Federal lands less competitive.
        When companies have the option of oil exploration on large
    new reserves on State and private lands, whether it's North
    Dakota or Texas, or for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale, I
    question the wisdom of proposals to increase Federal onshore
    royalty rates and put in place new inspection and drilling
    fees, and charge a fee on the so-called nonproducing leases.
        It seems to me that this is just taking us in a direction
    that will make our Federal lands less competitive, and we may
    see a continued trend of more investment fleeing to the
    stateside into the private lands or possibly even to other
    countries.
        Again, I thank the witnesses for joining us and for the
    work that they do within their respective agencies and look
    forward to the questions.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. I just have to
    point something out. Mr. Beaudreau is from Alaska, but his
    father is from Woonsocket, Rhode Island. So that is either the
    shrewdest appointment ever made----
        Senator Murkowski. Way to go. Phenomenal.
        Senator Reed [continuing]. Or the luckiest appointment ever
    made, and only time will tell.
        Senator Murkowski. I'm sure he also has ties to Montana.
        Senator Reed. If not, he's bought a cabin there. Senator
    Tester, do you have any comments?

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER

        Senator Tester. I would. Thank you, Chairman Reed, and
    Ranking Member Murkowski for holding this hearing today, and I
    want to welcome Mr. Abbey, Mr. Beaudreau, and Mr. Watson to the
    hearing this morning.
        I want to say just a few quick words about the fiscal year
    2013 Department of the Interior budget. First, there's been a
    lot of talk about oil and gas leasing and development in the
    United States and the need to expand the developments, reduce
    our dependence on foreign oil. And I firmly believe that we do
    need to reduce our dependence on imported oil.
        We are giving $1 billion a day to countries that don't
    necessarily like us much and that hasn't done us much good in
    securing and developing our economy or enhancing our national
    security.
        But I think it's important we don't confuse reducing our
    dependence on foreign oil with reducing prices at the pump. We
    all know the price of gasoline isn't just about supply and
    demand factors and the talking point of ``drill baby drill''
    isn't getting us those desired results. So let's be honest
    about the facts.
        Drilling is up. There are more drilling rigs in the United
    States than there are anywhere else in the world. Production is
    up. We're producing more than we have in the last 8 years.
    Dependence on imported oil is declining. Consumption,
    domestically, is down.
        But we are facing competition from China for oil, and that
    is driving the world price as well as speculators influencing
    the market and adding as much as 56 cents a gallon at the pump.
    All this is to say that we need to look at an ``all-the-above''
    solution. There is no magic bullet.
        In Montana, energy production is fueling our economy,
    literally, with the Bakken Field, we're producing nearly
    500,000 barrels per day. I'm proud Montana is a part of that
    expanding energy, domestic energy solution.
        But I also want to point out that this hearing isn't just
    about extracting traditional fuels from public lands. We also
    need to permit renewable energy projects in a timely manner. We
    need to put just as much effort into those leasing and
    approvals of those projects to secure our energy future.
        And I look forward to visiting with each one of you today
    and, particularly, you, Bob, about getting more renewable
    energy up and running. I look forward to visiting with you
    about those throughout this hearing and hearings to come.
        Senator Tester. And, once again, I want to thank Chairman
    Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski, for holding this hearing.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator. Gentlemen, your
    statements are part of the record, so you may be free to
    summarize your comments and Mr. Abbey, please begin.

                      SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ABBEY

        Mr. Abbey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of
    the subcommittee. It's always a pleasure to appear before you
    today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2013 energy and
    minerals budget request for BLM. In the interests of time, I
    will keep my opening remarks quite brief.
        BLM, as many of you know already, is responsible for
    managing more than 245 million acres of public lands primarily
    in the 12 Western States, as well as approximately 700 million
    acres of onshore subsurface mineral estate nationwide.
        BLM's unique multiple-use management of public lands
    includes activities as varied as livestock grazing, outdoor
    recreation and conservation of natural, historical, cultural,
    and other important resources. America's public lands provide
    resources that are critical to the Nation's energy security and
    will continue to play an important role in domestic energy
    production, in mineral development, for decades to come.
        Our management of public land resources and protection of
    public land values results in extraordinary economic benefits
    to local communities and to this Nation. It is estimated that
    in 2011, BLM's management of public lands contributed more than
    $120 billion to the national economy and supported more than
    550,000 American jobs.
        BLM's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal reflects the
    administration's efforts to maximize public benefits while
    recognizing the reality of the current fiscal situation.
        The New Energy Frontier Initiative recognizes the value of
    environmentally sound, scientifically grounded development of
    both conventional and renewable energy resources on public
    lands. Conventional energy resources on these public lands
    continue to play a critical role in meeting the Nation's energy
    needs, producing 41 percent of the Nation's coal, 13 percent of
    natural gas, and 5 percent of the domestically produced oil.
        During 2011, BLM held 32 onshore oil and gas lease sales
    covering more than 4 million acres. Onshore mineral leasing
    revenues are estimated to be $4.4 billion in 2013. The fiscal
    year 2013 budget strengthens BLM's oil and gas inspection
    capability through a proposed fee on oil and gas producers
    similar to the fees now charged for offshore inspections.
        Collection of these fees is consistent with the principle
    that users of the public lands pay for both the cost of use
    authorizations and for providing for oversight activities. This
    fee will generate an estimated $48 million to improve safety
    and production inspections for oil and gas operations.
        President Obama, Secretary Salazar and this Congress have
    stressed the critical importance of renewable energy to the
    Nation's energy security, job creation, and long-term economic
    development. To date, Secretary Salazar has approved 29
    commercial-scale, renewable-energy projects on public lands,
    and these include 16 solar, 5 wind, and 8 geothermal projects
    that represent more than 6,500 megawatts and 12,500 jobs.
        BLM's fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a $5 million
    increase for these efforts, and we do intend to reach our goal
    of almost 11,000 megawatts of renewable energy production in
    2013.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Finally, the budget proposes legislative initiatives to
    reform hard-rock mining, remediate abandoned mines and
    encourage diligent development of nonproducing oil and gas
    leases.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, again, thank you
    for this time.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Robert V. Abbey

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear here today to discuss the President's fiscal year
    2013 energy and minerals budget request for the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM).
        BLM, an agency of the Department of the Interior (DOI), is
    responsible for managing our national system of public lands, which are
    located primarily in 12 Western States, including Alaska. BLM
    administers more than 245 million surface acres, more than any other
    Federal agency. BLM also manages approximately 700 million acres of
    onshore subsurface mineral estate throughout the Nation. BLM's unique
    multiple-use management of public lands includes activities as varied
    as energy production, mineral development, livestock grazing, outdoor
    recreation, and the conservation of natural, historical, cultural, and
    other important resources. BLM is one of a handful of Federal agencies
    that generates more revenue than it spends.

                  blm deg.MEETING OUR NATION'S NEEDS

        BLM's management of public land resources and protection of public
    land values results in extraordinary economic benefits to local
    communities and to the Nation, helping to contribute more than $120
    billion annually to the national economy and supporting more than
    550,000 American full and part-time jobs according to the Department of
    the Interior Economic Contributions report of June 21, 2011. Energy and
    mineral resources generate the highest revenue values of any uses of
    the public lands from royalties, rents, bonuses, sales, and fees.
        These benefits are not only economic, but also contribute
    substantially to America's energy security. During calendar year 2011,
    BLM held 32 onshore oil and gas lease sales--covering nearly 4.4
    million acres--which generated about $256 million in revenue for
    American taxpayers. Onshore mineral leasing revenues are estimated to
    be $4.4 billion in 2013. The 2011 lease sale revenues are 20-percent
    more than those in calendar year 2010. There are currently more than 38
    million acres of Federal mineral estate under oil and gas lease, and
    since only about 32 percent of that acreage is currently in production,
    BLM is working to provide greater incentives for lessees to make
    production a priority. In fiscal year 2011, DOI collected royalties on
    more than 97 million barrels of oil produced from onshore Federal
    minerals. Moreover, the production of nearly 3 trillion cubic feet of
    natural gas made it one of the most productive years on record.
        Meanwhile, the coal produced from more than 300 Federal coal
    leases, on nearly a one-half million acres of Federal mineral estate,
    generated more than $780 million in royalties. This coal is used to
    generate electricity in at least 40 States, accounting for more than
    one-fifth of all electricity generated across the country. BLM held
    four coal leases sales in 2011. BLM accepted bonus bids of more than
    $700 million for these four lease sales, underscoring the
    administration's commitment to the goals of energy security and job
    creation.
        BLM also is leading the Nation on the new energy frontier, actively
    promoting solar, wind, and geothermal energy development. Under
    Secretary Salazar, BLM has approved permits for 29 commercial-scale
    renewable energy projects on public lands or the transmission
    associated with them since 2009. This includes 16 solar, 5 wind, and 8
    geothermal projects. Together, these projects represent more than 6,500
    megawatts (MW) and 12,500 jobs, and when built will power about 1.3
    million homes. In addition, DOI has identified more than 3,000 miles of
    transmission lines for expedited review. Enhanced development of wind
    power is a key component of our Nation's energy strategy for the
    future. There are currently 437 MW of installed wind power capacity on
    BLM-managed public lands, but there are 20 million acres of public
    lands with wind potential. Additionally, nearly one-half of U.S.
    geothermal energy production capacity is from Federal leases. The
    fiscal year 2013 budget reflects a goal of permitting a total of 11,000
    MW of clean renewable energy by the end of 2013.

               blm deg.FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET OVERVIEW

        BLM's fiscal year 2013 energy and minerals budget makes significant
    investments in America's economy, while making difficult choices to
    offset priority funding increases. Investments in this budget will
    promote America's energy production at home and grow America's economy.
    The proposed budget for BLM makes a strategic investment in support of
    the New Energy Frontier, an important Secretarial initiative.
    Investment in this program today will reap benefits for years to come.
        The total fiscal year 2013 BLM budget request is $1.1 billion in
    current authority, which is essentially the same as the fiscal year
    2012 enacted level. The budget proposes $952 million for BLM
    appropriation and $112 million for the Oregon and California grant
    lands appropriation, BLM's two main operating accounts. The budget
    makes strategic funding shifts to target high-priority initiatives,
    scales back on lower-priority programs, and sustains and expands energy
    program activities. The budget also includes several important
    legislative proposals linked to the uses of lands and resources,
    including proposals to fund the remediation of abandoned hardrock
    mines; to provide a fair return to the taxpayer from the production of
    several hardrock minerals on Federal lands; to encourage diligent
    development of oil and gas leases; to repeal a prohibition on charging
    oil and gas permitting fees along with associated mandatory funds; and
    to reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act. This
    testimony focuses on BLM's energy and mineral resources programs.

         blm deg.PROMOTING AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION AT HOME

        The fiscal year 2013 budget continues DOI's new energy frontier
    initiative to create jobs, reduce the Nation's dependence on fossil
    fuels and oil imports, and reduce carbon impacts. The Secretary's new
    energy frontier initiative emphasizes the value of scientifically
    based, environmentally sound development of both renewable and
    conventional energy resources on the Nation's public lands.
    Facilitating renewable energy development is a major component of this
    strategy along with effective management of conventional energy
    programs. BLM's proposed fiscal year 2013 budget advances the goals of
    the initiative by including priority funding for both renewable and
    conventional energy development on public lands.
        Renewable Energy.--President Obama, Secretary Salazar, and the
    Congress have stressed the critical importance of renewable energy to
    the future of the United States. Success in attaining the Nation's
    goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate climate change, and
    protect the global environment relies on sustained efforts to develop
    renewable energy resources. Renewable energy production is vital to our
    Nation's long-term economic development and energy security. The
    development of renewable energy creates American jobs and promotes
    innovation in the United States while reducing the country's reliance
    on fossil fuels.
        BLM continues to make significant progress in promoting renewable
    energy development on the public lands in 2012, including working to
    approve additional large-scale solar energy projects and complete a
    draft Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to provide for
    landscape-scale siting of solar energy projects on public lands. The
    agency is working on wind development mitigation strategies with wind
    energy applicants and other Federal agencies, and is currently
    reviewing more than 45 wind energy applications. Additionally, the
    transmission infrastructure required to deliver renewable energy from
    production facilities to major markets relies on corridors across BLM-
    managed lands.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes a total program
    increase of $7 million in the Renewable Energy Management program,
    including $5 million in new funding. This will support additional
    environmental studies to accelerate the identification of prime areas
    for utility-scale renewable energy project development. It will also
    enable BLM to continue ongoing program management responsibilities
    associated with geothermal energy development by replacing mandatory
    funding previously provided by the Geothermal Steam Act Implementation
    Fund, for which new deposits have ceased. The remaining $2 million
    increase is a transfer of geothermal funds from the oil and gas
    management program to BLM's renewable energy program.
        Conventional Energy.--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.
    Secretary Salazar has emphasized that conventional energy resources on
    BLM-managed lands continue to play a critical role in meeting the
    Nation's energy needs. Conventional energy development from public
    lands produces 41 percent of the Nation's coal, 13 percent of the
    natural gas, and 5 percent of the domestically produced oil. DOI's
    balanced approach to responsible conventional energy development
    combines onshore oil and gas policy reforms with effective budgeting to
    provide appropriate planning and support for conventional energy
    development.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes an increase of $2.4 million in
    appropriated funding to be utilized for inspection and enforcement of
    coal production on Federal and Indian lands. The requested increase
    will fund the program at roughly the 2011 enacted level. BLM will
    continue efforts to institute cost-recovery fees within this program,
    but recognizes these fees may not be in place by the start of 2013.
        The President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposes $13 million in oil
    and gas program increases to provide industry with timely access to
    Federal oil and gas resources, backed by the certainty of defensible
    environmental analysis. Of that increase, a $5 million program increase
    will restore BLM's leasing and oversight capacity to the 2011 enacted
    level. An additional $3 million will be used for large, regional-scale
    studies and environmental impact statements for oil and gas leasing and
    development issues. Finally, an additional $5 million programmatic
    increase will allow BLM to fully implement its leasing reform strategy
    without sacrificing other important program goals.
        BLM is committed to ensuring oil and gas production is carried out
    responsibly. To accomplish this, BLM performs inspections to ensure
    that lessees meet environmental, safety, and production reporting
    requirements. BLM recently initiated a program using a risk-based
    inspection protocol for production inspections, based on production
    levels and histories. Success realized in this program will support
    expansion of this risk-based strategy to the other types of inspections
    the BLM performs. The risk-based strategy will maximize the use of
    inspection staff to better meet BLM inspection goals and requirements
    in the future.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to expand and strengthen BLM's
    oil and gas inspection capability through new fee collections from
    industry, similar to the fees now charged for offshore inspections.
    Collection of these fees is consistent with the principle that users of
    the public lands should pay for the costs of use authorizations and the
    costs associated with the oversight of authorized activities. The
    inspection fee schedule included in the budget is estimated to generate
    $48 million in collections, which would offset a proposed reduction of
    $38 million in BLM's appropriated funds, while providing for a net
    increase of $10 million in funds available for this critical BLM
    management responsibility. The increased funding is aimed at correcting
    deficiencies identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    in its February 2011 report, which designated Federal management of oil
    and gas resources including production and revenue collection as high
    risk. The $10 million increase will help BLM achieve the high-priority
    goal of increasing the completion of inspections of Federal and Indian
    high risk oil and gas cases by 9 percent more than fiscal year 2011
    levels. BLM will also complete more environmental inspections to ensure
    environmental requirements are being followed in all phases of
    development. Fee levels will be based on the number of oil and gas
    wells per lease so that costs are shared equitably across the industry.
        To encourage diligent development of new oil and gas leases, the
    administration is proposing a per-acre fee on each nonproducing lease
    issued after enactment of the proposal. The $4-per-acre fee on
    nonproducing Federal leases (onshore and offshore) would provide a
    financial incentive for oil and gas companies to either put their
    leases into production or relinquish them so that tracts can be re-
    leased and developed by new parties.
        The administration believes that American taxpayers should get a
    fair return on the development of energy resources on their public
    lands. A 2008 GAO report suggests that taxpayers could be getting a
    better return from Federal oil and gas resources in some areas. To this
    end, the administration is developing a proposed rule to address
    onshore royalty rates.

       blm deg.ABANDONED MINE LANDS AND HARDROCK MINING REFORM
                                   PROPOSALS

        The budget includes legislative proposals to address AML hazards on
    both public and private lands and to provide a fair return to the
    taxpayer from hardrock production on Federal lands. The first component
    addresses abandoned hardrock mines across the country through a new AML
    fee on hardrock production. Just as the coal industry is held
    responsible for abandoned coal sites, the administration proposes to
    hold the hardrock mining industry responsible for abandoned hardrock
    mines. The proposal will levy an AML fee on all uranium and metallic
    mines on both public and private lands that will be charged on the
    volume of material displaced after January 1, 2013. The receipts will
    be distributed by BLM through a competitive grant program to restore
    the Nation's most hazardous hardrock AML sites on both public and
    private lands using an advisory council comprising of representatives
    of Federal agencies, States, tribes, and nongovernment organizations.
    The advisory council will recommend objective criteria to rank AML
    projects to allocate funds for remediation to the sites with the most
    urgent environmental and safety hazards. The proposed hardrock AML fee
    and reclamation program would operate in parallel to the coal AML
    reclamation program, as two parts of a larger effort to ensure that the
    Nation's most dangerous coal and hardrock AML sites are addressed by
    the industries that created the problems.
        The budget also includes a legislative proposal to institute a
    leasing process under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 for certain
    minerals (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 a leasing
    process and subject to annual rental payments and a royalty of not less
    than 5 percent of gross proceeds. One-half of the royalty receipts
    would be distributed to the States in which the leases are located and
    the remaining half would be deposited in the Treasury. Pre-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. However, holders of pre-existing mining
    claims for these minerals could voluntarily convert their claims to
    leases. The Office of Natural Resources Revenue in DOI will collect,
    account for, and disburse the hardrock royalty receipts.

                  blm deg.REDUCTIONS AND EFFICIENCIES

        BLM's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal reflects many difficult
    choices in order to support priority initiatives and needs while
    supporting the President's commitment to fiscal discipline and spending
    restraint. In fiscal year 2013, BLM is requesting a decrease of $2
    million for its abandoned mine lands program. BLM will continue to fund
    the highest-priority sites, as determined through its ongoing ranking
    process. Red Devil Mine reclamation activities remain a high priority.

                                   CONCLUSION

        BLM's fiscal year 2013 budget request for energy and minerals
    programs provides funding for the agency's highest-priority energy and
    minerals initiatives, while making difficult but responsible choices
    for reductions to offset some of these funding priorities. Our public
    lands and resources play an important role in American lives,
    economies, and communities and include some of our Nation's greatest
    assets. This budget request reflects the administration's commitment to
    encourage responsible energy development on the public lands, as well
    as to ensure the American people receive a fair return for the public's
    resources. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
    BLM energy and mineral budget request for fiscal year 2013. I will be
    pleased to answer any questions you may have.

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Director Abbey. Director
    Beaudreau.

                       Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

    STATEMENT OF HON. TOMMY P. BEAUDREAU, DIRECTOR
        Senator Reed. Please turn on your microphone.
        Mr. Beaudreau. Okay. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Reed, Ranking
    Member Murkowski, and Senator Tester.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss
    the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for BOEM, and
    for the opportunity to provide these brief opening remarks.
        As we know, the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and oil
    spill in the Gulf of Mexico spurred the administration to
    undertake the most aggressive and comprehensive reforms to
    offshore oil and gas regulation in United States history.
        Central to these reforms are the structural changes we have
    made to Federal oversight, including the establishment of new,
    independent agencies with clearly defined missions to provide
    effective management and strong safety oversight of the
    development of our shared offshore energy and mineral
    resources.
        Simply put, BOEM is responsible for overseeing the
    environmentally and economically responsible development of our
    country's abundant offshore conventional and renewable energy
    resources. This includes promoting responsible offshore oil and
    gas development as well as renewable energy projects such as
    offshore wind.
        BOEM's decisionmaking must closely consider the resource
    potential of geographic regions on the OCS, the critical role
    offshore energy development plays in the mix of resources
    necessary to meet the Nation's energy demands, the significance
    of offshore oil and gas to the economy and employment, and the
    vital need for environmental protection and responsible
    stewardship.
        These are priorities and values shared by everyone in this
    room. This budget request is designed to provide BOEM with the
    resources necessary to advance our commitment to a
    comprehensive all-of-the-above energy strategy that encourages
    safe and responsible domestic oil and gas exploration and
    development as well as pushes forward with the development of
    offshore wind and other clean, renewable-energy resources.
        The resources we have requested will allow BOEM to continue
    pursuing our programmatic priorities which include, one,
    finalizing and implementing the next 5-year offshore oil and
    gas leasing program which as proposed will include 15 potential
    lease sales and make available more than 75 percent of the
    undiscovered but recoverable oil and gas resources offshore of
    the United States.
        Two. Conducting the rigorous scientific and environmental
    analyses that are necessary at all stages of the offshore
    energy development process. Last December, we held the first
    lease sale following the spill which was one of the most
    successful in the history of the Western Gulf of Mexico.
        We will hold a consolidated lease sale for the Central Gulf
    of Mexico on June 20. Planning for both of these sales included
    rigorous analyses of available information concerning the
    environmental effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
        Three. We continue to conduct efficient and thorough
    reviews of offshore exploration and development plans under the
    new heightened standards which include site specific
    environmental assessments on every deepwater exploration and
    development plan.
        Four. We've implemented innovative lease terms that ensure
    that the American taxpayer receives fair return and that
    provides strong incentives for industry to diligently develop
    their lease holdings offshore to meet our energy needs.
        Finally, we are on the forefront of development of offshore
    renewable energy resources. Over the next year and beyond, we
    expect to issue a number of commercial leases for offshore wind
    development particularly along the Atlantic coast.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        BOEM is focused on its mission to help the United States
    secure its energy future through responsible development of
    conventional and renewable offshore energy. Thank you and thank
    this subcommittee for its continuing support of our mission and
    our efforts.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Tommy P. Beaudreau

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear here today to discuss the President's fiscal year
    2013 budget request for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
    within the Department of the Interior (DOI).
        This request is designed to provide the resources necessary to
    advance BOEM's commitment to effective and efficient management and
    oversight of the Nation's offshore resources as part of our
    comprehensive energy strategy to encourage safe and responsible
    domestic oil and gas exploration and development, as well as to expand
    development of clean and abundant renewable energy resources.
        With the guidance, support, and oversight of the Congress, the
    Obama administration has been implementing the most aggressive and
    comprehensive reforms to offshore oil and gas regulation in U.S.
    history following the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in the
    Gulf of Mexico. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) was restructured
    into three new, independent entities, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy
    Management (BOEM) took on the role of effective and efficient
    management and oversight of the Nation's offshore resources as part of
    our comprehensive strategy to encourage safe and responsible domestic
    oil and gas exploration and development. BOEM is also committed to
    expand development of clean and abundant renewable energy resources.
    Both activities support job growth and healthy local economies, and
    this budget request is designed to provide the resources necessary to
    advance this commitment.
        In order to ensure an efficient and integrated approach to offshore
    energy development, BOEM and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
    Enforcement (BSEE) work together closely and certain functions remain
    linked and require close coordination. As you will hear from my
    colleague, Director James Watson, BSEE functions as the offshore safety
    authority, charged with enforcement of the strengthened safety and
    environmental standards implemented in the aftermath of Deepwater
    Horizon. We designed the reorganization to ensure that both agencies
    operate efficiently and without unnecessarily redundant bureaucracies.
    For example, BOEM and BSEE continue to share administrative
    infrastructure and functions that service both bureaus efficiently.
        For fiscal year 2013, BOEM is requesting an operating level of
    $164.1 million, which includes a base appropriation of $62.7 million
    and $101.4 million in offsetting collections ($98.8 million from rental
    receipts and $2.6 million from cost-recovery fees). BOEM manages the
    Nation's offshore energy and mineral resources in a balanced way that
    promotes efficient and environmentally responsible energy development
    through oil and gas leasing, renewable energy development, and a
    commitment to rigorous, science-based environmental review and study.
    BOEM's functions include offshore leasing, resource evaluation, review
    and administration of oil and gas exploration and development plans,
    renewable energy development, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    analysis, and environmental studies.
        BOEM's organizational structure is designed to advance core
    elements of its mission including:
      --strategic resource development;
      --environmental analysis and applied science; and
      --renewable energy development.

              boem deg.key PRIORITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        Since its establishment on October 1, 2011, BOEM has made
    substantial progress and achieved a number of important priorities.
    These priorities will continue to guide the agency's activities
    throughout the remainder of fiscal year 2012, and form the basis of the
    budget request moving into fiscal year 2013. These priority areas
    include:
          Developing and Implementing the Five-Year Outer Continental Shelf
            Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2007-2012.--In December 2011,
            BOEM held Western Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Lease Sale 218--the last
            Western GOM sale scheduled under the current 5-year program and
            the first sale conducted after completion of a supplemental
            environmental impact statement that considered the effects of
            the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. BOEM has scheduled
            Consolidated Central GOM Sale 216/222, the final sale in the
            current program, for June 20, 2012. In addition, BOEM is
            developing the next 5-year program. Last November, BOEM issued
            the proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing
            Program for 2012-2017, which makes more than 75 percent of
            undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources
            estimated in Federal offshore areas available for exploration
            and development. It advances an innovative, regionally tailored
            approach to offshore oil and gas leasing designed to take into
            account the particular resource potential, environmental and
            social concerns, and infrastructure condition of each planning
            area. BOEM will finalize the program in fiscal year 2012.
          Conducting rigorous scientific and environmental analysis to
            support all stages of the OCS Lands Act process--from pre-sale
            planning through exploration and development. Rigorous
            scientific analysis underlies all of BOEM's decisions. For
            example, BOEM held Western Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 218 after
            conducting necessary environmental analyses to evaluate
            available information concerning the effects of the Deepwater
            Horizon oil spill. BOEM recently completed a similar analysis
            with respect to the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area in
            preparation for Lease Sale 216/222. BOEM has completed an
            extensive supplemental environmental analysis for the Chukchi
            Sea Planning Area that addresses key issues including the
            potential effects of a hypothetical, very large oil spill. The
            analysis supported the Secretary's decision to affirm Chukchi
            Sea Lease Sale 193, originally held in 2008. This analysis
            resulted in Chukchi Lease Sale 193 being judicially upheld, and
            the injunction of those leases being lifted. At the postlease
            stage, BOEM currently conducts site-specific environmental
            assessments on all deepwater exploration and development plans,
            rather than relying on categorical exclusions as had been done
            historically.
          Ensuring a Fair Return.--BOEM lease terms now include a range of
            fiscal and drilling requirements to ensure that taxpayers
            receive fair value and encourage operators to undertake
            diligent development, consistent with the administration's
            Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. Recent changes made in
            lease terms include raising the minimum bid level from $37.50
            per acre to $100 per acre in water depths of 400 meters or
            greater; promulgating policies that reduce the time a lease can
            be held without drilling activity by up to 3 years in water
            depths of 400 to 1,600 meters; and increasing rental rates to
            encourage faster exploration and development of leases. The
            higher minimum bid level strengthens the bidding process and
            supports the goal of ensuring a fair return. It discourages
            bidders from acquiring tracts with the intention to hold them
            undrilled for many years. Lessees who meet the shorter drilling
            timeframes earn three additional years on the lease term as an
            added incentive for timely drilling. BOEM has both increased
            base rental rates and established escalating rentals to
            encourage faster exploration and development of leases, or
            earlier relinquishment when exploration is unlikely to be
            undertaken by the current lessee.
          Conducting Reviews of Exploration and Development Plans.--BOEM
            conducts efficient and thorough reviews of exploration and
            development plans. Consistent with strengthened standards for
            environmental analysis, BOEM is committed to ensuring that its
            process for reviewing and approving plans is rigorous,
            efficient, and transparent. BOEM works collaboratively with
            industry throughout the review of plans, to ensure operators
            understand and comply with BOEM's stronger operational and
            environmental standards and that the review process is
            efficient.
          Advancing Renewable Energy Leasing and Development through the
            ``Smart from the Start'' Initiative.--BOEM has established a
            regulatory framework for renewable energy leasing and
            development on the OCS and has taken critical steps to support
            the development of an offshore wind industry. On April 19,
            2011, Secretary Salazar announced the approval of the Cape Wind
            Associates' Construction and Operations Plan. The Secretary
            signed the Cape Wind lease in 2010, and it is the first
            offshore commercial wind lease in the United States.
          The Secretary's ``Smart from the Start'' Initiative, announced in
            fiscal year 2011, is intended to build on the existing
            regulatory framework and facilitate the efficient and
            environmentally responsible siting, leasing, and construction
            of new wind energy projects in the Atlantic. Recently, BOEM
            completed a number of important steps to advance additional
            lease sales in fiscal year 2013 and beyond, including:
        --developing a commercial lease form and conducting an analysis to
                determine auction formats;
        --completing an environmental assessment to support leasing in wind
                energy areas off of four Mid-Atlantic States; and
        --issuing Calls for Information and Nominations to gauge industry
                interest in the areas offshore Rhode Island, Massachusetts,
                Maryland, and Virginia.
          BOEM also is moving forward with the review for a potential Mid-
            Atlantic Wind Energy Transmission Line, which would enable up
            to 7,000 megawatts of wind turbine capacity to be delivered to
            the electric grid.
          The fiscal year 2013 request continues these efforts and supports
            ongoing collaboration between BOEM, intergovernmental task
            forces, industry, and stakeholders and a continued focus on
            environmental assessment, while developing formats and
            processes for renewable energy lease auctions. BOEM expects to
            hold the first competitive lease sales for offshore wind in
            fiscal year 2013.
          Science-Based Decisionmaking.--A core principle of BOEM is the
            integration of science with decisionmaking through
            comprehensive research and rigorous analysis. The new Office of
            Environmental Programs establishes an umbrella organization
            that integrates applied scientific research and information
            with the environmental analyses that BOEM conducts in support
            of programmatic decisions. This structure facilitates top-
            quality research by talented scientists from a range of
            disciplines, as well as targeted scientific study to support
            policy needs and priorities.
          Strengthening of the Environmental Review Processes.--BOEM is
            committed to setting high standards for analyses conducted in
            compliance with NEPA and other governing statutes, and this
            budget request continues ongoing efforts to strengthen these
            processes. BOEM is conducting a comprehensive review of its
            application of NEPA to ensure that environmental risks are
            thoroughly analyzed, appropriate protective measures are
            implemented, and the process is transparent and well-understood
            within the Federal Government and by stakeholders. This review
            includes an ongoing assessment of the use of categorical
            exclusions. In the interim, BOEM is conducting site-specific
            environmental assessments for all new and revised exploration
            and development plans in deepwater.
          Developing the First Geological and Geophysical Programmatic
            Environmental Impact Statement for Areas in the Mid- and South
            Atlantic.--BOEM is committed to conducting thorough, scientific
            reviews that facilitate a better understanding of potential
            conventional and renewable resources in the Atlantic, which is
            central to our strategy for evaluating potential future leasing
            in the Mid- and South Atlantic. This Programmatic Environmental
            Impact Statement (PEIS) will evaluate potential environmental
            effects of multiple Geological and Geophysical activities, such
            as seismic surveys, conducted to inform future decisions
            regarding oil, natural gas, and renewable energy development on
            the OCS in the mid and south Atlantic planning areas. BOEM will
            issue the draft PEIS this spring.

             boem deg.THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST

        This fiscal year 2013 BOEM budget request is consistent with the
    direction set forth in the fiscal year 2012 budget for BOEM and
    consists of limited funding increases reflecting difficult tradeoffs
    given the tight fiscal constraints. BOEM's fiscal year 2013 request of
    $164.1 million includes careful analysis of the resources needed to
    develop the agency's capacity and to execute its functions carefully,
    responsibly, and efficiently. Consistent with the overall contours of
    BOEM's request, these targeted increases, which amount to $3.3 million
    more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, reflect modest increases
    for renewable energy auction support services, environmental studies,
    and fixed costs--and are necessary to advance administration priorities
    that are vital to BOEM's mission.
          Renewable Energy Auction Support Services (+$1,296,000; 0 FTE).--
            In order to achieve the Secretary's renewable energy goal
            outlined in the ``Smart from the Start'' Initiative, BOEM must
            accelerate the auction schedule of potential wind leases.
            Because it is not yet equipped with the technical support or
            expertise to manage these auctions, BOEM will contract those
            services and purchase wind resource data in the near term.
          Environmental Studies (+$700,000; 0 FTE).--The requested increase
            will enable BOEM to initiate high-priority baseline
            characterization and monitoring studies. With the release of
            the proposed 5-year program, establishing baseline information
            will become an increasing need in order to ensure a scientific
            basis for informed and environmentally responsible policy
            decisions.
          Fixed Costs (+$1,453,000; 0 FTE).--Fixed costs in the amount of
            $1,453,000 are fully funded in this request. These costs
            include increases needed to support employee pay, changes in
            Federal health benefits and worker's compensation, rent to the
            General Services Administration, and payments to the
            Department's Working Capital Fund.
          Offsetting Collections and Cost Recovery (-$322,000; +0 FTE).--
            This requested change reflects a revised net estimate of BOEM's
            fiscal year 2013 offsetting collections and cost-recovery fees.
          Administrative Reduction (-$122,000; +0 FTE).--This reduction
            offsets high-priority increases in the fiscal year 2013 request
            and will be applied by reducing administrative costs within
            BOEM.
        The fiscal year 2013 request also includes legislative proposals
    that directly relate to BOEM's programs including:
          Deep Gas 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.
          Fee on Non-Producing 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 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 other parties. The proposed fee would apply
            to all new leases onshore and offshore 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 $13 million in 2013 and $783 million over 10 years.

                                   CONCLUSION

        BOEM plays a vital role in advancing safe and responsible offshore
    energy development to secure our energy future. Given our environment
    where serious fiscal constraints demand difficult decisions, we
    appreciate the critical resources the Congress has provided in recent
    appropriations--including investment in robust science to inform
    decisions relating to ocean energy policy and management and
    appropriate environmental safeguards. It is imperative to sustain this
    investment moving into the next fiscal year and the fiscal year 2013
    request reflects a careful analysis of the resources needed to ensure
    our ability to carry out the important mission with which we are
    charged.
        Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify here today, and
    for your consistent support throughout the reorganization process. I
    look forward to our continued work together, and to answering your
    questions today.

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Director Watson, please.

                 Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

    STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES WATSON, DIRECTOR
        Mr. Watson. Good morning, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member
    Murkowski, and Senator Tester. Thank you.
        I am pleased to appear before you for the first time as
    Director of BSEE and to discuss the tremendous strides we have
    made as well as our vision for the future of the agency.
        We have a critical mission, providing safety and
    environmental oversight of offshore oil and gas operations on
    the OCS. In leading positive changes in the safety culture of
    offshore operations, our near-term goal is to restore America's
    confidence that offshore operations can be carried out safely
    and responsibly and without the tragic human and ecological
    costs that occurred as a result of the Deepwater Horizon
    tragedy.
        In the long term, our goal is to set standards and build
    capacity for offshore safety assurance throughout this country
    and also to be the world leader for safe offshore operations.
        The key to our success is the employees of BSEE. Over the
    past 3 months, I have met our employees from all of our
    offices. They've made it clear to me that they believe in and
    are passionate in our mission. They are unmatched in their
    knowledge of the offshore industry and are making the best use
    of the resources at their disposal to advance the cause of
    safety and responsible offshore oil and gas operations.
        Overseeing safety and environmental performance on the OCS
    includes drilling permits and managing the orderly development
    of the Nation's offshore oil and gas resources. A lot of
    attention has been paid to our permitting pace, and I
    sympathize with the people who depend on these permits for
    jobs, the same people who were so negatively impacted by the
    Deepwater Horizon tragedy in many cases.
        Permitting is an essential part of our safety mission. We
    issue permits only when companies have demonstrated that they
    can conduct their proposed operations safely and responsibly,
    they're meeting all of the enhanced safety standards, and they
    can respond effectively in the event of a worst case discharge.
        By working closely with the industry, we have significantly
    decreased the amount of time it takes to approve a permit and
    have issued hundreds of deepwater and shallow-water permits
    over this past year.
        However, those who believe that the pace of permitting
    should be automatically the same as before Deepwater Horizon
    are ignoring the lessons of that disaster.
        I will commit to routing out inefficiencies in making the
    permitting as straightforward, predictable and understandable
    for the industry as possible, but not at the expense of safety.
        When coupled with increasing hiring and training of
    engineers, scientists, inspectors and other personnel, these
    efforts will further enhance the permitting process and improve
    safe and responsible operations on the OCS.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We've made a tremendous amount of progress since our
    formation. In my written testimony, I've provided a number of
    examples of how we spent the time focused on hiring new
    personnel, enacting safety reforms, improving our permitting
    process, and completing the reorganization of the Minerals
    Management Service.
        Thanks again for this opportunity to testify. I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                       Prepared Statement of James Watson

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear here today to discuss the President's fiscal year
    2013 budget request for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
    Enforcement (BSEE) in the Department of the Interior (DOI).
        BSEE has an enormously critical mission--providing safety and
    environmental oversight of offshore oil and gas operations on the Outer
    Continental Shelf (OCS). More fundamentally, however, our mission is to
    restore the confidence of the American people that offshore operations
    can be carried out without the tragic human and ecological costs that
    were borne by the people of the Gulf of Mexico region nearly 2 years
    ago.
        The budget request for BSEE strengthens and advances the reform
    efforts begun in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. This
    request advances the President's vision of maintaining and expanding
    responsible oil and gas production on our OCS as part of an all-of-the-
    above approach to addressing our Nation's energy challenges, while
    providing the funding necessary to be the world leader in offshore
    safety and environmental oversight. The resources provided by the
    Congress over the past 2 years have been instrumental in laying the
    foundation and building a framework for a revitalized and enhanced
    offshore regulatory regime. This request continues the development of
    that framework, allowing us to continue the critical tasks that the
    President, the Congress, and the American people have rightly demanded
    of us.
        Let me be clear: the employees of the former Minerals Management
    Service (MMS) were, with isolated yet well-publicized exceptions, an
    extremely committed group of public servants that dedicated their lives
    to their communities and their Nation, often foregoing much higher
    salaries they could have earned in the oil and gas industry. The need
    for reform did not stem from the actions of these dedicated
    professionals. It arose from outdated regulations, an inability to
    match the pace and scope of the offshore industry's growth, and
    leadership that was often forced to focus on one of several
    fundamentally different priorities to the detriment of the others. The
    reorganization of MMS by Secretary Salazar into BSEE, the Bureau of
    Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), and the Office of Natural Resources
    Revenue was designed to address these issues and allow the employees of
    each agency to apply their expertise with clarity of mission. The BSEE
    employees I have met in the past 3 months have made it clear to me that
    they believe in, and are passionate about, our mission, and I am fully
    confident that we have the right core of people in place to start this
    agency off in the right direction.
        Overseeing safety and environmental regulations on the OCS includes
    issuing drilling permits, and managing the orderly development of the
    Nation's offshore oil and gas resources. A great deal of attention has
    been paid to our pace of permitting recently, and I greatly sympathize
    with the people who depend on these permits for jobs. It is in our
    country's interest to have a robust offshore oil and gas industry, and
    I am pleased to see a constant stream of new rigs coming into the gulf
    and an industry becoming increasingly optimistic about both the short
    and long-term outlook for their industry. However, I will not measure
    success for this agency by the rate at which we issue permits.
    Permitting is an essential part of our safety mission: we issue permits
    only when companies have demonstrated that they can conduct their
    proposed operations safely and responsibly. We will not rush permits
    out the door; we will conduct thorough reviews that ensure that the
    applicant is meeting all the enhanced safety standards put in place
    after the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, and that they can
    respond effectively in the event of a worst case scenario. Those who
    believe that the pace of permitting should automatically be the same as
    before the Deepwater Horizon are ignoring the lessons of that disaster.
    I will commit to rooting out inefficiencies and making the permitting
    process as straightforward and understandable for the industry as
    possible, and these efforts, when coupled with increased hiring and
    training of engineers, scientists, inspectors, and other personnel, may
    very well enhance the permitting process. But our primary
    responsibility is ensuring safe and responsible operations on the OCS.
        In March 2011, the Director of the former Bureau of Ocean Energy
    Management, Regulation and Enforcement came before you to discuss the
    reforms that agency had implemented to address the many safety,
    environmental protection, and regulatory oversight weaknesses
    highlighted in many reviews of the Deepwater Horizon spill, including
    those identified in the final report of the National Commission on the
    BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (Commission). The
    Congress responded by passing the fiscal year 2012 Consolidated and
    Further Continuing Appropriations Act that provided BSEE with new
    resources needed to institutionalize these fundamental reforms and
    implement additional regulatory measures needed to improve the safety
    of offshore drilling, as well as to enhance protection of the ocean and
    coastal environments. I would like to update you on the progress our
    agency has made in the last year.

                 bsee deg.RECRUITMENT OF KEY POSITIONS

        Although BSEE began operations as an independent agency only a few
    months ago, the recruitment for key management positions began last
    year after the reorganization effort received congressional support and
    resources. As a result, all key senior management positions have been
    filled. As part of our commitment to provide more comprehensive
    oversight of offshore oil and gas operations, we have increased the
    number of inspectors by 50 percent since April 2010, and the number of
    engineers, who also perform critical safety functions, by nearly 10
    percent. There are still a considerable amount of positions yet to be
    filled, including additional inspectors, engineers, regulatory
    specialists, environmental specialists, and other critical disciplines.
    While recruiting is a time consuming process, we are confident that we
    will continue to show significant strides in building out the new
    organization.

                      bsee deg.REGULATORY CHANGE

        We are continuing to update and enhance Federal regulations and
    ensure compliance through our offshore regulatory programs. We plan to
    update the Interim Drilling Safety rule, which was issued shortly after
    the Deepwater Horizon spill, in the near future to increase regulatory
    clarity while maintaining the same enhanced level of safety. Also, the
    Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) rule, which was
    finalized in September 2010, will be enhanced with the completion of
    the ``SEMS II'' rule. We are currently addressing comments received on
    the SEMS II proposed rule. We are also reviewing recent recommendations
    from the National Academy of Engineering as we continue to update
    regulations and enhance safety requirements.

                          bsee deg.PERMITTING

        With significant new safeguards designed to reduce the chances of a
    loss of well control, and a new focus on capping and containment
    capabilities in the event that one occurs, the permitting environment
    is completely different now than it was before Deepwater Horizon.
    Comparing the pace of permitting pre- and post-Deepwater Horizon does
    not consider the current reality that applications must now meet a
    suite of new requirements that receive extremely close scrutiny by the
    Bureau's engineers.
        We have worked very hard to help industry better understand the
    requirements and improve the efficiency of the application process.
    Perhaps most significantly, BSEE held permit processing workshops for
    industry, which has improved the quality and thoroughness of
    applications. We published a permit application completeness checklist
    to make it clear to industry what information is required and to reduce
    the frequency with which operators submit incomplete applications. We
    have established priorities for reviewing permit applications--
    assigning the highest priority to permits for ongoing operations or
    emergency operations. We have begun to balance workloads for our
    engineers by taking some permit applications and moving them around to
    different districts. We have also allowed authorized users of our
    online permit application system to track the status of their
    applications. This answered the call from many operators for greater
    transparency in our permitting process. As a result of these steps, and
    the industry's increasing familiarity with the process, permit review
    times have decreased significantly in the past year. Rigs that had left
    the Gulf of Mexico are returning, new rigs are being contracted, and we
    are starting to see a small inventory of unused drilling permits
    develop.
        While staying focused on our primary objective--ensuring that
    enhanced safety requirements are met--we plan to continuously monitor
    and improve our permitting processes throughout the upcoming year, to
    give industry increased confidence in the timeliness of the process,
    while rebuilding the American people's confidence that these permitted
    operations can be performed safely and responsibly.
              bsee deg.inspection and compliance program
        BSEE continues to expand its capacity to maintain a robust and fair
    inspection and compliance program. With the additional resources
    provided by the Congress, BSEE has been able to add 28 new inspectors
    in the Gulf of Mexico region since the Deepwater Horizon spill, and we
    are continuing our efforts to hire additional inspectors. BSEE's
    inspectors now witness far more activity on drilling rigs than before
    the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill, including critical tests of
    blowout preventers (BOP).
        BSEE has also begun to set up its new National Offshore Training
    and Learning Center (NOTLC) and has put two groups of new inspectors
    through a core curriculum in offshore inspections. We are also
    supplying our inspectors with new equipment and tools, including
    handheld computers, to make our inspection process more efficient and
    effective. Both of these initiatives were initiated using the 2010 oil
    spill supplemental funding, but will need base resources to continue.
    Those resources are specifically requested in fiscal year 2013.

                  bsee deg.ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT

        The Environmental Enforcement program was established as a separate
    division within BSEE to elevate the importance and visibility of the
    program, both internally and externally, to a level on par with safety
    and regulatory compliance.
        This program will ensure compliance with all applicable
    environmental requirements, ensuring that operators keep the promises
    they make at the time they obtain their leases, submit their plans, and
    apply for their permits. The funding requested in fiscal year 2013 will
    support the full build-out of this critical function.

          bsee deg.FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST SPECIFICS

        BSEE's fiscal year 2013 request is $222.2 million; an increase of
    $24.8 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The request
    is offset by $52.5 million in eligible OCS rental receipts, $8.4
    million in cost-recovery fees, and $65 million in inspection fees,
    resulting in a net request of $96.3 million in direct appropriated
    funds. These additional resources are essential to effectively protect
    our Nation's natural resources as well as to address industry's need
    for an efficient, effective, transparent, and stable regulatory
    environment.
        BSEE's fiscal year 2013 budget fully supports the President's
    ``Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future'' by enabling the safe and
    environmentally responsible development of the Nation's vast offshore
    energy resources. Until offshore renewable energy facilities are
    constructed, BSEE will focus its resources on conventional energy
    programs. Funds will be used to recruit expert engineers, scientists,
    and oil spill response specialists to support the development of strong
    scientific information and timely and thorough review of permits. The
    fiscal year 2013 budget request increases funding for operational
    offshore safety, oil spill response initiatives, environmental
    enforcement, and the development of modern electronic systems to
    increase the efficiency and effectiveness of offshore inspection and
    oversight activities.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget includes funding to maintain the gains
    made to date, and proposes the following specific changes:
          Critical Funding Needs for the Environmental Enforcement Division
            (+$4,177,000; +14 FTE).--BSEE will further develop and manage
            an expanded environmental oversight role arising out of efforts
            to reform offshore operations and regulations as recommended by
            many external national investigative reports.
          Research and Development for Offshore Drilling Safety
            (+$2,000,000; 0 FTE).--BSEE will utilize this funding to
            perform additional, and more in-depth, research relating to
            safety systems and operations such as well cementing, BOP
            research, methods of shallow gas containment, and well control
            methods.
          Operational Safety (+$4,495,000; +29 FTE).--Funds will support
            ongoing reorganization efforts identified as critical to the
            success of BSEE in strengthening post-Deepwater Horizon
            regulatory and oversight capabilities. It represents a cross
            section of staffing for newly identified efforts and increased
            activities such as development of regulations, safety
            management, structural and technical support, and oil spill
            response.
          NOTLC for Inspection Program (+$3,685,000, +11 FTE).--This will
            provide base funding for the NOTLC. NOTLC supports the BSEE's
            goals by providing upfront and ongoing learning and development
            opportunities to BSEE staff.
          e-Inspections for the Enforcement Program (+$2,300,000; 0 FTE).--
            This multi-faceted initiative would allow BSEE to replace the
            existing outdated paper-based process with a modern electronic
            system for conducting the inspections mandated by the OCS Lands
            Act.
          Wellbore Integrity (+$1,395,000; +9 FTE).--The requested funding
            will provide resources needed for BSEE to meet current
            requirements to evaluate whether operators have submitted
            adequate information demonstrating access and deployment
            capabilities for surface and subsea containment.
          Sustain Administrative Operations (+$5,000,000; 0 FTE).--Funding
            is needed to sustain the necessary level of support services
            for both BSEE and BOEM and to adjust the base to provide
            sufficient administrative services to both bureaus
          Fixed Costs (+$1,772,000; 0 FTE).--This request fully funds
            increased personnel-related costs and other fixed costs such as
            rent.
          Inspection Fees (-$3,000,000; 0 FTE).--This request partially
            offsets programmatic funding increases by increasing industry
            inspection fee revenue. This is not an increase in the amount
            of the fees, but rather increased revenue attributable to a
            full year collection at the current fee levels. The additional
            revenue will defray the cost of inspection and oversight
            activities.
          Offsetting Collections (-$1,800,000; 0 FTE).--BSEE anticipates a
            net increase in offsetting collections including rental
            receipts and cost recoveries. These collections reduce the need
            for direct appropriations and offset the cost of programmatic
            funding increases.
        In addition to its continued focus on operational and environmental
    safety and compliance, the fiscal year 2013 request will further the
    completion of the reorganization of the former MMS and establish a base
    operating level consistent with the recommendations from the National
    Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling
    and the National Academy of Engineering's report on the Deepwater
    Horizon tragedy.
        In fiscal year 2012, the Congress made a commitment to offshore
    safety and environmental protection by providing the necessary
    resources to complete our reorganization, hire additional people, and
    provide the necessary oversight to allow for the continued growth of
    offshore energy development while giving the American people confidence
    that their Government is doing everything it can to prevent another
    catastrophe like the Deepwater Horizon. The fiscal year 2013 request
    builds on these efforts by providing necessary training for our
    employees, and the tools to increase the efficiency of our processes
    and operations. As the Nation looks to expanding domestic energy
    development, we must provide the leadership and the expertise to ensure
    offshore oil and gas development operations are conducted in a safe and
    environmentally responsible way. BSEE provides that leadership and
    expertise, and we very much appreciate your commitment to the Bureau's
    mission and success.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to be with you today.

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Director Watson. We'll
    initiate 6-minute question rounds to give my colleagues a
    chance to ask questions. I anticipate at least one or two
    rounds. We have a great many questions.

                     BOEM deg.OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY

        Let me begin with Director Beaudreau. By the way, thank
    you, gentlemen, for your excellent testimony. Director
    Beaudreau, you mentioned the accelerating approval of offshore,
    wind in particular, along the Atlantic coast.
        We have made some significant investment both with Federal
    dollars and local dollars in terms of preparing Quonset Point,
    one of our former Navy bases, as a potential site for
    application. We have applications for 9 State projects, in
    State waters, we have an application for a project offshore in
    Federal waters.
        We've also done a lot of planning, especially the area
    management plan, which has drawn nationwide attention as one of
    the best, comprehensive approaches to evaluating offshore
    potential in areas of development. And, again, it's been
    recognized nationally.
        But we seem to be falling behind other States in terms of
    approvals. The next big step for us is to release the draft
    environmental assessment. Can you give us an indication when
    that environmental assessment will be completed?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, Sir. You're absolutely correct about
    the work that the State of Rhode Island has done to promote the
    development of offshore energy. That work will feed and has fed
    directly into BOEM's process in evaluating the wind energy area
    in the shared area between Massachusetts and Rhode Island. What
    we call the area of mutual interest.
        One example is the Special Area Management Plan , which was
    a comprehensive environmental assessment that is relevant to
    our process under the National Environmental Policy Act in
    evaluating the area. That analysis and the good scientific work
    sponsored by the State of Rhode Island will feed directly into
    our environmental assessment, as will all of the work that the
    State task force has done.
        It helped us define what the potential conflicts might be,
    including the Cox's Ledge area which is a particular area of
    sensitivity both environmentally and for fishing interests.
        In light of all of that work, work already done by my
    agency, and work done by the State of Rhode Island, we
    anticipate issuing a draft of the environmental assessment this
    spring, late this spring.
        Senator Reed. One of the reasons I am being critical of
    getting the environmental assessment out, is that it looks like
    August of this year, 2012, is, the time where the final
    environmental assessment will be issued, which would put us
    back on track with some of the other States along the Atlantic
    coast.
        And if that's the case, would allow us to begin a leasing
    process at the end of the calendar year 2012, or early in 2013.
    Again, the fear is if we don't, we just fall behind, and that's
    not just a question of where the towers go in the water. It's
    also a question of the landside operations, where they might be
    situated.
        So I would urge you again to expedite--Secretary Salazar
    has committed to expedite this draft environmental assessment.
    And then with similar speed, finalize the environmental
    assessment so we can begin the leasing process.
        Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, Sir. This is absolutely a high priority
    for the Secretary and for my agency.

                       BSEE deg.INSPECTION FEES

        Senator Reed. Let me just turn to Director Watson. And, I
    do anticipate a second round. Last year we included in, for
    BSEE, the inspection fee program. Can you tell us what
    improvements you're making with these fees? I think Director
    Abbey said it very well in terms of the proposed fees this
    year.
        It makes sense to basically help defray the cost of
    inspections and review to immediately rebound to the benefit of
    the drillers because they're the ones who presumably get
    quicker approvals, better inspections, better protection for
    the environment and less problems down the road.
        So can you comment, Director, about how you have been
    ensuring that these fees are being used well and wisely?
        Mr. Watson. Yes, Sir. The fees are focused on our safety
    program, primarily our field operations and our permitting
    operations.
        The expense of these operations is mostly in the cost of
    our work force. We're increasing the size of that work force at
    a pretty steep rate for a small agency. We have already
    increased the numbers of inspections--inspectors--by a
    significant number.
        We started at about 55, and I think we're up to 91 now.
    We're headed up to more than 100 and into about the 150 range
    that we're going to need for inspectors. And as you increase
    your number of inspections, you also need helicopters to get
    those inspectors offshore which are costly as well.
        And then, turning to the permit side, we are adding almost
    100 engineers. These are people who are plan reviewers for the
    information that's submitted to get a permit. And they are a
    combination of structural engineers, petroleum engineers, and
    some geophysicists and geologists to review those permitting
    applications.
        So we are still challenged to bring those people into the
    work force, but we have an aggressive outreach program. We did
    get some incentives for hiring these people in the fiscal year
    2012 appropriations which will be very valuable. And so, I'm
    optimistic about that program.
        Senator Reed. Just a quick--because my time has expired,
    the initial feedback from the industry is positive in terms of
    the more expeditious permitting process, the better sense of
    the professional skill of the inspections, is that what you're
    sensing?
        Mr. Watson. Well, my experience is the industry is looking
    at the bottom line, how quickly can they get a permit. But they
    are also focused on the competencies of our people. I haven't
    heard any disparaging remarks about our competencies.
        On the permitting side, I think there's been a combination
    of efforts by the industry to provide more comprehensive,
    better-prepared applications than say a year ago. And on the
    BSEE side, I think we're also better at doing these new safety
    standards, at reviewing them.
        And the numbers kind of bear this out. Just between last
    March and September, our average was about 97 days to get a
    permit processed. That was the average. And then between
    September and today, it's gone to 62 days. So it's right around
    2 months right now.
        And I think we can probably make some more improvements.
    But as I said in my opening statement, I'm not about the number
    of days it takes. I'm still about safety and environmental
    protection.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
        Senator Murkowski.

                    BLM deg.OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen,
    thank you for your testimony this morning.
        I want to try to better understand some statistics that are
    out there. Yesterday, the President released his, or he
    discussed the 1-year progress report on energy within the
    administration. He called it his blueprint for secure energy
    future.
        And in that report, he notes that oil production is up
    overall. That's a statement that has certainly been made. He
    doesn't disclose where that increased production comes from.
    Whether it's on Federal lands, private, or State.
        I mentioned in my opening comments, the Department of the
    Interior's own numbers would seem to indicate that onshore oil
    production is down 14 percent from last year, and offshore
    production down 17 percent. And yet, yesterday, when Secretary
    Salazar commented on the President's blueprint, he stated the
    fact of the matter is that we're producing more from public
    lands, both oil and gas, both onshore as well as offshore, than
    any time in recent memory.
        So I'm trying to understand our data here. Because I think
    that this is important. People really do want to understand
    what the situation here is in this country. So I guess we've
    got a situation where either the data from the Department of
    the Interior is wrong, or it has not been communicated
    adequately or appropriately to the Secretary.
        So the question that I have is, who's right here? When you
    peel this back, are we seeing an increased production on
    Federal lands and offshore as well, or not?
        Mr. Abbey. Well, let me take a stab at this, Senator
    Murkowski, and then others may contribute.
        But, no doubt, the statistics would show that the United
    States oil and gas production is up, and last year more oil was
    produced in this country than at any time since 2003, according
    to Dr.----
        Senator Murkowski. And do we, do we dissect that as just
    State, Federal----
        Mr. Abbey. I can.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay.
        Mr. Abbey. And, you know, no doubt the aggressive
    development of shale gas and shale oil has led to a shift to
    private lands in the East and to the South where there are
    fewer amounts of Federal mineral estate in those sections of
    the country.
        As far as natural gas, last year, there was more natural
    gas produced from BLM-managed mineral estate than in decades.
    Oil production was down somewhat last year. But we are moving
    forward again now offering up additional parcels for leasing.
    We're processing more applications for permits to drill than in
    the past several years.
        And so, we should see an increase in production of both oil
    on public lands as well as natural gas. But, again, natural gas
    production was up.
        Senator Murkowski. So it isn't accurate--Right. So, I'll
    grant you that. And I also recognize that--where that natural
    gas production is primarily coming from is on the State and the
    private side.
        But is it an accurate statement then to state that a 14-
    percent decrease onshore from last year, and offshore, down 17
    percent for oil?
        Mr. Abbey. Well, again, the statistics will speak for
    itself.
        Senator Murkowski. But this is where the confusion is
    because the statistics are being used to suggest that there is
    this incredible increase in oil and gas production. But we all
    know that oil, you've got oil production, and you've got gas
    production, and we're seeing remarkable, remarkable
    opportunities with natural gas within our shale formations.
        And that's good. I support that absolutely. What I'm trying
    to understand is whether or not our oil production, offshore
    and onshore, is up or down?
        Mr. Abbey. The oil production from onshore, Federal
    minerals, was down last year from previous years. I will say
    this though. Where the industry decides to produce, or where
    they decide to develop, is up to them.
        For example, we have approved 7,000 applications for
    permits to drill that are not being drilled. We have more than
    25 million acres of lands that we've leased that are not being
    developed. So a decision is being made by the market.
        Senator Murkowski. I understand that. And I will, in
    probably my next round here, ask about some of those incentives
    or disincentives that we impose that kind of pushes, those that
    are in the exploration and production realm, to go from Federal
    lands to State lands.
        I want to ask very quickly, and this is to you, Director
    Abbey. I mentioned it to the Secretary last week, a couple
    different times. This relates to the Legacy Well situation in
    Alaska.

                         BLM deg.LEGACY WELLS

        For members of the subcommittee, it's somewhat an
    interesting situation. About 40 years ago, there was
    exploration by the Government, by the Navy primarily, in the
    National Petroleum Reserve, they drilled some 137 different
    wells, looking around, and, then moved on.
        The problem that we face is they moved on without properly
    abandoning and caring for those wells. Now, decades afterwards,
    we're having some of the casings collapse. We've got erosion
    issues coming in. And it's not only unsightly, but it's an
    environmental scar. And it's something that has been difficult
    for Alaskans to accept because on the one hand the standards
    for--the environmental standards are exceptionally high--and I
    think appropriately so.
        We want to make sure that we're taking care of the land
    there. But on the Federal Government's side, they can come in.
    They can explore. They can leave, and their environmental
    responsibility is not attended to.
        If you were on the private side, you would be fined--I
    think the fines that we're talking about could be in the realm
    of $40 million. The revenues that have been received from the
    National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska are certainly sufficient to
    help clean this up, but we're on track for cleaning up these at
    about the rate of 1 per year.
        It's going to take us another 135 years to clean it up
    which is certainly not acceptable. So I asked the Secretary,
    and I would ask you, Director Abbey, whether or not we can get
    a commitment to be coordinating between BLM and the Alaska Oil
    and Gas Conservation Commission to not only provide the
    Commission with an inventory of the exact number, the
    associated costs for plugging them, and then a plan.
        An action plan, so that we can have a reasonable level of
    assurance that we will move forward, that the Government will
    move forward, in keeping their commitment to Alaska and to the
    land up there.
        Mr. Abbey. My response would be similar to what the
    Secretary shared with you. We are committed to working with the
    State of Alaska to identify where the highest-priority needs
    are for cleanup.
        We have spent millions of dollars to date in cleaning up
    some of those legacy wells----
        Senator Murkowski. And they're expensive, we acknowledge,
    yes.
        Mr. Abbey. Very much, very expensive. This year we are--we
    do have sufficient funds to clean up an additional three, but
    as you suggest, and I will admit, that's a pretty slow progress
    toward dealing with the challenge that we face.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, we need to be working on this
    together, so I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. Senator Tester,
    please.

                    BLM deg.OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION

        Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, once
    again, thank you all for being here.
        As I mentioned in my opening statement, the number of rigs
    operating in the United States this year is the highest number
    in probably 8 or 10 years. The United States has more rigs
    operating right now, and correct me if I'm wrong, than the rest
    of the world combined.
        Our domestic production is at an all-time high. And, you
    know, maybe the public lands is down some, and I want to get
    into that a little bit. But the fact is, if it's up on State
    and private, we got more rigs operating in the United States
    than the whole rest of the world combined.
        And I talked to a person from eastern Montana today where
    they've got a bunch of permits, and they can't get any rigs
    because they're all tied up. I don't know, you know, I just
    kind of want to get your perspective on all of this because
    there's about 32 million acres of Federal land that's leased
    right now.
        As you pointed out there, I think there's 7,000
    applications, permits to drill, that have been issued, and not
    drilled? Can you give me--give me some insight into why that
    is. Give me some insight into what you're seeing as trends on
    the Federal lands.
        Mr. Abbey. Well, Senator, I'd be happy to. Again, there's a
    lot of factors that come into play relative to a decision that
    would be made by the industry on where they choose to drill.
        As it relates to the number of applications for permits to
    drill, we issued 4,200 last year. That was more than the number
    that were submitted by the industry. We had a little backlog
    from the previous year, and we were able to address some of the
    backlog.
        But we issued 4,200 applications for permits to drill last
    year. At the end of the year, we had more than 7,000 that were
    not being drilled. As I mentioned, there are several factors
    for that. Sometimes, it's financing. Another factor that comes
    into play is that the industry themselves have chosen to drill
    elsewhere where it's more economical.
        But it is a choice that they have to make. It is a choice
    that they make every day. We are moving forward as
    expeditiously as possible to streamline our review processes
    without forsaking the need to insure safety as well as
    environmental diligence on the drilling operations.
        We're increasing our inspections for all drilling. But much
    of the easy plays are located right now on the private mineral
    estate.

                  BLM deg.WELL INTEGRITY INSPECTIONS

        Senator Tester. Okay. And this goes to, I think, Senator
    Murkowski's last question, or last point, and that is as we
    push to open up lands in a responsible way, not sacrificing one
    resource for another, we also have to consider things like the
    casing, how it's cemented in.
        And, quite frankly, I hope we're thinking about what
    happens when the wells usefulness is gone. I hope we're
    thinking about that upfront. So, can you give me some sort of
    idea on what the thought process is to make sure that this
    land's being leased responsibly, and that the development is
    being done in a responsible way so that we don't have a bunch
    of wrecks like Senator Murkowski was talking about?

                  BLM deg.ONSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASING

        Mr. Abbey. Well, let me start by saying that in 2009, when
    Secretary Salazar and I both came into our new positions, we
    inherited an onshore oil and gas program that was on the verge
    of collapse.
        And I say that because more than 50 percent--or close to 50
    percent of all the parcels that were being offered for lease by
    BLM were being protested or litigated. That's unacceptable.
    There were literally hundreds of leases that had been awarded
    by the Department of the Interior, specifically, BLM, tied up
    in protests and litigation.
        And so the millions of dollars that we had collected from
    the oil and gas companies for their leases that they purchased,
    were placed in suspense accounts until those protests and
    litigation could be resolved. Again, that was unacceptable.
        The rules that were in place to govern the oil and gas
    operations, and to ensure production verification of the oil
    and gas that was being extracted from these public assets, were
    more than 20 years old. Technology had advanced significantly
    in that 20-year period, but no one was paying attention to
    updating those rules.
        We had EPA and other fellow agencies criticizing the
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis that was
    being performed by BLM, primarily as it related to air quality
    documents.
        We had sportsmen, we had other public land stakeholders
    criticizing the leasing everywhere and anywhere mentality that
    was going on at the time, and certainly, very much a part of
    BLM culture.
        Because there were concerns about the environmental damage
    that was being--that was occurring as a result of not doing a
    very good job of looking at these lands before we committed
    those lands through leasing.
        So we took it upon ourselves not to ignore the challenge or
    the problems, but to address them. And one of the ways that we
    have been able to address them is to insure that there is a
    better opportunity to look at these lands prior to committing
    them through leasing.
        And we've done that through our leasing reforms. The
    primary purpose for our leasing reform is to make sure that the
    lands that we are going to be leasing, are the right ones to
    lease, and they have the greatest chance to be developed in a
    timely manner.
        Senator Tester. Did you say that 50 percent of the leases,
    when you took over, were being either litigated or protested?
    Is that what I heard you say in this answer?
        Mr. Abbey. Close to 50 percent----
        Senator Tester. So where are you at, now?
        Mr. Abbey. Close to 50 percent of the parcels that we were
    offering were being protested or litigated.
        Senator Tester. Okay. And what----
        Mr. Abbey. At this point in time, it's around 35 percent.
        Senator Tester. Okay, okay. My time is up. We'll save some
    for the next round. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Tester. This is
    a very, I think, useful line of questioning. Just as Director
    Abbey points out, there are a significant number of leases that
    are capable of being drilled, but not being drilled. Those are
    the decisions of the private entrepreneurs, the companies,
    onshore.

                       BOEM deg.OFFSHORE LEASING

        Offshore, Director Beaudreau, is that the same situation
    where you have a significant number of leases all ready,
    approved, and yet the drilling activities are not commencing?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Ah, yes, that's correct. There's a
    significant percentage of the leases that have been issued by
    the Interior Department offshore that are not currently subject
    to an exploration or development plan.
        And we've tried to develop, both through our leasing
    process and postleasing processes, to try to encourage prompt
    and diligent development of those leases to bring them into
    exploration, bring them into production.
        As Director Abbey indicated, there are a number of
    commercial factors that weigh into industry's decisions about
    when and where to drill. We're trying to line up our leasing
    process and our incentives to influence those decisions so that
    we can have prompt development.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.

                    BLM deg.ONSHORE INSPECTION FEES

        Director Abbey, in the President's budget, we've mentioned
    there's a request for additional inspection fees that will be
    comparable to the increases that we've provided to BSEE and the
    Director is using, Director Watson, for improving his program.
        Can you indicate how you can improve your program with
    these fees?
        Mr. Abbey. I'd be happy to. And, thank you for the
    question. As Senator Tester alluded to, it's important that if
    we are going to be leasing these parcels of public lands for
    oil and gas development, that we have sufficient inspections to
    insure that it's being done responsibly.
        You know, we--it is our goal to inspect drilling operations
    that are considered a high risk. And those high-risk operations
    are those with the most violations, but also those that are
    producing the most volumes of gas or oil.
        We test for blow-out preventer equipment, setting and
    cementing casings. We also test for plugging operations and
    well-completion operations. The additional monies that we would
    get from the inspection fee would provide sufficient funds to
    add another 46 inspectors to our work force that would again
    allow us another opportunity, or greater opportunity, to be
    onsite when the drilling is actually taking place.

                     BLM deg.HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

        Senator Reed. One of the other complicating aspects is the
    fact that the new technology, the fracking technology, has
    raised at least issues which are being evaluated by State
    authorities, by other agencies, and it's, I would think,
    something that you are looking at more closely now in terms of
    your inspection program; is that accurate?
        Mr. Abbey. It is. You know, fracking is not new by any
    means. About 90 percent of the wells that are being drilled
    today on public lands are using the fracturing technology.
        So our inspections have always included looking at the
    fracking operations as they were occurring. But again, the
    additional fees would provide us opportunities to be onsite
    more often than where we are right now.

                         BLM deg.ROYALTY RATES

        Senator Reed. The Secretary has also indicated recently his
    intention to raise the onshore royalty rate from 12.5 to 18.75
    percent. Can you tell me how these rates, the present rate and
    the proposed rate, compare to State rates? Because State rates
    is probably the comparable point.
        Mr. Abbey. Well, it varies somewhat. Let me just suggest
    that our primary goal is to make sure that the American
    taxpayer is receiving a fair return for the assets that are
    being developed. That's the least that we can do.
        At the same time, as we go forward we have analyzed what
    some of the States--well, many of the States actually--are
    charging relative to royalty for production that are occurring
    within or around State lands.
        We've also done some analysis of what some of the other
    countries have--are charging relative to royalties or similar
    types of fees that are assessed oil and gas companies.
        Even though our budget was based upon an assumption that an
    increase of royalties would go to 18.75 percent for both oil
    and natural gas, let me just reassure the members of this
    subcommittee that that decision has not been reached.
        We're continuing to look at the full range of statistics
    that we have been able to compile, the analysis that we're
    continuing to perform, prior to making any decision to increase
    the royalties for oil and gas production on these public lands.

                BLM deg.ONSHORE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION

        Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much. And I know Senator
    Murkowski is going to get into this, and she's raised a very
    important question about the difference between production
    figures on private lands and public lands.
        And I think implicit in all your answers has been just that
    there are commercial reasons why even if the lease is
    available, it's not being utilized. Can you kind of list the
    three or four general, number of rigs? Is there an insufficient
    number of rigs?
        Mr. Abbey. Well, no doubt--Well, I don't have the figures.
    But I do know that the availability of rigs is an equation that
    comes into consideration by the companies relative to where
    they're going to be developing, or drilling.
        Let me just say right up front. It is quite--it is a lot
    cheaper to drill on private land than it is on public lands.
    All they have to do is cut a deal with the private landowner.
        When you come before BLM with a proposal to drill on public
    lands, there are a lot of factors that we evaluate. Again, we
    have to look at the appropriateness of leasing certain parcels
    for oil and gas development or any particular use. We have to
    adhere to NEPA. We have to adhere to consultation not only with
    Native Americans, but with the Fish and Wildlife Service to
    ensure that the proposals that are before us can be adequately
    mitigated.
        So there are an awful lot of rules and regulations that the
    companies would have to adhere to. But each of those rules and
    regulations are intended to make sure that the production goes
    forward to the degree that it can be allowed as appropriate.
        But also the leasing reforms that we have applied are to
    provide greater certainty to the industry themselves that if
    they lease a parcel of land, that they're going to be able to
    develop that parcel of land. And I can tell you in 2009 that
    was not the case.
        Senator Reed. Well, thank you. My time has expired. Senator
    Murkowski, please.

                     BLM deg.ONSHORE ROYALTY RATES

        Senator Murkowski. Well, thank you. And I'll follow on
    because you've given me a little bit of assurance by saying the
    decision has not been made on this issue of increasing the
    royalty rates onshore.
        You have stated, and rightly so, that it is more costly to
    develop on the public lands. And so, as we look to a royalty
    rate increase as has been suggested, that too then adds to that
    cost.
        And again, to my earlier point, I think it causes
    developers to look to develop on State and private lands before
    they would turn to our public lands. I do think it's important
    to recognize the study that was commissioned by the Department
    to look at the royalty rate structures on our Federal lands and
    compare them to other States, as you've noted, to other
    countries.
        There's a consensus coming out of the report that says that
    they--that a rate increase is not warranted. They compare
    Wyoming to other onshore areas and conclude that Wyoming's
    competitive edge is on shaky ground, and Alberta and British
    Columbia are aggressively seeking to attract investment by
    offering incentives for lower royalty rates that encourage
    development.
        So I really hope that the Department is looking very
    critically at your own analysis and working to insure again
    that we are not putting additional hurdles in place for
    development on Federal lands, additional costs on top of the
    costs that are already in place.
        So I am glad to hear you make the statement that it has not
    been--a conclusion has not been reached. Do you have any idea
    when you might make that determination, where you're going with
    that?
        Mr. Abbey. Well, Senator, we really don't--or least, I
    don't, at this point in time. I do know that we had
    conversations as recently as yesterday with the Office and
    Management and Budget regarding proposed rules as it relates to
    royalty increases.
        You know, Wyoming is doing quite well. You cited that in
    this study and said that they're losing their competitive edge.
        Senator Murkowski. Your study, not mine.
        Mr. Abbey. But nonetheless, there are a lot of factors that
    we have taken into consideration relative to what we will
    ultimately propose for any royalty rate increase.
        I will say this to you that the 12.5-percent royalty rate
    that's in place right now for both natural gas and oil has been
    in place for decades. And so, I do think it was prudent that we
    conducted this study. That we are doing the analysis to
    determine what is a fair return to the American taxpayer.

         BSEE deg.OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF INSPECTION PERSONNEL

        Senator Murkowski. Let me ask about the timeliness of where
    we are with OCS permitting. And I guess I'll bring you into the
    conversation, Director Watson.
        Can you tell us how the Department is doing with respect to
    hiring the additional personnel that you need to conduct the
    inspections and process the permits?
        As I mentioned in my statement, in the last Interior bill,
    we moved forward the new fees to help with this effort, provide
    additional authorities to not only increase the level of
    competition, but really to try to get additional funds for
    those personnel responsibilities.
        Where are we with that? I'm still hearing from folks that
    they feel that the agency is still understaffed, and that is
    causing what they consider to be ongoing delays. Where are we?
        Mr. Watson. We began with about 60 inspectors and a modest
    number of engineers that do the permitting. And we have a
    target that is based on where the industry is projected to go
    in terms of the number of applications that we would expect to
    get, plus all of the new standards that we've implemented and
    the workload that's required.
        And it comes out to you need about a total of 150
    inspectors, and you need about 230 engineers. And so, we are on
    a process of hiring inspectors and engineers. In the area of
    inspectors, we've gone up from about 60 last year to 91 this
    year.
        And on the engineers, we've added about 10 percent. So
    we're needing to add more engineers.
        Senator Murkowski. You've got a long ways to go.
        Mr. Watson. We do have a long way to go in engineers. But,
    as you know, the appropriation just came out in December. It
    was vital that we had some ability to incentivize those
    engineers to work for the U.S. Government instead of for the
    oil companies. They're paid very well by the oil companies
    especially when the price of oil is what it is today.
        So we are in the process of implementing that pay
    incentive. And we also are doing some aggressive outreach to
    connect with new graduates from the engineering schools. We're
    even working with the American Petroleum Institute and other
    industry organizations to assist us with those people that may
    want to work for the Government because of some of the benefits
    and perhaps some of the stability that we can provide that the
    industry typically doesn't.
        So I'm optimistic. It'll take a couple of years for us to
    reach our goal. But I think we will make a big stride this
    year.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, as you all know, the congressional
    intent was that part of these new fees be used to expand the
    capacity so that we could expedite the orderly development of
    offshore there.
        And I do appreciate the timelines and I also recognize that
    we just can't snap our fingers and have these folks in place.
    But I--you will be able to count on me to keep inquiring with
    you on a regular basis to see how we are doing, not only in
    getting the bodies in these positions, but again making sure
    that it's going towards the goal which is a more orderly and
    expedited processing for these OCS permits.
        So it's not only getting the bodies in, but making sure
    that we're seeing greater movement there. My time has expired,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Tester.
        Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    talk about fracking for a little bit.

                     BLM deg.HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

        A current complaint from the industry is there's too many
    cooks in the kitchen. The Department of Energy (DOE), United
    States Geological Survey (USGS), and the EPA are all in the
    process of studying fracking. I've heard that there's maybe as
    many as 10 agencies that are involved in the process.
        I think the budget gives $13 million to USGS. I think
    there's about $45 million for fracking research in total in the
    different budgets. Duplication is something that I'm always
    worried about. People doing the same work in different
    agencies, and we can get a little better bang for the buck.
        I just want to get your perspective on what's going on with
    the research effort. And is there coordination between agencies
    so that there isn't overlapping research.
        Mr. Abbey. Again, duplication is always a concern for all
    of us, I believe, as we go forward during these lean times. I'm
    aware of two studies that we are assisting with. We're not--
    only with data.
        One study by EPA, and then a second study that's being
    conducted by the USGS within the Department of the Interior.
    Our participation, like I said, is fairly limited to providing
    statistics and data that they are then taking into account as
    part of their analysis.
        As it relates to BLM, we are proposing a new rule relative
    to fracking. The components of that rule are based upon three
    primary recommendations. It came to us from the DOE Task Force
    on Fracturing Technology.
        The three components that we're focused on are public
    disclosure of the chemicals that are being used on drilling
    operations on public lands. Many States have such disclosure
    policies in place right now, and we want to make sure that the
    standards that are going to apply to public lands, are similar
    to what's being applied on State lands.
        The second component of our proposed fracking rule will
    address well-bore integrity, to make sure that the casings that
    are being used during the drilling operation are secure.
    They're going to protect groundwater.
        And then the third component is water management, both
    looking at the source of the water that's being used because
    there's a significant amount of water that's used in fracking
    operations in most circumstances. And then, second, what occurs
    with the disposal of that wastewater after a fracking operation
    ceases.
        Making sure that the disposal is consistent with local and
    State law, not Federal law, but local and State law. So those
    are the three components that we've incorporated into our
    proposed rule. We anticipate releasing a draft rule pertaining
    to fracking as early as April.
        Senator Tester. I want to take it one more direction, and
    that is, when I talk to the industry, the industry says,
    fracking is going on so deep that it can't impact the potable
    water up above.
        When I talk to folks, other folks, they're saying that
    their water is being impacted by the fracking. I don't know
    which is the truth. USGS has estimated that some aquifers in
    the Bakken are losing about 1 to 2 feet per year due to
    increased energy production.
        I don't know why that is, if it's because of fracking or
    some other reason. But water's very, very important. And I just
    wondered, can you give me any idea if, number one, the aquifers
    in the Bakken are indeed losing that kind of--that they're
    being diminished by 1 to 2 a year?
        And, second, why is that? And, third, is there something we
    can do about it?
        Mr. Abbey. Well, I would refer you to USGS for the answer
    to your specific question relative to what is causing that
    depletion. I do know that many fracking operations require an
    extensive amount of water. That water has to come from
    somewhere.
        And so energy companies are securing water rights wherever
    they're operating in order to have access to such water so that
    they can continue with the fracking operation. But I would also
    give acknowledgement to the industry for they understand the
    potential impact, and certainly the long-term impacts of
    continuing the operations that are currently taking place with
    the amount of water.
        And they're doing, or at least proposing to do, a better
    job of re-using water. And actually treating water onsite so it
    can be used there on additional or new fracking operations.
        Senator Tester. Well, it is a big issue. I mean, there was
    an amendment on the floor yesterday that I think failed because
    some people didn't want to encourage more fracking. The Bakken
    play is because we have the ability to frack. We're getting
    natural gas because we have the ability to frack. We like to
    see it done.
        But by the same token, 10 years from now, we don't want to
    look back and say, ``Oh, my God! What have we done?'' So I
    would hope that the research that's being done is being done in
    a coordinated fashion and very timely.

                         BLM deg.WELL CLOSURE

        I want to talk about well closure for BLM wells, for wells
    on BLM land. Could you compare the procedure to what happens on
    state or private lands in a State like Montana when it comes to
    well closure?
        Mr. Abbey. Well, again, we take plugging and abandonment
    quite seriously because it's the last time we actually have an
    opportunity to look down the hole before the cement is placed.
        And so, we give that one of the highest priorities as part
    of our inspection program--is that when there is going to be a
    well that's going to be closed and abandoned--that we have our
    inspectors out there almost 100 percent of the time to make
    sure that the process is completed based upon the engineering
    that had gone into that design and approval process.
        Senator Tester. Is that the--can you give me any idea--you
    may not have knowledge--what goes on the State or private lands
    as far as well closure?
        Mr. Abbey. I really don't. I do know that there should be
    some similarities, but some States do a better job of
    prioritizing inspections than others. I won't cite any examples
    relative to who does that better than others, but nonetheless,
    you know, we are responsible for managing these wells on
    Federal lands, and that's where our focus is right now.
        Senator Tester. All right. Thank you very much.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Tester. I have a few more
    questions and I will then obviously recognize my colleagues for
    their additional questions.

                   BOEM deg.OFFSHORE LEASE AUCTIONS

        Mr. Beaudreau, I understand that you're going to use a new
    auction process format for offshore wind, alternate energy,
    unlike what you do for oil and gas in the gulf, for example.
        And it raises a question of why the different auction
    procedures, first question. Second, we've got to get that
    information out to potential applicants in a very expeditious
    way otherwise they might not be prepared when the auction
    occurs.
        And, frankly, they also, deserve the opportunity of,
    evaluating, and commenting on the procedures to insure that
    they are fair to all potential parties.
        So, could you comment on the reason for the new procedures
    and also commit to getting the proposal out quickly so that
    relevant parties can participate?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, the reason for the new procedures is
    that, strictly speaking, offshore wind energy development is
    fundamentally different than oil and gas. You have a finite
    area that is being made available. You want to make sure that
    you get as much efficiency out of that area as possible.
        Unlike oil and gas where you purchase a parcel. You assume
    the risk for the parcel. You drill a well. If it's a dry well,
    you go someplace else. Here, we have a number of interested
    companies. We have a number of interests that we need to take
    into account in considering how to lease the finite area.
        That includes the efficiency of their project. The
    likelihood that this particular operator can actually bring a
    viable project online, and the best configuration of multiple
    projects within the limited area.
        And so that creates a little bit more complex process. That
    said, we are very actively evaluating alternatives for this
    leasing process with the idea of, while addressing those
    multiple factors that distinguish it from oil and gas, keeping
    it as simple as possible.
        And there's a number of reasons for that. We have gone
    through an extensive process to make this area available. We
    want to encourage the development of offshore wind, and so we
    want to keep our auction process as simple as possible, while
    at the same time, getting the area into the hands of operators
    who will be able to stand up real projects.
        With respect to the auction process and familiarity among
    operators with that process, you're absolutely right. That is
    essential. We put out a description, an auction format
    information request last fall, and had a comment period
    provided to operators and got a lot of useful feedback from
    operators about the different factors and alternatives we could
    employ in the auction format.
        And so we've been extensively engaged with operators
    through that process. And we are planning into the run-up to
    lease sales, coordination with operators, to make sure they
    understand exactly how a lease process will unfold, exactly
    what would be expected of them, because we want an efficient
    lease sale.
        And we want it to work, and we want it to work right out of
    the box.
        Senator Reed. Do you have an idea of when you will be
    prepared to sort of publish a final, or at least final for
    comment, proposal?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Yes. We've done all of the comment and so
    now we're working on finalizing what the auction format will
    be.
        You know, each auction will have to be tailored a little
    bit to the region, but we hope to have all of that in place for
    competitive leasing later this year.

                   BOEM deg.OFFSHORE WIND INSPECTION

        Senator Reed. Very good. Now, assuming you've got turbines
    and transmission lines operating in the water, will BOEM
    employees conduct the on-site inspections? Or, will BSEE step
    in and take over?
        Mr. Beaudreau. Yes. So in the near term, part of what we're
    trying to do with the additional funding that we've received is
    hire structural engineers who can help us evaluate construction
    and operation plans which is a key component down the road to
    getting steel in the water.
        Eventually, when those operations are up, steel is in the
    water, BSEE will have a role in conducting safety inspections
    and compliance with respect to those operations.
        Senator Reed. Director Watson, you're collaborating right
    now for the hand off, I presume?
        Mr. Watson. Yes, Sir. The two Bureaus were just recently
    created, but we have a lot of inter-dependencies, and there's
    still evolution going on. I think right now our priority is
    with the oil and gas safety and establishing our environmental
    enforcement division.
        But we'll be ready when the time comes to take on the wind
    work.
        Senator Reed. Just a final question. You know, you don't
    have the same dangers that we saw with the oil rig exploding,
    et cetera, but you have the problems of hurricane damage, et
    cetera.
        Have we clearly set out the responsibility for the
    leaseholders in terms of their obligation to repair and to
    remediate? You know, there's no oil fund for this process, I
    presume.
        Mr. Beaudreau. No, that's right. And there are other
    mitigation factors around the impacts on avian resources,
    marine mammals. That is why we're doing these environmental
    analyses so we can develop mitigation measures and requirements
    to ensure that, one, the operations go up that can provide
    energy from renewable sources, but, two, we're managing the
    potential impacts.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to add a
    couple more questions to the inquiry from Senator Tester on
    fracking.

                     BLM deg.HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

        One of the concerns that I'm hearing from folks is that the
    concern that these will be overlapping or duplicative
    regulations that are coming out of BLM on top of what they
    already face within the States.
        Can you speak to that as an issue? Give me some assurance
    there that we're not just adding on additional, Federal
    regulations, on top of what the States are doing, and how you
    will work to eliminate any such redundancy?
        Mr. Abbey. Again, as I mentioned earlier, there's going to
    be three components of our fracking rule: disclosure of
    chemicals, well-bore integrity, and water management.
        The similarities that exist would be in the disclosure of
    chemicals. Many States now are requiring----
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Mr. Abbey [continuing]. As part of fracking operations, for
    the companies to disclose what chemicals are being used as part
    of their operations.
        We will be requiring that, but we also hope----
        Senator Murkowski. Will that information be shared
    publicly, or will there be provisions that will allow for
    protecting any trade secrets that might exist?
        Mr. Abbey. The information would be available publicly
    unless there's some rationale and justification that the
    companies would provide us to keep that trade secret from being
    made public.
        Senator Murkowski. So that would be considered on a case-
    by-case basis?
        Mr. Abbey. It would be considered on a case-by-case, and we
    have a process already in place to make that type of
    determination.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. All right. Let me ask about
    onshore inspection fees.

                    BLM deg.ONSHORE INSPECTION FEES

        Currently, BLM collects more than $32 million for the
    processing of the APDs, and this fiscal year 2013 budget
    proposes new authority to collect an additional inspection fee
    that apparently totals $48 million.
        How did you establish these fees? Are they based on actual
    inspection costs? Where did they come from?
        Mr. Abbey. Basically, they are based on actual costs, or
    what our estimates of actual costs would be. The fee itself
    would be implemented in accordance with the number of wells
    that are on a particular lease.
        And, for example, if there's a lessee with a lot of wells
    on that particular lease, they would pay more inspection fees
    than a smaller operator would.
        Senator Murkowski. So, has there been any assessment on the
    impact to small businesses that may be on the Federal lands?
    When we're talking offshore, we don't worry about that because
    you don't have any very small operators there.
        But, has there been any kind of an assessment there that
    looks at what the impact may be on those smaller businesses?
        Mr. Abbey. We have done that analysis and that assessment
    and, you know, quite frankly though, the highest risk we have
    sometimes are with smaller operators. They just do not have the
    capital to do everything that's required to ensure
    environmental protections for the drilling that's occurring or
    the production that's occurring.
        So there's a necessity for us to get out there on the site
    to make sure that those operators are complying with all the
    laws and rules of governing their operations. So we can't
    ignore them. But we have taken into account--or taken into our
    analysis the economic effects or impacts to operators.
        Senator Murkowski. As you have done the analysis, have you
    looked at kind of the cumulative impact of these additional
    fees that we're talking about? You've got the existing APD
    fees. You're talking about new inspection fees, increasing
    royalty rates, perhaps.
        Are you concerned that what might result is lower bonus
    bids coming out, less production on Federal lands, which then
    results in less revenue to the Treasury? Has that been factored
    into the analysis as well?
        Mr. Abbey. It is. And we understand the cumulative effects
    on the industry itself based upon everything that we are doing
    to ensure environmentally responsible drilling on these lands.
        And to make sure that we're making appropriate parcels of
    public lands available for such extraction. Well, that is a
    factor that we've also taken into account as we review the
    royalty rate options before us.
        We are looking at the cumulative effects--that all the
    other actions that we're also taking have on the industry.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Got one more question, Mr.
    Chairman. This is it for me.

    BLM deg.BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT/OFFICE OF SURFACE MANAGEMENT
                                     MERGER

        But, the Department yesterday had announced its analysis of
    this merger, the proposed merger between the OSM and BLM. It
    generated a fair amount of discussion and controversy within
    the Energy Committee when that was announced.
        I do appreciate what the Department of the Interior has
    done to avoid the violation of the statutory responsibilities
    under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, but the
    analysis, as I understand it, fails to quantify how this merger
    is actually going to generate any savings or efficiencies.
        And we had asked for an assessment of the costs and the
    benefits of the proposal. But, from what I can tell, the
    Department has failed to include any of that. I am of the mind
    that the Interior Department needs to go back and actually
    calculate whether the consolidation of administrative functions
    is really worth pursuing.
        I know that you have been involved in this probably more so
    than most others out there. What can you tell us about this new
    proposal versus what was originally laid out there, and about
    the fact that we haven't been able to demonstrate that we're
    going to see any cost savings here?
        Mr. Abbey. Well, again, I think the jury is out relative to
    how much cost savings there actually will be. But----
        Senator Murkowski. You do agree that it is's an important
    part of what this was all about?
        Mr. Abbey. It is. But we also believe that there will be
    efficiencies gained based upon the actions that the Secretary
    approved yesterday. And by that, and what you read, is that BLM
    will be providing administrative support to OSM.
        Where they were required to hire similar skills in
    positions that we already had in place right now, they would no
    longer need those type of positions because those services
    would be provided by the BLM.
        Some of the revenue collections functions would then be
    transferred to the Office of Natural Resource Revenue (ONRR).
    Again, gaining some efficiencies relative to the savings of
    positions. But the OSM would remain an independent entity
    within the Department of the Interior performing their mandated
    functions.
        All we are trying to achieve are some administrative
    efficiencies, some cost savings, and to allow the OSM to focus
    their limited dollars on the important work that they do
    perform on behalf of this Nation.
        Senator Murkowski. So, are you suggesting then that the
    cost benefit analysis will still be coming to us? That, in
    fact, there is an ongoing assessment in terms of what cost
    savings might be achieved that we might be able to learn that
    later?
        Mr. Abbey. No, that's not what I'm implying. Basically,
    what I'm saying is that we're going to learn how much
    efficiencies there are, or cost savings there are, as we go
    forward and implement the actions that were approved.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I'm leaving here to go to another
    Appropriations subcommittee where I'm going to be inquiring
    with the Secretary of the Air Force about where they're going
    to achieve certain cost savings, and they're kind of going into
    the same thing.
        Well, we'll see if we get the cost savings that we're
    hoping for. My argument to them was, you made that argument to
    me in 2005 with the Base Realignment and Closure round. We
    didn't achieve the cost savings. Now, you're going back and
    you're doing the exact same thing.
        So count me a bit as a skeptic if we're waiting to see
    whether there's any efficiencies that are gained. I think you
    know that there's a lot of consternation about this specific
    merger. So I would hope that we would be focusing on how we see
    those savings, how we gain those efficiencies.
        Mr. Abbey. Again, I think that there will be some savings.
    I just could not give you the exact amount of savings at this
    point in time.
        There will be fewer people that would be employed. The
    systems would be consistent, or at least the systems that we
    would have in place in BLM, that would allow us to provide the
    support that OSM would require, are already in place. So it
    wouldn't require us to do much adjustment or to increase that
    type of capacity.
        And, again, we would be benchmarking against what OSM is
    currently doing and improving our own performance and
    operations within the BLM.
        Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. And thank you, gentlemen, for your
    testimony.
        Senator Reed. Senator Tester.
        Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a very
    quick follow up on what Senator Murkowski was talking about.
        You said there were going to be fewer people. Is there
    duplication that will be eliminated?
        Mr. Abbey. There is. I mean, that's why there will be less
    people because there will be duplication eliminated.
        Senator Tester. Okay. And will there be a higher level of
    accountability at least for us in order to know who to look at
    it, where the buck stops?
        Mr. Abbey. Yeah. You have my telephone number relative to
    the support function----
        Senator Tester. Well, I mean, part of the problem that I
    find is when it comes to accountability, I'm not talking about
    your agency, necessarily, is that there is duplication in work
    being done. And when it comes to a problem, when it arises,
    that there's--well, too many cooks in the kitchen.
        So you can't nail anybody down. Would this, from your
    perspective, would this help with accountability?
        Mr. Abbey. I do. Again, there's a lot of opportunities for
    us to improve our performance.
        Senator Tester. Okay.
        Mr. Abbey. In these lean times that we're all in, we need
    to be looking at every opportunity that we have to improve our
    performance, to create the efficiencies that the American
    taxpayers are demanding, and to reduce costs, because there are
    no new dollars coming our way.
        Senator Tester. All right. Thank you. That was just brought
    up. I'm glad Senator Murkowski brought it up because I think
    ultimately in the end, I think money is important but for us, I
    think what's equally--well, it is equally important in my
    opinion is--if something goes upside down and there's more than
    one agency dealing with it, people slip through the cracks.

                BLM deg.ONSHORE RENEWABLE ENERGY LEASES

        But that's not what I want to talk about. In your budget
    this year, $73 million was permitted to construct renewable
    energy projects on public lands. The agency has a goal of
    10,000 megawatts at the end of the year.
        The Department has recently sent out a request for
    information on proposing competitive leasing on public lands
    for renewable energy. It's a proposal similar to a bill that
    Senator Risch and I have, S. 1775, which directs the agency to
    pilot competitive leasing for renewable energy on public lands.
        BLM's request is a bit different, for information, it's a
    bit different? It does not include revenue sharing for states
    or communities or ecosystems which are most impacted by the
    development and has minimal sideboards for mitigation or
    avoidance of natural resource damage, and it doesn't return
    funding to streamline the process, as S. 1775 does.
        I believe it's because the BLM does not have the authority
    to do so today. I am optimistic to see the agency moving
    forward, but leasing is only a part of the equation. I would
    like to have you expand on how your agency plans to address the
    broader issue of impacts to communities, natural resources, if
    the permitting is expanded.
        Mr. Abbey. Well, first and foremost, we're quite intrigued
    by your legislation. Not only encouraging competitive process,
    but also, potentially, the return of some of the revenues back
    to mitigate for the impacts associated with such development.
        So we look forward to working with you, Senator, and others
    in this Congress to pass common sense legislation that would
    allow us to meet our common goals.
        As we go forward with greater emphasis on renewable energy
    development in using public lands to achieve that goal, we are
    quite confident that by calendar year 2013 we will have
    approved 11,000 megawatts of renewable energy generated from
    public lands.
        That would include wind, solar and geothermal, primarily.
    We are also moving forward expeditiously through our land use
    planning process and our NEPA process to actually designate--in
    the case of solar, solar energy development zones, where we
    would steer development, do our best to steer development to
    areas that have already been screened, analyzed, and cleared
    for such development.
        We would be proposing to do something similar for wind in
    the very, very near future, so that we could steer development
    to the best places where that development could go forward and
    actually achieve our mutual goal of diversifying the Nation's
    energy portfolio.
        At the same time, we understand that these are large-scale
    projects. They're large foot prints on these public lands.
    Therefore, we need to make sure that there is appropriate
    mitigation to offset the lands that are being dedicated for
    that particular type of use.
        We will work very closely with the communities. We are
    working very closely with all public land stakeholders, with
    the industry itself, as well as environmental groups, to come
    up with an appropriate mitigation for such a large-scale
    commercial development. And I think we're seeing some
    successes.

                    BLM deg.GEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT

        Senator Tester. That's good. I want to flesh out geothermal
    a little bit as long as you brought it up.
        Mr. Abbey. You bet.
        Senator Tester. I think it's an incredible opportunity to
    provide baseload power. It is very costly at this point in
    time.
        Senator Murkowski and I have a bill which would expand our
    knowledge about geothermal energy and its potential.
        Can you speak specifically, you touched on it, but
    specifically on your efforts to expand geothermal production
    and the barriers that you're facing at this point in time to
    deploying this technology?
        Mr. Abbey. Well, quite honestly, the footprint associated
    with geothermal is a lot less than with wind and solar. It also
    has probably the highest potential for future development than
    probably solar or wind as it relates to the amount of public
    lands that would be dedicated or made available for that type
    of particular use.
        We're very optimistic about the future of geothermal. You
    know, the prices are not necessarily competitive when you're
    looking or competing against coal and some of the other
    conventional energy sources at this point in time. But we do
    believe that geothermal will be a major part of our Nation's
    energy portfolio in the years to come.
        Senator Tester. Are you facing any barriers at this point
    in time other than money?
        Mr. Abbey. No, we're not.
        Senator Tester. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    think a three-member committee with a three-member board, this
    works out pretty damn nice. So thank you all very much for your
    time.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Tester. I want to thank
    the witnesses for their excellent testimony and for your
    skillful leadership of your agencies. I also want to thank my
    colleagues for what I concur with Senator Tester was a very
    productive and very thoughtful hearing.
        There may be additional questions. I would ask all of my
    colleagues to submit them within 1 week, by March 21, and for
    you gentlemen to respond as quickly as possible to any written
    questions.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Bureaus for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                     Questions Submitted to Robert V. Abbey
                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

           blm deg.NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT REVIEWS

        Question. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is now just completing
    work on the Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which
    has been a 4-year effort to categorize Federal land into Solar Energy
    Zones (SEZs) where solar development is encouraged, areas off limits to
    solar development, and areas where solar development will be allowed
    only in situations where a variance is awarded.
        In theory, this process was supposed to identify zones of BLM land
    where solar development is appropriate and the permitting process can
    be done expeditiously.
        However, I am concerned that the benefits of this process are still
    unclear.
        First, I don't understand how it will expedite permitting. BLM has
    not conducted comprehensive field studies of the SEZs, so solar
    development proposed within the zones will still be subject to a multi-
    year period of field studies, consultation with Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS), substantial species mitigation expenses, and likely
    another full EIS.
        Second, BLM has already permitting numerous projects in the only
    large zone in California, known as Riverside East, and experts suggest
    that the transmission capacity to this zone will be used up by the
    projects already permitted and further development in this area is
    unlikely.
        What incentives does BLM propose that will ensure that development
    of solar power on public lands in California is centered on these
    zones?
        Answer. The Supplement to the Draft Solar Programmatic Environment
    Impact Statement (EIS) describes in detail proposed incentives for
    developers to site new projects in SEZs--including greater certainty of
    applications being approved and shorter permitting times. This will be
    further refined in the final EIS.
        BLM has taken a number of important steps through the Supplement to
    the Draft Solar Programmatic EIS to facilitate future development in
    SEZs in a streamlined and standardized manner. Utility-scale solar
    energy development projects proposed in SEZs will be required to comply
    with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable
    laws, including, but not limited to the Endangered Species Act and the
    National Historic Preservation Act, and applicable regulations and
    policies. Nonetheless, much of the environmental analysis completed for
    the Supplement to the Draft Solar Programmatic EIS will benefit future
    development in SEZs by minimizing the level of detailed analyses
    required for individual projects. In addition to this work, under the
    Supplement to the Draft Solar Programmatic EIS BLM is proposing to
    undertake a variety of additional activities that could help steer
    future utility-scale solar development to the SEZs. For example, these
    include faster and easier permitting in SEZs; improvement of mitigation
    processes; facilitation of the permitting of needed transmission to
    SEZs; encouragement of solar development on appropriate non-Federal
    lands; and economic incentives for development in SEZs. For further
    details please see the Supplement to the Draft Solar Programmatic EIS,
    section 2.2.2.2.3 incentives for Projects in SEZs at: http://
    solareis.anl.gov/documents/sup/Supplement_to_the_Draft_Solar_PEIS.pdf.

                 blm deg.WEST MOJAVE SOLAR ENERGY ZONE

        Question. The Conference Report to the fiscal year 2012 Interior,
    Environment, and related agencies appropriations bill states: ``. . .
    the Secretary is instructed to complete a report evaluating the
    possible Solar Energy Study Areas in the West Mojave that respect
    designated off-road vehicle routes and provide the report to the
    Committee on Appropriations within ninety days of enactment of this
    Act.''
        What is the status of this report?
        Answer. BLM's California State Office is currently reviewing a
    draft report that includes a summary of BLM's approach and progress in
    the evaluation of solar energy development in the West Mojave. This
    evaluation is part of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan
    (DRECP). BLM is evaluating off-highway vehicle (OHV) access and other
    recreational resources as part of the environmental analysis.
    Recreation and OHV specialists at the BLM State offices, districts, and
    field offices are involved in this analysis. Some of the alternatives
    will include potential energy development impacts to OHV Open areas and
    to designated trails in the West Mojave. BLM is aware of the importance
    of access to multiple-use areas on public lands and is working with its
    Federal, State, and local partners to maintain multiple uses within the
    DRECP planning area.
        When does BLM intend to create a SEZ in the West Mojave to
    encourage development in this area of lower ecological value?
        Answer. Planning and analysis of renewable energy development in
    the West Mojave is currently underway. Draft environmental documents
    are expected to be released for public review in mid-September 2012.
    The final documents are expected to be released in mid-March 2013, and
    BLM anticipates making a final decision on the plan in late May 2013.
        DRECP is the largest landscape planning effort in California,
    covering approximately 22.5 million acres of Federal and non-Federal
    land in the Mojave and Colorado (Sonoran) deserts of southern
    California. Solar, wind, and transmission development are all under
    consideration for the West Mojave in the DRECP. Alternatives will
    consider different configurations of development in the West Mojave on
    both Federal and non-Federal land. One possible outcome of the DRECP
    could be the designation of an additional SEZ in the West Mojave.

                      blm deg.PRIORITY PERMITTING

        Question. When this administration took office in 2009, more than
    200 applications had been filed to develop renewable energy projects on
    BLM land in California, but no projects had been permitting, and only
    two were under formal NEPA review. Objectively speaking, the process
    for permitting was fundamentally broken.
        Over the past 3 years, this administration has fixed a broken
    system. BLM now creates a list of 8 to 12 ``priority projects'' each
    year on which to focus its work. The projects on this list propose to
    develop less environmentally sensitive lands in a manner less likely to
    end up in court, and have developers who have done the necessary work
    lining up transmission agreements, power purchase agreements and
    conducting field studies to be considered, for lack of a better term,
    ``ready to go.''
        Bottom line: BLM has prioritized the permitting of the best
    projects, and it has been able to permit many good projects
    expeditiously as a result. The proof is in the pudding. Very few of the
    projects in California permitted through the priority list process have
    been challenged in Court. (Brightsource's Ivanpaw, arguably the most
    controversial project permitted by BLM, was one of the two projects
    already under formal NEPA review when Obama took office.)
        BLM is now just completing work on the Solar Programmatic
    Environmental Impact Statement, which attempts to categorize Federal
    land into SEZs where solar development is encouraged, areas off limits
    to solar development, and areas where solar development will be allows
    only in situations where a variance is awarded.
        How does BLM plan to integrate its highly successful ``priority
    projects'' approach to permitting with this new approach?
        Answer. Over the past 3 years, BLM has implemented a program to
    prioritize the processing of renewable energy applications. These
    priority lists were developed in collaboration with FWS, the National
    Park Service (NPS), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs with an emphasis
    on early consultation. The screening criteria for priority solar and
    wind projects, developed through BLM policy memoranda issued in
    February 2011, assisted in evaluating and screening these utility-scale
    projects on BLM-managed lands. The process of screening for projects is
    about focusing resources on the most-promising renewable-energy
    projects. One of the likely outcomes of the Supplement to the Draft
    Solar Programmatic EIS is that some SEZs would be established. Projects
    located within the SEZs would be given priority for processing, all
    other factors being equal, over projects outside these zones. However,
    even if SEZs are established, there will almost certainly be legitimate
    reasons for developing certain projects outside of these zones, and BLM
    will work to ensure that permitting timelines are reasonable for all
    meritorious projects. As described in the Supplement to the Draft Solar
    Programmatic EIS (Appendix A, Section A.2.1.1), BLM will develop and
    incorporate into its Solar Energy Program an adaptive management and
    monitoring plan to ensure that data and lessons learned about the
    impacts of solar energy projects will be collected, reviewed, and, as
    appropriate, incorporated into BLM's Solar Energy Program in the
    future.

                  blm deg.DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LAND

        Question. A recent study by the Defense Department (DOD) found that
    four military bases in California could produce 7,000 MW of solar power
    on marginal base lands. The lands cannot be used for training and have
    little ecological value. However, some of these base lands were
    ``withdrawn'' long ago. I understand that BLM and the Interior
    Department continue to assert that these lands should be returned to
    BLM management if they are developed for solar, even though these lands
    are often surrounded on all sides by the base. Realistically, I think
    Interior's position will prevent the DOD from opening its bases to
    solar development if it means giving up control of lands in the middle
    of military bases.
        Will BLM agree to work with the DOD to settle, within 3 months, its
    legal dispute with regard to management of withdrawn lands developed
    for solar energy?
        Answer. While the development of renewable energy on the public
    lands is a national priority, providing opportunities for renewable
    energy development on DOD lands (including BLM withdrawn lands), is
    also important. We have established a collaborative process with the
    DOD to address renewable energy development opportunities on BLM-
    withdrawn land. The Department of the Interior (DOI) and DOD in April
    2011 formed an Interagency Land Use Coordinating Committee (ILUCC) to
    help facilitate that dialogue. The Committee is co-chaired by DOI
    Deputy Assistant Secretary Sylvia Baca and DOD Assistant Deputy Under
    Secretary John Conger. The ILUCC members include not only BLM, but also
    FWS, NPS, Office of the Solicitor, and the individual DOD services.
    Several subgroups have been formed under the ILUCC to address various
    areas of collaboration, including a subgroup that is focused on
    resolving authorities for the siting and permitting of renewable energy
    projects on BLM withdrawn lands.

      blm deg.BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SOLAR SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
                  PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

        Question. Director Abbey, last October BLM issued its Draft
    Supplemental Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS),
    which includes large amounts of ``variance'' lands outside the solar
    zones. It is my understanding that while applicants are strongly
    encouraged to pursue projects within the identified solar zones, BLM
    will consider permitting development in these ``variance'' areas. While
    some flexibility to consider lands beyond the zones may be necessary, I
    find it highly problematic that an estimated 50,000 acres of land that
    were donated or purchased with Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars
    have been included in the variance lands. Given that these lands were
    intended to be preserved in perpetuity, I do not believe they should be
    open for development. Can you tell me what is the process by which BLM
    will consider and grant permission for solar projects to be constructed
    on ``variance'' lands?
        Answer. The process for considering solar projects on ``variance''
    lands has been delineated in the Supplement to the Draft Solar
    Programmatic EIS in detail. However, no final decision has been made.
    In addition, there might be market, technological, or site-specific
    factors that make a project appropriate in a non-SEZ area. BLM will
    consider variance applications on a case-by-case basis, based on
    environmental considerations; consultation with appropriate Federal,
    State, and local agencies, and tribes; and public outreach. If BLM
    determines a variance application to be appropriate for continued
    processing, BLM will require the applicant to comply with NEPA and all
    other applicable laws, regulations, and policies at the applicant's
    expense. Applicants applying for a variance must assume all risk
    associated with their application and understand that their financial
    commitments in connection with their applications will not be a
    determining factor in BLM's evaluation process.
        Why have donated and LWCF-acquired lands been included among the
    ``variance'' lands and what steps are being taken to avoid their
    development?
        Answer. Comments received on the Supplement to the Draft Solar
    Programmatic EIS have requested that donated and LWCF-acquired lands be
    identified as exclusion areas for utility-scale solar energy
    development. BLM is currently considering this request. However, no
    decision has been made yet. We would be pleased to brief members of
    your staff if you so desire.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        Question. Director Abbey, thank you as well for taking time to
    appear. While reading your testimony, I was most interested in what
    steps you take to increase the percentage of leased onshore lands which
    are currently producing. We have 38 million onshore acres leased, which
    is a slight decrease from the previous year, when 41 million acres were
    leased. On these 38 million acres, only 32 percent, by your estimate,
    are currently producing.
        What is the prime deterrent to production on Federal onshore lands?
    It certainly is not a shortage of companies able to do the work. In
    fact, production on private lands has increased drastically--enough to
    cover the 15 million barrel shortfall from 2010 to 2011. In your
    opinion, what is holding back the huge amount of companies who want to
    work onshore from doing so on Federal lands?
        Answer. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) strives to achieve a
    balance between oil and gas production and protection of the
    environment. Facilitating the efficient, responsible development of
    domestic oil and gas resources is part of the administration's broad
    energy strategy that will protect consumers and help reduce our
    dependence on foreign oil. BLM is working on a variety of fronts to
    ensure that development is done efficiently and responsibly including:
      --implementing leasing reforms;
      --continuing leasing activities in the National Petroleum Reserve in
            Alaska;
      --continuing to process drilling permits in a timely fashion; and
      --improving inspection, enforcement, and production accountability.
        Oil and gas drilling and development are market-driven activities,
    and the demand for leases is a function of market conditions. Market
    drivers include prevailing and anticipated oil and gas prices, bidder
    assessments of the quality of the resource base in a given area, the
    availability/proximity of necessary infrastructure, and the proximity
    of the lease to local, regional, and national markets and export hubs.
    The shale formations that currently have high industry interest for
    development, such as North Dakota's Bakken shale, Texas's Eagle Ford
    shale and the Marcellus and Utica shales of the Eastern United States,
    are primarily in areas with a high proportion of non-Federal land.
    These areas have seen increased development recently due to a favorable
    mix of the factors noted above. As drilling priorities shift due to
    changes in technology or markets, an operator may choose different
    areas for development. Further, BLM lands are primarily gas-prone.
    Recent national rig counts (by Baker Hughes) indicate that rigs
    drilling for gas are at an ``all-time low'' (by percentage) and the gas
    is selling at ``a record discount to crude.'' (Wall Street Journal, May
    14, 2012).
        Approximately 38 million acres of Federal land are currently leased
    for oil and gas development. Approximately 12 million acres are
    producing oil and gas, and active exploration is occurring on an
    additional 4 million acres. BLM has approved approximately 7,000
    drilling permits that are not being used by industry.
        Question. You mention that you plan to take steps to increase
    production on leased lands, and I see that one step would be a proposed
    $4 per-acre fee on nonproducing lands, which I do not support. Do you
    have any plans to increase regulatory clarity to make the process or
    permitting and oversight more straightforward? Do you plan to increase
    the minimum bids for onshore lands or shorten the time leases may be
    held without production?
        Answer. The purpose of the nonproducing lease fee is to encourage
    diligent development of leased parcels. The nonproducing lease fee will
    provide financial motivation to either put leases into production or
    relinquish the leases so they can be re-leased.
        As part of BLM's ongoing efforts to ensure efficient processing of
    oil and gas permit applications, BLM will implement new automated
    tracking systems expected to significantly reduce the review period for
    drilling permits and expedite the sale and processing of Federal oil
    and gas leases.
        The new system for drilling permits, which is expected to be fully
    online by May 2013, will track permit applications through the entire
    review process and quickly flag any missing or incomplete information.
    This will enable operators to communicate with the BLM more promptly to
    address deficiencies in their applications.
        To expedite the sale and processing of Federal oil and gas leases,
    BLM will launch a new National Oil and Gas Lease Sale System, which
    will streamline the phases of competitive oil and gas lease sales by
    electronically tracking BLM's leasing process from start to finish.
    This new system will replace numerous stand-alone systems and provide a
    consistent, easy-to-use electronic process for both the oil and gas
    industry and BLM employees. BLM estimates the National Lease Sale
    System will be ready to begin testing in a pilot State by December
    2012.
        The Mineral Leasing Act establishes the national minimum acceptable
    bid and the primary term of an oil and gas lease. The act provides the
    Secretary of the Interior with the authority to establish a higher
    national minimum bid amount. However, the act does not provide
    authority to the Secretary to modify the primary term of an oil and gas
    lease.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted to Tommy P. Beaudreau
                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        Question. Director Beaudreau, thank you also for taking time to
    appear before this hearing today. In your testimony, you mentioned the
    efforts that the Bureau of Energy Management (BOEM) is making to
    increase offshore production, in light of the President's stated desire
    to increase production. You mention that you aim to open 75 percent of
    technically recoverable assets to drilling, and that you have taken
    steps to increase the percentage of currently leased lands that are
    producing.
        I see that you have scheduled the final lease sale under this 5-
    year plan and that you are already looking forward to the next 5-year
    plan, under which you aim to open 75 percent of technically recoverable
    assets. Since we currently produce on only 2 percent of the total land
    in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), what effect will this have on the
    amount of land being produced on--that is, is an increase to 75 percent
    of technically recoverable assets as large a step as the President has
    stated?
        Answer. The proposed Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012
    to 2017 focuses on encouraging exploration and development where the
    oil is--and the Gulf of Mexico still has the greatest, by a large
    margin, untapped resource potential in the entire OCS. The Gulf of
    Mexico is the crown jewel of the OCS, and will remain so for the
    foreseeable future as developments in seismic and drilling technology
    have opened new resource frontiers in the gulf. The Gulf of Mexico, in
    particular the deepwater, already has several world class producing
    basins, and just in the past year there have been a number of
    significant new discoveries.
        The 75 percent represents the portion of BOEM's estimated total
    ``undiscovered technically recoverable resources'' on the OCS that
    underlie areas being considered for oil and gas leasing in the proposed
    program. Our geological and geophysical data indicate that those
    resources are not evenly dispersed across the OCS and that a relatively
    small area may have very high concentrations of potentially recoverable
    resources.
        According to BOEM's findings, the Central Gulf of Mexico is
    estimated to hold more than 30 billion barrels of oil and 133.9
    trillion cubic feet of natural gas of undiscovered resources. This is
    nearly double the resource potential of even the Chukchi Sea. The
    Western Gulf of Mexico is just behind the Chukchi Sea with more than 12
    billion barrels of oil and nearly 80 trillion cubic feet of natural
    gas. BOEM derived the 75-percent figure from an evaluation of the
    undiscovered technically recoverable resources estimated in the
    proposed lease areas as a function of this total estimated amount.
        Question. You also mentioned the steps you have taken to increase
    production on the lands which are currently leased, including a
    proposed $4 per-acre fee on nonproducing leases, which I do not
    support--you have raised the minimum bid on deepwater acres, and you
    have shortened the time that a lease may be held without any production
    occurring. What has been your feedback from industry on these two
    steps? What effects do you believe that these steps will have?
        Answer. While BOEM implements these measures for offshore leases,
    we have continued to see robust industry interest in acquiring leases
    that include these underlying terms. The increased minimum bid and new
    lease terms were in place for Western Gulf of Mexico lease sale 218,
    held in December 2011. The bidding activity in that sale demonstrates
    that these changes are not having a detrimental impact on industry's
    interest in acquiring leases in the gulf.
        A $4 per-acre fee on nonproducing Federal leases would provide a
    financial incentive for oil and gas companies to either get their
    leases into production, or relinquish them so the tracts can be leased
    to and developed by new parties. In general, industry has not been
    supportive of the fee, citing concerns over delays that they argue are
    out of their control. However, the administration believes that this
    legislative proposal is important to encourage energy production on
    lands and waters leased for development. The $4 per-acre fee would only
    apply to new leases and would be adjusted for inflation annually. The
    minimum bid on deepwater acres encourages prompt development and
    production, and helps to ensure that the American public receives fair
    market value for these shared resources. BOEM plans to use the minimum
    bid as a way to limit the sale size, rather than arbitrarily adjusting
    the size of the sale. This allows the market to determine which tracts
    are leased. The minimum bid strategy used will be consistent with the
    goal of maximizing the economic value of OCS resources.
        As you mention, BOEM has taken several specific steps to provide
    incentives for diligent development and to encourage operators to bid
    on tracts that they are more likely to develop. These steps include:
          Increasing Rental Rates To Encourage Faster Exploration and
            Development of Leases.--In the Gulf of Mexico, during the
            initial term of a lease and before the commencement of royalty-
            bearing production, the lessee pays annual rentals which either
            step-up by almost half after year 5--for leases in water 400
            meters or deeper--or escalate each year after year 5--for
            leases in less than 400 meters of water. The primary use of
            step-up and escalating rentals is to encourage faster
            exploration and development of leases, or earlier
            relinquishment when exploration is unlikely to be undertaken by
            the current lessee. Rental payments also serve to discourage
            lessees from purchasing tracts they are unlikely to actually
            develop, and they provide an incentive for the lessee to drill
            the lease or to relinquish it, thereby giving other market
            participants an opportunity to acquire these blocks. In March
            2009, in addition to implementing escalating rental rates, BOEM
            raised the base rental rates for years 1-5.
          Tiered Durational Terms To Incentivize Prompt Exploration and
            Development.--Industry maintains that producing oil is a
            lengthy process that takes years between the time a lease is
            awarded and the time energy begins flowing from a well on that
            lease site. In order to address this concern, BOEM implemented
            tiered durational terms to incentivize prompt exploration and
            development for leases in the Gulf of Mexico for certain water
            depths (400-1,600 meters): a relatively short initial lease
            followed by an additional period under the same lease terms if
            the operator has already drilled a well. In addition, BOEM
            maintains lease terms graduated by water depth in order to
            account for technical differences in operating at various water
            depths. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement also
            recently informed lessees of a decision from the Department's
            Office of Hearings and Appeals that reaffirms the requirement
            that lessees demonstrate a commitment to produce oil or gas in
            order to be eligible for lease expiration suspensions.
          Increased Minimum Bid.--In 2011, BOEM increased the minimum bid
            for tracts in at least 400 meters of water in the Gulf of
            Mexico to $100 per acre, up from $37.50, to help ensure that
            taxpayers receive fair market value for offshore resources and
            to provide leaseholders with additional impetus to invest in
            leases that they are more likely to develop. Analysis of the
            last 15 years of lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico showed that
            deepwater leases that received high bids of less than $100 per
            acre, adjusted for energy prices at the time of each sale,
            experienced virtually no exploration and development drilling.
                                     ______

                      Questions Submitted to James Watson
                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        Question. Thank you for making time today to appear before this
    hearing. I realize that you only assumed office on December 1, 2011,
    but I understand that you have already taken time to visit Port
    Fourchon, a vital supply and support hub for our offshore industry. I
    am hopeful that we will develop a close working relationship and that
    you will bring new and effective leadership to the Bureau of Safety and
    Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).
        Reading through you testimony, a few points caught my attention.
    First, you mention that the new standards for inspection are much more
    stringent, reflected in the fact that the timeline for permit approval
    is now longer and that you have hired more inspectors and engineers. I
    understand that these steps were taken to account for increased
    difficulty in permitting, but despite this, I continually hear from
    industry about the difficulty that they face not only in permit
    approval, but also the submission process which occurs prior to any
    technical review of a permit application.
         Would it make the permit submission process more streamlined if
    you were to hire more administrative personnel? I understand that
    already work is being shifted from district to district to alleviate
    excessive workload--could this be a function of understaffing on the
    administrative side of things?
        Answer. Permit reviews are addressed by engineers in the Bureau's
    district offices. BSEE is hiring and training new engineers to reduce
    review and approval time and improve upon the efficiencies that we have
    achieved over the past year. The variation in workload that we see
    among our district offices in the Gulf of Mexico region is a result of
    the geographic distribution of oil and gas activity in the Gulf of
    Mexico. The bulk of the activity in the gulf is occurring in the areas
    overseen by our New Orleans and Houma District offices. When
    appropriate, we shift certain high-priority permits from the New
    Orleans and Houma District offices to other offices that have the
    ability to provide assistance. Permit applications are submitted and
    reviewed electronically, so engineers in any district have access to
    all submitted applications. Administrative personnel are essential to
    operations in our regional and district offices, and provide vital
    support to our engineers who are educated and trained to review or
    approve permit applications.
        Question. I also hear that many of these submissions are being
    returned for resubmission 8 or 9 times--because of small grammatical
    errors or the use of footnotes. I understand that you have instituted a
    workshop for permitting, might it be helpful to these companies to have
    a workshop focused purely on the guidelines for submission, so that we
    may avoid these problems. Might it also be beneficial to rewrite the
    submission process so that permit applications are judged on their
    technical merits more heavily than their grammar?
        Answer. As you point out, BSEE has held permitting workshops for
    industry that were attended by more than 200 offshore industry
    personnel. In addition, the Bureau has also published an Application
    for Permit to Drill (APD) submission checklist for operators to provide
    clear guidance to operators about the requirements for submitting a
    complete APD. Because of these efforts, as well as industry's
    increasing familiarity with the new safety requirements instituted
    after the Deepwater Horizon event, permit review times have decreased
    significantly over the past year and the number of applications
    returned to applicants for being incomplete or incorrect has also
    declined. We return submittals to applicants for substantive reasons,
    not for grammatical errors. The Bureau will continue to work with
    industry to make the permit application and review process as clear and
    efficient as possible, while continuing to ensure that every
    application meets all safety requirements.
        Question. I also understand that you plan to update the Interim
    Drilling Safety rule to increase regulatory clarity, and that you are
    currently reviewing comments on the Safety and Environmental Management
    Systems II (SEMS II) rule to increase regulatory clarity and provide
    for a more streamlined, but still safe, process moving forward. What
    details can you give me about the changes you are making, and what
    affects you expect these changes to have?
        Answer. The Final Drilling Safety Rule will respond to the comments
    received on the Interim Final Rule and is expected to be published in
    the Federal Register in the near term. These changes will provide a
    considerable amount of clarification and simplification of the
    regulations featured in the Interim Drilling Safety rule.
        The SEMS II Proposed Rule proposes to expand, revise, and add
    several new requirements necessary to ensuring industry uses robust
    SEMS programs and to facilitate oversight. The comment period for the
    SEMS II Proposed Rule closed on November 14, 2011, and BSEE is
    currently reviewing the comments.
        Question. I know that your agency, as well as the others testifying
    today, is actively involved in developing and implementing a long-term
    restoration plan for the Gulf of Mexico. I am sure you are aware that
    the Mabus report on America's gulf coast highlighted the need for
    developing quantifiable performance measures to track progress in the
    Gulf of Mexico recovery efforts, including an assessment of baseline
    environmental conditions. The subsequent Gulf Coast Ecosystem
    Restoration Task Force report echoed these recommendations and further
    noted the need for a robust data collection regimen. In light of the
    budget pressures facing your agency, how does the fiscal year 2013
    budget support these important baseline environmental data collection
    activities? Are you considering more cost-effective, technologically
    advanced data collection systems, such as unmanned, persistent
    propulsion marine robotic vehicles?
        Answer. Baseline environmental data collection responsibilities
    fall under the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) Office of
    Environmental Programs, and are not BSEE functions. The environmental
    program under BSEE focuses on environmental compliance and enforcement
    efforts and relies upon BOEM for necessary environmental analyses.
        BOEM's fiscal year 2013 budget request for environmental
    assessments includes an increase of $700,000 to support environmental
    data collection for baseline information on species, habitats, and
    ecosystems. These studies and other scientific information form the
    basis of environmental assessments and environmental impact statements
    required under the National Environmental Policy Act prior to
    development. This increase in funding will enable BOEM to initiate one
    or two new high-priority baseline characterization and monitoring
    studies. These studies will expand the scientific basis for informed
    and environmentally responsible policy decisions at BOEM and the
    enforcement of environmental regulations by BSEE.
        With respect to advanced data collection systems, BOEM has
    historically used the best-available technology in its studies and will
    consider emerging technologies when looking at future analyses.
        Question. The Interior Department administratively issued new
    guidance for removal of idle iron--unilaterally changing previous
    regulations for the decommissioning of offshore platforms and wells.
    Would the Department of the Interior support amending the new idle iron
    guidance to either allow for structures to be reefed in place or
    provided an extension of time to remove structure that will eventually
    be placed in the Rigs-to-Reefs program?
        Answer. The regulations regarding decommissioning facilities and
    wells (subpart Q of 30 CFR 250) have remained the same since October
    30, 2002. The Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) No. 2010-G05 was
    issued on September 15, 2010 to clarify the decommissioning
    regulations, provide clearer definitions, and allow operators to submit
    plans for the use of wells and structures that are potentially no
    longer useful for lease operations. BSEE is currently reviewing plans
    on a case-by-case basis and working with operators on schedules for
    decommissioning and future use of wells and structures.
        BSEE supports the reuse of obsolete oil and gas facilities. About
    12 percent of all platforms decommissioned annually in the Gulf of
    Mexico are used as artificial reefs through State-sponsored programs.
    The NTL 2010-G05 does not prevent an operator from reusing a structure.
    A proposal to reuse a facility as a reef is a complex multi-step
    process that must comply with several State and Federal regulations as
    well as engineering and environmental reviews. Consequently, not all
    structures are good candidates for artificial reefs. The Bureau's
    policy was developed in accordance with its mission and allows for
    sound adaptive management. We are in close communication with the State
    artificial reef coordinators, industry, and our Federal partners to
    ensure that the reuse of obsolete oil and gas facilities remains a
    viable alternative in the decommissioning process.
        Question. It is my understanding that the Federal Fishery
    Rebuilding Plan for Gulf Red Snapper is based on the critical marine
    habitat provided by older oil and gas structures in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Has the Interior Department discussed or coordinated with the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the potential devastating impacts to marine
    life from its idle iron directive?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior, through BSEE, has
    coordinated, and will continue to coordinate with NOAA's NMFS on the
    decommissioning program and the possible impacts on marine life. The
    Department, in coordination with NMFS and Louisiana State University's
    Coastal Marine Institute, has also funded numerous studies regarding
    the habitat provided by Outer Continental Shelf facilities and the
    potential impact of decommissioning facilities on fisheries.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Reed. If there are any of my colleagues that wish
    to have statements submitted for the record, they will be
    accepted for the record without objection.
        And with that, again, let me thank you, and conclude the
    hearing.
        [Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., Wednesday, March 14, the hearing
    was concluded, and the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2012

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:34 a.m. in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Reed, Feinstein, Johnson, Tester, and
    Murkowski.

                    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          United States Forest Service

    STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF
    ACCOMPANIED BY SUSAN SPEAR, ACTING DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC PLANNING BUDGET
                AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                     OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

        Senator Reed. Good morning. I would like to welcome
    everyone to this hearing on the fiscal year 2013 budget request
    of the United States Forest Service (USFS).
        And on behalf of the subcommittee, I would like to welcome
    Tom Tidwell, Chief of the USFS. Chief, thank you. And he is
    joined by Susan Spear. Thank you, Susan.
        We appreciate you appearing before us to discuss the issues
    pertaining to the USFS.
        As you may know, Rhode Island is not home to any national
    forest, yet. But the reality is that 55 percent of my State is
    actually forested land. It is in State or private ownership.
    That's a huge amount given we are the smallest State in the
    country, and also have the second-highest population density.
        So, forests are important to every State, including Rhode
    Island. We recognize the USFS's main role is to maintain our
    national forests, but they also support outdoor recreation,
    habitat, access to open space in every State in the country,
    including Rhode Island.
        Again, we thank you for your service, and believe it is
    important everywhere. And the hearing today is to ask you
    questions about your budget, and to see what we can do to
    provide you the resources necessary.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST

        As I turn to this budget, I note that the administration's
    request for all USFS programs totals $4.849 billion in new
    budget authority. That amount is $255.1 million or a 5.6-
    percent increase more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
        What looks like a large increase though has to be put into
    perspective. It is important to note that this subcommittee
    provided an additional $240 million in prior-year funding to
    cover firefighting needs for fiscal year 2012.
        So on an apple-to-apples basis, that means that the
    administration's budget request is really only $15 million more
    than the fiscal year 2012 level, well within the kind of
    request we've seen for other departments under our
    jurisdiction.

                            WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

        Overall, the requested funds will continue wildland fire
    management (WFM) programs at $1.971 billion, a level that's
    essentially flat when compared to the fiscal year 2012 request.
    Within that amount, fire suppression's portion is fully funded
    at the 10-year rolling average of $931 million.
        USFS has also set aside $24 million from within its fire
    program to begin building its next-generation airtanker fleet,
    an action that is long overdue and something that I hope we can
    discuss at greater length this morning.

                             NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

        The request includes $1.62 billion for national forest
    system operations, an increase of $69 million, or about 4
    percent. Much of that increase is actually due to a major
    budget restructuring to create a $793 million Integrated
    Resource Restoration (IRR) program, a program which this
    subcommittee started as a pilot in fiscal year 2012, while the
    budget requests full funding. We will talk about whether the
    time is right for full funding or whether the pilot still has
    to be pursued.
        This request also includes an 11-percent increase for land
    acquisition and Forest Legacy programs for a total of $118
    million. Funding for construction of roads, trails, and
    facilities is cut by 12 percent, for a total of $334 million.

                           STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

        And, finally, State and Private Forestry programs are
    slated to receive a 1-percent cut for a total of $251 million.
        The budget request includes a number of proposed changes to
    State Forestry Grants including a new $18 million competition
    to fund landscape-scale restoration projects, which I also
    expect we will have a chance to discuss today.
        I look forward to hearing a more in-depth discussion of
    these matters with you, Chief, and Ms. Spear, after you have
    had the opportunity to share your testimony.
        With that, let me recognize and acknowledge my Ranking
    Member, Senator Murkowski. Senator.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
    morning. And, Chief, good morning to you. Ms. Spear, welcome
    also.
        Before I comment on a couple of concerns that I have with
    the USFS budget request, I would like to raise a recent court
    decision that I believe has the potential to severely hamper
    the ability of the USFS to get work done on the ground.

                        SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER VS. TIDWELL

        Chief, I think you clearly know what I'm talking about. On
    March 19, the Federal District Court in California found in
    Sequoia ForestKeeper vs. Tidwell that the USFS's use of
    categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy
    Act (NEPA) violates the Appeals Reform Act and enjoined the
    USFS from using these exclusions nationwide without providing
    for notice, comment, and appeal.
        This will mean that simple, routine tasks that have no
    environmental impact will be subject to full notice, public
    comment, and appeal. I think we're already seeing some absurd
    consequences.
        For example, Mr. Chairman, the USFS Web site lists a
    decision to replace a campground bathroom that is now subject
    to notice, comment, and appeal due to the Sequoia ForestKeeper
    case decision even though the USFS explicitly found that it
    will have no impact on the environment.
        So if a project as routine as replacing a bathroom in a
    campground is now subject to appeal, it's hard for me to
    imagine any USFS action that some group could not appeal or
    delay. And, in a time of extremely tight resources, I think
    this will cause waste within the Agency.
        We will lose enormous amounts of time. It will increase the
    costs of getting necessary work done, and it concerns me. I'm
    particularly concerned how this decision will affect activities
    on the Tongass National Forest in Alaska.

                         CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION IMPACTS

        In a local press account in the Juneau Empire earlier this
    month, the region 10 regional forester indicated that a
    categorical exclusion was used during the exploratory drilling
    process associated with Greens Creek.
        And I hope that you'll be able to explain to me the impact
    that this court decision may have on mining activities on the
    Tongass National Forest, not only at Greens Creek, but at the
    Niblack and Bokan Projects as well.
        I'm told that compliance with the court's order could add
    140 days to the permitting process where categorical exclusions
    have been used. These added delays will have even more harmful
    impacts in Alaska where the field's season is shorter than it
    is in the lower 48.
        I do hope, Chief, that you can assure me today that USFS
    plans to appeal the court's decision in Sequoia ForestKeeper
    vs. Tidwell, and that you're doing everything possible to
    mitigate the impacts of this decision.

                        INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION

        Now, turning to the budget, I'm concerned that, once again,
    USFS is proposing to collapse several different budget
    activities, including timber, into one large pot called IRR.
        This subcommittee explicitly rejected the same proposal
    last year and instead gave you the authority to pilot the
    concepts in regions 1, 3, and 4. The clear intent of the pilot
    was for USFS to prove that the concept had merit before the
    committee would consider it again.
        At this point, I don't think we've got the information from
    these three regions that would provide for an informed judgment
    on the merits of the proposal.
        There are many constituencies from the environmental
    community to industry that are skeptical of the big bucket
    approach to the budget, and I think that we need some clear
    data from the regions before we approve the consolidation of
    budget activities.
        And I certainly understand the Agency's desire for
    flexibility. The Congress and the public require the
    accountability, and I'm concerned that we're going to lose that
    with this proposal.

                            AIRTANKER MODERNIZATION

        I do applaud USFS for including $24 million in its budget
    for modernization of the large airtanker fleet. However, I am
    troubled by the lack of specifics within the budget about how
    these funds are going to be spent.
        Likewise, I appreciate that USFS issued a large airtanker
    modernization strategy, but again, I'm concerned about the lack
    of details. It does contain general description of several
    aircraft, but no indication of how and when the Agency intends
    to make its selection or whether it plans to purchase its own
    aircraft or continue to use the existing model of contracting
    for industry aircraft.
        So I do hope that you can give us some additional details
    on USFS plan for this. Again, Chief, I welcome you and thank
    you for your service, and look forward for the opportunity for
    questions and answers here this morning.
        Thank you.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Senator Reed. Let me ask if any of my colleagues have
    opening statements. And, of course, all statements will be made
    part of the record. But if anyone wants to make statements now
    is the time to do so.
        Also, I have been informed that Senator Blunt regrettably
    could not attend this hearing in person, but has submitted a
    prepared 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. I appreciate this opportunity to examine the
    budgetary needs of the United States Forest Service (USFS) in order to
    make sure taxpayer dollars are spent on programs that reflect our
    Nation's priorities.
        Additionally, I would like to thank Chief Tidwell and Director
    Spear for being here today.
        USFS manages more than 193 million acres of public land. The Mark
    Twain National Forest in Missouri represents a significant part of that
    mission. The Mark Twain National Forest consists of 1.5 million acres
    spanning 29 Missouri counties.
        USFS announced that more than $40 million would be dedicated to
    projects under the Land and Water Conversation Fund, including the Mark
    Twain National Forest. This includes almost $1 million to connect
    existing national forest lands to the Ozark National Scenic Riverways,
    with the stated goals of protecting watershed quality and providing
    maximum benefit for both resident and migratory wildlife species.
        While, of course, conservation activities with respect to forests
    are critical, I would hope that USFS focuses their efforts on the
    opportunity to increase harvest levels, without compromising forest
    health, and improve the Federal Government's return on its investment.
        Over the last 5 years, annual saw timber harvests in the Mark Twain
    National Forest averaged about $2.1 million for the 17.2 million board
    feet sold, according to Forest Industry and Analysis data.
        However, timber sale proceeds cover only about 7 percent of the
    Mark Twain National Forest's annual budget of $28 million.
        With annual saw timber growth of more than 210 million board feet
    worth an estimated $21,273,000, the National Forest System is missing a
    significant opportunity to capitalize on these resources.
        I hope that USFS takes these types of considerations into account
    when allocating, spending, or establishing new management plans.
        We need to both protect and utilize our natural resources to boost
    contributions to the GDP and create jobs. I look forward to your
    testimony, and thank you again for being here.

        Senator Reed. Senator Johnson.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

        Senator Johnson. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Reed, and Senator
    Murkowski, for holding this hearing today. And thank you, Chief
    Tidwell and Ms. Spear for being here to discuss the
    administration's request for USFS.
        I've appreciated your attention to forest health in South
    Dakota, and I look forward to continuing this discussion today
    in the context of the fiscal year 2013 budget. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Senator Tester.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER

        Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    you holding the hearing, and along with the Ranking Member,
    once again, thanks for being here, Chief. And, Susan, thank you
    very much for both of your time and your service to this great
    country.

                                   H.R. 1581

        I just want to touch on one thing that you might be able to
    address in your opening statement. It deals with a bill in the
    House--H.R. 1581. It's a bill that, quite frankly, I think is a
    direct attack on our hunter and our fishermen in this country
    as far as access.
        One of the huge assets we have in this country is our
    Federal lands, particularly in the West. And the ability to
    utilize those Federal lands in a way that makes sense is
    critically important.
        What H.R. 1581 is going to do is release a lot of pristine,
    back-country land, good elk, good fisheries, just incredibly
    prized elk habitat and blue ribbon fisheries.
        Montana has one of the highest percentage of hunters and
    anglers in the Nation and it amazes me that some over in the
    House want to take away these opportunities. They want to talk
    about second amendment on the one hand, and in the other hand,
    take away the opportunity to use rifles in the wild.
        I would like to have you address that, if you can, in your
    opening statement, on what USFS thinks about extreme proposals
    like H.R. 1581, and what you think we ought to do about it.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both.
        Senator Reed. Thanks, Senator Tester. Chief Tidwell,
    please.

                        SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL

        Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
    it is a privilege to be here to discuss the President's fiscal
    year 2013 budget request for the USFS.
        I want to thank you for the support that we have received
    from this subcommittee in the past, and I look forward to
    working with you in the future.
        The President's budget request, as you've already noted,
    reflects some very difficult choices we need to make to help
    reduce the deficit while investing in long-term economic growth
    and job creation.
        Our budget request supports these priorities through three
    key objectives. The first is our focus on restoration. This
    budget request would restore and sustain another 2.6 million
    acres of forest and grasslands by increasing collaborative
    efforts and building support for restoration activities, which
    helps create thousands of jobs each year.
        It requests full funding for the Collaborative Forest
    Landscape Restoration Fund that you gave us last year. We have
    been able to identify an additional 10 projects that are now
    moving forward because of what you were able to provide us in
    last year's budget. So I want to thank you for that.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget also requests permanent
    authorization for stewardship contracting, which is an
    essential tool that we need to have available, along with our
    timber sale contracts, to be able to do this restoration work.
        It also allows us to continue to apply the science, as
    developed by USFS research, to address the increasing frequency
    of forest disturbances. These range from longer fire seasons,
    record insect and disease outbreaks, and invasives to the
    floods and the droughts that we are experiencing.

                        INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION

        The budget request proposes an IRR budget-line item to
    align our budget structure with the work. I know that we need
    to first demonstrate through our pilot and the pilot regions,
    that this approach will not only increase our productivity and
    efficiency but also for us to be able to show not only the
    outputs that will be produced, but also how the outcome of this
    is going to help us address the watershed conditions across all
    our lands.
        Once again, I want to thank you for this pilot authority.

                            WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

        The second key objective with our budget request deals with
    WFM. It includes a level of preparedness that will continue our
    success in suppressing close to 98 percent of the wildland
    fires that we take on during initial attack. It does request
    the 10-year average for suppression.
        This is the area where you see a large increase, Mr.
    Chairman, as you have mentioned, in our budget request. It will
    also reduce the threat of wildfire to homes and communities by
    reducing hazardous fuels on a million acres in the wildland
    urban interface (WUI).

                            AIRTANKER MODERNIZATION

        It does request an additional $24 million to begin
    modernizing our large airtanker fleet. These funds will be used
    to pay for what we anticipate will be the additional contract
    costs to bring on what we call our next generation of large
    airtankers.

                      AMERICA'S GREAT OUTDOORS INITIATIVE

        The third objective is through the America's Great Outdoors
    Initiative, where we will increase support for community-based
    conservation. This enables us to continue to support
    recreational opportunities that improve on our quality of life,
    which we enjoy in this country, but it will also help maintain
    more than 223,000 jobs and about $13 billion in annual spending
    by recreational visitors.

                            INCREASING EFFICIENCIES

        It will help America to reconnect with the outdoors by
    increasing conservation education, volunteer opportunities, and
    increasing youth employment opportunities. We also request a
    slight increase in LWCF funding, in our Forest Legacy Program,
    to use conservation easements and land acquisition to protect
    critical forests and acquire public access while reducing our
    administrative costs of managing the national forests and
    grasslands.
        We will continue to work together with our States to use
    both State and private funding programs to promote conservation
    and to help keep private forests forested.
        We also encourage biomass utilization and other renewable
    energy opportunities while working to process oil and gas
    permit applications and energy transmission proposals more
    efficiently.
        We also propose a framework for reauthorization of the
    Secure Rural Schools Act, which I believe is vitally important
    to continue. Especially in these very difficult economic times
    that our counties and boroughs are currently facing.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We have also included some actions to increase our
    efficiencies. Over the next 2 years, between 2013 and 2014, we
    will reduce our overhead costs by more than $100 million. This
    is an ongoing process of always looking at everything we do in
    order to increase our efficiencies; to make sure that we're
    doing everything that we can to get as much work done on the
    ground as possible through the appropriations.
        [The statement follows:]

                       Prepared Statement of 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 United
    States Forest Service (USFS) for fiscal year 2013. I appreciate the
    support this subcommittee has shown for USFS in the past, and I look
    forward to working together with members of the subcommittee 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 USFS to
    meet this goal while demonstrating both fiscal restraint and efficient,
    cost-effective spending.
        Our Nation can and should take steps to reduce the deficit and make
    Government leaner and more efficient in the 21st century. The fiscal
    year 2013 budget that the President is proposing reflects the difficult
    choices we need to make to help reduce the deficit while investing in
    long-term economic growth and job creation. To make the strategic
    investments to grow the economy and tackle the deficit, this budget
    makes difficult cuts to programs. It also reflects efficiency and
    improvements to reduce our administrative costs. It is designed to
    appropriately fund programs that matter to Americans.

                                 BUDGET CONTEXT

        USFS manages 193 million acres of public lands on 155 national
    forests and 20 national grasslands in 44 States and Puerto Rico. We
    also work effectively with States, tribes, local governments,
    communities and private forest landowners to support the sustainable
    stewardship of the 423 million acres of private forest, 68 million
    acres of State forests, and 18 million acres of forestlands on Indian
    reservations in the United States. USFS management is based on peer-
    reviewed science; we lead the way for the Nation and, indeed, the world
    in cutting-edge research on a full range of conservation issues,
    including bioenergy, ecological restoration, wildland fire management
    (WFM), forest pests and diseases, and sustainable outdoor recreation.
        Our mission is to work with the American people on all lands to
    sustain all the benefits needed and wanted from their forests and
    grasslands. For example, approximately 80 percent of the Nation's
    freshwater resources originate on forests, and Americans get more than
    one-half of their water supplies from sources that originate in the
    Nation's forests. USFS management, combined with assistance to private
    landowners, helps to protect the single greatest source of drinking
    water in the Nation.
        Jobs are maintained and created through the work of USFS. Millions
    of Americans have forest-related jobs, from forest restoration work to
    recreation use, wood products, grazing, and energy and mineral
    development. In 2010, the National Forests attracted more than 170
    million annual visitors, and recreation use, which alone sustained
    nearly 223,000 jobs while contributing $14.5 billion annually to the
    U.S. economy.
        Water and jobs are only some of the benefits Americans get from
    their forests and grasslands. These lands provide a whole range of
    ecosystem services-- clean air, clean water, fertile soil that provides
    timber, forage, energy, food and fiber, fish and wildlife habitat,
    carbon storage, and opportunities for outdoor recreation just to name a
    few. These critical services to people are now at risk due to declining
    forest health, such as bark beetle infestation in the West. Regional
    drought, invasive species, loss of open space, catastrophic wildfires,
    devastating outbreaks of insects and disease, and the overarching
    challenge of a changing climate are degrading our Nation's natural
    infrastructure--the forests and grasslands that Americans depend on for
    so many services, values, and benefits.
        By making targeted investments in the landscapes most at risk, we
    can restore healthy, resilient forests and grasslands, provide
    recreational and hunting access, and provide forest products for the
    benefit of all Americans. Our fiscal year 2013 budget request is
    designed to do just that by working with partners across borders and
    boundaries at a landscape level. Our focus on landscape-scale
    conservation dovetails with broader administration priorities,
    including the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative, the
    Secretary's ``All-Lands'' vision, and the Department's high-priority
    goal for enhancing water resources. Landscape-scale conservation is
    designed to maintain and enhance the resilience and productivity of the
    Nation's forests and grasslands through targeted investments in natural
    infrastructure. Our investments will put Americans back to work,
    maintaining and creating jobs and economic opportunities for both rural
    and urban Americans.

                 FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST AND PRIORITIES

        The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $4.86 billion for
    USFS, an increase of $15.5 million more than the 2012 appropriated
    level. This budget responds to the public's desire for the conservation
    and stewardship of the Nation's forests and grasslands. Through
    strategic partnerships, we accomplish more work that yields benefits
    for all Americans, while sustaining forest and grassland ecosystems for
    future generations. In these tough economic times, this budget balances
    spending on priorities against reductions. It establishes spending on
    conservation principles and natural resource development needed by the
    public and for the Nation's economy. USFS managers will continue to
    scrutinize spending and programs to ensure the public's investment is
    used wisely toward safely achieving key outcomes and shared priorities.
        USFS's fiscal year 2013 President's budget prioritizes USFS funding
    in three themes:
      --restoration;
      --communities; and
      --fire.
        Our priorities are designed to respond to the needs of the American
    public. The President's budget aligns with the Secretary's ``All
    Lands'' vision to meet the challenges of ecological restoration through
    collaborative approaches to address forest mortality and live tree
    density, invasive species and watershed degradation. The budget request
    will engage communities and help Americans reconnect to the outdoors,
    expand on recreation benefits and create a wide range of opportunities
    for economic expansion to retain and create jobs. The budget request
    also fosters partnering with communities and cooperating agencies to
    reduce the threat of wildland fires to people, property and watersheds.

                               RESTORATION THEME

        With the current threats from insects and disease, wildfire, urban
    development, and impacts of a changing climate, active restoration is a
    key component of our fiscal year 2013 budget strategy. To achieve our
    restoration goals, we engage a broad set of partners in active forest
    management at large, landscape scales and apply peer-reviewed science
    related to forest disturbances, fire management, and the effects of a
    changing climate. Our restoration efforts are guided by a continuous
    cycle of assessing, implementing, and adapting based on information
    from inventory and monitoring efforts. This strategy will yield a
    variety of forest products and restore the structure, function,
    composition, and processes of healthy, resilient ecosystems across the
    Nation.
        Restoration means jobs and economic opportunities. In order to
    maintain forest-related jobs we are requesting permanent authority for
    stewardship contracting. This authority allows the agency to accomplish
    collaborative restoration work at a landscape scale. Current authority
    for stewardship contracting expires in September 2013.

                     LANDSCAPE SCALE RESTORATION PRIORITIES

        Through active forest management, USFS is restoring ecosystem
    structure, functions, and processes in order to improve the health and
    resilience of ecosystems across large landscapes. Through the proposed
    Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) program, we expect to continue to
    collaborate using an inclusive process to find common ground across the
    many stakeholders and to leverage our investments for broader
    conservation impacts. IRR blends a cross-section of forest management
    activities, such as forest thinning to reduce hazardous fuels,
    decommissioning roads, and removal of fish passage barriers--all of
    which lead to improved forest and grassland health and watershed
    function. The Watershed Condition Framework, released in 2011, will
    help managers prioritize IRR activities. This framework provides a
    nationally consistent approach for classifying watershed conditions and
    allows us to track the number of watersheds that move to an improved
    condition in the long term.
        In fiscal year 2011, we restored or enhanced more than 4.9 million
    acres of both public and private lands. We will continue to invest in
    and accomplish restoration on the ground. In fiscal year 2013, through
    IRR we propose to restore or sustain 2.6 million acres on National
    Forest System lands; provide 2.8 billion board feet of timber;
    decommission more than 2,000 miles of road; and restore or enhance
    2,750 miles of stream habitat. By focusing on restoration outcomes, the
    IRR program empowers USFS managers and local communities to find the
    best, most-efficient way to meet their ecological, economic, and social
    objectives. For example, a landscape thinning project may be
    accomplished under a combination of timber sales and stewardship
    contracts which reduces the threat of catastrophic wildfire, improves
    forest and watershed health and resilience, and removes unneeded
    erosion prone roads. These outcomes help reduce risk from threats like
    fire, insects, and diseases; provide clean, low-cost drinking water to
    communities; and maintain local infrastructure and jobs by creating
    economic opportunities such as uses for biomass and other forest
    products.
        Our Forest Health Management program provides insect, disease, and
    invasive plant survey and monitoring information on forest health
    conditions on Federal and non-Federal (cooperative) lands and provides
    technical and financial assistance to prevent, suppress, and control
    outbreaks threatening forest resources and watershed conditions. Forest
    Health Management helps to implement the States' Forest Action Plans
    and focuses on the highest-priority areas and on high-priority pests,
    as identified by mapping and surveys. In fiscal year 2013, Forest
    Health Management will continue to utilize science, active land
    management, and technology transfer expertise to restore and sustain
    forest landscapes, across urban, private, State, tribal, and Federal
    forests, and create private sector jobs because of the expertise
    required to carry out this work.
        The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is a high-
    priority program that embodies our integrative, collaborative,
    landscape-scale restoration focus. In fiscal year 2011, Collaborative
    Forest Landscape Restoration projects implemented treatments to restore
    ecosystem resilience and adaptive capacity while generating forest
    products to help support local infrastructure and economies. Forest
    vegetation was improved or established on more than 26,000 acres; 121
    million board feet of timber was sold; and approximately 268,000 green
    tons of woody biomass was made available for biomass or bioenergy-
    related production. Cooperators played a substantial role in fiscal
    year 2011 by providing more than $8 million in additional funding. The
    fiscal year 2013 request supports the community-based Collaborative
    Forest Landscape Restoration projects chosen in fiscal year 2010 and
    fiscal year 2012. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
    Program is creating job stability by supplying a reliable wood and
    biomass supply for forest products and bioenergy production; improving
    forest health and wildlife habitat; and reducing fire suppression costs
    in overgrown forests.

                              RESEARCH PRIORITIES

        USFS houses the world's largest forestry research organization. We
    conduct research that develops new technologies and brings cutting-edge
    science to bear on the sustainable management of the Nation's forests
    and rangelands. Long-term research from our experimental forests and
    rangelands contributes to an understanding of the impacts of forest
    disturbance on the natural and cultural resources of U.S. landscapes.
    This knowledge assists public and private land managers in identifying
    strategies to mitigate and adapt to forest stressors. Rigorous, applied
    research is also key to supporting new and emerging markets with
    innovations that enhance and diversify the forest products industry.
    Private investment in the forestry sector relies on USFS research.
    Finally, our social science research is critical to appropriately
    aligning agency activities with society's values and priorities for the
    Nation's natural resources and public lands.
        The proposed funding will maintain essential levels of research in
    our high-priority and strategic program areas to ensure that we
    develop, apply, and deliver new knowledge and technologies that support
    sustainable management objectives. One high-priority program is Forest
    Inventory and Analysis, which provides the resource data, analysis, and
    tools needed to assess current status and trends of forests; management
    options and impacts; and threats such as fire, insects, and disease. In
    fiscal year 2011, USFS's Research and Development deputy area
    implemented the Forest Inventory and Analysis annual forest sampling in
    all 50 States (though we have not been able to sample interior Alaska),
    providing accessible data for 96 percent of the Nation. The data
    provides important information for private forest landowners to use in
    developing management objectives for sustainable management of private
    forests. In fiscal year 2013, Forest Inventory and Analysis will
    continue in all 50 States and seven reports will be published.

                 PLANNING, MONITORING, AND ANALYSIS PRIORITIES

        Restoration efforts are guided by a continuous cycle of assessment,
    project planning and implementation, and adaptation based on
    information from inventory and monitoring. Consistent with the USFS's
    priority of landscape-scale conservation, our proposed Planning Rule
    emphasizes a collaborative, science-based approach with broad-scale
    monitoring strategies at the regional and national level for the
    National Forest System. USFS managers collaborate with a wide variety
    of stakeholders to consider all interests affected or influenced by
    land management planning and project level implementation decisions. We
    are integrating and improving monitoring databases to enhance
    efficiency and transparency. These monitoring data provide baseline
    information from which managers plan the mix of goods and services for
    individual national forests and frame objectives for planning and
    subsequent restoration activities. The data helps managers set
    conservation objectives to sustain the health, diversity, and
    productivity of the National Forest System.
        This budget proposes consolidation of the Land Management Planning
    and Inventory and Monitoring programs to form the single, integrated
    program of Land Management Planning Assessments and Monitoring. This
    new budget structure highlights the connectedness of these activities
    under the proposed Planning Rule. High-priority resource issues include
    watershed and ecological conditions; habitat needs for a number of
    species; visitor use and recreation objectives; forest disturbances;
    and other local, regional and national objectives. USFS units completed
    58 plan assessments in fiscal year 2011--an initial step for
    determining the need to revise or amend land management plans in
    response to changing ecological, social, and economic conditions.

                               COMMUNITIES THEME

        Communities continue to be a priority for USFS in fiscal year 2013.
    We are committed to engaging communities across the Nation to reconnect
    with the outdoors, expand recreation benefits, and harness the many
    economic opportunities our land management activities create in a way
    that supports diverse employment in forest-dependent communities. As
    part of the President's fiscal year 2013 budget, we request
    reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
    Determination Act of 2000 for 5 years. The fiscal year 2013 proposal
    supports rural communities through assuming enactment of the fiscal
    year 2012 President's proposed reauthorization through mandatory
    funding.
        We continue to develop successful collaboration with
    municipalities, nongovernmental organizations, and private companies at
    many levels. Through approximately 7,800 grants and agreements in
    fiscal year 2011, we engaged a wide circle of partners in land
    management projects and activities, leveraging agency investment for an
    additional $616 million in partner contributions. In fiscal year 2013,
    this collaboration will continue to expand recreation opportunities,
    reconnect people with the outdoors, and use land management activities
    to create employment and sustain communities. Our budget request
    includes proposed language that would authorize the Secretary to enter
    into agreements with interpretive associations (including scientific,
    historical, educational, and other societies, organizations, and
    associations) to enhance visitor awareness and knowledge of the
    Nation's natural resources and cultural heritage, and to enhance and
    leverage our collective interpretative efforts. Based on our current
    efforts, we know that increasing collaboration with local communities
    can move conservation efforts from a scale of thousands of acres to
    hundreds of thousands of acres. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget
    strategically allocates resources to support exemplary local
    stewardship and collaboration models and to catalyze new partnerships
    and innovations.

                    LANDSCAPE SCALE CONSERVATION PRIORITIES

        Restoration projects across broad Federal landscapes, such as the
    Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, are not sufficient
    alone to address the restoration needs and challenges of today. USFS's
    approach to land management focuses on landscape-scale outcomes through
    cross-boundary landscape conservation. We consider current and desired
    resource conditions across all ownerships--putting national forests and
    grasslands in the broader social, economic, and ecological context of
    the entire landscapes. Considering the well-being of communities
    adjacent to national forests, as well as urban populations that depend
    on forest-derived ecosystem services such as water filtration, is a top
    priority
        In fiscal year 2011, our State and Private Forestry programs
    competitively allocated $19.8 million to State Foresters, supporting 72
    projects in 47 States. These allocations enable USFS to leverage more
    than $21 million in partners dollars and in-kind contributions. In
    fiscal year 2013, we propose to build on the success of our recent
    redesign of State and Private Forestry by combining funds into a
    Landscape Scale Restoration Program to continue our work with the State
    Foresters and engage multiple landowners across boundaries. This
    program helps address challenges like forest fragmentation and the
    conversion of forestland due to urbanization and other land uses.
    Through competitive grants, it will implement innovative projects that
    address the greatest threats to forest sustainability, as identified by
    States in their Forest Action Plans.
        The Forest Legacy Program is an incentive-based approach that uses
    easements to permanently protect non-Federal forest lands vital for
    wildlife habitat and rural jobs. The focus is on forest lands at risk
    of conversion to other (non-forest) land uses. To date, more than 2
    million forested acres have been protected from conversion, ensuring a
    robust natural infrastructure to support rural jobs in the forest
    sector.
        Through Land Acquisition, we work to consolidate non-USFS
    properties within or adjacent to national forest boundaries. These
    acquisitions protect critical ecosystem connectivity, enhance visitor
    access, and reduce expenditures associated with boundary management and
    fire suppression. This request includes up to $25 million for support
    of the Federal Interagency Collaborative Land and Water Conservation
    Fund Initiative. This interagency partnership with the Department of
    the Interior will guide acquisitions in support of objectives set by
    the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, achieving targeted,
    coordinated Federal acquisitions that are locally driven and supported
    by local governments. The request also includes up to $5 million to
    acquire land to open up additional access for recreational purposes,
    specifically to increase priority recreation access to National Forests
    System lands. USFS will use the funds to acquire parcels that provide
    access to National Forest System lands whereby access is not currently
    available or is impeded.
        Just as we recognize the importance of conserving working forest
    lands in rural areas, we also support the creation of community forests
    that connect urban populations to nearby outdoor areas. Through the
    Community Forest and Open Space Program, we fund cost-share (matching)
    grants for the acquisition of community forests that provide public
    recreation and watershed benefits. Such benefits include enhanced
    drinking water quality, wildlife habitat, forest management jobs, and
    opportunities for wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, and other outdoor
    experiences readily accessible to urban populations. In October 2011,
    USFS issued regulations to ensure a consistent and transparent program.
    We are in the process of soliciting applications to award the first
    projects.

                        RECREATION AND TRAILS PRIORITIES

        USFS lands are a public treasure providing unparalleled outdoor
    recreation opportunities. Population growth and loss of open spaces
    contribute to ever-greater demand for high-quality recreation
    opportunities. Annually, more than 170 million visitors enjoy
    activities such as camping, picnicking, skiing, fishing, and hunting.
    The Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Program provides the
    interpretive, outreach and infrastructure needs vital to connecting
    Americans to the great outdoors.
        In response to the America's Great Outdoors Initiative, we are
    improving recreational access and expanding opportunities for youth and
    diverse populations. The Youth Conservation Corps creates jobs, as do
    expanded opportunities for private sector outfitters, guides, ski
    areas, and resorts. Through the Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor
    Recreation, we are implementing actions to eliminate redundancy and
    create seamless programs between the Federal agencies to increase
    recreation opportunities.
        Our Trails program ensures public safety and backcountry access
    through the operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and improvement of
    National Forest System trails, serving a wide constituency of visitors
    at a relatively low cost. In fiscal year 2013, we are prioritizing the
    designation of trails for motorized use, consistent with the Travel
    Management Rule. Our trail system also accommodates nonmotorized uses
    such as cross-country skiing, hiking, hunting, fishing, wildlife
    viewing, horseback riding, and mountain biking. In fiscal year 2011,
    partners contributed approximately $7 million and maintained almost
    5,500 miles of national and scenic trails. Through strengthened
    partnerships in fiscal year 2013, we will emphasize trail stewardship
    activities and youth programs.
        Our proposed legislative language to make permanent our authority
    on administration of rights-of-way and land uses would ensure timely
    customer service, reduce the potential liability to the United States
    associated with uses on National Forest System lands under an expired
    authorization, and enable us to accept new applications to expand our
    support for local and regional economies. Special uses enable a wide
    range of public services that support thousands of jobs, from large-
    scale energy and communication transmission to small-scale outfitters
    and guides. Processing these permit applications is time intensive and
    expensive. Recovered funds will remain at the local office of
    collection to enable more-timely service to permit holders and
    applicants. The existing authority expires on September 30, 2012.
        USFS assists in developing and sustaining urban forest
    infrastructure within cities, as well as connecting urban residents--
    especially youth--to recreation experiences in national forests. With
    more than 83 percent of all Americans living in metropolitan areas,
    USFS Urban and Community Forestry Program supports the active
    management of forests and trees in more than 7,000 communities,
    reaching 194 million people in fiscal year 2011. This program seeks to
    optimize benefits from urban forests by planting trees for carbon
    sequestration and energy conservation objectives. USFS research and
    development helps to create more livable and desirable urban areas and
    improve urban ecosystem services, like cleaner city air and water,
    through leading science and new technology. In New York City, for
    example, USFS's iTree tool provided baseline information about trees
    that has been a critical foundation for the MillionTreesNYC campaign.
    The Conservation Education program--through initiatives like
    ``Children's Forests'' and ``More Kids in the Woods''--builds on both
    long-term and new partnerships. In fiscal year 2011, more than 5
    million children and families participated in environmental education,
    recreation, and related literacy programs on public lands and waters,
    increasing their understanding of the natural world and its benefits.

                  FACILITIES AND ROADS MAINTENANCE PRIORITIES

        Maintenance of physical infrastructure--including the best and safe
    use of over 40,200 buildings for administrative, recreation-related,
    and other uses, approximately 373,000 miles of roads (102,000 miles are
    closed, but provide options for future use) and 6,200 bridges--is an
    important priority in fulfilling USFS mission. Maintaining our
    facilities saves money over time and provides for safe, pleasurable,
    and accessible sites for the public's enjoyment while recreating. In
    fiscal year 2013, strategic investments in facilities and
    infrastructure maintenance will reduce our agency's environmental
    footprint and save money by lowering energy costs. This budget request
    proposes deferring new facilities construction when other cost-
    effective and reasonable options exist.
        This budget request also prioritizes road maintenance to ensure we
    protect water quality, meet Highway Safety Act standards, and meet the
    need for motorized use, as identified on USFS motor vehicle use maps.
    We also emphasize replacing deficient bridges, upgrading stream
    crossings, and providing a transportation system to and from timber and
    stewardship project sites that support local jobs and our collaborative
    restoration priorities.

                                   FIRE THEME

        Our final priority for the fiscal year 2013 budget request reflects
    the President's commitment to a responsible budget for WFM. We will
    continue to partner with States, communities, and other Federal
    agencies to maximize our suppression capabilities and support community
    efforts to reduce direct threats from wild fires.
        Wildland fire is a natural and necessary component of restoring
    ecosystem resilience in fire-adapted ecosystems. In many places, drier
    conditions and longer fire seasons, along with invasive species like
    cheatgrass, have further altered the timing and pattern of fire, making
    fires bigger and harder to suppress. Addressing these challenges will
    reduce fire risk to communities and maintain and create jobs through
    activities that restore ecosystem resilience.
        The cost and complexity of both fuels treatments to reduce fire
    risk and wildfire suppression have gone up due to growing numbers of
    housing developments adjacent to wildlands and other factors. In this
    context of more costly fire management, we continue to refine our use
    of decision-support tools. These tools help us allocate resources more
    efficiently and to adopt appropriate risk management principles.
    Further, we responded to the Federal Land Assistance, Management and
    Enhancement (FLAME) Act of 2009 by collaborating broadly to develop the
    new National Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy. The strategy is designed
    to:
      --Restore and maintain resilient landscapes at a regional and sub-
            regional scale;
      --Create fire-adapted communities; and
      --Respond to wildfire effectively through partnerships among local,
            State, tribal, and Federal fire organizations.
        The Nation depends on USFS to take proactive measures to reduce the
    threat of wildfire. By working proactively to re-establish fire-adapted
    ecosystems, we can reduce the costs associated with catastrophic
    wildfire. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 would direct fire
    management resources toward the highest-priority areas while maximizing
    cost-effectiveness. We are ready to protect life, property and
    community, and public safety.

                           FUELS REDUCTION PRIORITIES

        The Hazardous Fuels budget line item for fiscal year 2013 focuses
    on treatments in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and other high-
    priority areas with a target of 1 million acres vital to protecting
    lives, property and public infrastructure. The priority for these funds
    is in WUI communities that are working to achieve firewise standards,
    have demonstrated local investment, and that have developed a community
    wildfire protection plan. The agency will continue to emphasize the
    importance of community wildfire protection plans by prioritizing
    hazardous fuels treatments in WUI areas that are identified in these
    plans. This funding is also used for grants that encourage woody
    biomass utilization and to facilitate market development for the
    biomass removed from the landscape through fuels treatments.
        Biomass for energy is an important byproduct of hazardous fuels
    reduction and restoration work. Currently one-quarter of all renewable
    energy consumption comes from wood. Biomass utilization is important
    because it helps diversify the forest products industry and creates new
    markets that ensure alternative uses for material that would otherwise
    be piled or burned at the treatment site. With active management,
    America's forests can sustainably supply woody biomass for fuels and
    high-value chemicals and help meet national energy, environmental, and
    employment goals.
        In fiscal year 2013, USFS plans to reach out to municipal water
    providers and pursue additional investments to protect water supplies.
    For example, three of the five major Front Range water utilities (in
    Denver, Aurora, and Colorado Springs) have invested nearly $34 million
    in forest thinning treatments to reduce wildfire risks. Our strategy is
    to attract investments from all Front Range cities and to substantially
    increase amounts invested by those cities and other partners through
    matching USFS funds.
        The hazardous fuels management efforts compliment restoration
    activities conducted through Integrated Resource Restoration and the
    Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program to reduce fuels,
    restore forest landscapes, and protect communities. These projects
    leverage partner investments through innovative collaboration to
    restore landscape resilience across 50,000 acres or more. Contracted
    services for fuels reduction in core forest zones provide jobs, as do
    the forest products and woody biomass utilization activities that
    result from fuels removal and reduction.

                            PREPAREDNESS PRIORITIES

        The second way we are responsibly addressing WFM with this budget
    request is through our preparedness program, which ensures the
    capability to protect life, property, and natural resources while
    assuring an appropriate, risk informed and effective response to
    wildfires, consistent with land and resource management objectives.
        The preparedness program pre-positions resources as needed to
    ensure an appropriate, risk-informed, and effective wildfire response.
    This budget also includes $24 million to pay for the increased costs of
    modernizing the firefighting large airtanker fleet. We are soliciting
    bids for modern airtankers to complement the remaining 11 in our fleet.

                             SUPPRESSION PRIORITIES

        The suppression program combined with the FLAME Wildfire
    Suppression Reserve Fund, meets the funding level at the 10-year
    average cost of suppression for fiscal year 2013. Wildland fires
    continue to be larger and more difficult to suppress due to many
    factors including longer fire seasons, fuel accumulation, and the
    increased size and complexity of housing developments adjacent to or in
    forested lands.
        In fiscal year 2011, USFS contained more than 97 percent of the
    fires we managed during initial attack. Wildfire response
    decisionmaking is evolving based on risk-informed analysis that reduces
    exposure to wildland firefighters while ensuring that high-value
    resources are protected. The results of these decisions allow us to
    manage fires more cost-effectively while achieving agency land
    management objectives by enabling fire to play its natural role in
    restoring landscapes. For fiscal year 2013, the suppression,
    preparedness and FLAME budget request continues to emphasize our
    efforts related to strategic risk assessment and programs to improve
    wildland fire operational decisions and meet overriding objectives of
    maintaining public and firefighter safety. These efforts are expected
    to result in significant increases in the effective and efficient use
    of agency resources.
        For the few fires that escaped initial attack, the percentage that
    exceeded expected containment costs fell from 39.7 percent in fiscal
    year 2010 to 20.8 percent in fiscal year 2011, a notable achievement in
    responsibly budgeting for fire suppression. Implementing the agency's
    broader restoration goals will lead to further progress. Given the
    highly variable nature of fire seasons from year to year, the FLAME
    Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund ensures our ability to cover the cost
    of large, complex fires that escape initial attack.

                 GAINING EFFICIENCIES AND COST CONTROL MEASURES

        We must be efficient and effective in meeting our mission and
    delivering services to the American people. We have been gaining
    efficiencies and managing costs and our workforce to achieve our
    mission in the past and will continue to do so. We are making difficult
    choices to work better and leaner to live within constrained budgets.
    USFS's fiscal year 2012 target for cost savings is $44 million. Reduced
    travel accounts for $14 million of these savings. An additional $30
    million is achieved through new acquisition management procedures
    including the use of strategic sourcing, competitive and/or
    performance-based contracts, and ongoing training of contracting staff
    to better manage contracts.
        Our efforts to gain efficiency in fiscal year 2012 and this fiscal
    year 2013 budget request focus on implementing the President's
    Executive order, ``Promoting Efficient Spending''. We identified
    reduced spending levels in travel, information technology, printing,
    fleet and promotional items. We have planned a $100 million reduction
    in cost pools over the course of fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014.
    We are also implementing the Department of Agriculture (USDA)
    Administrative Solutions Project to reduce redundancies and take
    advantage of existing resources across USDA. We will also continue our
    strategic investments in safety and cultural transformation for our
    employees. These efforts will enable employees to spend less time on
    operational functions and more time on priority work in a safe,
    healthy, and productive manner. We expect these efforts to result in
    costs savings in the future. We also estimate that our workforce will
    be reduced by nearly 1,500 full-time equivalents between fiscal year
    2011 and fiscal year 2013. This level of reduction is within our
    average annual attrition rate. We will continue to manage our workforce
    and organizational changes to provide service at the local level.

                                   CONCLUSION

        USFS's fiscal year 2013 President's budget aligns with priorities
    set by the administration and USDA while balancing the need for fiscal
    restraint. The magnitude and urgency of forest restoration work, along
    with the demand for safe, accessible outdoor recreation opportunities,
    are growing in a context of declining budgets. This means that the
    agency will face unprecedented fiscal challenges in the next few years.
    USFS must act strategically and tackle fiscal challenges directly,
    focusing our resources on continuing to provide services and goods to
    the American public.
        Through landscape-scale conservation, our three funding priorities
    of restoration, communities, and fire will pass on to future
    generations the water, wildlife habitat, renewable resources, scenic
    beauty, and other natural riches that Americans enjoy today from their
    forests and grasslands.

        Mr. Tidwell. Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
    this opportunity to be here, and I look forward to answering
    your questions.
        Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Chief. We will
    hear from Senator Feinstein. Senator Feinstein, do you want to
    make a brief comment, as our colleagues have, before we begin
    the questioning?
        Senator Feinstein. I would like to talk about firefighting,
    so I will wait my turn. Thank you very much.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
        Again, Chief, thank you for not only your testimony today,
    but your leadership. We'll do 8-minute rounds, and I'll
    anticipate we will do at least two, for those who want to stay
    for the second round.
        Senator Feinstein, Senator Murkowski, and I, all have
    mentioned the issue of fire suppression. One of the annual
    challenges we have is to ensure you have the appropriate
    resources to deal with fires.
        You might begin by letting us know what your sense is for
    this fire season, given the weather, modeling and other data
    that you have, as to will you have the resources, do you expect
    a very challenging fire season this year?

                                FIRE SEASON 2012

        Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, our predictive services, when
    they put out their last report the first of April, indicates
    that we will have a fire season similar to what we had last
    year. That is based on getting some favorable weather that will
    continue to occur in the Northwestern part of the country and
    also through the Central part.
        If that does not occur, then we anticipate that we will
    probably have a more active fire season than we did last year.
    We are prepared with the resources, the crews that are in
    place, the large helicopters, and we are moving forward with
    acquiring some additional large airtankers under contract, to
    better enable us to deal with this fire season.
        A lot will depend on the weather. But we have already seen
    some very active fire behavior here in the East. We had the
    tragic fire out in Colorado just a few weeks ago in March.
    Today, we have a very large fire burning here in Virginia, on
    the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. We have a
    Type 1 team that we have had to deploy under that fire today.
        We are seeing an active fire season right now, and a lot
    will depend on how the weather develops over the next 30 to 60
    days; that will determine just how difficult this season will
    be.
        Senator Reed. Thank you. Along with Senator Feinstein, I'm
    interested in your aircraft modernization program.
        In February, you released a strategy, a large airtanker
    modernization strategy; there's been several strategies, but
    what we need is a plan. Specific numbers of aircraft, whether
    they'll be acquired, or they'll be leased. To what extent will
    you have to rely upon Air National Guard C130J's to supplement,
    or helicopter supplements.
        Can you describe the plan you have in place, for this
    season, for the aircraft, the number you'll have available, the
    types of availability, and the adequacy of that plan?

                            AIRTANKER MODERNIZATION

        Mr. Tidwell. Well, our plan not only for this year but for
    the future is to move forward and acquire additional contracted
    aircraft. For this year, we expect to bring on three additional
    aircraft to supplement what we currently have. This will give
    us 14 large airtankers for this year.
        We are also bringing on two water scoopers down from Alaska
    to augment the fleet down here, and we will also have one very
    large airtanker that will be available.
        In addition to that, we have brought on some additional,
    Type 1 helicopters. These are helicopters that can carry almost
    as much water as the large airtankers can retardant.
        They are very effective and a little more expensive, but we
    have brought on additional large helicopters for this year.
        As we move forward, we expect to bring on 10 additional
    aircraft next year. These will all be contracted aircraft. This
    is what the $24 million part of our request is for. We
    anticipate that the new aircraft will be a faster aircraft, and
    they will have a little larger capacity.
        It will be a little more expensive than what our current
    costs are. We are going to need $24 million to be able to cover
    the additional costs for probably up to an additional 13 planes
    next year.
        For next year, I anticipate we are going to be in much
    better shape. This year, we are down and we will be down at
    least 4 large airtankers from what we had at the start of last
    season, but we are bringing on those additional large
    helicopters.

                      MODULAR AIRBORNE FIREFIGHTING SYSTEM

        In addition to that, we will probably have to rely and
    depend on the Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS)
    units again, like we did last year.
        We have been using those MAFFS planes for 40 years. Even in
    the past when we had the large number of large airtankers we
    would often hit periods of time during an active fire season
    where we needed to rely on that additional capacity.
        It works out very well because they are ready to go early
    in the season. They are ready to go late in the season, and we
    have continued to appreciate the partnership we have with those
    units. I can assure you that we are in constant communication
    to make sure that if those planes would not be available, that
    we would know about it ahead of time, and then we can make
    additional plans.
        All indications are that those units are ready, and ready
    to fly when we need them. We will probably have to rely on
    those a little bit more than we have in the past.
        Senator Reed. My final question with respect to this issue
    of the aircraft is that I think the number in this year and
    next year is roughly 13?
        Mr. Tidwell. I expect we will probably have 14 this year.
        Senator Reed. Fourteen. But your long-term strategy calls
    for somewhere between 18 and 28.
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
        Senator Reed. So the obvious question is, how do we get
    from 14, let's say, to double that literally in the timeframe
    you're talking about with your strategy?

                          AIRTANKER LONG-TERM STRATEGY

        Mr. Tidwell. With the request for proposals that we put out
    a few months ago, we anticipate to bring on 3 additional
    aircraft this year, and then up to 10 additional aircraft next
    year. Those will all be contracted.
        An ideal situation would be at this time next year, I would
    be reporting to you that we have 23 to 24 aircraft that are
    available for the 2013 fire season.
        Senator Reed. And that would be based on the $24 million
    incremented funding?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
        Senator Reed. Very good.
        Just a final question I have, and I might revisit this one,
    and that's the integrated resource restoration.
        You know, last year's appropriations bill provided the
    flexibility to conduct your pilot in three regions. This year's
    budget with full funding without essentially the results of the
    pilot, in a way, might be anticipating the results.
        We would like to see the results. So, can you comment very
    briefly?

                        INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION

        Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, we will be sending up our plan
    that not only lays out how those funds are allocated, but how
    they will be used, and how they will be able to account for
    what is produced from those funds throughout the year.
        At the end of the year, I look forward to when we can come
    up here and actually show what we have accomplished by having
    the flexibility that this fund affords.
        I recognize that we need to first show you that this is a
    better way through the pilot. At the same time, I would not be
    proposing this if I did not think it was a better way, and if I
    did not have the confidence that we can demonstrate that this
    will be better.
        So I understand I first need to prove it, and we will be
    doing that and I look forward to working with you.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just to follow on that, Chief. If I understand what you are
    saying, you are asking within this budget request for the full-
    on IRR proposal. And yet, you say you are not going to be in a
    position until the end of this year to basically be able to
    show the accomplishments.
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. So this is kind of a ``trust me''
    moment. And I think you heard last year from this subcommittee
    that we were willing to move forward with the pilot, but we
    wanted to see step by step.
        So, since we're in this ``trust me'' time, can you tell me
    how, whether or not, you've issued any guidance to the field on
    how to implement the authority, what performance measures you
    are using currently to evaluate the pilot, and then, how we'll
    be able to assess whether or not this pilot is actually more
    effective than how the regions operated under the current
    budget structure?
        Can you give me a little bit more than just say, wait until
    the end of the year?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator.

                   INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION DIRECTION

        As soon as the bill was passed, we sent out directions to
    the three pilot regions about how to move forward with using
    the Integrated Resource Restoration budget line item, and then
    allocated their percentage of those funds to those three
    regions.
        At the same time, we laid out that they need to be able to
    track our accomplishments: the amount of timber that's
    harvested, the number of acres that are going to be restored,
    watershed conditions improved, the number of miles of stream
    that are restored, and the miles of road that are
    decommissioned.
        In addition to that, we set up a watershed condition
    framework. We had taken every one of the watersheds across all
    of the national forests and grasslands, and developed criteria
    that puts them in a specific category so we know what their
    current condition is.
        These three regions would then be able to track how they
    actually made a change and improved the condition in those
    watersheds in addition to the outputs that we will be tracking.
        This will be part of the plan that we will have up here
    hopefully in the next few weeks to be able to share with you.
    Then, at the end of the year, to be able to come up here and
    show what work we were able to get done.
        And then also to compare with what we have done in the
    past, in these same regions, with the same level of funding.
        Senator Murkowski. And I think we'll all look forward to
    seeing that plan when you bring it up then.
        Let me ask you a little bit about this lawsuit out there,
    the Sequoia ForestKeeper  decision that deals with the
    categorical exclusions.
        As you heard in my opening comments, I think that this
    could have some considerable repercussions within the Agency.
    Can you tell me what the current legal status of the case is,
    and whether or not the USFS plans to appeal the decision?

                        SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER VS. TIDWELL

        Mr. Tidwell. There have been numerous discussions with our
    attorneys about what the next course to look at this, and a
    decision has not been made on what is the next legal step to
    take.
        Immediately though, we started looking at how we could move
    forward. We sent out direction to the field that for these
    projects that would be covered under a decision memo, we wanted
    them to go ahead and put out a 30-day notice, for notice and
    comment.
        If we don't receive any substantive comments, then we can
    go ahead and move forward with the project. As you pointed out,
    that if we do, then we also have to allow for an appeal process
    that could easily delay these projects up to 140 days like you
    mentioned.
        There are 600 of these projects that were ready to move
    forward in the next 90 days. Not only on some of the minimal
    operations that you mentioned in Alaska, but there are more
    than 200 associated with oil and gas operations, primarily in
    North Dakota.
        More than 90 are hazardous fuel projects that we had
    planned to move forward with and do that work.
        Senator Murkowski. Is that 600 projects across the Nation
    then in all of these different areas? Whether it's oil and gas,
    mining, et cetera.

                               IMPACTED PROJECTS

        Mr. Tidwell. Yes. There are 600 total that were planned to
    go forward in the next 90 days. Of that 600, there are more
    than 200 that are associated with oil and gas operations, and
    more than 90 with hazardous fuels. There are at least six in
    Alaska, just dealing with mining activities.
        Senator Murkowski. So, will the USFS notify these permit
    holders and the contract holders if their operations next
    season are going to be delayed or cancelled because of this
    decision out there? How does that work?
        Mr. Tidwell. We will need to do that. I am optimistic that
    many of these projects, after the 30-day time limit for public
    notice and comment, will be able to go forward.
        As you mentioned, the one project, I would assume that is
    one that after 30 days, we would not get any substantive
    comments on it, so we could just go forward with it.
        Senator Murkowski. But, we're assuming that that's going to
    be the case. We get lucky, basically?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, I need to remain optimistic as much as I
    can on this. I do expect that there will be some, if not many
    of these projects that we will probably need to go through the
    appeal process on, and there will be significant delays.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, and you've been able to detail the
    number of projects. Do we have any estimate on the number of
    jobs that we're talking about, the number of different economic
    activities that could be potentially delayed or held up because
    of this? Have you done that kind of an assessment?

                                ECONOMIC IMPACTS

        Mr. Tidwell. We have not done that yet. That is something
    we could pull together, especially for the projects because of
    our short field season in some parts of the country, that we
    would not be able to implement this year.
        If we need to wait 30 days for notice and comment, that
    will not be a significant impact, and we will be able to move
    forward with those. We will track the potential job impacts,
    and we can get back to you on that.

                        PREDECISIONAL OBJECTION PROCESS

        Senator Murkowski. I'd appreciate that.
        Now, last year, in the Interior, environment, and related
    agencies bill, section 428, we gave you the authority to
    promulgate regs, that use the Healthy Forest Act predecisional
    objection process instead of the process under which the
    Federal court found that you couldn't use the categorical
    exclusions.
        So I guess the question to you is whether or not you plan
    to issue these kinds of regulations pursuant to section 428,
    and whether or not the issuance of these regulations through
    this section would be an opportunity to perhaps fix what we're
    dealing with with this court decision?
        Mr. Tidwell. First, we do plan to move forward with
    rulemaking, to be able to use this predecisional objection
    process, that will actually be a better process. It allows us
    to have that additional discussion before the final decision is
    made.
        It supports our collaborative efforts very well. Part of
    the legal discussion that has been going on is if it would also
    give us an opportunity to address the current court order to
    use common notice and appeals on categorical exclusions.
        I am not sure if it will. It may not because the
    appropriations language was very specific to Environmental
    Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), and
    it did not mention categorical exclusions. It is one of the
    things our attorneys are looking at, and we will have to get
    back to you on that.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Can you update the Committee, the
    subcommittee, when you know?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. I think it is an area where we looked
    and said, okay, we might be able to get around this, this court
    decision, which I think you and I would both agree, has the
    potential to really snarl things up through a process.
        And, if in fact, we have allowed for a fix last year, it
    would certainly seem to me that that would be one way to try to
    approach the problem. So, if you can just keep us current with
    that, I'd appreciate it.
        Mr. Tidwell. I will. I look at the predecisional objection
    process as really a better way. It still provides the
    opportunity, especially on EAs and EIS.
        With categorical exclusions, because of the type of
    projects that we have to do I have already addressed all of the
    potential environmental impacts prior to using the categories.
        Hopefully, we will be able to find a way forward with this
    so that those type of projects can move forward rather quickly.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
        We are following the early bird rule so I'll recognize
    Senator Tester and then Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, once again, I want to thank both you, Chief, and
    Susan, for your service.
        I want to flush out a little bit more about what the
    chairman talked about in his questioning about the planes. The
    number of planes has declined, with tankers from 43 in 2000 to
    11 in 2011.
        I've had the opportunity over the last year to be all over
    the West pretty extensively, and, of course, you know, I farm
    in Montana. So weather is something that I pay particular
    attention to, and I know that the snow pack is claimed to be
    average up in the high elevations. I don't know if that's true.
    I talked to a couple of ranchers this morning and said if
    there's a lot of snow up there, they haven't seen it.
        So, the question becomes that sets us up for a pretty
    potentially big fire year. I know we do a lot of praying and we
    say, you know, if it's the same as last year, I mean, if we get
    decent rainfall, it could be the same as last year. And last
    year, at least in my neck of the woods, it was a pretty decent
    fire season from a cost standpoint.
        You talked about going from 11 to 14 this year. There's
    three more tankers that you're going to contract for. When do
    you anticipate those contracts to be let?

                             AIRTANKER CONTRACTING

        Mr. Tidwell. Hopefully within the next 30 days, we will be
    able to make the decisions on the proposals that were
    submitted.
        Senator Tester. Okay.
        Mr. Tidwell. Then there will be a period of time that the
    aircraft will be able to demonstrate that they can meet our
    standards for retardant and delivery. We are optimistic that we
    will be able to bring on another three planes this year.
        Senator Tester. Okay. And I am familiar that you said that
    these planes are going to be faster so they're going to be a
    little more expensive, and I am familiar with what you're
    talking about.
        The question becomes, is there an analysis to know if the
    delivery of the product onto the fire is more cost beneficial
    with these bigger, more expensive planes? Maybe not bigger, but
    faster planes.

                           AIRTANKER DELIVERY STUDIES

        Mr. Tidwell. The information we have from the studies that
    have been done is that if we have a larger payload, ideally up
    to around 3,000 gallons, and then deliver it in a way that
    penetrates the brush and the heavy timber like up in your
    country, that is the type of delivery system that we need.
        Also, with the larger tank, they can split their loads and
    be able to drop two or maybe three from the same load. So that
    is where the efficiencies are gained.
        We are also moving forward with a study to put additional
    equipment into these aircraft so that we will be able to
    collect more information about their effectiveness. Not only
    how often they hit right where the ground crew are requesting
    retardant, but how it was delivered.
        By this time next year, we are going to have additional
    information that will help us as we move forward with
    determining just what is the right mix of aircraft. I want to
    stress that we are going to need a mix of aircraft. We are
    going to rely on our current contractors to keep delivering
    those resources.
        We are going to need some additional contractors to come
    onboard to provide aircraft for us.
        Senator Tester. Okay. And because you talked about a mix,
    so I do want to talk about helicopters for a second. You said
    that it was potentially--well, maybe not potentially, I don't
    want to put words in your mouth--that there will be additional
    helicopters this year.
        Could you tell me what that increase would be, and where
    we're at, and where it would be after the increase is done?

                            FIREFIGHTING HELICOPTERS

        Mr. Tidwell. We are contracting for four additional of the
    Type 1, which is what we call our heavy helicopter. Last year
    we had 26 of those, and then we had eight Type 2s that were
    available for really large fires.
        In addition, there is another 90 helicopters that are
    available for initial attack. By going with four more of the
    large helicopters, it gives us more capacity than what we had
    last year.
        However, there are additional costs. We had to put another
    $4 million into those contracts just to start the season.
        Senator Tester. Okay. So and I know you're going to say,
    just fine, but can you tell me how confident you are between
    the airtankers and the helicopters that will be available to
    shut the unwanted fires down when they occur in a timely basis
    and effectively deal with the other ones as your management
    plan dictates?

                         FIREFIGHTING ASSET CONFIDENCE

        Mr. Tidwell. I have a lot of confidence in our firefighters
    ability to do the job and the mix of resources. I acknowledge
    we are short of large airtankers. I would feel much more
    comfortable if we had another four, five, or six of those
    available this year.
        We will probably be quick to call on the MAFFS units to
    bring on those additional aircraft. With the MAFFS units, we
    will be well prepared to be able to deal with this fire season.
        However, if it becomes much more active than what we
    currently predict, which it could, there will be times like in
    years past, when there will be a shortage of resources in the
    near term during initial attack. And we will have to deal with
    that just like we have had to in the past.
        Senator Tester. Are you familiar, I talked about a team
    with H.R. 1581? It appears to me that at a time where you guys
    are trying to get some stewardship stuff done, I think you've
    got about a $6 billion backlog in roads as it is, that we're
    going exactly in the wrong direction.
        Hunter and fishermen interests aside, we're going exactly
    in the wrong direction for what you guys are trying to get
    accomplished. Has the Department taken a stand on H.R. 1581 and
    its impact on outdoor activities?

                                   H.R. 1581

        Mr. Tidwell. I don't have a position on that bill yet. I
    can tell you that there is very strong support to maintain the
    undeveloped character of our back country, the roadless areas
    in this country, to provide recreational benefits, clean water,
    and wildlife benefits that come out of that land.
        What I want to focus on is being able to address the
    restoration needs and the millions of other acres, the roaded
    part of our country. It is often adjacent to our communities,
    that we need to restore, to make these areas much more
    resilient to fires, insects, and disease.
        You mentioned our road backlog. There are many places in
    the country--because of the erosion--that are coming off of the
    road system, it is limiting some of our management options.
        If we could ever get on top of that to the point where we
    could eliminate those concerns, it would free up and give us
    more flexibility to do restoration work and the timber harvest
    that needs to be done on these lands.
        Senator Tester. I agree.
        Very quickly. Region 1 has been honored to have the
    regional forester become the chief or the deputy chief in the
    USFS. You, in fact, yourself, made this jump.
        We have had now four regional foresters leave the region in
    the last decade and they've been darn good people. You're one
    of them.
        The management and oversight, continuity in that region
    takes a hit because of that. We are in kind of, between a rock
    and a hard place, so to speak, because although we'd love to
    have the regional forester become the person in your position,
    it does impact continuity.
        What steps since Leslie has left are you taking to get a
    new Director and are you concerned about the continuity in
    region 1, being intimately familiar with that region, as I am?

                                    REGION 1

        Mr. Tidwell. I am with every region and every station
    whenever we have a change in leadership. I am very pleased with
    the work that the regional foresters have been doing for us.
        I can assure you that the next regional forester, who I can
    at least say will do a better job than I did--I will not say
    she did a better job than the last one.
         I will say that the next person will do a better job than
    I did up there for you.
        Senator Tester. How about the length, the continuity?
        Mr. Tidwell. I would hope in the future that our regional
    foresters can stay in place a little bit longer than at least
    the last couple have stayed up there.
        I can assure you that the people that will be stepping into
    those positions have the experience, they have decades of
    experience in dealing with these resources. When they do step
    in, they will be ready to go and will be able to continue to
    provide the leadership that is necessary in our regions.
        Senator Tester. I appreciate that. They have been top
    flight, I agree. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Tidwell, you know, I think we're all really very
    concerned about what's happening. The President's budget for
    you is up about 1 percent. And yet, I want to show you fires.
        Here are ``Total Acres Burned By Decade''. And you can see
    from 2002 to 2011, 70,482,958 acres.

        So you can see, there was a decline, 1982 to 1991, and from
    that point on, acreage burned has gone up. Here are the numbers
    of times planes were used.
        Do we have the one on planes? Could we put that up?

     Shows the total number of times airtankers were used between 1990 and
                                     2011.

        Shows the number of times a request for a tanker was not filled.

     The percentage of unfilled requests compared to the sum of filled and
                               unfilled requests.

        Senator Feinstein. Oh, the number of times planes were
    used.
        And you see the line going straight up. So we have more
    acres burned, more need for planes. And I want my staff to
    bring you down a copy of a letter that you received on March 7
    from CAL FIRE. I don't know if you have that in front of you.
        [The information follows:]

         State of California--Natural Resources Agency,
                    Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,
                                         Sacramento, CA, March 7, 2012.
    The Honorable Tom Tidwell,
    Chief, USDA Forest Service,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Chief Tidwell: The California Department of Forestry and Fire
    Protection (CAL FIRE) and the United States Forest Service (USFS)
    Region 5 have a long history of cooperative fire protection, including
    an integrated air attack program. Air attack bases were located
    throughout the State based on a maximum 20 minute response time to any
    location, including both State Responsibility Area (SRA) and National
    Forest lands. CAL FIRE's fleet of 23-Type 3 airtankers, mixed with the
    assigned Federal Type 1 airtankers, provided a mixture of aircraft to
    meet our joint initial attack goals, as well as the needs of extended
    attack and major fires.
        The reduction in the number of Federal airtankers from 43 in 2000,
    to 11 in 2011, has resulted in significant impacts on this integrated
    system, placing an increasing burden on CAL FIRE aircraft to respond to
    fires on National Forest lands. Initial and extended attack fires on
    Federal lands are increasing the flight hours on CAL FIRE's airtankers
    and reducing their availability for response to new fires.
        The USDA Forest Service Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy
    (Strategy), released on February 10, 2012, is long overdue and is a
    critical step toward identifying the next-generation large airtanker
    platform. I have concerns, however, that the Strategy falls short in
    several areas:
      --The Strategy does not reference the individual needs of the States.
            The Federal aviation program is critical to meeting the fire
            protection goals of the States as well as those of the Federal
            agencies, especially in California. Fire fighting aircraft are
            a very limited resource and, therefore, it is critical that the
            national strategy include collaboration with the States to
            ensure the plan provides for efficient and integrated use of
            all assets.
      --The identified optimum number of 18 to 28 aircraft is insufficient
            to meet the needs of the combined Federal, state and local wild
            land firefighting missions. As the Strategy indicates, the
            current drought cycle will continue through the next decade,
            only exacerbating the already dry fuel conditions and potential
            for extreme fire behavior. Over half of California's most
            devastating fires have occurred within the last 10 years. The
            Federal aviation program must build capacity back to a level
            that adequately supports the initial and extended attack needs,
            both nationally and within individual states. I am concerned
            that during periods of multiple large fires in other Regions,
            California will be left with an insufficient number of Federal
            aircraft to meet the normal initial and extended attack
            workload. This places additional burden on CAL FIRE and local
            government aircraft and risks additional large fires that
            threaten lives and natural resources.
      --The Strategy identifies a desire to look at dual mission aircraft
            that can transition from delivering retardant to transporting
            cargo or fire fighters. It is critical that aircraft identified
            as airtankers remain dedicated to initial attack response and
            that retardant systems be designed for the most effective
            delivery and application of retardant. Switching between
            multiple functions often leads to a reduction in performance
            for any given task.
      --The Strategy does not adequately address the potential use of very
            large airtankers (VLATs), especially for the extended attack
            incidents. The VLAT should be considered to meet your interim
            needs, and as part of your long-term strategy. Use of the VLAT
            on extended attack incidents, where large amounts of retardant
            are required over extended periods of time, could free up other
            airtankers for initial attack incidents where they are arguably
            more effective.
        CAL FIRE has maintained its own aviation program in California for
    many years and has worked very closely with our Federal partners. We
    have a vested interest in an effective national aviation program that
    supports all of our missions. Unless there are a sufficient number of
    Federal airtankers, CAL FIRE cannot continue to support extended attack
    fires on Federal lands without adversely affecting our aviation
    program.
        States stand ready to assist you in developing and implementing a
    plan for the appropriate number, type and location of Federal
    airtankers. I look forward to discussing this issue with you and Tom
    Harbour in the near future.
                Sincerely,
                                                   Ken Pimlott,
                                                              Director.

        cc: (USFS) James Hubbard, Deputy Chief for State & Private Forestry
            (USFS) Tom Harbour, Director of Fire and Aviation Management
            (USFS) Randy Moore, Regional Forester Pacific Southwest Region
            (CAL FIRE) Andy McMurry, Deputy Director, Chief of Fire
    Protection
            (CAL FIRE) Caroline Godkin, Deputy Director of Legislation

                             FIREFIGHTING CAPACITY

        Mr. Tidwell. I do, Senator.
        Senator Feinstein. You do.
        I've underlined certain parts of it, and I'd like you to
    follow along. Well, CAL FIRE's fleet of 23 Type 3 airtankers
    mixed with the assigned Federal type 1 airtankers provide a
    mixture of aircraft to meet our joint, initial attack goals, as
    well as the needs of extended attack on major fires.
        And then he points out what the reductions are. And he
    says, initial and extended attack fires on Federal lands are
    increasing the flight hours on CAL FIRE's airtankers and
    reducing their availability for response to new fires. And then
    he talks about your strategy.
        I have concern that the strategy falls short in several
    areas. And the one I would talk of the identified optimum
    number of 18 to 28 aircraft is insufficient to meet the needs
    of the combined Federal, State, and local wildland firefighting
    missions. The current drought cycle will continue through the
    next decade.
        I'm concerned that during periods of multiple large fires
    in other regions, California will be left with an insufficient
    number of Federal aircraft to meet the normal initial and
    extended attack workload.
        Now, here's the deal breaker. Unless there are a sufficient
    number of Federal airtankers, CAL FIRE cannot continue to
    support extended attack fires on Federal lands without
    adversely affecting our aviation program.
        So what this is saying is if you're going to provide, you
    know, reduced ability, CAL FIRE is considering stopping
    fighting fires on Federal land, and we have huge amounts of
    Federal land in California.
        Where do the new helos come from? You're cancelling four
    helos, three of them in California, is that right?

                            FIREFIGHTING HELICOPTERS

        Mr. Tidwell. Those were the smaller Type 2 helicopters.
        Senator Feinstein. But you're cancelling four, right?
        Mr. Tidwell. We replaced those. We actually have eight less
    of the Type 2 helicopters, and we are bringing on four Type 1s
    which actually will carry more, have more capacity, and are
    able to deliver more water per hour than those eight.
        Senator Feinstein. How many will be available during fire
    season in California?
        Mr. Tidwell. Depending on what's going on in California,
    Type 1 helicopters could be in California.
        We move these resources to where the fire season is
    starting to increase, and we pre-position these large
    helicopters to be available.
        They are not the helicopters that we rely on for initial
    attack. These are large helicopters that are dedicated to fire
    suppression, the large fires. And so we will move those and
    pre-position them wherever in the country we need them.
        Senator Feinstein. You're staying that 30 of these
    helicopters will be available in California during fire season?

                             HELICOPTER POSITIONING

        Mr. Tidwell. They could be, depending on what's going on in
    California, and the rest of the country.
        Senator Feinstein. Could be.
        Mr. Tidwell. We also have our initial attack helicopters
    that will be located throughout the State. This is one of the
    things that we are also looking at, especially as the fire
    season develops. If we need to bring on additional helicopters
    over the next 30 to 45 days.
        It is one of the things we are considering, to actually
    bring on some additional helicopters depending on how this fire
    season develops over the next 30 to 45 days.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, I'm concerned because I know CAL
    FIRE, and they don't say things that they don't mean. And I'm
    worried that we're on our way to a confrontation which is not
    going to be helpful.
        And, you know, we've got big national forests up in the
    Tahoe Basin, up in the northern part of the State. You've got
    the Los Angeles National Forest where if they have a fire
    there, it impacts subdivisions and a lot of forestry land as
    well, different forest land.
        That you will not have adequate equipment available in the
    State. You are saying to me that you will, is that right?
        Mr. Tidwell. We will be able to move these resources to
    California depending on the fire season. If we determine in the
    next 30 to 45 days that there's a need to bring on additional
    helicopters, we will do that.
        We also have the hundreds of call-when-needed helicopters
    that we can also bring on.
        Senator Feinstein. Are they adequate? Is the supply going
    to be adequate? Look, hazardous fuels mitigation money is down.
    We have had a wet winter. You're going to have huge food for
    fire.
        And if what happens with weather is more heat which is
    suspected, we've got two nuclear power plants down in Southern
    California, the possibility of rolling blackouts in the summer.
        What I'm trying to find out is, will you make a commitment
    that there are adequate Federal firefighting resources for
    Federal land in California this next firefighting season?
        Mr. Tidwell. I will make a commitment that we will provide
    the resources that we have available to address the situation.
        I would like to remind the subcommittee that there are
    times when we have the large airtankers, the large helicopters,
    the Type 1 crews that are within minutes of a fire.
        If it gets started under certain conditions, we are not
    able to catch that fire during initial attack.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, my understanding is that the helos
    are not available to hit fires when they're small, only after
    they burn out of control; is that correct?

                         FIREFIGHTING WITH HELICOPTERS

        Mr. Tidwell. No. Our helitack crews, their primarily
    responsibility is initial attack. We have more than 90
    helicopters that are just available for initial attack.
        As the fire season develops, we can bring on dozens to 100
    more on-call helicopters when needed to do initial attack, to
    drop water and also move crews.
        Senator Feinstein. I don't want to go through another
    Station Fire.
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein. And you're telling me now that the
    helicopters will be available on the initiation of what could
    be a big fire. You're not going to wait until it's out of
    control.
        Mr. Tidwell. No. Usually, depending if the fire starts near
    one of our helitack bases, that helicopter is the first
    resource on the fire.
        If it is farther away, then it is the airtanker that is
    going to be the first resource on the fire, and then the
    helicopters are usually the second resource on that fire.
        Senator Feinstein. Is it your intention in a wildfire,
    wildland fire on Federal land, to let the land burn or to
    attack it at its beginning? What is the policy now?

                              WILDLAND FIRE POLICY

        Mr. Tidwell. The policy is that when we need to take
    initial attack, we are going to take initial attack. Our record
    of being successful on close to 98 percent of the fires that we
    take initial attack on has held up over the years. I expect we
    are going to be able to continue that.
        There are fires in the back country, where the planning has
    been completed. If we have the right set of conditions, we will
    manage that fire in the back country for resource benefits.
        But when I say it is managed, it is still suppression
    actions that are taken to make sure that it is contained within
    an area that has been basically already addressed through a
    planning process.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, I'm going to follow this fire
    season very carefully and come back and look at this
    transcript. Because I am really concerned. And I hope you will
    give California some attention.
        Things are happening weather-wise out there which are very
    serious, and it's getting warmer, and drier. And as I say, I
    think the decision was made in the Station Fire, not to attack
    early. And I think that was a mistake.
        Initially, we had more than 1,000 lightning strikes on a
    given day up north, not last year, but a couple of years ago,
    which started hundreds of wildfires. And I went with President
    Bush and flew over and the damage that was done was just
    enormous. It looked like another planet.

                                  STATION FIRE

        Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator, I worked in that region, and I
    was up there on those fires when we had that. I think it was
    one storm, we had more than 3,000 fires get started there in
    the northern part of California.
        We will continue to work very closely with CAL FIRE along
    with all the other States. The only way we can deal with
    wildland fire in this country is for all the cooperators to
    work together. We will take initial attack, like we did on the
    Station Fire. We had crews and resources that were on that fire
    right from the start. Early the next morning, we had a large
    helicopter dropping close to 2,000 gallons of water every few
    minutes on that fire.
        But you get the right set of conditions, and you get the
    wind behind it, and there are a few of these that we are just
    not able to catch during initial attack.
        Senator Feinstein. I know that that's true. Have you
    responded to CAL FIRE's letter of March 7?
        Mr. Tidwell. We have been working with them, having
    discussions with them, and I will be sending a written
    response.
        Senator Feinstein. Would you please ``cc'' me on the
    response, I'd appreciate it.
        Mr. Tidwell. Certainly, Senator.
        Senator Feinstein. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. I'm sorry
    I took so much time.
        Senator Reed. Quite all right, Senator.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Very important and timely questions. In fact,
    let me just follow up.
        As Senator Feinstein pointed out, not only do we look at a
    very complicated and challenging fire season ahead, we lost a
    lot of acreage last year which raises a question about
    rehabilitation.
        And I note, and you may correct me if I'm inaccurate, that
    there's no line item for rehabilitation in the fiscal year 2012
    budget, so how are you rehabilitating some of the lands? Where
    are you getting the money?

                              LAND REHABILITATION

        Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, you are correct. We no longer
    have the budget line item that we have had in the past to deal
    with restoration following a fire.
        So the initial work that is done is through our burn area
    emergency rehab work, where we do have current year funds that
    we can use, but a lot of the work has to be done following
    that.
        We will have to rely on using the funds--the fund codes
    that make up the IRR proposed line item.
        We use force management of watershed funds, fish and
    wildlife funds at times, to be able to do that work. We are
    going to have less resources to be able to respond in the
    future.
        Senator Reed. Let me follow up with a related question. One
    of the ways that you try to minimize the risk is hazardous
    fuels reduction. And I looked at the fiscal year 2012 budget,
    and in the 2013 budget proposal, you are taking $75 million
    from hazardous fuels, and you're putting it in the IRR line
    which we both talked about as perhaps the cart before the horse
    in terms of the pilot program.
        That raises the question of how are you using these limited
    dollars for fuel reduction mitigation efforts that will help?

                                HAZARDOUS FUELS

        Mr. Tidwell. The $75 million that we proposed to put into
    the IRR is basically that part of our hazardous fuel money that
    we have been spending in more of the back country to do the
    work.
        Over the years, we have spent the majority of our funds in
    the WUI. We have 25 million acres of WUI on the National Forest
    and grasslands.
        We have a system that we have been using for the past
    years, a model that we follow, to determine the highest-
    priority areas for distributing fuels funding across the
    country.
        We follow that model to set the priorities and the
    allocations out to the regions, and the regions then use a
    similar model to actually determine which forest receives the
    hazardous fuels funding so that we are putting the funding
    where we have the highest priority.
        Often when there are resources like communities that are at
    risk from a large wildfire those projects are going to rate out
    very high. That is why you are going to see us continue to
    spend the majority of our appropriations dealing with WUI
    hazardous fuels projects.
        They are also the most expensive work. The work we do in
    the back country, we can treat a lot more acres for a lot less
    money. So over the last few years, as far as acre
    accomplishment, we have been getting about 50 percent of our
    accomplishment in the WUI, and then 50 percent in the back
    country, even though we have been spending the majority of our
    appropriated funds in the WUI.
        It is just much more expensive to work in communities'
    backyards.
        Senator Reed. Yes. You presumably have evaluated the cost
    benefit, you know, the relative efficiency of this program. Can
    you share that with us? Whatever analysis you have.
        Mr. Tidwell. We can do that. I can tell you that we
    continue to learn. We had last year with the Wallow Fire, the
    largest wildfire of record in Arizona.
        We were fortunate that a few years ago, we started the
    White Mountain Stewardship Project down there that had treated
    thousands of acres before that fire got started.
        Because of that work, when that large wildfire hit those
    treated areas, areas that had been thinned out, that fire
    dropped out of the top of the trees onto the ground, and our
    suppression crews, our firefighters were successful.
        It saved thousands of homes. It is tragic that we lost
    dozens, but because of that work, I would be glad to show you
    some photos that demonstrate the difference it can make.
        We have also learned with the fire seasons we are dealing
    with now, that we need larger treatments. Some of the work that
    we did in the past was not large enough. We have to be able to
    understand that these wildfires, the conditions that we have
    today, that it is going to take much larger areas that have
    been treated to really make a difference.
        Those are some of the things that we are looking at more
    now as we move forward. Taking more of a landscape approach so
    that we are not treating 50 or 100 acres. We need to be
    treating the thousands, the tens of thousands of acres.

           COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE FOREST RESTORATION PROJECTS

        That is our current approach with these Collaborative
    Landscape Forest Restoration projects across the country. I
    used the one project down there in Arizona that we are moving
    forward with as an example.
        We are also doing another one, an environmental impact
    study on 750,000 acres, to be able to address, do the analysis
    for 750,000 acres under one environmental document. Then we
    will be able to move forward and do the restoration work across
    this four-forest area over the next decade or so.
        That is what we need to do. That is what we have been
    learning, and I will be glad to provide you with the
    information that we have on some of the studies we have been
    doing on the effectiveness.
        Senator Reed. Let me turn now to the urban and community
    forest program. You are looking at a $3.2 million reduction,
    and yet you are indicating that you'll maintain the same level
    of activity.
        That would be very good. How do you do that?

                          LANDSCAPE SCALE RESTORATION

        Mr. Tidwell. Well, actually, our request is very similar to
    what we received in fiscal year 2012. But there is a portion of
    those funds that have moved into our Landscape Scale
    Restoration proposed budget line item.
        This Landscape Scale Restoration proposed budget line item
    reflects what we have been doing over the last few years.
    Taking a portion of our State and private funds and setting it
    aside, so that the States actually compete for those funds.
        They get their initial funding, and then there is this
    other pot of money that we have had them compete for over the
    last few years. What we have noticed through this is that they
    have learned to look at how they can put together better
    proposals, even working across State lines, so that we have
    been able to increase our efficiency.

                          URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY

        When it comes to Urban and Community Forestry, we are
    requesting a similar amount of money. There is just a portion
    of it that will be in this other proposed line item that the
    States will have to compete for just like they have had to over
    the last few years.
        Senator Reed. There's another aspect here, and that is with
    respect to States, particular States that don't have large
    national forests but have private and State owned forests.
        That's the proposal to consolidate the State Wildland Fire
    Assistance and the Forest Health Management Program, which
    could leave some States, one of which being mine, unsure of
    where they stand or not receiving adequate resources for
    current programs.
        Can you comment upon that?

                             PROGRAM CONSOLIDATION

        Mr. Tidwell. There is a very slight decrease in what is
    available for the State Fire Assistance funds.
        Once again, we have proposed to put both of the funds into
    one budget line item just to make it a little easier for us to
    track just one budget line item.
        It is going to be a little easier for the States, instead
    of having two. Basically, they have done the same type of work,
    and we feel that it's more efficient to have one budget line
    item.
        Overall, it is a slight decrease from what we requested,
    what we received in fiscal year 2012. Those funds are still
    going to be available for Rhode Island and for all the States.
        As it has been pointed out so clearly here a couple of
    times, our fire seasons are becoming not only longer, but more
    severe, and are becoming a bigger problem for us to deal with.
    It is essential that we can continue to be able to provide the
    support to our States and to local fire departments.
        Without them, we would not have near the success ratio that
    we currently do, because we rely on both the State and the
    local fire department to be the first resources that come onto
    fires that are on the national forests.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Chief. Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chief, let me ask you about the 9th Circuit, Court of
    Appeals decision that decided that forest roads are point
    sources that require industrial discharge permits.
        Last year in the appropriations bill, language was included
    that temporarily prevented this ruling from taking place. So
    the question to you this morning is whether or not insertion of
    that language actually allowed USFS to get more work done on
    the ground?
        Was that helpful, not helpful? Can you just kind of speak
    to how that played out?

                                  FOREST ROADS

        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, it allowed us to continue to do what
    we have been doing to address the need for clean water, and
    that is to follow the use of our best management practices that
    we have been relying on to address any potential concerns of
    erosion coming off of logging roads.
        It's something we're working closely with Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) as we move forward. They had a court
    order they had to address. But to be able to work with them to
    find a way we can continue to use our best management practices
    to be able to apply that.
        Because it has proven to be very effective not only on the
    national forests but also on the private forested lands, that
    most I think every State requires the use of best management
    practices.
        And they have been effective to address, the potential
    concerns and be able to not only meet the intent of the Clean
    Water Act, but also to address any concerns with the impacts to
    water.
        Senator Murkowski. So if in fact this is actually helped
    you, is there a reason that you didn't request extension of
    this authority in the budget this year?
        You mentioned you are working with EPA. We understand that
    we need to do that. But if it's proven effective, why wouldn't
    we want to continue this?
        Mr. Tidwell. I'm optimistic that through the work of EPA,
    we will be able to find an administrative path forward to be
    able to address this. I am optimistic we will be able to get
    that done.
        Senator Murkowski. Can you give me any indication at this
    point in time that you think you have that administrative
    authority?
        Mr. Tidwell. We do not have it at this point in time, but
    we are continuing to work closely with the EPA.
         I would be glad to, as those discussions move forward, and
    a decision is made by the EPA on what steps they are going to
    take, provide that information to you.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. I would appreciate that because if
    it appears that that isn't possible, if you've indicated that
    you think you've actually made some improvements, you've been
    able to get some additional work done on the ground, then maybe
    we need to look again to inserting that language.
        Let me ask you about Secure Rural Schools program. You
    mentioned very briefly in your statement a reference to Secure
    Rural Schools program. Clearly very important to States like
    mine and to many on this panel.
        Can you tell me what the allocation split is? I'm looking
    at the budget justification here. And it just indicates that,
    let's see, the fiscal year 2012 proposal assumes the enactment
    of Secure Rural Schools program for 5 years, funds payments for
    mandatory funding.
        And the proposal revises the allocation split between the
    schools and roads, economic investment, forest restoration, and
    fire assistance portions of the program.
        Can you tell me where you are going to the Secure Rural
    Schools program?

                          SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS PROGRAM

        Mr. Tidwell. In the President's request, we identified
    mandatory funding that could be used for this program.
        Senator Murkowski. So where did you identify that from?
        Mr. Tidwell. It is part of the President's budget request.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay.
        Mr. Tidwell. It is the overall request, and at the same
    time, we need to work with you to put together the legislative
    framework on how to move forward with this program.
        We put it in there as mandatory funding this year, it shows
    the importance, the understanding of the importance of this
    program, especially in these current economic times, about how
    we need to be able to find a way to work together to be able to
    move forward, to be able to continue to provide this funding to
    the counties and the boroughs.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Well, I want to understand a
    little bit further the administration's proposal.
        Again, this is something that many of us are very focused
    on, and want to make sure that we've got the funding piece of
    it figured out, but also the formula going forward over the 5
    year proposal.
        Let me ask you about the new forest planning rule. On the
    23d of March, you finalized the new planning rule. This is the
    latest attempt to revise the 1982 planning rule.
        Of course, we've seen a series of litigation over the
    years. The 1982 rule remains in effect. I guess a question to
    you is whether or not you also similarly expect that this new
    rule will be challenged and whether you think that this one is
    one that could actually be held up in a court challenge?

                                 PLANNING RULE

        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, I do not know if it is going to be
    challenged or not. As you mentioned, we have had to deal with
    this for the last two decades, and the last three attempts were
    challenged.
        We definitely have learned from those previous attempts.
    From my perspective, we have done the best job of having a very
    transparent process involving and engaging more members of the
    public across this country than we ever did before.
        To be able to factor in what we heard from all those
    different meetings, and all the comments that we received, I
    believe we have the best proposal we have ever put together. It
    is very balanced. It will save money. It is going to save time.
        It will do a better job than what we did under the 1982
    rule. I also believe we did an excellent job dealing with the
    analysis that is required, and that we are optimistic about
    moving forward and demonstrating how we will apply this.
        The other thing we are relying on is that we are putting
    together a Federal advisory committee to provide
    recommendations to the Secretary and myself about the
    directives and about how to move forward with this and also
    with the collaborative process that is required.
        I think by having that committee in place, which will be a
    very diverse, group of individuals, that will need to spend the
    time to really look at this. We will be able to bring in not
    only employees from the forest that are moving forward with the
    plans, but also members of the community to be able to say,
    that this is how we're moving forward with it.
        Here is how it is working. They can hear directly from
    them. I am optimistic that this time around, we will be able to
    demonstrate that this is a better process than in 1982. That if
    and when there is a court challenge, we will have that
    additional evidence to be able to demonstrate that this is a
    better way, while at the same time, addressing the same
    concerns that have been brought up in the previous litigation
    on our past attempts.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I think we all know there's been a
    somewhat tortured history out there going through the courts.
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. I was a little surprised that the
    Chugach National Forest was selected as one of the first eight
    forests to revise its plan under the new rule because as it
    stands right now, the Chugach Plan doesn't require revision for
    yet another 5 years.
        So the question is, why was the Chugach National Forest
    selected when you've got other forests out there that are well
    past their life of their 15-year plan? Why did you single out
    the Chugach National Forest?
        Mr. Tidwell. First of all, it is within every 10 to 15
    years, and so they will be closed here in a couple of years,
    but they asked. The forest felt they were well positioned to be
    able to move forward.
        They wanted to use this new rule to make some changes in
    their current forest plan based on what they are hearing from
    their communities and from the public.
        So they requested that they could be one of the first
    forests to move forward with implementation. That was one of
    the things that we factored in as to which ones need, have a
    pressing need, and the ones that were positioned and had the
    ability to move forward.
        Then, if there was a strong desire. The Chugach National
    Forest met all of those.
        Senator Murkowski. Do you worry that not only the Chugach
    National Forest, but the others, the other eight, might start
    revising their plan under this new rule, and then as we saw
    before, the rule gets thrown out in court.
        And you're in a situation where you've effectively wasted a
    lot of time, clearly, a lot of money, because you have to start
    all over again.
        Do you worry about that course ahead?
        Mr. Tidwell. We do factor that in, and that is where the
    forests that are currently going, they have been going through
    planning for the last couple of years. They will probably all,
    or most of those, will continue under the 1982 rule.
        This new rule is so much more efficient, and it eliminates
    a lot of unnecessary modeling and analysis. So that, under any
    scenario, we probably are not going to lose any ground. I
    remain optimistic that because of the work that we did this
    time around, the additional work, working with our communities,
    that I feel that we have finally done this.
        That this will be a rule that will withstand any
    challenges, and that we will be able to move forward and revise
    our forest plans for decades to come. I know, you know, there
    is a chance it could be challenged.
        I feel really strongly about this, and I tell you I would
    not have this level of confidence if it was not based on just
    the work that has gone into this. The amount of support across
    the board, and not everyone is supportive. I understand that.
        We definitely have more support for this rule than we have
    ever had for the previous three attempts.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I guess it remains to be seen. Mr.
    Chairman, I have one more question, but my time is up.
        Senator Reed. Take your time. Go ahead.

                            STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Then this is as it relates to the
    stewardship contracting and the Tongass. I'm sure you probably
    anticipated this question.
        You indicated in your comments that you're seeking a
    permanent extension of the stewardship contracting authority,
    and have indicated that this is a real priority for USFS and
    its restoration efforts.
        Unfortunately, this hasn't been met positively in the
    Tongass as it relates to the stewardship contracting. Back in
    2008, USFS promised to offer four 10-year commercial timber
    sales at approximately 150 to 200 million board feet.
        Those have been modified into two stewardship contracts at
    a greatly reduced volume. We've yet to see these contracts
    completed and offered to the industry.
        So I'm concerned that with the focus on the stewardship
    contracting, what is happening is it's coming at the expense of
    a commercial sales program, and our very small male
    infrastructure is being squeezed here.
        So I would ask you to address that criticism that USFS
    focus is on, in an area that directs resources away from the
    commercial sales, whether or not, I guess, the volume of
    commercial sales that you would anticipate be part of these
    contracts, and how you see it really operating in the Tongass?
        Mr. Tidwell. Stewardship Contracting is just another tool
    to augment the work that needs to be done. It is not to replace
    the timber sale contracts.
        I share your concern about the lack of progress we have
    made with the Stewardship Contracts that USFS has been working
    on. It is one of the things that I would really like to work
    with you to maybe look at some of the different options that we
    may have up there on the Tongass to be able to move forward
    with that.
        I want to be very clear. It is just part of our program. We
    are currently doing about 20 percent of the restoration work,
    the timber harvest under Stewardship Contracts across the
    country.
        Ideally, would I like to see a little more of that? Yes.
    But we are still going to be using the timber sale contract. It
    is the right tool for certain projects.
        However, we are finding the Stewardship Contract to be a
    very effective tool. I think it does have some use up on the
    Tongass. Maybe not as much up there as in other parts of the
    country, but we did have one very successful project last year.
    It was small.
        But I think those are things that build confidence not only
    in the industry, but in the communities, that this is a good
    tool.
        I am hoping because of the success they had last year on
    that small project that we will be able to move forward with
    the Stewardship Contracts, and to make these multiple-year
    contracts, so that it allows someone to be able to come in and
    make that financial investment in either maintaining the mill
    or investing in upgrading the mill.
        If they know that there is a long-term contract here and
    that there is going to be a certain amount of material that is
    going to be available, it is going to be harvested, they can
    make sound financial decisions.
        That is what we need to be able to do. Senator, I really
    look forward to being able to work with you to look at maybe a
    couple of different options I have been thinking about that
    maybe could help us on the Tongass.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I'd like to take you up on that
    offer. Again, my concern is that you have a diversion of
    resources that goes toward the stewardship contracts at the
    expense of the other projects and how we affect these
    commercial sales.
        So if we can sit down and discuss how some of these options
    might move forward on the Tongass, I think the people in the
    region would greatly appreciate it. I would appreciate it.
        It's something that, again, in our conversations both in
    hearing and in my office, I've expressed the concern of those
    that are really just hanging on by their fingernails out there.
        And the assurance of a longer-term contract and some
    reasonable volume is all they're looking for. They're not
    looking to take it back to the days of the timber industry 30
    years ago. They're more pragmatic about that.
        But we need to have some assurance. So if your folks can
    sit down with us and work through some realistic options, I
    think that that would be appreciated.
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, thank you.
        I look forward to having that opportunity because I do
    think we have some additional flexibilities, some things we are
    doing here in the lower 48 that we should be able to have those
    same flexibilities on the Tongass too. Especially in these very
    difficult economic times that we are facing.
        Senator Murkowski. Exactly.
        I would rather the people of Ketchikan and Prince of Wales
    be able to harvest timber, be able to have jobs in the small
    saw mills than figure out ways that we're piecing together
    Secure Rural Schools program funding.
        Trying to rob Peter to pay Paul type of an approach. But
    knowing that that's all we have to offer right now, I think
    they would rather have the jobs. They would rather have that
    small industrial base.
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. So I look forward to working with you,
    and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the additional time.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. And thank you,
    Chief, for your testimony. Did you have a comment? Please, go
    ahead.

                                   H.R. 1581

        Mr. Tidwell. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I just need to, for the
    record, correct an earlier statement from Senator Tester about
    H.R. 1581.
        I did not recognize the H.R. number versus the Senate
    number.
        Senator Reed. You didn't? I'm shocked.
        Mr. Tidwell. I apologize to the subcommittee, but we did
    testify on that bill in the past, and our position is that we
    strongly opposed that bill. I just wanted to correct the
    record. Thank you.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Reed. The correction is duly noted. We will keep
    the record open for 1 week. You may receive additional
    questions from my colleagues. Any further statements by my
    colleagues will be submitted for the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                       Questions Submitted to Tom Tidwell
                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed

                           STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

        Question. The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a $3.2 million
    reduction for the Urban and Community Forest program while the budget
    justification states that the fiscal year 2012 level of activity will
    be maintained in fiscal year 2013. How will a $3.2 million reduction
    result in the same level of activity?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2012, as in the previous 4 years, 15 percent
    of funds from selected State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs,
    including Urban and Community Forestry (UCF) were used to fund
    competitive, landscape-scale ``Redesign'' projects. The fiscal year
    2013 budget proposes a Landscape Scale Restoration Program as a new
    Budget Line Item (BLI) that would formalize the Redesign competitive
    process. The $3.3 million reduction is similar to the amount that would
    have been used to traditionally fund ``Redesign'' projects, which will
    now be funded by the Landscape Scale Restoration BLI. As such, the
    amount proposed in the UCF program is similar to previous years and is
    expected to have similar accomplishments.
        Question. Can you specifically detail the initiatives planned for
    urban forests in fiscal year 2013?
        Answer. UCF will work with the State forestry agencies and other
    partners to provide assistance to develop and maintain urban and
    community forestry programs. These programs protect and maintain urban
    trees and forests in more than 7,000 communities, representing more
    than 194 million people. In fiscal year 2013, UCF will continue to
    support the national strategic tree planting initiative launched in
    fiscal year 2012 to reduce energy consumption and provide communities
    with all of the benefits that urban trees provide including:
      --improved air and water quality;
      --improved human health and well-being;
      --green jobs;
      --recreation; and
      --wildlife habitat.
        In fiscal year 2013, UCF will also work with partners to advance
    the recommendations contained in the Vibrant Cities and Urban Forests
    Task Force Report, issued in the fall of 2011 and available online at
    http://issuu.com/vibrantcities/docs/vibrantcitiesreport.
        Question. What are the goals of the proposed Landscape Scale
    Restoration program and how will States with predominately State and
    private forest lands, such as Rhode Island, likely to compete?
        Answer. The goal of the proposed Landscape Scale Restoration
    Program is to focus and prioritize S&PF resources to better shape and
    influence forest land use at a scale and in a way that optimizes public
    benefits from trees and forests across all landscapes, from rural lands
    to urban centers. This increased focus on ``All Lands'' projects brings
    particular attention to implementation of the priorities identified in
    Rhode Island's State Forest Action Plan, formally called the State-wide
    assessment. Over the past 5 years, Rhode Island has been successful in
    receiving project funding through the competitive process and will
    continue to compete for project funding which includes projects with
    universities and nonprofit organization partners, and through project
    partnerships with adjoining States.
        Question. Will the Forest Resource and Inventory Analysis program
    continue to have the same authority to partner with the States under
    research as it has had in S&PF?
        Answer. Yes, this program, proposed for consideration under the
    Forest and Rangeland Research budget line item as Forest Inventory and
    Analysis (FIA), will continue as a priority research area. FIA will
    continue to have the same ability to partner with States under research
    as it had under S&PF.
        Question. How will you maintain these State partnerships without a
    distinct funding line?
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2013 President's budget, FIA will have
    distinct funding within the Forest and Rangeland Research budget line
    item. This is identified as a priority research area in the budget
    justification with $66,805,000 proposed for funding in fiscal year
    2013. We will continue to work within our authority to diligently
    maintain these State partnerships. We will also continue measurement of
    field plots for data collection and provide State reports, but at a
    slower pace.

                             STATE FIRE ASSISTANCE

        Question. Detail any changes in implementation of the following
    programs, which are proposed to be consolidated,
        Answer. The proposed consolidation of the National Fire Plan-State
    Fire Assistance with Cooperative Fire Protection-State Fire Assistance
    in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget is expected to have minimal
    effects on how the program is implemented. States will continue to
    receive funding, as they have in previous years, for programs and
    projects such as hazardous fuels reduction, developing community
    wildfire protection plans, capacity building, training, increasing
    initial attack capabilities, improving firefighter safety and creating
    fire adapted communities. The combination of funding from two budget
    lines into a single budget line will simplify program management and
    performance measurement in addition to reducing administrative
    complexity.

                           VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE

        The proposed consolidation of the National Fire Plan-Volunteer Fire
    Assistance with Cooperative Fire Protection-Volunteer Fire Assistance
    in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget will have minimal effects on
    how the program is implemented. States will continue to receive funding
    targeted for rural fire departments that can be used for improving
    initial attack capability, providing training and improving
    firefighting safety. Funds will match financial assistance in 4,500
    rural communities (population less than 10,000 people) to build and
    maintain fire suppression capacity.

                       FOREST HEALTH MANAGEMENT--FEDERAL

        The proposed consolidation of the Wildland Fire Management Forest
    Health Management with S&PF Forest Health Management in the fiscal year
    2013 President's budget will have minimal effects on programs or
    funding compared to fiscal year 2012. Major programs in fiscal year
    2013 such as gypsy moth suppression, eradication and Slow-the-Spread
    program; and priority treatments to control invasive pests such as
    southern pine beetle and western bark beetle are planned at similar
    levels as fiscal year 2012. The combination of funding from four budget
    lines to two lines simplifies program management and performance in
    addition to reducing administrative complexity.
        Forest Health Management-Federal Lands will continue to conduct
    forest insect and disease surveys on more than 400 million acres of
    forestlands; conduct forest insect and disease prevention, suppression,
    restoration, and eradication projects; provide technical assistance;
    and monitor forest health on all Federal lands including those of the
    Departments of Defense and the Interior, and the Army Corps of
    Engineers.

                        FOREST HEALTH MANAGEMENT--CO-OP

        The combination of funding from four budget lines to two lines are
    similar as stated for Forest Health Management-Federal Lands. Forest
    Health Management-Cooperative Land funds will continue to provide
    technical and financial assistance to States and territories to conduct
    monitoring and treatments such as the Slow-the-Spread program for gypsy
    moth and for work on sudden oak death, southern pine beetle, and
    hemlock woolly adelgid.

                   FOREST RESOURCES INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS

        Historically, the FIA program has been funded from both Forest and
    Rangeland Research and the State and Private Forestry Forest Resources
    Information and Analysis program. In fiscal year 2013, FIA is proposed
    for consolidation under the Forest and Rangeland Research
    appropriation.
        FIA will continue with reduced annual forest inventory data
    collection in all 50 States. This will result in extending the
    inventory cycles and State forest resource reports by 1 year for each
    of the 50 States.
        Question. What will the effect be of the consolidations for States
    like Rhode Island that are not at risk of catastrophic wildfire, but
    still receive base funding in State and volunteer fire assistance?
        Answer. The proposal to consolidate the State Fire Assistance (SFA)
    and Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) budget line items in the fiscal
    year 2013 President's budget is not expected to reduce base funding for
    States such as Rhode Island. The allocation methodology for SFA and VFA
    funding is reviewed approximately every 5 years. At this time, the
    different allocation methodologies being considered include base
    allocations for both State fire assistance and VFA.

                            WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

        Question. Provide a table of the available aerial firefighting
    resources on the following dates, detailing at least the aircraft model
    (tanker and helicopter), exclusive use (EXU) vs. call-when-needed
    (CWN), type (VLAT, SEAT, Type I, Type II, etc.), and owner (Minden,
    Neptune, CalFire, etc.):
      --August 1, 2011;
      --May 1, 2012;
      --August 1, 2012 (projected); and
      --May 1, 2013 (projected).
        Answer. The United States Forest Service (USFS) does not maintain
    records on CalFire or other States' aircraft numbers or availability.
    Other States including Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska
    contract for or operate airtanker and/or helicopter resources, which
    provide an interagency aerial firefighting response in those States.
    The table below shows available contracted aviation assets and
    Department of Defense supplied Mobile Aerial Firefighting System
    (MAFFS) capabilities for USFS.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Aircraft                          Owner                Contract Type       August 1, 2011    May 1, 2012   August 1, 2012    May 1, 2013
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Large airtankers.....................  Minden--2; Neptune--9...  EXU....................              11              11              11         Up to 8
    Next-generation large airtankers.....  To be determined on       EXU--Not awarded as of   ..............  ..............         Up to 3        Up to 13
                                            contract award.           May 5,  2012.
    Type 1 helicopters...................  Multiple................  EXU....................              26              30              30              30
    Type 2 helicopters...................  Multiple................  EXU....................              41              33              33              33
    Type 3 helicopters...................  Multiple................  EXU....................              61              61              61              61
    Helicopters--All types...............  Multiple................  CWN....................       Up to 378       Up to 378       Up to 378       Up to 378
    Water scoopers.......................  Aero Flite..............  EXU--Department of the                2               2               2               2
                                                                      Interior contract.
    Water scoopers.......................  To be determined on       CWN--Department of the   ..............  ..............         Up to 4         Up to 4
                                            contract award.           Interior contract.
    Very large airtanker.................  10 tankers..............  CWN....................               1               1               1               1
    Single engine airtankers.............  Unknown.................  EXU--Department of the                1               1               1               1
                                                                      Interior contract.
    Mobile Aerial Firefighting System: C-  Air National Guard and    None. Activated by                    8               8               8               8
     130H/J.                                Air Force Reserve.        request.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Provide a detailed explanation for how the $24 million
    for the next-generation airtankers in the fiscal year 2013 budget will
    be spent.
        Answer. The $24 million will pay for contract costs associated with
    additional next-generation large airtankers in accordance with our
    large airtanker modernization strategy. The $24 million augments
    existing funding to help account for inflation and anticipated
    increased cost of next-generation large airtankers.
        Question. How many new aircraft do you expect to bring online in
    fiscal year 2013?
        Answer. USFS will shortly award contracts for up to three next-
    generation large airtankers, to be operational in 2012, in addition to
    the 11 legacy P-2V airtankers. This contract may provide up to 10
    additional next-generation airtankers in fiscal year 2013. The
    potential exists to have up to 20 large airtankers in 2013. The P-2V
    airtankers will continue to be part of our strategy to maintain large
    airtanker numbers until next-generation airtankers are fully
    operational.
        Question. The airtanker Modernization Strategy calls for 18 to 28
    next-generation tankers in total, which will require contracting
    aircraft over the next several years. What is the long-term plan for
    securing the fleet?
        Answer. The long-term strategy is a modern large airtanker fleet as
    outlined in the Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy. It is not the
    intent of USFS, nor does USFS believe that there is an adequate supply
    of next-generation large airtankers, to replace our existing legacy (P-
    2V) fleet in 2013.
        The next-generation aircraft are unproven airtankers, some with
    new-design retardant delivery systems or other new features which will
    take time to evaluate and modify to fully meet performance standards
    and airworthiness requirements. Therefore, a legacy airtanker contract
    will be a necessary part of our strategy to maintain large airtanker
    numbers until enough next-generation airtankers are fully operational.
    The current contract for the legacy airtankers ends December 2012.
    Another contract will be advertised in late 2012 or early 2013, which
    would include legacy large airtankers and will be structured to provide
    flexibility to both private industry and the Government. If next-
    generation large airtankers are available and approved they will be
    given preference.
        Question. What are the estimates for how much additional funding
    this new fleet of aircraft will cost?
        Answer. Since USFS does not have any long-term contracts for next-
    generation airtankers, it is not possible to provide this information.
        Question. If a full complement of next-generation tankers called
    for in the Strategy is reached, how frequently will the National
    Guard's mobile airborne firefighting system units be used?
        Answer. The National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130s equipped
    with USFS owned MAFFS 2 retardant delivery systems will continue to
    provide surge capability to supplement commercial contract airtanker
    support.
        We cannot predict how often MAFFS will be called upon; their
    activation is dependent on weather, fire activity, and other values
    which cannot easily be forecast. However, since 2003, MAFFS have
    averaged more than 250 missions annually.
        Question. How is USFS ensuring that the limited Hazardous Fuels
    dollars are targeted to the highest-priority areas?
        Answer. USFS continues to improve its processes for allocating fuel
    reduction funds, which prioritizes fuel reduction projects based on
    national priorities. These improvements include the use of a computer
    model to assist in making allocation decisions, rather than relying
    primarily on historical funding patterns and professional judgment. The
    computer model uses data from various sources and considers wildfire
    potential, negative consequences of wildfire, program performance with
    prior year's allocations, and potential opportunities that meet other
    integrated resources objectives.
        The agency annually updates the model inputs to use the best
    available data and science. USFS also directs its regional offices to
    use a similar process and finer scale information, to further inform
    allocations to units and selection of fuel treatment projects based on
    national and regional priorities. USFS provides annual direction to its
    regional offices on how to fund fuel treatment projects that best meet
    national priorities.
        Question. The subcommittee has made an investment of more than $1
    billion in the last 3 years alone for fuels reduction in USFS. How is
    USFS showing the return on investment, such as reduced risk to
    communities or reduced suppression costs?
        Answer. USFS now requires its field units to complete a
    standardized report whenever a wildfire burns into an existing fuel
    treatment, in other words, when a fuel treatment is ``tested'' by
    wildfire. This report includes an assessment of how the fire behavior
    changed, if the fire effects changed as the wildfire burned through the
    fuel treatment, and if the fuel treatment made management and
    suppression of the wildfire easier and safer. These are real world
    examples of fuel treatment effectiveness.
        The initial results indicate that most fuel treatments reduce
    wildfire behavior and reduce fire severity under all but the most
    extreme wildfire conditions. As this data set grows and is combined
    with the latest research, USFS expects to be able to draw conclusions
    about which fuel treatments are most effective under various
    circumstances of ecosystems, fuel types, weather conditions, and other
    variables. The agency also expects to refine its estimates of how fuel
    treatment effectiveness will decline over time and to evaluate the cost
    effectiveness of these treatments. USFS takes fuel treatment
    effectiveness very seriously and continues to improve its measurement
    and understanding by incorporating the latest research.

                                LAND ACQUISITION

        Question. Why were the ``Crown of the Continent'' and ``Florida/
    George Longleaf Pine'' ecosystems chosen as the Collaborative Landscape
    Planning Areas for fiscal year 2013?
        Answer. These selected projects contain landscapes that are among
    the most important for conservation, recreation, and restoration in the
    United States. These projects support American Great Outdoors Action
    Item 5.2a: Implement an interagency process to invest part of the
    Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund funds in high-yield
    conservation projects that address shared ecological goals.
        The Crown of the Continent project is one of the last remaining
    intact mountain ecosystems in the coterminous United States and 1 of
    the 23 last remaining large intact ecosystems in the world. The mixed
    wetland and longleaf pine habitats of the Florida panhandle and
    Okeefenokee swamp in southern Georgia protect critical drinking water
    sources for growing human populations in the region, and provide
    important habitat for migratory birds and the remaining bear
    population. Both areas are threatened with development and landscape
    fragmentation that would impair resource management. Both landscapes
    also have robust local support and grassroots organization and
    planning, including local and State government supporters that desire a
    public-private partnership to address conservation needs.
        Question. What is the long-term plan for the Collaborative
    Landscape Planning Areas? Will the same landscapes continue to be the
    budget priority until they are completed, or will different
    geographical areas be the focus in fiscal year 2014?
        Answer. The long-term plan of the interagency work is to maintain
    the focus in a landscape until the stated conservation goals are as
    complete as possible. Not all agencies have the same demand in each
    landscape, but Collaborative Landscape Planning (CLP) will seek to
    complete as much as possible before moving to a new landscape. There
    may be new geographical areas considered for fiscal year 2014. Both
    agencies are waiting on pre-proposals from the field to determine
    whether or not there is capacity or funding to start working in one or
    more new landscapes.
        Question. How do the Collaborative Landscape projects rank vis-a-
    vis the 14 ranked acquisitions on the prioritized list?
        Answer. All of the projects, core and collaborative, are important
    agency priorities. The core projects focus on acquiring the highest
    priority lands within the National Forest System boundaries that
    further specific agency goals for forest and grassland restoration,
    watershed management under the Watershed Condition Framework, and
    public and private access. The Collaborative Landscape Planning
    projects are focused on landscapes where the Federal agencies can more
    effectively coordinate land acquisitions with government and local
    community partners to achieve the highest priority shared conservation
    goals. These projects respond to locally supported planning efforts to
    protect critical ecosystems before fragmentation occurs.
        Question. The proposed Priority Recreational Access program
    requires a cost-share and caps projects at $250,000 each. How were
    these requirements determined?
        Answer. A per project cap is proposed to help distribute the
    opportunity to complete a recreational access project among the nine
    USFS regions. Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) is the
    cap because it equates to each region getting at least two projects.
    The cost-share proposal would help the appropriated dollars go further
    and demonstrates a strong show of support from non-Federal partners.
    The cost-share rate was set at 25 percent, a low percentage and a
    resultant relatively small amount of non-Federal money to bring to the
    table (less than $62,000 for the most expensive project).
        Question. Are there $5 million worth of identified Priority
    Recreational access projects (matching the budget justification's
    requirements) that can be accomplished within fiscal year 2013? Provide
    a list of potential projects detailing at least the location by
    national forest, total acreage, types of recreation served, cost, and
    whether the project is a conservation easement or fee title
    acquisitions.
        Answer. There is a substantial need for access to National Forest
    System lands for these purposes as demonstrated in our annual land
    acquisition programs. USFS has not developed a list of projects. This
    is an important initiative for potential projects to be proposed by the
    public and nongovernmental organizations. While we are anxious to issue
    a Request for Proposals so that we can learn about projects that are
    new to us, we have already been contacted by several groups. One
    potential example is gaining an easement for the Seely Lake Community
    Trail across Montana Department of Natural Resources and State school
    lands. This trail provides year-round motorized and nonmotorized access
    for 5,000 acres of hunting and hiking, 16,000 acres for horseback
    riding, and 32,000 acres for mountain biking. We are confident there
    will be a number of robust responses from all USFS regions to the
    Request for Proposals that meet the fiscal year 2013 budget
    justification requirements.
        Question. While the proposed Priority Recreational Access program
    would be funded at $5 million, the longstanding Critical Inholding
    Acquisitions account is zeroed out in fiscal year 2013. Why does the
    new focus area come at the expense of inholdings?
        Answer. The Priority Recreational Access line item is proposed for
    only 1 year to focus on unique recreational access problems.
        Question. Will USFS be able to secure critical inholding
    acquisitions without a specific line item?
        Answer. USFS may secure some inholdings with the Priority
    Recreational Access line item, but projects will be selected based on
    different criteria than is required for critical inholdings. The
    criteria for recreational access will rate tracts based on the
    project's ability to maximize access to areas previously considered
    inaccessible and that increase visitor use. Recreational Access
    acquisitions may or may not be inholdings.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

        Question. This year's budget provides you with $24 million to
    contract for new firefighting aircraft. And you have publicly stated
    that you intend to acquire three new planes this year, so that works
    out to $8 million per plane acquisition.
        Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $24 million to
    acquire new firefighting aircraft. We are estimating contracting for 10
    additional next-generation airtakers in 2013. In addition, the three
    next-generation airtankers that may be awarded and operational in 2012
    will be funded utilizing fiscal year 2012 budget appropriated funds.
        Question. Following this pricing model, will the United States
    Forest Service (USFS) be seeking $80 million to purchase the 10 planes
    you intend to acquire next year?
        Answer. USFS does not intend to purchase these aircraft. The
    services will be acquired through contracts operated by the contractor.
    The $24 million in fiscal year 2013 will be used to help account for
    inflation and anticipated increased cost of next-generation large
    airtankers.
        Question. Aerial firefighting contractors tell me that the USFS's
    5-year contracts, with single year options, are not long enough for
    them to secure the capital needed to purchase firefighting aircraft.
        Answer. The next-generation large airtanker contract was lengthened
    in response to private industry input. It is a Firm Fixed Price Multi-
    Year contract(s) not to exceed 10 years (a 5-year base period with five
    1-year options).
        Question. What indication do you have from your contractors that
    they will be able to actually provide the 13 planes by the end of next
    year?
        Answer. USFS is skeptical that private industry will be able to
    design, build, test, and gain approval of the next-generation large
    airtankers as quickly as they state. These aircraft are generally
    unproven as airtankers, some with new-design retardant delivery systems
    or other new features which will take time to evaluate and modify to
    fully meet performance standards and airworthiness requirements.
        However, several of the contractors are represented by an aerial
    firefighting industry group (American Helicopter Services and Aerial
    Firefighting Association) which has publicly stated that private
    industry is ``technically capable and financially able to bring about
    this fleet modernization plan.''
        Question. If the terms of the contract were longer, would that
    reduce the Federal cost of acquiring these planes?
        Answer. Private industry has told us that longer contract periods
    should reduce overall costs during the full contract period. The next-
    generation contract with a base 5-year period and five 1-year options
    and an incremental delivery option provides flexibility for private
    industry and the Government delivering next-generation large airtankers
    this year, while providing time for current and new airtanker vendors
    to secure financing, design, and develop aircraft for 2013 and beyond.
        Question. Do you have the authority to offer a longer contract?
        Answer. Under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs) USFS was
    able to solicit this 5-year base with five 1-year options contract for
    airtankers. The FARs do not allow for more than 5 years with 5 years of
    extensions for this type of contract.
        Question. Chief Tidwell, with the proposed 25-percent cut to
    hazardous fuels, how many fewer acres will you be able to treat?
        Answer. The hazardous fuel's program request for fiscal year 2013
    is about the same as fiscal year 2012, but we request that $75 million
    of that be transferred into Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR). The
    $75 million represents the amount hazardous fuels is shifting to IRR in
    fiscal year 2013. These are hazardous fuel funds that have
    traditionally been spent outside the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and
    for restoration in previous years. These funds will now be combined
    into IRR and support integrated restoration and accomplish landscape-
    level ecosystem restoration which includes hazardous fuel reduction.
    IRR is designed to help address at the national level the complete
    scope of restoration activities, highlighting water, fuels reduction
    and road decommissioning, while also integrating the many other
    activities that have always been central to the agency's mission.
        Question. How many fewer acres will be treated in California?
        Answer. We don't anticipate fewer acres treated in California due
    to IRR. If fewer acres are treated it will be due to other factors such
    as cost per acre, weather, and the time needed to complete analysis
    under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. Also,
    the acre target has been reduced due to the increased cost of treating
    the WUI.
        Question. It is my understanding that you revoked the 10-percent
    pay raise for firefighters because retention rates improved.
        This reasoning doesn't hold water. If the pay raise worked, and
    retention rates have stabilized, why roll back the successful
    initiative?
        Answer. During March 2009, USFS implemented two retention
    incentives to address the 13-percent attrition rate affecting the fire
    program for permanent/career conditional employees. The first incentive
    implemented converted less than full-time employees in certain
    positions to a full-time tour of duty. This incentive is still in place
    and includes a full-time tour of duty for all new employees hired in
    these positions. The annual cost of this incentive is $21 million and
    is funded from our Wildland Fire Preparedness allocated funds.
        The second incentive implemented was a 10-percent increase in base
    pay for primary fire positions for grades GS-5 through GS-8. This
    incentive required annual approval with the Department of Agriculture
    (USDA). Approvals were requested and granted for March 2009 through
    February 2010, March 2010 through February 2011, and March 2011 through
    February 25, 2012. USFS did not request reauthorization from USDA for
    this retention incentive after February 25, 2012. The decision was
    based on the agency's ability to maintain Fire Fighting Production
    Capability due to the low attrition rate. USFS will continue to monitor
    our fire management workforce situation and respond appropriately.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

        Question. Can you provide a brief update of the land acquisition
    program for the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) and what priority
    projects may be secured this year? I have made GMNF land acquisition a
    priority during my entire time in the U.S. Senate and have seen Federal
    ownership go from less than 300,000 acres to more than 400,000 acres
    during that time. Seeing the benefits of GMNF land acquisition helped
    inspire me to create the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) which has
    protected more than 2 million acres nationally.
        Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget request did not propose
    specific new land acquisition projects for the GMNF. The GMNF is in the
    process of completing various land acquisitions including the
    following:
        Recently the GMNF acquired from the Trust for Public Land, a 300-
    acre parcel ($318,000), that contains approximately 8 acres of
    wetlands. It is contiguous to a large block of National Forest System
    lands to the west and east. The property is also within a bear corridor
    (a species of high public interest), and provides a swath of currently
    undeveloped land that serves as an east-west traveling corridor for
    black bears.
        Partnering with the Manchester Land Trust, the GMNF recently
    acquired a 120-acre parcel ($350,000) in Manchester and Winhall that
    contains a significant portion of Stony Brook, which is a tributary to
    the Batten Kill River, high-quality northern hardwoods, that provides
    opportunities for backcountry recreation.
        The GMNF also acquired from a private landowner a 4-acre parcel
    ($20,000) that consolidates the last block of private land within the
    section of National Forest System lands in the Town of Ripton.
        Under contract is an 80-acre parcel located in the Town of Woodford
    that is contiguous to National Forest System lands on the south and
    east and provides the public with opportunities for backcountry
    recreation.
        The GMNF is actively engaged with the potential purchase of a
    multitude of properties, including two parcels totaling 330 acres that
    provide public access to a larger block of National Forest System lands
    and a 36-acre parcel entirely surrounded by National Forest System
    lands within the Taconic expansion area. In addition, several
    additional parcels that meet the GMNF Land and Resource Management Plan
    and National Strategic Plan goals are being negotiated.
        In addition we have worked with partners to protect 78,829 acres of
    important forests across 62 tracts in Vermont, through FLP. Although
    not in Federal ownership, many of these tracts are strategically
    located adjacent to the GMNF.
        Partnering with third parties, such as the Trust for Public Land,
    the Conservation Fund and the Manchester Land Trust, the GMNF
    acquisition program continues to work with local communities to
    identify and support priority acquisitions.
        Question. I introduced the legislation which created the Moosalamoo
    National Recreation Area (NRA) within the GMNF in order to literally
    put this fantastic recreational resource ``on the map''. Since its
    creation in 2006 however, this NRA has struggled to gain the national
    recognition that it so richly deserves. Can you tell me what the U.S.
    Forest Service (USFS) is doing within Vermont, regionally, and across
    the country to fully implement the New England Wilderness Act of 2006?
    This act established the National Recreation Area and calls for the
    Moosalamoo to become a national showcase of integrated forest
    management, as well as a nationally significant recreational resource.
        Answer. The GMNF has been working hard to implement the New England
    Wilderness Act of 2006 as part of the Chief's 10-Year Wilderness
    Challenge. For example:
      --The GMNF has worked with the Vermont Youth Conservation Corps to
            remove culverts by hand and decommission roads within
            wilderness designated by the act.
      --The forest has plans to remove larger culverts in designated
            wilderness that would require mechanized equipment. This work
            requires NEPA review before restoration of these roads can be
            implemented.
      --USFS is working closely with the Moosalamoo Association by
            providing Challenge Cost Share Agreements for trail maintenance
            projects throughout the National Recreation Area. An American
            Recovery and Reinvestment Act project was recently awarded
            ``Project of the Year'' from the Vermont Trails and Greenways
            Council and received recognition from the USFS regional office
            for collaboration and partnership success.
      --Partnering with the Vermont Youth Conservation Corps and the
            Vermont Mountain Bike Association, the GMNF recently completed
            major trail work on the Leicester Hollow--Chandler Ridge Loop
            Trail in the Moosalamoo National Recreation Area.
      --The GMNF continues to inventory and identify the condition of our
            campsites within the Moosalamoo National Recreation Area.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski

        Question. In light of the President's announcement last week of an
    Executive order creating an interagency working group ``. . . to
    coordinate the efforts of Federal agencies responsible for overseeing
    the safe and responsible development of unconventional domestic natural
    gas resources'', and the inclusion of the United States Department of
    Agriculture in that working group, how are the activities of individual
    forests, like those of the George Washington and Wayne National
    Forests, being coordinated within the United States Forest Service
    (USFS) and with the interagency working group?
        Answer. The Executive order, dated April 13, 2012, directs that
    Interagency Working Group membership ``. . . shall include deputy-level
    representatives or equivalent officials, designated by the head of the
    respective agency or office . . .'' and lists the Department of
    Agriculture under membership. Individual forest and grassland line
    officers will continue to coordinate with appropriate officials within
    USFS through the agency Deputy Chiefs. The agency leadership through
    the Chief and the Deputy Chiefs will coordinate with Department of
    Agriculture officials. Departmental representatives will coordinate
    with other agencies on appropriate issues within the interagency
    working group.
        Question. When do you expect the George Washington National Forest
    plan and the Wayne National Forest's study to be finalized?
        Answer. We anticipate that the George Washington National Forest
    plan will be completed in the late summer of 2012. The Wayne National
    Forest's study is projected to be finalized in mid to late June 2012.
        Question. Can you please get back to me when you have had a chance
    to review this as an agency and inform me of your plans?
        Answer. Yes.
                                     ______

                       Questions Submitted to Susan Spear
                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

        Question. The Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) is one of the
    most recreated National Forests in the region--the roughly 80 employees
    of the GMNF serve some 3 to 4 million visitors annually, and are within
    a day's drive of 70 million people. The GMNF serves as the only
    experience that many people from crowded east coast cities may have
    with Federal natural resource agencies. The staffs of the GMNF do a
    great job of resource management but they do so working out of a leased
    facility, some distance from the Forest itself and with very modest and
    dated visitor facilities.
        The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has identified the site for
    construction of a new GMNF headquarters building, on National Forest
    land, on Route 4, the Gateway to the National Forest. Construction of a
    new headquarters will save the Federal Government money, as compared to
    ongoing lease payments, and allow for an even better job of resource
    management and public education. This is a project that I have
    supported for 10 years and am eager to see it built in the near future.
    Can you assure me that USFS will allocate the necessary $1 million to
    complete the design of the new headquarters building for the GMNF this
    year?
        Answer. While the design and construction phases of a new Forest
    Supervisor's office in Mendon, Vermont, are included in the Eastern
    Region's Infrastructure Priority Project List, there are many projects
    of higher priority nationally. Therefore, design work for the new GMNF
    headquarters has not been initiated this year. Overall agency funding
    for facility design/construction in 2012 has been reduced by 56 percent
    since 2010. As a result, we are reassessing many competing priorities,
    considering less-costly alternatives, and re-evaluating the highest-
    priority projects that may be possible to complete with very limited
    funding.
        For fiscal year 2013 the budget request includes a program increase
    of $23,799,000 from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level for facilities
    to support the safety and health of all users of existing
    infrastructure and to judiciously defer all new construction, including
    phased projects that include new construction, when other cost
    effective and reasonable options exist.
        Question. The GMNF was at the epicenter of the worst damage wrought
    by Tropical Storm Irene. USFS staff performed heroically to help local
    communities even though many of them had suffered damage to their own
    homes. There are 900 miles of trails and roads within the GMNF, 85
    percent of which were damaged and a majority of the damaged trails
    remain closed as our most active trail season approaches, with repair
    needs in excess of $2 million. Will you be able to allocate resources
    to repair the damage caused by Tropical Storm Irene to the trails and
    roads within the GMNF in a timely manner?
        Answer. Yes, we have been and will continue to allocate resources
    to the trails and roads within the GMNF. For fiscal year 2012, the
    Eastern Region allocated $390,000 for use in trail restoration and
    repair directly related to Tropical Storm Irene. USFS was able to apply
    appropriated funds to the early recovery stages on the GMNF at the end
    of fiscal year 2011 and in early fiscal year 2012. Additional funding
    has been secured from the Federal Highway Administration's Emergency
    Relief for federally Owned Roads (ERFO) program. The GMNF will be
    working with local partners and contractors to prioritize and implement
    major repairs in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013.
        While much of the road repair work qualifies for ERFO funding,
    almost all trail related damage does not. We will continue to work with
    established volunteer organizations and other nongovernmental
    organizations on creative ways to bring these trails up to safe
    standards for public use.
        The GMNF completed a comprehensive survey of all roads, trails, and
    facilities that were damaged extensively during Tropical Storm Irene.
    Many roads and trails require environmental assessment work before work
    can be initiated.
        The GMNF has been working closely with the public and municipal
    leaders on short- and long-term solutions, including establishing
    priorities for limited funding and resources to meet specific public
    demands. This work includes shifting resource management priorities so
    that public and private access is available through damaged GMNF roads.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Reed. And we ask you to respond to any requests for
    information or questions as promptly as possible, Chief.
        With no further comment, the hearing is concluded. Thank
    you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., Wednesday, April 18, the
    subcommittee was recessed.]

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2012

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:36 a.m. in Room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed, (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Reed, Tester, Murkowski, Cochran, Blunt,
    and Hoeven.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    STATEMENT OF 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. On behalf
    of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Subcommittee, I'd like to welcome everyone to
    our hearing on the fiscal year 2013 budget request for the
    United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
        I'm very pleased to again welcome Administrator Lisa
    Jackson to testify before us. We're also very glad that you and
    your Chief Financial Officer, Barbara J. Bennett, are here this
    morning to talk about your budget request and related policy
    issues.
        As you know, Administrator Jackson, this subcommittee has
    been ground zero for many of the contentious policy issues that
    you face. And so we all know what a challenging job you have.
        It's hard to address environmental challenges when our
    economy is strong, let alone when our current fiscal situation
    is challenging. That's why I particularly appreciate your
    message that environmental protection is not only compatible,
    but it is, in fact, essential for the economic growth and well-
    being of our Nation. That's an important message.
        Of course, balancing environmental protection needs against
    economic constraints isn't limited to policy choices. Turning
    to the budget, we can see the difficult choices that you have
    made.
        Overall, the administration has requested a total of $8.344
    billion for EPA programs. That's a decrease of $105 million or
    about 1 percent less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
        Within this amount, the budget request includes a 5-percent
    increase in EPA's operating programs for a total of $2.8
    billion, which includes major investments in enforcement and
    compliance and chemical safety programs.
        The request also includes a 10-percent increase for grants
    to States and tribes to help them run their environmental
    permitting and monitoring programs, including a large increase
    for State air quality grants.
        I also would like to note that the budget request includes
    $14 million, an $8 million increase, to expand EPA's current
    slate of hydraulic fracturing research to ensure that the
    Nation can continue to access its unconventional oil and gas
    reserves in a safe and environmentally sustainable way.
        I know there is a lot of interest in how EPA plans to use
    these funds as well as interest in new EPA regulations that
    address the effects on air and water quality associated with
    hydraulic fracking. So I expect we'll discuss these issues in
    some length this morning.
        Now, while I agree that the investments I've just discussed
    are very important, I'm very concerned that the water
    infrastructure grant program bears the brunt of cuts in this
    budget.
        Specifically, the budget proposes to cut $359 million or 15
    percent from Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
    program levels. That would mean a 20-percent cut to the Clean
    Water State Revolving Fund program and a 7-percent cut for the
    Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program.
        These additional cuts mean that the State Revolving Funds
    (SRF)would be cut by more than 40 percent compared to where the
    programs were 3 years ago, and would negatively impact our
    communities in at least two ways.
        First, by EPA's own estimates, our communities face more
    than $600 billion in sewer and drinking water project needs
    over the next two decades. And these needs are far outpacing
    the Federal Government's ability to help communities pay for
    them.
        My own State of Rhode Island has more than $1.6 billion in
    projects waiting for funding on its intended use plan,
    including $1.3 billion in clean water needs. Yet, in the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget, we are only slated to
    receive about $16 million in SRF grants.
        So I'm concerned that further cuts to SRFs will cause us to
    fall even further behind.
        Second, the SRFs are tremendous job creators, especially
    when our Federal grants are combined with the additional funds
    that States contribute as a matching requirement, or stretched
    even further by leveraging through the bond markets.
        Every $1 we invest in these grants creates more than $2 in
    total investments in actual projects on the ground.
        The bottom line is that cutting these programs means
    cutting construction jobs. And despite the fact that many of
    EPA's programs we'll discuss here today are controversial,
    funding for water infrastructure has bipartisan support.
        So I'm very concerned that the administration is proposing
    to cut one of the few areas of the EPA budget that both sides
    agree is extremely important.
        There are some additional reductions to smaller programs in
    the EPA budget which also concern me, including a proposal to
    cut diesel emission reduction grants by one-half, and to
    eliminate Beach Act coastal monitoring grants and the
    environmental education program.
        As part of our conversation today, I'd like to know why
    these programs were selected for reductions, and I hope you'll
    work with me, Administrator Jackson, and the subcommittee to
    restore these proposed cuts.
        Finally, I'd like to turn to an area of the budget that is
    very important to my home State, if you would allow me.
        For many years, I've worked to protect Rhode Island's
    coastal environment since I became chairman. I've been working
    closely with the EPA to emphasize the need to restore coastal
    watersheds in southern New England like the Narragansett Bay.
        Last year, I directed the EPA through the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill to take a
    leadership role to coordinate and expand restoration programs
    in the region.
        I'm happy that EPA's moving forward with these efforts and
    thank you very much, Madam Administrator, and your Regional
    Administrator Curt Spaulding in Region 1.
        And I'm particularly pleased to see your proposed $2
    million investment in the region as part of your budget
    request. I want to thank you both, Administrator Jackson and
    Ms. Bennett, for your personal attention to this issue. Thank
    you very much.
        And, now, let me turn to my ranking member, Senator
    Murkowski. Senator.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator, welcome. Good morning, Ms. Bennett. Thank
    you also for being here.
        Administrator, as you might expect, many of my questions
    today will involve policy issues. But first, I want to
    recognize and thank you for maintaining the Alaskan Native
    Villages Program at $10 million in your budget request.
        The need in rural Alaska for wastewater improvements is
    enormous. I truly appreciate that you've maintained this
    critical program while keeping the overall budget request below
    last year's level. So thank you for that.
        Earlier this month, there was an editorial in the
    Washington Post entitled ``The EPA is Earning a Reputation for
    Abuse''. Not a very complimentary headline there.
        And this was in response to statements that came to light
    from one of your regional administrators concerning the EPA's
    enforcement tactics.
        And the editorial states as follows: ``The most reasonable
    interpretation is also among the most disturbing, that Mr.
    Armendariz preferred to extract harsh punishments on an
    arbitrary number of firms to scare others into cooperating.''
        This sort of talk isn't merely unjust and threatening to
    investors in energy projects, it hurts the EPA. The question
    will remain, is an aggressive attitude like the one Mr.
    Armendariz described common among EPA officials?'' And that's
    the end of that quote.
        I raise these issues because I think these statements are
    somewhat consistent with some of the fears that have been
    expressed by some of my constituents and that I have expressed
    about the EPA.
        That it can sometimes be arrogant, use arbitrary
    enforcement or put in permitting requirements which then in
    turn discourage the market from investing in critical projects
    that are necessary to get folks back to work, invigorate our
    economy.
        There's a couple of examples in Alaska that I will cite too
    that suggest that this attitude has perhaps affected EPA's work
    on issues within my State.
        You are very familiar, of course, with Shell Oil and its
    effort to gain the necessary permits to pursue exploring
    offshore there.
        They've spent more than 5 years and $50 million pursuing
    air permits from the EPA for no more than two drill ships to
    operate in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). At the
    same time, these kinds of permits were issued routinely in the
    Gulf of Mexico in about a 6-week period in air sheds where
    there are many, many more drilling rigs operating year-round,
    and with many more communities in close proximity.
        As you know, I worked with my colleagues last year to
    transfer air permitting authority in the Arctic OCS from the
    EPA to the Department of the Interior who already has the
    permitting responsibilities within the gulf.
        A second case in point is the watershed assessment for
    Bristol Bay. This assessment is in response to a petition to
    block the proposed Pebble Mine under section 404 of the Clean
    Water Act.
        I've heard from a lot of Alaskans on this issue. They're
    concerned about so many different aspects of it, from the
    potential development of a mine affecting our State's
    fisheries, to the need for a fair permitting process and the
    potential economic benefits of mineral development.
        But precisely because this is such a controversial and very
    complex issue, I think that the process used by the EPA must be
    absolutely fair and transparent. And, I've been somewhat
    concerned about the potential for unintended consequences from
    such an assessment.
        Back in February of last year, and again just last month, I
    sent letters to you inquiring what would stop the assessment
    from being used by opponents of other nonmining development in
    Bristol Bay.
        I think that the assessment would be flawed if it doesn't
    contain an answer to that question. So that is something that I
    have asked and hope to get a firm answer on.
        I do want the EPA to do its job in the regular order of
    things.
        You clearly have the responsibility to protect the public
    health. I support that. I respect that, and I respect the
    passion for which you exercise your responsibility. But I do
    believe that it has to be done in a way that the public
    believes is fair and based on objective science.
        And I would hope that you would agree with that. Mr.
    Chairman, again, I thank you.
        Administrator Jackson, I appreciate you being before the
    committee today, and I look forward to our discussions later
    on. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Before I recognize the Administrator, Senator
    Tester, do you have any comments?
        Senator Tester. No.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Administrator Jackson,
    please.

                      SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON

        Ms. Jackson. Thank you all, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for inviting me to testify on the President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget for the EPA. And, as you noted, thank
    you. I'm joined by our Chief Financial Officer, Barbara J.
    Bennett.
        EPA's budget request is $8.344 billion, and it focuses on
    fulfilling EPA's core mission that's protecting human health
    and the environment, while making sacrifices and, indeed, tough
    choices that Americans across the country are making every day.
        EPA's budget request fully reflects the President's
    commitment to reducing Government spending. The budget is down
    and finding cost savings in a responsible manner, while still
    supporting clean air, clean water and the innovative safeguards
    that are essential to an America that's built to last.
        In some cases, we have, indeed, had to take a step back
    from programs. This budget reflects a savings of $50 million
    through the elimination of several EPA programs and activities
    that have either met their goals or can be achieved at the
    State or local level or by other Federal agencies.
        I just want to spend a moment discussing a few elements of
    EPA's budget request.
        The budget request recognizes the importance of our
    partners at the State and local and tribal level. As you know,
    they are, indeed, at the front lines of implementing our
    Nation's environmental laws like the Clean Water Act, and the
    Clean Air Act.
        And, in fact, the largest portion, fully 40 percent of
    EPA's funding request, is directed to State and Tribal
    Assistance Grants appropriations. And that's to support their
    efforts.
        Specifically, the budget proposes that $1.2 billion, nearly
    15 percent of EPA's overall budget request, be allocated back
    through categorical grants to the States and tribes. This
    includes funding for State and Local Air Quality Management
    grants, Pollution Control grants, and the Tribal General
    Assistance Program.
        The budget also proposes that a combined $2 billion, fully
    25 percent of EPA's budget request, goes directly to the States
    for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
        As you noted, Sir, this funding will help support
    systemwide investments that are efficient and that develop
    water infrastructure in our communities. We are working
    collaboratively especially to identify opportunities to fund
    green infrastructure, projects that can reduce pollution
    efficiently and much less expensively than traditional grey
    infrastructure.
        Additionally, our budget request would fund the protection
    of the Nation's land and water in local communities, including
    important water such as the Narragansett Bay.
        Reflecting the President's commitment to restoring and
    protecting the Great Lakes, the budget requests that the
    Congress maintain the current funding level of $300 million for
    the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
        This support will continue to be used for collaborative
    work with partners at the State, local and tribal level, and
    also with nonprofit and municipal groups.
        The budget also requests support for protection of the
    Chesapeake Bay, and several other treasured and economically
    significant water bodies.
        The budget reflects the importance of cleaning up
    contaminated land requesting $755 million for continued support
    of the Superfund cleanup programs and maintaining EPA's
    emergency preparedness capabilities.
        EPA's budget request makes investments in its science and
    technology account of $807 million, that's almost 10 percent of
    the total request. That includes $576 million for research,
    including $81 million in research grants and fellowships to
    scientists and universities throughout our country for targeted
    research as part of the Science to Achieve Results, or STAR
    program, on areas that include issues like children's health,
    endocrine disruption, and air monitoring research.
        Also, as part of this request, EPA is funding increases in
    areas that include green infrastructure and hydraulic
    fracturing.
        As I've mentioned before, natural gas is an important
    resource abundant in our country, but we must make sure that
    the way we extract it does not jeopardize our water supplies.
        This budget continues EPA's ongoing congressionally
    directed fracking study, which we have taken great steps to
    ensure is independent, peer reviewed, and based on strong and
    scientifically defensible data.
        Building on these ongoing efforts, this budget requests $14
    million in total to work collaboratively with the USGS, the
    Department of Energy (DOE), and other partners to assess
    questions regarding hydraulic fracturing.
        Strong science means finding the answers to tough
    questions, and that's what our budget request is intended to
    do.
        We are making investments to support standards for clean
    energy and energy efficiency in this budget. Specifically, this
    budget supports EPA's efforts to introduce cleaner vehicles and
    fuels, to expand the use of home-grown renewable fuels.
        This includes funding for EPA's Federal Vehicle and Fuel
    Standards and Certification program and compliance testing for
    emissions standards. This also includes implementation of the
    President's historic agreement with the auto industry for
    reducing carbon pollution and increasing fuel economy standards
    through 2025 for cars and light duty vehicles, including
    testing support for NHTSA's fuel economy standards.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Taken together, the administration's standards for cars and
    light trucks are projected to result in $1.7 trillion in fuel
    savings and 12 billion fewer barrels of oil consumed.
        This funding will also help support implementation of the
    first ever carbon pollution and fuel economy standards for
    heavy duty vehicles.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify.
    While my testimony reflects only a few highlights of EPA's
    budget request, I look forward to answering all questions of
    the subcommittee.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Lisa P. Jackson

        Thank you for inviting me to testify on the President's fiscal year
    2013 budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I'm joined
    by EPA's chief financial officer, Barbara J. Bennett.
        EPA's budget request of $8.344 billion focuses on fulfilling EPA's
    core mission of protecting public health and the environment, while
    making the sacrifices and tough decisions that Americans across the
    country are making every day.
        EPA's budget request fully reflects the President's commitment to
    reducing Government spending and finding cost savings in a responsible
    manner while supporting clean air, clean water, and the innovative safe
    guards that are essential to an America that's built to last. In some
    cases we have had to take a step back from programs--this budget
    reflects a savings of $50 million through the elimination of several
    EPA programs and activities that have either met their goals, or can be
    achieved at the State or local level or by other Federal agencies.
        Let me spend a moment discussing major elements of EPA's budget
    request.
        This budget recognizes the importance of our partners at the State,
    local, and tribal level. As you know, they are at the front lines of
    implementing our environmental laws like the Clean Water Act, and the
    Clean Air Act. In fact, the largest portion--40 percent of EPA's
    funding request--is directed to the State and Tribal Assistance Grants
    appropriation to support their efforts.
        Specifically, this budget proposes that $1.2 billion--nearly 15
    percent of EPA's overall request--be allocated back to the States and
    tribes, through categorical grants. This includes funding for State and
    Local Air Quality Management grants, Pollution Control grants and the
    tribal general assistance program.
        The budget also proposes that a combined $2 billion--another 25
    percent of EPA's budget request--also goes directly to the States for
    the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. This funding
    will help support efficient systemwide investments and development of
    water infrastructure in our communities. We are working collaboratively
    to identify opportunities to fund green infrastructure--projects that
    can reduce pollution efficiently and less expensively than traditional
    grey infrastructure.
        Additionally, EPA's budget request would fund the protection of the
    Nation's land and water in local communities. Reflecting the
    President's commitment to restoring and protecting the Great Lakes,
    this budget requests that the Congress maintain the current funding
    level of $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. This
    support will continue to be used for collaborative work with partners
    at the State, local and tribal level, and also with nonprofit and
    municipal groups. The budget also requests support for protection of
    the Chesapeake Bay, and several other treasured and economically
    significant water bodies. The budget reflects the importance of
    cleaning up contaminated land sites in our communities by requesting
    $755 million for continued support of the superfund cleanup programs
    and maintains EPA's emergency preparedness and response capabilities.
        EPA's budget request makes major investments in its science and
    technology account of $807 million, or almost 10 percent of the total
    request. This request includes $576 million for research, including $81
    million in research grants and fellowships to scientists and
    universities throughout the country for targeted research as part of
    the Science to Achieve Results--or STAR--program, including children's
    health, endocrine disruption, and air monitoring research. Also, as
    part of this request, EPA includes funding increases into key areas
    that include green infrastructure and hydraulic fracturing.
        As I've mentioned before, natural gas is an important resource
    which is abundant in the United States, but we must make sure that the
    ways we extract it do not risk the safety of public water supplies.
    This budget continues EPA's ongoing congressionally directed hydraulic
    fracturing study, which we have taken great steps to ensure is
    independent, peer reviewed, and based on strong and scientifically
    defensible data. Building on these ongoing efforts, this budget
    requests $14 million in total to work collaboratively with the United
    States Geological Survey, the Department of Energy and other partners
    to assess questions regarding hydraulic fracturing. Strong science
    means finding the answers to tough questions, and EPA's request does
    that.
        We are making investments to support standards for clean energy and
    efficiency in this budget. Specifically, this budget supports EPA's
    efforts to introduce cleaner vehicles and fuels and to expand the use
    of home-grown renewable fuels. This includes funding for EPA's Federal
    Vehicle and Fuel Standards and Certification program to support
    certification, and compliance testing for all emissions standards. This
    also includes implementation of the President's historic agreement with
    the auto industry for carbon pollution and fuel economy standards
    through 2025 for cars and light duty vehicles, including testing
    support for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA)
    fuel economy standards. Taken together, NHTSA's standards for cars and
    light trucks are projected to result in $1.7 trillion of fuel savings,
    and 12 billion fewer barrels of oil consumed. This funding will also
    help support implementation of the first ever carbon pollution and fuel
    economy standards for heavy duty trucks.
        Stepping back from EPA's budget request, let me spend a moment
    discussing the impact of a sequester. Mr. Chairman, as you know, as
    part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), through a sequestration,
    spending may be forced to be slashed in an irresponsible manner that
    can endanger the public health protections that we rely on and not
    invest in an America that's built to last. By design the sequester is
    bad policy, bringing about deep cuts in defense and nondefense spending
    to act as an incentive for congressional action on deficit reduction.
        Even without the sequester, discretionary spending has already been
    cut in nominal terms for 2 straight years. Under the BCA, it is on a
    path to reach its lowest level as a share of GDP since the Eisenhower
    administration.
        If the sequester were to happen, it would bring another round of
    deep cuts in discretionary spending. Although the administration is
    continuing to analyze the impact of the sequester, CBO has said that in
    2013, the sequester would result in a 7.8-percent cut in nonsecurity
    discretionary accounts that are not exempt from the sequester. It would
    be impossible for us to manage cuts of that magnitude and still achieve
    our fundamental mission to protect human health and the environment.
        The sequester would thus have a devastating effect on our country's
    ability to conduct the following activities over the long haul:
      --A sequester would result in deep cuts to EPA's operating budget,
            which includes funds for the enforcement of public health and
            environmental protections.
      --It would significantly harm our ability to help State and local
            governments finance needed drinking water and wastewater
            projects that provide communities clean and safe water.
      --A sequester also would slash EPA grants that help States carry out
            basic functions that protect human health and the environment
            like water quality permitting and air quality monitoring.
      --The sequester would impair progress on the country's ability to
            clean up the nation's hazardous waste sites over the long haul.
        The President has been clear that the Congress needs to avoid a
    sequester by passing a balanced deficit reduction--at least as much as
    the BCA required of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to
    avoid sequestration. The President's budget reflects such a balanced
    proposal, and we believe the Congress should enact it and cancel the
    sequester.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. While
    my testimony reflects only some of the highlights of EPA's budget
    request, I look forward to answering your questions.

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Administrator.
        We'll do 6-minute rounds, and I assume that we'll have a
    second round at least and maybe more. But let me begin.

                             STATE REVOLVING FUNDS

        Obviously, with my initial comments about SRFs, I want to
    give you a chance to respond about the deep cuts relative to
    other programs.
        And the two points that I made in my comments, I'll just
    reiterate and ask for you to respond. One is, there are
    numerous projects at the State level that are available,
    billions of dollars and more than 10 years worth of projects
    that have to be funded and we're cutting back on it.
        And this is a program obviously that creates the kind of
    construction jobs and multiplier effect in the local
    communities that is so critical at this moment, particularly,
    up in Rhode Island, and I think every State in the country.
        So, Madam Administrator, I know you had to make tough
    choices, but does it make sense to cut this program this much?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, thank you for recognizing, Chairman,
    that this does represent the kinds of tough choices that we
    have to face.
        This administration really has strongly supported
    investments in drinking water and wastewater infrastructure to
    the tune of $18 billion more than the budgets so far. That
    includes $6 billion that was in the American Reinvestment and
    Recovery Act, of which, 100 percent allocated to States and
    tribes has been obligated.
        So it's important for us, and I think we would love to work
    with you. I understand the concern. There is great need out
    there. It is absolutely true that clean water is the basis for
    economic growth and development, and it's also a clear
    stimulant for jobs and construction.
        We'd like to take a look at what's out there, what has been
    expended and whether there are still monies that will be
    expended over the coming year. Part of this is a recognition
    that we may have money that because of the incredible
    investment, that $18 billion, we can look to make sure that the
    funds are being purposed and put out on the street for jobs.
        Senator Reed. Thank you. Obviously, we'll be following up
    with you to try to get that information and also to continue to
    press the case that this program could, I think, effectively
    use additional funding.

                                NARRAGANSETT BAY

        I want to, as I said before, thank you and Ms. Bennett for
    your work with the coastal watersheds of Region 1, in
    particular, in Narragansett Bay.
        Can you give us an idea of your concept? I know there's $2
    million within the budget for this, and how do you see this not
    only affecting Narragansett Bay, but also being consistent with
    and maybe a model for other watersheds throughout the country?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think, as you pointed out, southeast New England faces
    environmental challenges, and the region has typical challenges
    associated with the legacy of some amount of contamination,
    channelized and impounded rivers, and natural systems that have
    been altered.
        Under your leadership and working together, I think we do
    have an opportunity to develop and test and implement best
    practices for restoration and renewal that would benefit the
    entire bi-State areas, the entire areas along that coastline,
    especially Narragansett Bay.
        We, of course, have the National Estuary Program, and we
    worked on that. We have other estuary programs where there is
    some opportunity to work together. But our hope here is to
    bring expertise and commitment on water quality together with
    an intense focus on the Narragansett Bay, in particular, to
    determine what specific levers can be pulled to make the
    largest increases in water quality as well as habitat and
    coastline improvements along the Bay.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.

                       STATE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY GRANTS

        Let me raise a final question in my first round. And that
    is, I've received letters from the directors of nine State
    environmental agencies, and I think Senator Murkowski and
    others have received the letters.
        And they are responding to your proposal to change the
    formula for State and local air quality grants which would
    essentially change the formula to favor the south and the west
    from the current arrangement.
        And their fear, even though you're increasing funding so
    that there's no immediate decrease, their fear is obviously
    that this fund is locked in. If funding is not increased over
    time consistently, they will begin to receive less and less for
    these important functions.
        One other point I have, and this is just specific to the
    Northeast, one of the ironies of course is that we have to
    monitor a lot of air that comes from the Midwest. So that our
    air quality efforts are not simply a function of, you know, our
    regional or even local output.
        And that I think also is another rationale for maintaining
    the formula. And there is a second issue too. And that is that
    they've raised the point that you are proposing to transfer
    authority for particulate monitoring from section 103 to
    section 105.
        The bottom line is that this transfer requires a State
    match, which means, in the worst case, and generally, they
    think it's the worst case, they're going to see their funds
    decrease. And then another portion of their operations will
    require a State match which is virtually impossible to obtain
    given the reality of the States, all of our States at the
    moment.
        Could you comment?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        I do think, we have heard some of those concerns and
    received copies of those letters. And I think that once we
    receive our appropriation amount, there is an opportunity for
    us to try to work with States on how the money is allocated
    between section 103 and 105 authorities.
        There is some difference across the country in need.
    Actually, the need is greater than what we can give them. We
    are increasing, and we're very, very proud, we'd love to be
    able to give you even more money.
        But we're increasing because we recognize that States are
    so strapped, and that these monitoring systems for air quality
    are really the basis of determining whether air is healthy or
    not. And, of course, potentially taking action.
        So I think there is opportunity to work to make sure that
    there are no unintended consequences for States. But the
    increase is very real.
        Senator Reed. Well, I appreciate that.
        But, again, taking the longer view, there's a real fear
    that this formula change could significantly disadvantage, as
    well as the shifting of authorities.
        So we will be working with you and looking very closely for
    the justification for these proposals and also to ensure that
    if these concerns are justified, we can respond and make
    appropriate changes.
        With that, let me recognize Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator, as I go around the State meeting with
    constituents, more people ask me questions about EPA than any
    other Federal agency out there.
        And they ask me to intervene. They ask me to do everything
    that I can to help just deal with an agency that they're having
    some difficulty understanding.
        In fact, I had asked my Alaska staff to, as they meet with
    various community leaders, to just kind of keep a running list
    of some of the issues that are coming out of our communities.
    Some of them are what you would certainly expect, concerns
    about Boiler MACT, Utility MACT.
        Others are pretty local, everything from how we get
    different ice melt on airport runways to how animals that are
    on the Alaska marine highway system moving from small island
    community to small island community, how the waste from those
    animals can be dealt with.
        So it's really a range all over the board. What I would ask
    for you this morning is a commitment to have your senior staff
    with operational authority sit down with some of my senior
    advisers within the next few weeks or so to discuss where the
    EPA is on a range of these issues.
        Senator Murkowski. Again, many of them are so very local
    that I don't want to take the subcommittee's time to resolve,
    but exceptionally important to these more isolated and smaller
    communities.
        So I'd ask if you'd be willing to appoint some folks to sit
    with me.
        Ms. Jackson. Of course.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

        Administrator Jackson committed to have senior staff with
    operational authority sit down with some of Senator Murkowski's senior
    advisors within the next few weeks to discuss where the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) is on a range of issues (ice melt on airport
    runways, Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), Utility
    MACT, animal waste, etc.).
        Senior EPA staff met with staff from Senator Murkowski's office on
    May 31, 2012. The meeting resulted in numerous issue-specific, follow-
    up meetings, and an ongoing discussion on specific matters.

                             BRISTOL BAY WATERSHED

        Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you, just a quick question on
    the Bristol Bay watershed. I understand that an announcement on
    that is due out shortly. And, of course, my hope is that in
    addition to the questions that I had posed in my two letters to
    you, that we will not see a pre-emptive veto.
        The concern that I have expressed, and just mentioned in my
    opening, is how far this assessment can be utilized beyond just
    the Pebble project itself.
        Can you legally limit the impact to just EPA's
    consideration of the mining activity? Or, will it impact or
    affect the development decision in the watershed involving
    other issues, whether it's dredge or fill material?
        Of course, the concern is, is that within this area that's
    about the size of the State of West Virginia, if they're not
    going to be able to build a road, build a runway, because of
    this assessment, this is extraordinarily limiting.
        So I'm trying to understand that EPA authority, if you
    could address that for me.
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, Senator. And thank you for your letter.
        [The information follows:]

                                          United States Senate,
                                        Washington, DC, April 18, 2012.
    Hon. Lisa P. Jackson,
    Environmental Protection Agency,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Administrator Jackson: The Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) announced over a year ago that it would undertake a ``scientific
    assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed'' in Alaska in response to a
    petition to preemptively veto development, in that area, under section
    404(c) of the Clean Water Act. These actions materialized in response
    to the potential development of the so-called Pebble Mine.
        Since that project became a possibility, I have encouraged all
    stakeholders to withhold judgment until 1) a detailed development plan
    is released for review and 2) all relevant analyses of that plan arc
    completed. A preemptive veto, just like a preemptive approval, would be
    based purely upon speculation and conjecture. It would deprive relevant
    government agencies and all stakeholders of the specifics needed to
    take an informed position. As I have communicated to you in the past,
    this would be an unacceptable outcome to me.
        Even as the EPA proceeds with its watershed assessment, I have
    continued to hear from many Alaskans about it. They are concerned about
    everything from the potential development of a mine and the importance
    of our State's fisheries to the need for a fair permitting process and
    the potential economic benefits of mineral development. Needless to
    say, I remain apprehensive about EPA's handling of this matter
    generally, but I write today regarding one particular issue.
        Setting aside my opposition to a preemptive veto of a mining
    project that has not yet applied for a permit, I am worried about the
    unintended consequences for other development should the EPA decide to
    take such action. Specifically, I remain concerned that an attempt to
    preemptively veto the Pebble mine would have the practical effect of
    halting any development in the Bristol Bay area that might generate
    dredge or fill material. It remains unclear to me how dredge or fill
    material from a mining operation might be substantively different from
    dredge or fill material generated from any other form of development.
        In my letter to you of February 16, 2011, I raised this issue and
    asked a pair of detailed questions. I was disappointed to find that
    your response of March 21, 2011 did not definitively answer either of
    those questions, both of which appear with the responses that the EPA
    provided in the attachment. Since our exchange, and in continuing to
    hear from my constituents about the EPA's activities in Alaska, I have
    only become more concerned. It was my hope that a recent meeting with
    EPA officials would finally alleviate some of these concerns, but I
    regret that it failed to accomplish that objective as well.
        On March 6th, members of my staff met with EPA's Region Ten
    Administrator, Dennis McLerran. Consistent with my past inquiries, they
    asked Administrator McLerran about the potential impact of a preemptive
    veto of development in the Bristol Bay watershed for not only mining,
    but all other development. They were told that the watershed assessment
    would be narrowly crafted to look at hypothetical mining activities and
    that any preemptive veto would he similarly structured to avoid
    impacting other development. I ask that you provide further, written
    clarification on this matter.
        In particular, I fail to see what grounds the EPA might have for
    asserting that dredge or fill generated by a hypothetical mine and the
    acceptability of impacts resulting from its disposal--is any different
    from dredge or fill material generated by any other hypothetical
    development. Given the EPA's apparent comfort with consideration of
    hypothetical scenarios, and for purposes of more definitively answering
    my previously submitted questions, I ask that you do so again.
        Specifically, please assume that EPA goes ahead with a preemptive
    veto of mineral development in the Bristol Bay area. Having done so,
    please consider the possibility of a subsequent proposal to develop an
    airfield--one that would generate, and require disposal of, dredge or
    fill material--in the same area. If a third-party litigant sued to
    prevent construction of this hypothetical airfield, please describe the
    legal grounds upon which that challenge might he reliably defeated and
    the airfield development allowed to move forward.
        To date, I have not received a satisfactory response to this
    question, no matter how it has been phrased. This makes me very
    concerned, so I appreciate any assistance you might be able to provide
    in clarifying the matter and hope that the more specific example
    provided herein will be helpful to that end. In attempting to answer
    this question, I ask that you do so no later than--and ideally prior
    to--the issuance of the watershed assessment that the EPA has
    undertaken. To be clear: I will view as fatally flawed any assessment
    that does not include, or is not accompanied by, an official legal
    opinion from the administration on this matter. I further ask that your
    analysis be performed in conjunction with the Department of Justice and
    the EPA's Solicitor.
        As the people of my State work to attract investment and create
    jobs, regulatory uncertainty is hampering those efforts and they need
    answers to questions about actions that the EPA is considering. This is
    particularly true when those actions could have a permanent and
    detrimental impact on our ability not only to develop Alaska's
    resources, but also to undertake any other forms of development in our
    State.
        Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
                Sincerely,
                                                Lisa Murkowski,
                                                          U.S. Senator.
        cc: Administrator Dennis McLerran and Attorney General Eric Holder
                                     ______

                                   Attachment

        Question:
        Should a veto be exercised preemptively 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?
        EPA Response:
        EPA's assessment is not a regulatory action. This assessment will
    help inform consideration of options for improving protection of the
    Bristol Bay watershed. 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 preemptive 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
    preemptive 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 he subjected to
    preemptive 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
    preemptive 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?
        EPA Response:
        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, 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. 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.

        Ms. Jackson. I'll lay this out more fully in my response to
    your letter which will be coming very, very shortly. And,
    because your letter was addressed, and copied to the Attorney
    General, we have been also consulting on the legal issues here.
        [The information follows:]

                 United States Environmental Protection Agency,
                                          Washington, DC, May 17, 2012.
    Hon. Lisa A. Murkowski,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Murkowski: Thank you for your April 18, 2012, letter
    requesting additional clarification about the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency's (EPA) Bristol Bay watershed assessment. I
    appreciate the opportunity to respond to your letter.
        As detailed in my letter of March 21, 2012, EPA undertook this
    assessment after numerous native villages and other organizations in
    Alaska and elsewhere raised concern about potential environmental,
    water quality, fisheries and associated economic and subsistence
    impacts from proposed large-scale mining development in the Bristol Bay
    watershed. Clean Water Act Sections 104(a) and (b) clearly provide the
    Agency with the authority to study the resources of the Bristol Bay
    watershed, evaluate the effect of pollution from large scale mining
    development on those resources, and make such an assessment available
    to the public. Although these groups requested that EPA use its
    authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, others argued
    that any action should be based on submission and review of a
    particularized permit application.
        EPA decided it was premature to make any decision on the use of
    Section 404(c). Instead, the Agency opted to undertake a scientific
    assessment to obtain a more informed basis for future decisionmaking.
    The EPA is conducting this assessment in coordination with Federal
    agencies, tribal organizations, and the public. We have also consulted
    with the State of Alaska. We intend to make our draft available for
    public comment and are convening a peer review panel to provide us with
    independent scientific feedback. Our goal is the finalization of a
    robust, technically sound assessment. Only upon its completion will the
    Agency examine regulatory options, including application of404(c), if
    appropriate. We will be happy to brief you and your staff on the draft
    assessment and its implications when it is released.
        Your letter raises an important question about the precedential
    effect of a hypothetical EPA section 404(c) review of mining in Bristol
    Bay on other future development activities in the Bristol Bay
    watershed. Before turning to this issue, I want to be clear that the
    focus of our assessment is on the environmental and water quality
    impacts from discharges of dredged or fill material associated with
    large-scale mining in the watershed. The assessment does not address
    impacts associated with other development activities, such as
    construction of an airfield, which have a wholly different
    environmental footprint from large-scale mining Since this assessment
    focuses only on the impacts of large-scale mining projects to the
    Bristol Bay watershed, use of the assessment in support or in
    opposition to other types of wetland fill activities is not
    appropriate. Therefore, we would not expect the assessment to play a
    significant role should controversy arise about possible regulation of
    development activities unrelated to large-scale mining.
        While your question is hypothetical, and EPA has no plans to use
    404(c) authority unless justified by the full technical assessment, let
    me also assure you that we have a broad range of discretion in our use
    of the 404(c) authority. A final 404(c) action in Bristol Bay
    prohibiting or restricting large scale mining activities would not
    affect other development in the watershed. CWA section 404(c)
    authorizes the EPA to prohibit or restrict discharges in a defined area
    of the waters of the United States when those discharges are determined
    to have unacceptable adverse environmental or water quality impacts.
    Discharges associated with activities outside the focus of a particular
    Section 404(c) decision are not prohibited or restricted by EPA's
    action. As a result, if EPA were to prohibit or restrict certain
    discharges from large-scale mineral development at Bristol Bay, this
    action would not preclude other development or infrastructure such as
    airport construction that had less damaging impacts.
        Historic application of this authority demonstrates that we have
    used it sparingly and only for severe and widespread impacts on
    ecological resources that we felt justified protection of these
    resources. I am unaware of any case where our decision to use 404(c) in
    one situation was interpreted to compel its use in a different set of
    factual circumstances.
        Impacts from the discharge of dredged or fill material vary
    significantly depending on the location, scale, and duration of the
    activity associated with the discharge. The impacts from using clean
    fill material to build a private boat dock are not the same, for
    example, as impacts from placing contaminated fill material to
    construct a large solid waste landfill. EPA carefully considers these
    distinctions in its review under Section 404 to ensure that our actions
    protect against unacceptable adverse impacts to public health and the
    environment while assuring that environmentally responsible development
    may proceed.
        Preparation of this letter was coordinated within the EPA's Office
    of General Counsel and with the Department of Justice. I hope it
    responds effectively to your questions. Please contact me if you have
    any additional questions regarding EPA's Bristol Bay watershed
    assessment or your staff may contact Arvin Ganesan, Associate
    Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, at
    202-564-5200.
                Sincerely,
                                               Lisa P. Jackson,
                                                         Administrator.

        Ms. Jackson. And I feel confident that I can answer that
    the assessment focuses on large-scale mining. And using the
    assessment to oppose or support any other type of project will
    be inappropriate.
        It's a draft assessment. It's going out for public comment
    and then it will go for peer review. So it's early on.
        Senator Murkowski. How long a public comment do you
    anticipate on that?
        Ms. Jackson. I believe it's 60 days, Senator. And we're
    trying to get it out before commercial fishing and other
    successive fishing seasons begin.
        So we do believe that it won't apply to nonmining projects,
    and that will be laid out more fully in the letter.
        Senator Murkowski. Have you requested a legal opinion to
    that effect then?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, we've coordinated with the Attorney
    General's office to ensure that our reading of the law under
    Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is correct and accurate.
        Senator Murkowski. Do you have or will you have anything in
    writing that you can provide to us on that legal opinion?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, I have the letter which will indicate
    our having consulted with our counterparts at the Attorney
    General's office.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I understand you're going to be
    sending me a written response, and I will await that.
        But I think it's going to be important that it clearly be
    established through legal opinion, or some form of assurance
    out there that, in fact, this can be and will be limited to
    large-scale mining.
        Because again, I think the big unknown here is what this
    potential impact may mean to any other kind of development
    within this region.
        Ms. Jackson. Well, definitely, the letter will reflect the
    concurrence of opinion between EPA, but having consulted with
    the Attorney General's office, not only our internal attorneys,
    but those who would be responsible for interpreting the law.
        And so we do believe that it will do that.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I will await that letter. But I
    may want to double back with you in just ascertaining where we
    really are.
        Because this is the big issue that we're dealing with, with
    Pebble right now, is how this, the extent of this assessment
    might be interpreted.

                           NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS

        One last question before my time has expired here. A lot of
    concern about the rush toward additional regulations coming out
    of the administration as we come to the end of President
    Obama's first term here.
        And a concern that we're going to see a rush of major, new
    rules and regulations prior to January 20.
        Can you give a list to the subcommittee, for the record, on
    what major rules and regulations are due to be final, by either
    virtue of the statute, or by court order, prior to January 20.
        [The information follows:]

        The Congressional Review Act (CRA) defines a major rule as one that
    ``has resulted in or is likely to result in (1) an annual effect on the
    economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or
    prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local
    government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse
    effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or
    innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to
    compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export
    markets.'' (5 U.S.C. 804(2).)
        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews rules to ensure
    that regulations are consistent with applicable law, the President's
    priorities, and the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866, and
    that decisions made by one agency do not conflict with the policies or
    actions taken or planned by another agency. OMB's Administrator of the
    Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines whether a rule
    is classified as ``major''.
        Generally, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rules that
    have been determined as ``major'' under the CRA are based on the annual
    effect on the economy of $100 million or more'' part of the definition.
    EPA's Semiannual Regulatory Agenda captures information on rules that
    are ``major'' as well as any associated deadlines for the rules in
    question. EPA's Semiannual Regulatory Agenda is available at http://
    www.epa.gov/lawsregs/regulations/regagenda.html; please note that a
    more updated Agenda is scheduled to publish in the very near future.
        Executive Order 12866 defines a significant regulatory action as
    one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
      --Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
            adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
            economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
            public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments
            or communities;
      --Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
            action taken or planned by another agency;
      --Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
            fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
            recipients thereof; or
      --Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates,
            the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this
            Executive order. (section 3(f).)
        EPA rules that have been determined as ``significant'' under
    Executive Order 12866 are based on the `` annual effect on the economy
    of $100 million or more'' and ``raise novel, legal or policy issues
    arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
    principles set forth'' parts of the definition.
        Accordingly, EPA's Semiannual Regulatory Agenda captures
    information on rules that are meet the criteria of ``economically
    significant'' or ``other significant.'' EPA's Semiannual Regulatory
    Agenda is available at http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/regulations/
    regagenda.html; please note that a more updated Agenda is scheduled to
    publish in the very near future.

        Senator Murkowski. And then again, a list as to those
    significant rules that you expect to go final within that same
    timeframe, just so that we understand what it is that we're
    dealing with.
        Ms. Jackson. Most certainly, Senator.
        There are two things though I just need to clarify. We have
    a regulatory agenda that tends to be somewhat broader than what
    actually comes to be in terms of proposed or final regulations.
        And we are right now in the middle of several court cases
    which may change our agenda. So I can certainly give you a
    listing of those things, and they're fairly publicly known
    major regulations that we are working on.
        For example, finalizing the fuel economy standards and
    others. But our regulatory agenda, which we're working on
    updating, is probably the best source of that information, and
    we'll get that updated as soon as we can.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. We're going to go back and forth on order of
    arrival. Senator Tester.
        Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    being here, Administrator Jackson.
        I want to tag onto your statement earlier that clean air
    and clean water is important for economic development. It's
    also the basis of life.
        And I think that as we, whether it's mining for gold or
    drilling for oil, it's critically important we don't sacrifice
    one resource for another.

                              HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

        And along those lines, there is a robust discussion
    regarding hydraulic fracking or fracturing. Fracking is what's
    taken North Dakota to number two in oil production in this
    country.
        And DOE's advisory board, shale and gas production
    subcommittee of the National Petroleum Council, have released
    reports about hydraulic fracturing and domestic production of
    oil and gas.
        These reports provide suggested steps that the government,
    industry and researchers need to take to assure that we have a
    balanced regulatory regime to protect development and citizens.
        Just last week your agency released draft guidance on Class
    2 injection wells and the use of diesel fuel. BLM just released
    their draft regulation of hydraulic fracturing on BLM and
    Tribal Trust lands.
        And from my read, one of the most critical parts of the
    recommendation is the standards for casing and constructing
    wells.
        If there isn't public trust that this technology can be
    used safely, that will inhibit its future development. And I
    believe that the industry is starting to recognize that.
        My question for you is, do you believe that the standards
    provided by American Petroleum Institute (API) and used by the
    BLM are sufficient to protect groundwater and surface water
    contamination both during protection and into the future?
        Ms. Jackson. I believe, based on what we know now, Senator,
    our staff worked--I can't speak about API, as much as I can say
    that our staff at EPA were consulted and reviewed the proposed
    regulations that the Department of Interior put out last week.
        It's obviously their jurisdiction because it's on public
    lands. The only caveat I would offer, Sir, is that we are in
    the middle of this 2-year, congressionally directed study on
    groundwater, on the effect or potential effect of fracking on
    groundwater.
        And anything that we learn as a result of that will be
    available to the private sector, the public sector, States,
    locals, and of course, our colleagues at the Department of the
    Interior.
        Senator Tester. Another major section of the recommendation
    is about disclosure. There are many forms of disclosure.
        Do you believe that the Web site, FracFocus, provides
    sufficient information to the public?
        Ms. Jackson. I believe that the proposal that the
    Department of the Interior put out leaned heavily on the
    information in FracFocus, and that they are probably best able
    to describe how their regulations mesh with the FracFocus
    effort.
        But I do think it is an important effort that the industry
    step forward and recognize that one of the major concerns the
    public has is the lack of awareness and transparency around the
    chemicals being injected.
        Senator Tester. Okay. Thank you very much.

                                FARM FUEL TANKS

        One of the things that I visited with your office before
    about is EPA's implementing new regs on farm fuel tanks to
    prevent fuel spills into rivers and streams.
        My concern is that EPA has not adequately explained the
    rules or educated the public about them, particularly, people
    in production agriculture.
        Look, I don't think farmers have, nor should they, check
    the Federal Register or regularly check the EPA's Web site.
    Although it might be handy, I don't think it's high on their
    list and I don't think it probably should be.
        As EPA implements the regulations, and I think it's EPA's
    responsibility to make sure that the folks out there know
    what's coming. In this particular case, farmers and ranchers,
    and how they can work through the process.
        Many folks in my neck of the woods continue to have
    questions and deadlines. There's good information. There's bad
    information about the certification process, and whether they
    can certify themselves.
        I guess just to cut to the chase, we asked you to hold off.
    What progress has EPA made in conducting outreach to the folks
    in production agriculture? I'm talking farmers and ranchers.
        Ms.  Jackson. And I thank you, Senator.
        And, yes, you're right. Happy to give you an update on our
    progress after we put in place a delay to include additional
    outreach. We met with national agricultural groups who have an
    interest in the issue.
        We've drafted, and it's with their input, new materials
    that can be provided to grower groups, States, and cooperative
    extensions.
        I think just in the last week or so, we had a discussion
    with communication directors at the major grower groups to
    particularly focus and discuss other outreach efforts to make
    sure that the information is clear and useful for farmers.
        Senator Tester. Have you got any feedback from farmers on
    it yet?
        Ms. Jackson. I can certainly check on that, Sir. But I
    don't, I think we are--Let me check on it for you.
        [The information follows:]

        The Environmental Protection Agency has actively engaged in a
    significant number of outreach efforts to ensure the farmer community
    is fully aware of their responsibilities under the Spill Prevention,
    Control, and Countermeasure regulations and have the tools needed to
    meet those requirements. Our efforts have included developing a flyer
    to be used by trade associations and agriculture extension services to
    inform and educate their members; holding webinars for the farming
    community to educate and provide opportunity to ask questions regarding
    their responsibilities; attending fairs and conventions to speak and
    distribute information; compiling a list of outside materials (such as
    articles, videos, blogs, Web sites, etc.) produced by outside groups
    like agriculture centers, universities, trade associations; and
    creating and supporting a Web site with pertinent information and tools
    for farmers. At this time, we have had no additional formal feedback
    from farmers; however, we have received some anecdotal information from
    trade associations and farmers that they are finding this information
    useful.

        Senator Tester. Okay. That's fine.
        In Montana, we pride ourselves on self-sufficiency. Many
    folks in Montana are trying to use biodiesel on their farms to
    help increase energy independence.
        Unfortunately, certifying each batch of biodiesel for small
    producers is cost prohibitive. A while ago, I asked CPA to
    consider an exemption for on-farm/regional biodiesel use.
        I don't think any progress has been made on that, but you
    can correct me if I'm wrong. So I guess what I'm asking you is
    if you can commit to working with me to develop a reasonable
    certification process for small, on-farm regional use of
    biodiesel, I think this could do a lot of things, Administrator
    Jackson.
        I think it can help contribute to our energy independence.
    I also think it could create some jobs in rural America where
    we need a few more.
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, Senator. I'm not aware of what progress,
    if any, we've made. So I'm happy to commit to working with you
    on that issue.
        [The information follows:]

        Fuel and fuel additive registration requirements under 40 CFR part
    79 are not required for producers who make biodiesel fuel for off-road
    use (e.g., in agricultural equipment).

        Senator Tester. All right. Thank you very much for that.
    Thank you for being here.
        Ms. Jackson. Thank you.
        Senator Tester. Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Tester. Senator Blunt,
    please.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've got a
    statement for the record I'll submit and I'm sure that EPA will
    want to read it carefully.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Senator Roy Blunt

        Thank you Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski for holding
    this hearing today. I appreciate the opportunity to examine not only
    the budgetary needs, but also some of the recent activities of the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I would also like to thank
    Administrator Jackson and Chief Financial Officer Barbara J. Bennett
    for being here.
        Around this time last year, I pointed out that EPA had issued or
    planned to issue almost 20 different rules placing mandates on
    manufacturing, the power industry, and even our farmers. EPA should not
    be using taxpayer dollars to impose costly and burdensome regulations
    that could severely impact jobs, our economy and the cost of everything
    we do or buy.
        Only one regulation from this list was stopped, and that was the
    expensive tightening of ozone standards that EPA publically supported
    despite the economic toll it would have. Of course this was only
    because the White House scrapped it at the last minute, no doubt
    realizing the impact in a political year.
        There is yet a new medium for EPA regulations, through something
    called ``guidance''. Guidance, in EPA's own words is ``frequently used
    by federal agencies to explain and clarify their understanding of
    existing requirements''. This says to me that guidance can have just as
    far reaching consequences as traditional rulemakings can.
        Yet guidance technically is not ``final'', so affected parties have
    no recourse to appeal the rules. This circumvents the fair procedures
    put in place to safeguard against overreaching agency action, like
    affected parties' ability to appeal to the courts.
        EPA recently came out with guidance that expands the jurisdiction
    of the Clean Water Act--meaning that EPA now can control even a stream
    that EPA ``determines'' has a close enough connection to the navigable
    waters the Clean Water Act traditionally regulates. This could have
    devastating effects for our farmers, miners, and even construction
    workers. Oddly enough, EPA still accepted comments before issuing the
    final guidance document, many of which pleaded with the EPA to use
    notice and comment rulemaking. Yet EPA did not undertake a rulemaking,
    issuing the final guidance soon after.
        This is the most recent example of the dangers of agency overreach.
    The cumulative effects of these rules are vast and probably cannot be
    determined at this time. Even EPA's own cost-benefit analysis used in
    these rules often do not include job losses or what it would mean for
    families if their food and energy prices go up.
        We all can agree that cleaning up and protecting our environment
    are important goals. Yet this must be balanced among economic losses. A
    robust economy doesn't just mean businesses are making more money; it
    means people are employed, and it means consumer choice thrives and
    keeps costs of goods low. Economic and environmental goals must be
    balanced.
        I hope the EPA can stop and consider the multitude of rules coming
    out of the Agency that threaten the economic viability of our country's
    energy, manufacturing, and agricultural sectors.
        Again thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
    testimony.

        Senator Blunt. I've got three questions I want to ask about
    three areas.

                               FUEL HARMONIZATION

        One is fuel harmonization, a fuel harmonization study. I
    sent you a letter in May of last year. The Ranking Member of
    this subcommittee--Senator Murkowski--Senator Cochran, a number
    of my other colleagues signed that letter as well.
        In 2005, in the Energy Policy Act, EPA and DOE were asked
    to do a fuel harmonization study. One of the things we did in
    the Energy Policy Act was give you the ability to waive fuel
    standards under certain difficult situations to where all of
    these different boutique fuels wouldn't all have to be
    available under specific circumstances.
        The most notable time it was used was during Katrina. It
    was used effectively and well for about 6 months. But that's a
    stop-gap solution to trying to figure out how many different
    fuel blends we really need.
        So what I'm asking is, why haven't you done the study? The
    response to the letter we sent in May of last year was pretty
    much nonresponsive. It was basically, we received your letter
    response.
        The 2005 Act asked the Department to do that. You haven't
    been responsible since for all that time. I get that. But can
    you do that study as the Congress requested you to do?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, Sir, just a couple of points.
        I think the reason that there hasn't been a commitment to
    do the study is that on the ground we see that these local fuel
    requirements. They're put in place by State regulators looking
    at smog issues and air pollution issues in their regional
    districts.
        The use of those special fuels has decreased since 2002.
        Senator Blunt. Has decreased?
        Ms. Jackson. Decreased. Yes, Sir.
        Senator Blunt. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson. And that we do know about, the effect on the
    price of gasoline: they add very little to the cost of
    gasoline.
        So we have people using fewer and fewer of these fuels. We
    know that they are not adding significantly to the price of
    gasoline, and we know that they are used in the places where
    there are still remaining summer fuels issues. I know that
    certainly from New Jersey that it is important----
        Senator Blunt. Well, there was a Kansas City Star, there
    was a Kansas City Star article recently that said that their 6-
    year study indicates that the average has cost 10 cents more
    per gallon because of their boutique fuel.
        So, you know, if I'm standing there watching that tank and
    every time I fill it up it costs me 10 cents more a gallon and
    I live in Kansas City, I would think that was significant.
        Ms. Jackson. Well, the----
        Senator Blunt. But the question is, can you come up with a
    series of fuels that people could choose from rather than this
    idea that every community has a perfect fuel that's only right
    just for it? That's what the study asked if you could do.
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, Sir. And I think what I'm trying to
    convey is that the market is moving toward fewer and fewer of
    that kind of situation happening.
        More and more, we see some regions that have regional
    blends, but fewer and fewer specialized, local blends. And so,
    the market is taking care of the problem itself.
        What's remaining are those fuels where State regulators
    have determined that there's a need to have a special fuel in
    summer to reduce smog levels because of an increased
    volatilization of gasoline.
        So I understand your concern for the issue. I guess I'm
    offering, respectfully, that I think the issue is, the impact
    on cost is not that high, and that there aren't as many fuels
    that are truly unique in the country.
        Senator Blunt. Well, we capped the number of fuels you
    could have in that same act, so that does have some impact on
    how many more there could be.
        All right. That was not quite as nonresponsive as the
    letter, so I'll accept that.

                                CLEAN WATER ACT

        The Clean Water Act guidance. A lot of concern about
    moving, removing the word ``navigable waters'' from the Clean
    Water Act. Give me some thoughts. Why guidance instead of a
    rule?
        You all have issued some guidance, and I'm not sure anybody
    really quite knows how binding guidance is, or what guidance
    means, except guidance doesn't go through the rulemaking
    process.
        So this guidance, it looks like to me, suggests that
    anything that eventually gets into, extends the authority to
    streams, ponds, or even maybe puddles that the EPA would
    determine has a connection to a larger body of water.
        Not true?
        Ms. Jackson. Not quite, Senator.
        First, to your question as to why guidance? In the wake of
    the two Supreme Court decisions in both 2003 and then 2008, the
    EPA and the Corps of Engineers (COE) jointly issued guidance to
    assist in determining what water bodies were jurisdictional
    under the Clean Water Act.
        That has widely, I think, very widely, been seen as not
    being helpful enough. So COE and EPA have set out, and we have
    not issued final guidance, but we issued draft guidance, I
    believe last year, and took public comment on it.
        And are working to finalize guidance that would replace the
    2003 and 2008 guidances. So that is why, guidance.
        As to your concern about extending jurisdiction. The
    guidance is intended to help answer the question of, in a
    navigable water body, certainly we know what ``navigable''
    should be or can be, although there have been even disputes
    about ``navigable''.
        But how far up in the watershed do you have to go? Since
    certainly, in order to protect navigable waters, you have to
    protect the streams that feed into them otherwise, you know,
    you don't stand a chance.
        So that's what the guidance is intended to do. It has been
    out in draft and for public comment, and we're working to
    finalize that, Sir.
        Senator Blunt. Well, why guidance rather than a rule?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, the guidance will replace the guidance
    that's currently out there. Certainly, a rulemaking could be
    considered, but we believe it's better to start with the
    guidance and then we can certainly move towards a rule if
    necessary.

                          PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION

        Senator Blunt. Okay. The last question I had is short and
    can get a short answer I think.
        In mid-April, EPA entered into a proposed settlement
    agreement with the Portland Cement Association. And, do you
    intend to finalize that agreement?
        I think they've accepted the proposed settlement, and are
    waiting for you to accept it as well.
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, Sir. To my knowledge, I don't think
    there's any concern with finalizing our agreement.
        Senator Blunt. Okay. Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Blunt. Senator Hoeven,
    please.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to begin by thanking you, Administrator Jackson, for
    your help with North Dakota's State Implementation Plan (SIP) ,
    in regard to regional haze. We do appreciate that.
        We're not quite completed. We've resolved it for a number
    of our plants, but there's still some work remaining and I ask
    for your continued help as we continue to fully resolve that
    issue on regional haze as to continuation of the State's SIP
    versus a FIP on some of our plants.
        So thank you for your help. And I ask for your continued
    help in that regard.

                              HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

        My questions, at least my initial questions, relate to
    hydraulic fracturing. As Senator Tester said, North Dakota is
    now in the process of moving into becoming the second-largest
    oil producing State in the country behind Texas.
        The good Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, of course,
    I share her desire to produce much more oil and gas in Alaska.
    I know that's going to happen too.
        So, long term, we know that you're going to be a real
    powerhouse. But the point I want to make is that we can't do it
    without hydraulic fracturing. We cannot produce oil and gas
    without hydraulic fracturing.
        So it's incredibly important to us. And a State-led
    approach is the right approach. It's working very well. It will
    continue to work very well.
        So we're concerned about regulations that you're proposing
    in regard to hydraulic fracturing, and also, we're very
    concerned about how you conduct the study. We are very
    supportive of transparency, good environmental protection, and
    we believe we work very hard to do that.
        But, at the same time, we believe that the State-led
    approach not only provides those things, but also empowers the
    industry to produce more energy for this country.
        So, specifically, I want to ask you about, and it's
    interesting, because Senator Blunt was asking about guidance
    versus rules. And I think he made some very important points as
    to what is guidance mean, and how do we deal with guidance?
        But on May 4 of this year, EPA released a draft permitting
    guidance regarding the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic
    fracturing. Now, on the one hand, in that draft guidance, you
    refer to six chemical abstract service registry numbers. So
    you're specific. And we're working with industry to find out if
    those specific, defining those specific chemicals as diesel is
    a workable situation.
        But then you go on in this draft guidance and you use terms
    like, in addition to those six chemicals. You talk about
    substantially similar. You talk about several others. You talk
    about common synonyms.
        So we go from specifically defining what you're going to
    consider diesel in this guidance. And, as Senator Blunt says,
    we've got to understand, with a State-led approach, what does
    guidance mean?
        In other words, does the State have to follow your guidance
    or you'll step in and take over the program? Or, exactly, what
    do you mean by guidance?
        And, then, second, when you specifically define those
    chemicals by registry number, okay, maybe we can work with
    that. But then, when you start saying, you know, several
    others, substantially similar, common synonyms. Now we get
    vague, and creates ambiguity.
        So my question to you is, in your final guidance, will you
    continue to use language like substantially similar, several
    others, and common synonyms? That's my first question.
        Ms. Jackson. The guidance is out for public comment, Sir.
    And I should note that we worked with industry in the drafting
    of it. But the purpose of the public comment is to get
    information, and I can't really pre-judge what will happen on
    finalization.
        Senator Hoeven. Would you comment as to my point regarding
    the ambiguity and the vagueness and the problems it creates for
    industry if you say, well, it's this chemical. This is diesel,
    but, gee, it could be all these other things and we're not
    going to say what they are.
        Now, industry has to work with that. How would you address
    that?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, I think we're happy to have discussions
    with industry so that there is some clarity. And synonym is
    pretty straightforward.
        If you call it something different by trade name, or some
    other thing, I think, the implication there is clear, that you
    shouldn't be able to name it something different, and
    therefore, not have it subject to the guidance when it is
    finally put in place.
        As far as substantially similar, we certainly can have
    additional comments on that.
        I should just add, Sir, that the reason for that guidance
    is because there was something of a loophole in the exemption
    from regulation for hydraulic fracturing under the underground
    injection control standards.
        And the one thing that wasn't exempt was the injection of
    diesel. And there was great uncertainty in the regulated
    community that whether or not when they injected diesel, they
    needed a permit.
        And in some States, EPA issues those permits, not the
    State. They did not receive delegation or sought it.
        Senator Hoeven. If they don't have primacy, that's correct.
        Ms. Jackson. That's right, Sir.
        So this is not an attempt to change. There are many States
    that already deal with this issue.
        But there was ambiguity and uncertainty as to how to deal
    with those cases where someone was injecting diesel.
        And that's what this guidance is attempting to give
    additional information on for permit writers, as well as the
    regulated community.
        Senator Hoeven. Administrator, I'm trying to get to two
    points here.
        If we're going to empower industry, and if we're going to
    empower investment to produce more energy in this country and
    do it with good environmental stewardship, they need to know
    the rules of the road, and they need consistent enforcement.
        If you say, okay, this is diesel and they can understand
    that, fine. Then perhaps they can work with that. I mean, I
    have to understand what those six chemicals are, and we have to
    get some feedback from them. Hence, the reason for the proposed
    draft guidance.
        So we need to find that out. Maybe that works. We need to
    determine that. But then when you say, or it could be all these
    other things like that, now we're starting to get ambiguity and
    a vagueness that is very hard for industry to work with.
        So we need you to work with us through that process.
        Ms. Jackson. And I'm happy to do that, Sir.
        I mean, we're in public comment, and we will finalize the
    guidance. But part of the reason for the comment is to get
    information and to try to assure that we do remove ambiguity
    from the process.
        We have the same goals, Sir.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you. And I have more questions, but
    I'll come back to them. I see my time has elapsed.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. We will have a
    second round.
        Let me begin it by continuing the line of questioning that
    both Senator Tester and Senator Hoeven opened up with respect
    to hydraulic fracturing, but from a slightly different
    perspective.

                           HYDRAULIC FRACTURING STUDY

        Your budget includes $40 million to deal with this topic--
    an increase of $8 million.
        And I think we all recognize, and it's explicit in the
    comments, that we don't want to trade access to the very
    valuable petroleum and carbon resources at the cost of degraded
    water supplies and environmental problems.
        I think that's our position consistently across the board.
    So your research is absolutely necessary and your collaboration
    with industry is absolutely necessary.
        Your money is part of a larger pool of about $45 million
    that the President has directed throughout several different
    Departments. One thing though that we did in 2010 is we
    directed EPA, specifically, to initiate a multi-year study on
    the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water
    resources, to be specific.
        And I understand the first report for the study is
    scheduled for the end of this year, 2012. Is the EPA still on
    track to meet this timeline, and can you give us sort of a
    preview of what information that might be revealed?
        Ms. Jackson. We are still on track, Sir. And I have not
    been briefed on any preliminary findings, so I'm not in a
    position to give any information at this point.
        Senator Reed. Let me again look at sort of the overall
    approach to the research with respect to hydraulic fracturing.
        On April 13, the President issued an Executive order to
    align all current and future research which, again, I think we
    all say is absolutely necessary for the protection of the
    public, made up of 13 Federal agencies.
        On that same day, EPA joined DOE and the United States
    Geological Survey in signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
    creating a new steering committee. So we've got what appears to
    be two steering committees here.
        Can you explain these two efforts, does one subsume the
    other? Is one parallel, is one complementary? Can you just give
    us an idea of the approach you're taking administratively?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, certainly.
        The Department of the Interior, DOE, and EPA are currently,
    obviously at the order of the President, and under the
    direction of the White House, working together to scope out a
    series of studies.
        You're absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. Of course, EPA
    already had an ongoing 2-year study. That goes on about $6
    million in EPA's fiscal year 2012 enacted budget is for it.
    There's now an $8 million increase, and we would be looking to
    expand the scope potentially, but only working together with
    the other agencies to other issues, maybe ecosystem impacts or
    air quality.
        Some amount of that additional $8 million, that's in the
    fiscal year 2013 budget, would go to those areas.
        Senator Reed. Let me follow up with another related
    question. That is, you have this Memorandum of Understanding
    with USGS which presumably you would allocate the
    responsibilities.
        It appears from the budget request that part of the $8
    million of additional funds you're going to use is for seismic
    risk from hydraulic fracturing practices. And we understand
    that USGS is also studying, no surprise, seismic risk, et
    cetera.
        Can you comment upon this? Is this duplication, or is it
    complementary?
        Ms. Jackson. I want to go back and check on that, Mr.
    Chairman, because in general, my response on seismic issues is,
    it's not us. That's USGS.
        [The information follows:]

        The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requested for hydraulic
    fracturing (HF) research includes $6.1 million to complete the study
    plan on the potential environmental impacts of HF on drinking water;
    and an additional $4.3 million to address questions raised by
    stakeholders regarding the potential environmental impacts of hydraulic
    fracturing on water quality and ecosystems. Of the $4.3 million
    request, less than $100,000 was intended to screen for HF induced
    seismic risks in association with underground injection control wells.
        Subsequent to the submission of the fiscal year 2013 President's
    budget, the MOA between the EPA, DOE, and USGS on Multi-Agency
    Collaboration on Unconventional Oil and Gas Research was developed.
    During the MOA's development, it was determined that the USGS is best
    suited to manage research in induced seismicity. As defined in the MOA,
    EPA will collaborate as appropriate with USGS regarding seismic issues.

        Ms. Jackson. So I don't believe we're doing a lot although
    we may be providing some expertise on the groundwater aquifer
    regimes down there. But they're pretty much the experts in
    USGS.
        Senator Reed. Well, you know, that was my presumption too.
    So I think if you could clarify that, that would be helpful to
    us.
        And, you've already mentioned some of the additional
    resources, about $3.8 million is going to go to air quality
    studies.
        Can you give us an idea of the concept of how you're going
    to spend that money with respect to the hydraulic fracturing
    and air quality?
        Ms. Jackson. I think we would probably be best served if we
    gave you a briefing update. The scoping meetings that have just
    begun to look at the potential ways to scope these research
    studies, are just really beginning.
        I think they've had a couple of meetings so far. So it's a
    little premature. But, obviously, we have the opportunity over
    time to update you on those as well.
        There have been some. Obviously, we just finalized rules on
    air quality issues around oil and gas development. They were
    not loved by everyone, but that's usually okay in our world.
    They were pretty well received.
        And I think one of the things we were doing is trying to
    look at additional information to ensure we're not missing
    something.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM

        Senator Reed. Well, let me change the subject for my final
    and brief comment, which I think will require a brief response
    from you.
        That is, we've had an environmental education program
    through EPA for many, many years. In fact, my distinguished
    predecessor, John Chafee, I think in 1990, through the National
    Environmental Education Act put it in place.
        And the proposed budget would require severe reductions in
    this education program which raises the question, why that
    program?
        The bottom line is, how do you continue to maintain the
    legal requirements under the 1990 legislation?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, Sir. Let me limit it to two very quick
    things.
        First, I want to assure you, we remain committed to the
    spirit and goal of environmental education and increasing
    environmental literacy.
        What we found from an efficiency standpoint in EPA is when
    we looked at the program as it was being funded, we believe
    there is better opportunity to do more and do it better in the
    programs by each of the programs, air, water, waste, or some
    amount of it, maybe recycling and waste, or energy and air.
        Letting the programs put forth those educations and then
    coordinating their efforts. So there will be resources going
    towards environmental education. They're going from the
    programs.
        I also want to say that we're working really hard to have
    our national environmental education foundation, which was also
    in that law, become more active and vital in helping to promote
    some of those opportunities.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
        With the concurrence of the Ranking Member, Senator Cochran
    has just arrived. We've already had a first round, Senator. If
    you would like to take your first round now, if you're
    prepared.
        Senator Cochran. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do have a question I
    was going to ask the Administrator.
        Senator Reed. Go ahead, Sir.

                                 DESOTO COUNTY

        Senator Cochran. In DeSoto County, Mississippi, which is
    our northernmost county in the State, and adjoins the State of
    Tennessee, right at the Memphis metropolitan area, is one of
    those situations where the metropolitan area of Memphis spills
    over into both Arkansas and Mississippi.
        Anyway, the point is, that I wanted to bring to the
    attention of the Department something that really came to my
    attention because the DeSoto County area has been declared by
    EPA to be in a state of nonattainment.
        One of the new bureaucratic words--``Nonattainment''. What
    it means is, you can't build anything or do anything in terms
    of urban growth without jumping through a lot of new hoops and
    abiding by rules that really are beyond the control of local
    elected officials or the population or zoning authorities.
        And I just wanted to bring to the attention of the
    Administrator that this is really, I think it's discrimination
    of the worst kind in terms of rulemaking by the EPA.
        And I just hope that the highest authorities at EPA and in
    the Department can give their attention to this to see what are
    the options for continued growth in that area.
        Anyway, I don't know whether this has reached your desk or
    not, Madam Administrator, but I wanted to bring it to your
    attention. Are you familiar with this? Or has anybody, Ms.
    Jackson, brought this to your attention personally?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, Sir.
        And I know that area staff at the very highest levels have
    met with Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality staff.
    There was data that was exchanged.
        The nonattainment designation is not a no growth
    designation, Sir. DeSoto County, that part of the county that's
    being designated nonattainment for small growth zone, is really
    part of the municipal area around Memphis.
        And it has to do with commutation patterns and growth in
    terms of primarily automobiles and others within the Memphis
    urban boundary. It's a matter of working with the Memphis
    Metropolitan Planning Organization of which that portion of
    DeSoto County is a part.
        And so we have explained to them that as cars become
    cleaner and more efficient, we do foresee a time when this
    nonattainment issue will, through other Federal rules, become
    less of a concern.
        But the attainment and the nonattainment designations, are
    based on data. And we have to make calls based on what we have
    which show that the area is contributing.
        That's what the law says, whether it contributes to
    nonattainment in the nonattainment area.
        So I believe where things were left is that they met
    recently with Mississippi, and I'm not sure what happened as a
    result, but I can certainly check on that for you.
        Senator Cochran. Well, I would hope that you could give
    this your personal attention to be sure that the obvious intent
    of the rules and the laws are fairly applied particularly in an
    area that is a very popular area for job creation activity and
    business activity, that is not a very serious polluter in and
    of itself.
        Working in an office, you're not going to pollute a lot.
    But office buildings and the like would be attracted to this
    area if it were not for the EPA nonattainment ruling.
        So I hope that you can help ensure that fairness is the
    result rather than arbitrary rulemaking without a basis in
    fact. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Cochran. Senator
    Murkowski, please.

                           HYDRAULIC FRACTURING STUDY

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Jackson, I want to follow up with a
    discussion about the hydraulic fracturing study. I've got a
    copy of the actual statute here from 2010.
        And it states, ``The conferees urge the Agency to carry out
    a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and
    drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the
    best available science, as well as independent sources of
    information. The conferees expect the study to be conducted
    through a transparent, peer-reviewed process that will ensure
    the validity and accuracy of the data. The Agency shall consult
    with other Federal agencies as well as appropriate State and
    interstate regulatory agencies in carrying out the study, which
    should be prepared in accordance with the Agency's quality
    assurance principles.''
        So I guess I'm a little concerned about the scope of the
    study that we're seeing come out. You've just mentioned in
    response to the Chairman here that you're expanding the scope
    of the study to address not only ecosystem but air quality.
        It's my understanding that now part of the study includes
    collecting data on the environmental justice impacts on
    disadvantaged communities.
        It seems to me that the language in the legislation was
    pretty clear in terms of assessing the relationship between
    hydraulic fracturing and contaminated water. And that there has
    been a very stepped up increase and expansion of scope.
        Can you address that part of it?
        Ms. Jackson. I can, Senator.
        And if I misspoke before, I shouldn't have. This is not an
    expansion of the congressionally directed study.
        We have a congressionally directed study. You read the
    scope of it. That is the scope we've kept to. It's been
    publicly scoped. There's been peer review of the actual scope
    of the study.
        The study is ongoing, and we, of course, have had to work
    with industry in order to get access to some of the sites.
    Because if you want to test around hydraulic fracturing sites,
    many of them are in private ownership.
        There is, on the part of the administration, from the
    President, from the White House, a desire to do additional
    science around hydraulic fracturing, partially as someone said
    earlier, because the public's trust in that technology we
    believe is also based on the belief that we are looking to
    bring the very best science to bear to ensure that it remains
    safe.
        I have said over, and over again, that natural gas,
    hydraulic fracturing, and fracturing for oil is an incredibly
    important part of our energy mix, but we need to assure the
    American public that we are stepping up to the challenge in
    getting the best science so that it remains as safe as it
    possibly can be.
        So it is not an expansion of the scope of the study. It's a
    proposal in the President's budget to add funding to do studies
    in additional areas, and those would be done with the
    Department of the Interior and DOE.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. So I would agree with you in terms
    of the science there. But it's my understanding that part of
    the study now includes collecting data on the environmental
    justice impacts of disadvantaged communities.
        So it seems to me that you're presuming that there is an
    impact. I guess I look at it and say, it would be more
    appropriate to look at these impacts only if you do discover
    that there is a link between fracking and contaminated water
    first.
        So I don't disagree with you that we want to be using best
    science, not only through the study that EPA is doing, but what
    the other agencies are doing as well.
        But it would appear to me that there is an added expansion
    here in terms of the scope. You've indicated that it will be
    peer reviewed as the statute requires, and that industry has
    provided input in terms of giving access to data.
        Will industry and others be permitted to review the study
    before it's released?
        Ms. Jackson. The study will be put out for public comment,
    but it will also be peer reviewed during the process. We can
    get you a briefing on exactly the steps.
        [The information follows:]

        Later this year, we will update our peer-review plan to describe
    the steps we are taking to assure peer review of the specific research
    products comprising the study. In addition, we are forming a new
    Science Advisory Panel (SAB) panel later this year that will consult
    with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) periodically on the
    progress of the study and ultimately review the conclusions and
    findings in the 2014 report.
        The public, including members of the oil and gas production and
    service companies and industry associations, as well as other Federal
    agencies, State and interstate regulatory agencies, nongovernmental
    organizations, tribes, the public, and others will have comment
    opportunities built into the workings of this SAB panel.
        In fiscal year 2013, EPA requested a total of $14.1 million for
    hydraulic fracturing. This includes $6.1 million to complete the study
    plan on the potential environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing on
    drinking water. In response to stakeholders concerns, an additional $8
    million was requested.
        To address the potential environmental impacts of hydraulic
    fracturing water quality and ecosystems, $4.3 million and $3.7 million
    to address questions about the potential impact of hydraulic fracturing
    on air quality.

        Ms. Jackson. I know that original data that comes out will
    go out for public comment to everyone after it's been reviewed.

                             EMISSION CONTROL AREA

        Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you a question about the
    standards that relate to the low sulphur fuel standards rules.
    These are on freight carriers and cruise ships bound for
    Alaska.
        The new standards start this August. It ramps up over a 3-
    year period to reduce the sulphur emissions.
        We, as you know, are a State that relies on almost all of
    our freight, everything that comes into the State pretty much
    comes to us by barge, by freight, over the water.
        And there's a great concern that this standard could cause
    what is anticipated to be a 20-percent rise in freight costs.
    If you look at the cost of goods in Alaska already, they're
    astonishingly high. So 20 percent is really a great deal of
    concern.
        We recognize that this is going to increase the cost of
    living in Alaska at a time that we can't handle it. We're also
    concerned because it could have a very serious impact on the
    State's tourism industry.
        Our cruise ships carry 80 percent of the State's summer
    tourists to Alaska and the concern is that this will, these
    standards will increase the cost to those who are coming north.
        There is further concern that we simply won't, or the
    industry won't, be able to meet the deadline because the
    maritime industry won't be able to obtain the 1-percent sulphur
    fuel without blending different types of fuel that increase
    operational and safety issues.
        So there's a real concern about their ability to meet the
    standards in the first place. The marine industry's been
    working with EPA on this issue trying to determine if there's
    an alternative compliance mechanism that could ultimately
    result in lower overall air emissions than even what the EPA
    rule would actually produce.
        There have been efforts. I understand that they have not
    yielded a positive result at this point in time. So the
    question to you is whether or not the EPA will give serious
    consideration to accepting the pending alternative compliance
    proposal and do so soon.
        The cruise industry basically has to set their schedule
    well more than a year out, and the obvious concern is that if
    there isn't discussion and action on this in the very, very
    short term, we're all going to see and suffer the consequences.
        Ms. Jackson. Well, certainly, Senator, EPA will continue to
    give serious consideration to any issues of compliance or fuel
    availability.
        We've been told by fuel suppliers that they expect to make
    fuel available for the August 1 date for 10,000 parts per
    million fuel. Obviously, we'll continue to work with them and
    keep an eye on that.
        This standard was adopted by the International Maritime
    Organization (IMO). And we've made clear that we support the
    use of innovative equivalent methods, but only as long as they
    achieve the same results as the standard that they're intended
    to replace.
        I know that IMO is currently working on guidance to ensure
    that equivalent methods that any country tries to approve are
    based on a common set of criteria.
        And EPA will continue to work with the Coast Guard, we'll
    work with IMO, we'll reach out to the suppliers, and, of
    course, to the folks who use the fuel in meeting the 10,000
    part per million standard in August.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, this is something that we need to
    have further discussion on.

                                AMBIENT TESTING

        There has been no ambient testing done in either Alaska or
    Hawaii. We've been attempting to make that distinction. So far,
    it has not been considered which I think is unfortunate.
        You indicate that the fuel suppliers can make the fuel
    available. Yes, fuel can be made available, but at what cost?
        And, truly, and in an effort to deal with these
    extraordinarily--You cannot put a 20-percent increase on the
    cost of freight that comes into the State of Alaska and expect
    people to be able to continue to buy groceries or lumber or
    whatever it is that they need.
        We've got to have some ability to work with you on this.
    This would be one of those issues that I would hope that your
    senior folks sitting down with our folks can have a further
    discussion on.
        Ms. Jackson. To be clear, Senator. I'm not, I'm certainly
    not saying, well, we don't want to discuss this further with
    you. And I don't know that we necessarily agree with the
    outcome of the study that you cite.
        But I do think we would agree that it has to be affordable
    and it has to be practical.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Blunt.

                              HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
        Let me ask a couple of other questions on this hydraulic
    fracturing issue. You may have answered this already, and I was
    trying to listen and I just may have missed the answer.
        Report language in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill
    asked for a study whether there was a link between the
    hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. You're asking for $14
    million more to expand that study, is that right?
        Ms. Jackson. There is an additional $8 million, I believe,
    pulling out my card here. It's a total of $14 million.
        But some of the money is to do the study that was
    authorized in fiscal year 2010. And there's an additional
    request for $8 million to do additional work outside the scope
    of that study.
        Senator Blunt. And when will you expect to get that study
    done, since the fiscal year 2010 study isn't done yet?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, we have just begun meetings with the
    other Federal agencies that will be involved with the studies.
        And so I can't give you details, but we're happy to
    continue as I mentioned earlier.
        Senator Blunt. And does that study stop us from moving
    forward with hydraulic fracturing?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, this is science. This is science. This
    is intended to ask and answer questions related to hydraulic
    fracturing. So it's research, Sir.
        Senator Blunt. So it doesn't set any obstacle in the way of
    hydraulic fracturing anywhere it's going on, or did we have to
    have the drinking water study before certain things could be
    done?
        Ms. Jackson. No, Sir. Hydraulic fracturing, as you heard,
    is continuing apace.
        And what I've said about the drinking water study is that
    if we learn things that teach us better ways to protect
    drinking water, certainly we're going to share that with all
    the people who are out there as our partners trying to protect
    drinking water.
        But we don't have any results yet. The first results will
    be toward the end of this year.
        Senator Blunt. So you are moving forward with the drinking
    water part of the study?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, Sir. That's the one that we have funding
    for. It was directed by the Congress.
        This is a budget request for additional studies coordinated
    across EPA and other agencies.
        Senator Blunt. And if this budget request isn't met, you
    would still do the drinking water study?
        Ms. Jackson. Provided that portion of the $14 million, and
    I think it's $6 million in fiscal year 2012, that we already
    have then.
        So, yes, the answer to your question.
        Senator Blunt. How much was provided in fiscal year 2010?
        Ms. Jackson. Let us grab the number for you while we sit
    here, but we believe it was $2 or $4 million.
        [The information follows:]

        $1.9 million and three full-time equivalents were provided in
    fiscal year 2010.

        Ms. Jackson. The study on drinking water in fiscal year
    2011 was enacted with $4.3 million and $6.1 million in fiscal
    year 2012.
        And then there's $4.1 million in the present budget for
    fiscal year 2013. But the study is----
        Senator Blunt. So the drinking water study would cost
    around $14 million?
        Ms. Jackson. Four plus six, 12, yes, Sir.
        Senator Blunt. And you've asked for another $8 million to
    start this new series of studies.
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, but other agencies are asking for
    additional funding as well.
        So as the Chairman mentioned, I believe it's $45 million in
    total additional research around hydraulic fracturing.
        Senator Blunt. And what you would hope to find out is that
    even if drinking water wasn't affected, that wastewater
    treatment plants were, or other water sources were?
        Ms. Jackson. The general areas have been air quality, water
    quality, and ecosystems. We have had other issues that States
    have dealt with, or are dealing with. Wastewater, certainly,
    surface water can raise some concerns.
        But the idea is to ask the questions so that the American
    people know that their Government is doing the research to
    ensure we stay in front of any issues before they develop.
        Senator Blunt. And we would expect to see the drinking
    water study, when?
        Ms. Jackson. The initial results would be at the end of
    this calendar year, Sir. But the study goes on an additional
    year after that.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Hoeven, please.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to follow up on Senator Blunt's question as
    well as Senator Murkowski.
        You're more than doubling your budget for hydraulic
    fracturing.
        How can you make the argument that you're not greatly
    expanding the scope of the study?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, I hope it's not a matter of semantics. I
    just want to be clear.
        The study that we were directed by the Congress to do, we
    are doing. And we're seeking the funding we need, and we
    already have the authority to continue and complete it. That
    will happen.
        But to be, you know, but the President has also said we
    need to do additional science to assure the American people
    that we're looking at hydraulic fracturing. So there is
    additional money proposed in the fiscal year 2013 budget to do
    additional studies.
        Senator Hoeven. So is that broken out between what is
    required to do the study, as defined in scope by the Congress,
    and the additional work that you just referenced?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, Sir.
        The total funding for research in the fiscal year 2013
    request is $14.1 million. And I believe, I saw a number
    somewhere else, that about $4 million of that is for the study
    that is ongoing.
        Senator Hoeven. This also relates to the earlier question I
    was asking you about guidance.
        When you provide guidance then, because whether it's
    pursuant to this study or proposed rules that you've already
    put out. Like we're talking about, for example, diesel fuel.
        Where we have a State primacy program, which we have with
    hydraulic fracturing, when you issue guidance, is the State
    required to follow that guidance or risk having you take over
    their program?
        Ms. Jackson. First, EPA is not looking to take over the
    State programs.
        But if the State is acting as the primacy agent for the
    underground injection control program, the guidance is intended
    to tell them how to meet the requirements of law under that
    program.
        Many States have their own laws that either supersede, that
    add to, or supersede, or go further than Federal standards.
        But for a State who says, listen, my permit that I issue is
    also intended to be an underground injection control permit, so
    EPA doesn't have to issue a separate one, this is the guidance
    the study is intended to say here is how EPA views the
    injection of diesel, because diesel is not exempt.
        The injection of every other chemical is exempt by law, so
    EPA does not permit that injection. Many States do, but EPA
    does not.
        Senator Hoeven. But it's important to distinguish between a
    rule and between guidance and understand that under a State
    primacy program, the State has the authority to make its own
    determination.
        They can take into account your guidance, but that doesn't
    give EPA the authority to step in front of the State on a State
    primary program.
        You would agree with that?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, guidance is intended to give a State,
    guidelines to know how EPA believes to meet the requirements of
    the regulation. So the regulation tends to be broader. It talks
    about the injection of any number of things.
        But with respect to diesel and hydraulic fracturing, there
    was an omission. There was nothing that told a State, or in
    some States, EPA does indeed write those permits. What a
    Federal or State permit writer would need to do to assure that
    their meeting the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
        Senator Hoeven. And as you do this study, and again, we've
    got to look at the scope of the study as was defined by the
    Congress and your funding, it's very important that you are
    specific in the guidance so that States understand it and
    industry understands it, and can use that as a guidepost.
        And you agree with me, it is a guidepost. It is not the
    same as a proposed rule.
        Ms. Jackson. It does not have the same stature as a
    rulemaking, but it is not uncommon for EPA to issue permit
    writers guidance on how to meet the requirements of a law.
        So the EPA does issue guidance often, and it's for Federal
    and State permit writers, but it is not the stature of a
    rulemaking, Sir.
        Senator Hoeven. And if you'll work with us both in terms of
    collaborating with States, with the tribes and with industry, I
    think we can help make that guidance more effective in a way
    that creates some rules of the road that the industry
    understands, again, produce more energy, and have good
    environmental stewardship.
        So we ask for your consultation.
        Ms. Jackson. Absolutely. More than just public comment, our
    State partners and tribal partners, have a special role in
    implementing and understanding these issues. And we want the
    same thing, Senator.
        We want certainty, and we want clarity. And that's not what
    we had before. We had people threatening to sue because diesel
    was being injected, and permits were not issued.
        And so that's what this guidance is intended to address.
        Senator Hoeven. On some of our reservations, particularly,
    Three Affiliated Tribes Reservation in North Dakota doing a
    tremendous amount of drilling. The tribes are doing a fantastic
    job working with industry to do that.
        Their concern is in regard to the Synthetic Miner Source
    Rule. Right now we operate under a consent agreement that
    expires, or the tribe does, excuse me, they're operating under
    a consent agreement, that expires at the end of July.
        And it is very important that we get a workable rule in
    place. Both the tribes and the industry want to be, consult
    with you, in establishing that workable rule. But they need a
    rule by the end of July here.
        Otherwise, unless the consent decree is extended, they
    can't keep drilling wells. So I would strongly encourage you
    assisting Region 8, manager Jim Martin, in making sure that we
    get a solution there.
        Now, I believe there is some dialogue going on. Tex Hall,
    the Three Affiliated Tribes chairman, wants consultation here,
    but we need a workable rule. We need something in place by the
    end of July for both the tribe and the industry.
        And I ask for your help to the Regional Administrator to do
    that, and again, with good consultation.
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, Sir.
        Senator Hoeven. The other item, well, I see my time has
    expired. I have one remaining item.
        Senator Reed. Please, go ahead.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                            CO2 EMISSIONS

        You have a new source performance standard for
    CO2 emissions on coal-fired plants. This is a
    proposed rule that you issued on April 13, 2012. It sets a
    CO2 emissions limit of 1,000 pounds per megawatt
    hour.
        That is essentially a natural gas fired electric plant
    standard, which no coal plant in the entire country can meet,
    cannot meet it.
        Does this new performance standard that you're proposing
    apply to new plants, only new plants, or does it also apply to
    existing plants?
        And, how do you expect, and I see at the same time, you
    know, you increase your enforcement budget by 20 percent, from
    $27 million to $34 million. And then, you issue this rule which
    no coal plant in the entire country can comply with. How do you
    expect that to work?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, first we can't enforce a rule that isn't
    final. It is only a rule for new plants. It does not apply to
    existing coal plants.
        And, you know, the standard as proposed, creates a path
    forward for technology, for those plants that want to use
    technology, burn coal, and capture their carbon pollution. It
    allows a period during which a plant, if it chooses to, can
    operate and then enact a 10-year period where it doesn't have
    to have the carbon captured and sequestered.
        After 10 years, it has to commit to 50-percent capture of
    its carbon emissions. So, in fact, I personally believe the
    rule does the opposite. It allows a path forward for investment
    in coal-fired power plants that doesn't exist at the current
    time.
        And it's a proposal, Sir. It is not final.
        Senator Hoeven. So your proposal applies to any new plant
    construction, not to existing plants.
        What about any improvement or major renovations to an
    existing plant?
        Ms. Jackson. It does not apply to existing plants, Sir.
    Only new plants, only new.
        Senator Hoeven. All right, thank you.
        Then, we are going to need to work through with you both
    the technological and the economic viability on that rule
    because we need to take a hard look at that.
        If we want to continue to develop clean coal technology,
    we've got to have a realistic rule.
        Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Sir.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. I have no further questions.
        Senator Reed. I have some additional questions which will
    be handled in writing.
        Senator Reed. Senator Murkowski, do you have additional
    questions?
        Senator Murkowski. I have just a couple here, if I may.
        Senator Reed. Go right ahead.
        Senator Murkowski. And I hope that they will be quick.

                                PM2.5

        And both of these involve communities in the, well, energy
    impact within the interior.
        Fairbanks, Alaska, our second-largest city, pretty cold up
    there, dealing with the increased standards, or the tightened
    standards on small particulate matter (PM), the
    PM2.5.
        And, as you know, this has been an issue that they've gone
    back and forth with, trying to meet these standards. They're
    providing incentives for citizens to change out their older
    furnaces and their wood stoves and their boilers for new more
    efficient stoves and furnaces.
        The biggest problem that Fairbanks has is they have no
    other options. They can't turn to natural gas because it's not
    available to them. So their options are extraordinarily
    limited.
        EPA has provided grant aid to other larger communities to
    help them meet the PM2.5 issues. Fairbanks has
    received just some very, very minimal grants from the agencies.
    I know they are looking for assistance. Not much in the total
    scheme of things.
        They were seeking initially $3 million to help with this
    wood stove exchange to cut their emissions, $1 million of it is
    still, unfunded.
        So what I get when I go to Fairbanks every time, and I was
    there this weekend, is, what, if anything, can be done to help?
    And we recognize that the budgetary issues are extraordinarily
    debilitating and we appreciate that.
        But given the very unique climate conditions that the
    interior faces, will the Agency look at a possible extension to
    give the community more time, additional time, to meet the new
    standards before the penalty phase kicks in in 2014?
        They are working. They are being aggressive on it. It's not
    as if they're putting their head in the sand. But they are
    really in a difficult, difficult spot because they have no
    other options.
        Again, I'd like you to either give me your sense on this,
    or consider what options Fairbanks might be able to consider.
        Ms. Jackson. How about I promise to look at the options for
    you, both in funding and in compliance. Because that's for the
    existing PM2.5 standard, right, Senator?
        Senator Murkowski. It is the tightened standards that come
    into play in 2014. So they are the new PM2.5
    standards.
        Ms. Jackson. Yes. Well, I'm not sure exactly what you are
    referring to. Why don't I look at both.
        Senator Murkowski. All right.

                             HEALY CLEAN COAL PLANT

        And then, the other one that I would like to bring to your
    attention is the Healy Clean Coal Plant that we have been
    trying to get online since 1991 as an option for the residents
    in the interior to help them meet their energy needs.
        Golden Valley is working with the EPA right now on the
    appropriate terms for renewal of their air permit for the
    plant. They have been aggressive in trying to resolve, go
    through all the hoops, doing what EPA has asked.
        I met with some of the folks just this past weekend. I
    guess, I need your assurance that this is something that EPA is
    going to continue to work with the Golden Valley Electric
    Association to find a fair and hopefully final conclusion on
    this.
        Ms. Jackson. I'm happy to assure that knowing none of the
    facts, but that doesn't seem unreasonable to ask, so we'll
    continue to----
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. We'll put that one on our to-do
    list when we meet.
        Ms. Jackson. We have a lot to do.
        Senator Murkowski. And then, my final question, Mr.
    Chairman, and I will conclude.

                                 AVIATION FUEL

        And this relates to the new regulations for aviation fuel.
    As you know, we have more people that fly in Alaska than
    anywhere else in the country, and it's like the family minivan.
    You use it to haul the family around.
        The concern that we have is the advance notice of
    rulemaking that could sharply reduce the lead content in the
    aviation fuels. It's impossible for the engines in older
    aircraft to run without lead being in their fuels.
        It's estimated that up to one-third of all the general
    aviation in the State will have to be pulled from service if in
    fact EPA proceeds with these rules.
        Because, as I understand, it's just not technically
    possible to repower, retrofit the planes. Last December, I was
    informed by Gina McCarthy, that the EPA would likely consider
    changes in the rules over the next one to 2 years.
        So the question to you this afternoon is where you are in
    this study on the air quality impacts of lead in aviation fuel,
    and where does the EPA stand on modifying the proposed rule to
    lessen what we know to be a considerable impact on aviation in
    Alaska?
        Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator.
        Yes, to my knowledge, we are still on course. We're looking
    at the study. This issue I saw personally when I visited
    Alaska, the one time I was able to get up to Alaska. Clearly,
    that's how everyone gets around. Clearly, it was a concern
    everywhere I went.
        And so I came back with an understanding that we need to do
    something. I don't have a date for you today, but when we meet,
    we'll put it on the list and give your staff an update.
        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. And I hope that your
    voice feels better than normal levels.
        Ms. Jackson. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. But I thank you for your testimony and
    your time this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. Thank you,
    Administrator, for your testimony. Thank you, Ms. Bennett for
    all your work with the Administrator.
        I will ask my colleagues to submit any further written
    statements or questions by next Wednesday, the 23d of May.
        And then ask the Administrator to respond as quickly as
    possible with any written questions so we can close the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed

                 STATE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT GRANTS

        Question. What are the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
    plans regarding the two proposed funding changes to the State and Local
    Air Quality Grants, which are:
      --changing the formula for allocating the section 105 funds to
            States; and
      --transitioning funding for particulate monitoring from section 103
            authority to section 105 authority?
             changing the formula for allocating section 105 funds
        Answer. EPA has been working with State and local air pollution
    control agencies and State associations since 2006 to revise the
    formula to ensure that grant resources are targeted to address current
    air quality circumstances, priorities, needs, and concerns while also
    protecting gains already achieved. The last comprehensive analysis and
    re-allocation of grants occurred from 1991-1993 to implement the 1990
    Clean Air Act Amendments. The increase in State and Tribal Assistance
    Grant funds requested for fiscal year 2013 would ease implementation of
    an updated allocation approach that would provide increases for each
    region of the country. Increased funding notwithstanding, EPA must
    still assure that funds are targeted to the most pressing air-quality
    problems and that the integrity of State/local air program operations
    is maintained. If funding remains static, shifts will be limited so
    that no region will experience a decline any greater than 5 percent of
    its prior year funding level. This approach will be phased in over a
    multiyear period to minimize any disruptions to State and local program
    operations and can be re-evaluated based upon updated data, changes in
    air quality, or changes in available funding.

       TRANSITIONING PARTICULATE MONITORING FUNDING FROM SECTION 103 TO
                             SECTION 105 AUTHORITY

        EPA intends to transition 10 percent of the particulate monitoring
    funding in year 1 (fiscal year 2013); 20 percent in year 2; 40 percent
    in year 3; and 60 percent in year 4; and will continue to work closely
    with State/local/tribal agencies on implementing an adequate
    particulate matter (PM)2.5 monitoring network.

                     BEACHES PROTECTION CATEGORICAL GRANTS

        Question. I am concerned that EPA proposed eliminating the Beach
    Grant Program in your fiscal year 2013 budget request. Since 2000,
    Rhode Island has received $2.4 million through the program to monitor
    water quality at beaches and notified the public when recreational
    waters are not safe for swimming. My home State has reported 45 beach
    closures over the past 2 years, so we know firsthand how important
    funding for monitoring is. I am worried that without continued Federal
    funding, States and local governments will not have the capacity to
    continue beach monitoring. Administrator Jackson, can you explain why
    EPA singled out these grants for elimination?
        Answer. To help meet the fiscal challenges of fiscal year 2013, EPA
    has reviewed its programs for areas where any potential efficiencies
    and streamlining can yield savings. EPA is proposing to eliminate
    certain mature program activities that are well-established, well-
    understood, and where there is the possibility of maintaining some of
    the human health benefits through implementation at the State and local
    levels.
        EPA's beach program has provided important guidance and significant
    funding to support successfully State and local governments in
    establishing their own programs. Beach monitoring continues to be
    important to protect human health. However, States (including
    territories and tribes) and local governments now have the technical
    expertise and procedures to continue beach monitoring without Federal
    support as a result of the technical guidance and more than $110
    million in financial support EPA has provided over the last decade
    through the beach program. As a result, EPA is proposing that this
    grant program be terminated at the end of fiscal year 2012.

                         DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT

        Question. I would like to talk a little bit about your proposal to
    phase out the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) program. As you may
    know, I cosponsored the DERA reauthorization in 2010. It is a
    successful program and one that has enjoyed bipartisan support.
        Last year EPA proposed eliminating the program, but this
    subcommittee restored the $30 million funding. You have cut the program
    by one-half in your fiscal year 2013 budget request, for a total of $15
    million, and identify the program for future elimination. Yet EPA has
    estimated that in 2030 there will still be 1.5 million existing diesel
    engines polluting the air. Can you explain why the administration
    thinks this program should be cut back significantly this year and
    eventually phased out given this need?
        Answer. The DERA grant program results in tangible emissions
    reductions, but it is important to strategically target the available
    resources to communities with the greatest need. The funding strategy
    EPA proposes for fiscal year 2013 would do just that--it would provide
    rebates on the purchase of pollution control technology and grants for
    revolving loan programs, and target these funds to communities with the
    greatest need, such as those areas with the highest levels of exposure
    near ports and transportation hubs.
        Second, the DERA program can point to success in retrofitting and
    replacing the oldest, most polluting diesel engines, complementing the
    stringent emissions standards on new diesel engines that EPA
    promulgated in 2007. For example, with the $469 million appropriated by
    the Congress in 2008-2010, EPA has funded projects that reduced
    approximately 203,900 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
    12,500 tons of PM. States and localities have also established programs
    to address diesel emissions from older engines not subject to current
    regulations, such as the Texas Emissions Reduction Program and the Carl
    Moyer Program in California.
        Question. In the Office of Management and Budget's budget materials
    it says that you will use fiscal year 2013 DERA funding to create
    revolving loan programs that will subsidize retrofits and replacements
    of older engines ``without the need for additional infusions of Federal
    grant dollars.'' I'm not sure how to square this statement with the
    enormous demand for the grants. There is such a pressing demand that
    EPA received seven times more applications for DERA grants than it can
    fund. How does EPA expect to establish a robust revolving loan program
    that will not need additional Federal funding with only $15 million?
        Answer. The DERA program has shown that retrofits and engine
    replacements are effective in reducing emissions and provided valuable
    lessons in how to administer clean diesel programs. Going forward, the
    fiscal year 2013 budget request recognizes the limited availability of
    Federal funding and would transition the program to greater reliance on
    State and local efforts to address diesel emissions from legacy fleets.
    In fiscal year 2013, EPA will pilot a new approach
        That will target specific fleets in high diesel exposure areas such
    as near ports and freight distribution hubs and other
    disproportionately affected communities. The Federal monies spent under
    the $15 million request would be split into two categories. The first
    category would allocate funds to a new rebate program established under
    DERA's reauthorization. The second component would allocate funds
    toward low-cost revolving loans or other financing programs that help
    fleets reduce diesel emissions. We believe the rebate and loan programs
    may allow greater precision in scrapping certain model years of
    vehicles and equipment and assisting public and private fleet owners
    with retrofitting or replacing those engines. This pilot would also
    test financial mechanisms to continue accelerating diesel retrofits
    without ongoing Federal funding. By using grant funds to establish
    revolving loan programs administered by non-Federal parties, EPA would
    be able to have that funding revolve back into the programs (as the
    loans are repaid) to make more loans available on an ongoing basis. For
    the revolving loan mechanism to be successful, it would need to be
    coupled with State or local requirements to phase out the dirtiest
    engines, thereby creating the incentive for fleet managers to seek a
    lower-cost loan to make the necessary upgrades.
        Question. DERA requires that 30 percent of funding be made
    available to support grant and loan programs administered by States.
    What is going to happen to the State formula grants in your proposed
    budget?
        Answer. Under the proposed budget, the State program would not be
    funded in fiscal year 2013.
        Question. You are also starting a new DERA rebate program. Setting
    up a rebate program is an area where EPA doesn't have a lot of
    experience. What is your timeline for setting up this program? Why is a
    rebate program better or more efficient than a grant program? How do
    you plan to operate both a rebate program and a revolving loan fund
    given the cuts in your budget request?
        Answer. The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010, which modified
    and reauthorized EPA's Diesel Emission Reduction Program through fiscal
    year 2016, added rebates to the grants and loans already authorized
    under the initial authorization of DERA. EPA will utilize rebates and
    grants to establish revolving loan programs under the reauthorized DERA
    language, and match those mechanisms to the needs of fleets and
    communities in their quest to reduce emissions from the legacy diesel
    engines. This will expand the number of options for targeting certain
    types of engines, model years and fleets for retrofit or replacement.
    Use of the rebate option would make DERA funding available directly to
    private fleet owners for retrofit or replacement of older, high-
    pollution engines. Similar to how a rebate works in a retail situation,
    EPA would use rebates as an efficient incentive mechanism to turn over
    parts of the existing fleet sooner than through natural attrition. The
    program could specify the most cost-effective and beneficial type of
    engines and technology solutions, in locations of greatest need. EPA
    continues to believe that grants should be used to establish revolving
    loan programs; at the same time rebates offer a specificity and
    simplicity which would be welcomed by stakeholders and policy leaders
    alike.
        EPA plans to initiate the rebate program in the fall of 2013.

                       GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE

        Question. Administrator Jackson, as you know the Great Lakes
    Restoration Initiative (GLRI) has been a huge investment that affects
    the States of a number of members of this subcommittee. I am very
    interested in hearing about the results that have been achieved. Since
    2010, GLRI has received more than $1 billion of funding and you propose
    another $300 million in your fiscal year 2013 budget request. Can you
    tell us what results you have achieved thus far?
        Answer. The investments made under the GLRI are showing promising
    results in addressing the most critical environmental challenges facing
    the Great Lakes. Some of the notable achievements from GLRI include:
      --The Presque Isle, Pennsylvania Area of Concern (AOC) will be
            delisted this year, now that all necessary management actions
            are complete. Eighteen Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) at 10
            different AOCs have been removed since GLRI's inception.
      --One million cubic yards of contaminated sediments have been
            remediated in the basin.
      --GLRI has been central to keeping self-sustaining Asian carp
            populations out of the Great Lakes. No new invasive species
            populations have been detected in the Great Lakes.
      --GLRI-funded projects contributed to the delisting of the Lake Erie
            watersnake under the Endangered Species Act.
      --GLRI-funded projects have contributed to a 5-year low in swimming
            bans and advisories at Chicago's beaches.
        Additional achievements include:
      --More than 13,000 acres are being managed in order to keep
            populations of invasive species controlled to a target level.
      --GLRI funding has helped increase the number of acres within the
            Great Lakes basin subject to the Department of Agriculture
            conservation practices to approximately 270,000, an increase of
            more than 50 percent. GLRI funding is now being targeted at
            three priority subwatersheds to reduce phosphorus contributions
            from agricultural and urban lands that contribute to harmful
            algal blooms and other water quality impairments.
      --Hundreds of river-miles have been cleared for fish passage by
            removing or bypassing barriers. More than 20,000 acres of
            wetland, coastal, upland, and island habitat have been
            protected, restored, or enhanced.
      --Rapid response capabilities have been improved:
        --six rapid response actions were performed in the fight against
                Asian carp; and
        --four States have now updated their Aquatic Nuisance Species
                Management Plans to include rapid response capabilities.
        Question. GLRI funds--$353 million--have been directed toward toxic
    substances and AOCs to remedy huge underwater sites where contamination
    is especially dangerous. Specifically, what progress has been made
    toward delisting AOCs?
        Answer. Because EPA and its partners have prioritized and
    accelerated AOC work, we expect to meet or exceed our goals to remove a
    cumulative total of 41 BUIs by the end of fiscal year 2013 and to
    complete management actions at a cumulative total of four AOCs. A few
    examples of delisting progress are as follows:
      --As noted above, the Presque Isle, Pennsylvania AOC will be delisted
            by the end of this year. This will be the first U.S. delisting
            of an AOC since Oswego River was delisted in 2006.
      --All the management actions necessary for delisting at four
            additional AOCs (Ashtabula, Ohio; River Raisin, Michigan; White
            Lake, Michigan; and Sheboygan, Wisconsin) are expected to be
            completed this year and all the management actions necessary
            for delisting at an additional AOC (Deer Lake, Michigan) are
            expected to be completed in 2013.
      --EPA and its partners have started 88 projects to address BUIs at
            AOCs and we remain on track to start an additional 22 projects
            to address BUIs at AOCs in fiscal year 2012.
      --Work done at AOCs includes completion of Great Lakes Legacy Act
            projects at sites in five AOCs. This work has removed
            contaminated sediments and is reviving waterfronts in the
            Kinnikinnick River, Wisconsin; Grand Calumet River, Indiana;
            Ashtabula River, Ohio; Detroit River, Michigan; and Muskegon
            Lake, Michigan.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

                                  PERCHLORATE

        Question. In February 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) announced its intention to regulate perchlorate under the Safe
    Drinking Water Act. Given the nearly 300 public drinking water wells
    impacted by perchlorate contamination in California, this was certainly
    welcome news. Can you tell me what is the status of EPA's effort to
    develop perchlorate regulations and when do expect they will be
    finalized?
        Answer. EPA is moving forward with the process to develop a
    national primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate. EPA is
    evaluating the science on perchlorate health effects and exposure to
    develop a proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG). The MCLG is a
    nonenforceable level in drinking water at which no known or anticipated
    adverse effects on the health of persons occur and which allows an
    adequate margin of safety. EPA also is evaluating treatment
    technologies, analytical methods, and costs and benefits of potential
    Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). The MCL is the enforceable standard
    that is set as close as feasible to the MCLG, taking cost into
    consideration. EPA has a statutory deadline of February 2013 to issue
    the proposed perchlorate rule. EPA is working to develop the proposed
    regulation for public review and comment expeditiously and expects to
    promulgate a final regulation within 18 months of the proposal.
        Question. Will the new perchlorate standard consider pregnant women
    and children as well as potential perchlorate exposure from food
    products?
        Answer. Yes. As EPA works to develop the MCLG, the Agency is
    closely reviewing data on the effects of perchlorate on pregnant women
    and children because these lifestages may be at greater risk of adverse
    effects due to exposure to perchlorate in drinking water. EPA is also
    considering perchlorate exposure from food products in developing the
    MCLG. EPA is currently seeking input from the Science Advisory Board on
    key issues related to the scientific basis for the MCLG. One of the
    questions EPA has asked the SAB for input on is how life stage
    differences should be considered in developing the MCLG.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

                             MERCURY IN AMBIENT AIR

        Question. Administrator Jackson, throughout your fiscal year 2013
    budget justification, I repeatedly see references to the importance of
    having a strong air monitoring network for our Nation's air quality. I
    steadfastly believe in having air monitoring tools to measure and track
    pollutants, to identify pollutant sources, and to inform us how and
    where Americans could be exposed to air pollutants. These are critical
    resources that serve the Nation and should be fully supported by the
    Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) work.
        I understand that EPA is partnering with utilities to collect
    mercury emission data directly from utilities and that you believe that
    this partnership will allow you to assess the effectiveness of existing
    technologies in meeting current mercury reduction requirements. I am
    curious, though, as to how this partnering will serve those citizens
    who live at a considerable distance from utilities with mercury
    emissions but are nevertheless subject to the regional transport of
    out-of-State sources of mercury. In my home State of Vermont, we have
    collected a continuous sampling of particulate and gaseous mercury air
    levels at the Underhill Air Quality site (VT99), where research
    measurements have been made since 2004. This long-term record is
    necessary for detecting trends, and since 1993 we have established an
    unbroken record of mercury measurements in precipitation. Through this
    monitoring, we have learned many important lessons and have also found
    that the current Community Multi-scale Air Quality model estimates for
    mercury deposition have proven too low for northern Vermont and New
    England. This is the longest continuous mercury deposition record in
    the United States.
        I find it extremely troubling and perplexing that the EPA has made
    cuts in funding to the Atmospheric Mercury Network (AMNet) and VT99,
    which coincides with your December 2011 announcement of new mercury and
    air toxics standards for coal and oil-fired power plants. Can you
    please explain to me your rational for ending this research and long-
    term air monitoring program at the exact moment when the need for
    continued monitoring for human health risk and tracking of emission
    levels is most essential?
        Do you agree that measurements of mercury in ambient air are
    necessary to verify the anticipated deposition reductions as a result
    of your newly mandated emissions reductions? If so, we must continue
    the work at VT99 so we can measure progress toward restoration of
    environmental quality.
        Answer. Mercury is a complex and multi-faceted issue that
    necessitates monitoring in all media, including air, water, sediments,
    fish, and wildlife. EPA recognizes the need for comprehensive, long-
    term mercury monitoring. EPA has collaborated with Federal, State, and
    tribal agencies, and academic partners to provide a comprehensive
    understanding of mercury in the environment using existing data,
    monitoring capabilities, and resources. In particular, advances have
    been made in developing a national atmospheric mercury monitoring
    program by building, where possible, upon the existing long-term
    monitoring infrastructure which has successfully tracked the
    effectiveness of programs to control emissions of sulfur dioxide
    (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). Since 2007, EPA
    has worked through the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)
    to develop AMNet--a North American network that monitors atmospheric
    concentrations of mercury at 20 sites throughout the United States and
    Canada. NADP/AMNet is sponsored by a multi-organizational cooperative
    of Federal, State, and tribal agencies, universities, and private
    companies.
        Many of the AMNet mercury sites were established by different
    organizations to support an array of diverse research and monitoring
    objectives. The Underhill VT99 site is an example of an existing
    atmospheric mercury monitoring site that joined AMNet. Historically,
    these sites operated in an uncoordinated manner, using disparate
    protocols for measurement, data management, and quality assurance. In
    other words, they did not comprise a coordinated network of atmospheric
    mercury monitoring sites providing comparable data to assess
    implementation of a national mercury control program. With the
    development of AMNet, NADP and its partners, including EPA, took an
    opportunity to coordinate existing monitoring sites and collaborate
    with the scientists operating those sites to create a cohesive network
    of standardized measurements complemented by an organized scientific
    community.
        As part of the initial catalyst to establish AMNet, EPA provided a
    small amount of funds, through competitively awarded time-limited
    contracts, to six monitoring groups to operate atmospheric mercury
    sites. With a core set of AMNet sites established, EPA's focus turned
    to facilitating the development and implementation of a centralized
    NADP data management program to assure high quality and comparable
    mercury measurement data across the United States. Toward that end, EPA
    uses its resources to continue supporting AMNet by funding NADP's AMNet
    quality assurance and data management activities.
        EPA served as a catalyst in launching the AMNet collaborative
    mercury monitoring effort. We remain committed to working with NADP and
    our partners in the scientific community to track progress of mercury
    emissions reductions under our air rules. We hope that the atmospheric
    mercury monitoring sites and experts participating in AMNet will
    continue to improve our understanding of mercury in the environment.

                                CHEMICAL SAFETY

        Question. As a cosponsor of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 I am
    acutely aware of the need to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act
    of 1976 (TSCA). It is clear that the EPA desperately needs new tools to
    regulate the health and safety testing of toxic chemicals. Your fiscal
    year 2013 budget justification requests a funding increase of $11
    million for enhancing chemical safety and assessing chemical risks.
        Please tell me what resources EPA proposes to put toward work on
    carbon nanotubes with this requested increase in funding.
        Answer. EPA's fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests a total
    of $67.6 million to support the Chemical Risk Review and Reduction
    (CRRR) program, which includes an $11.1 million increase more than the
    fiscal year 2012 amount appropriated for the CRRR Program account
    ($56.5 million). As detailed in the Congressional Budget Justification,
    the fiscal year 2013 CRRR request is divided into four areas of
    activity:
      --$13.9 million to support Existing Chemicals--Obtaining/Managing
            Data efforts;
      --$14.9 million to support Existing Chemicals--Chemical Assessment
            efforts;
      --$24.6 million to support Existing Chemicals--Risk Management
            efforts; and
      --$14.2 million to support the New Chemicals Program.
        Resources supporting EPA's work on carbon nanotubes are housed in
    all four of these activity areas. We should note that EPA does not
    estimate resources on a chemical-by-chemical basis, as would be
    required in order to further specify the amount of funding budgeted for
    carbon nanotube work.
        Question. Does EPA have sufficient resources to truly address and
    assess the risk level from carbon nanotubes and efficiently approve
    nanomaterials that manufacturers have proven minimize or eliminate the
    associated adverse impacts on human health?
        Answer. EPA's fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests the
    resources necessary to continue to gather environmental health and
    safety data, assess risk levels and, as necessary, undertake risk
    management action to address identified risks associated with some of
    the carbon nanotubes already in commerce and to continue to review new
    nanomaterials submitted to EPA through the new chemicals program prior
    to their entry into commerce. As the science of nanomaterials evolves,
    EPA will continue to enhance its approach to obtaining and using
    information to inform both risk assessment and risk management to
    inform decisionmaking. For example, EPA is considering the development
    of categories of nanomaterials, based on shared chemical and
    toxicological properties, which may enable the Agency to make use of
    accumulated data common to each category (such as data on chemical
    hazard, structure, and properties) as well as a history of past
    decisions that may be relevant. In most cases, sufficient history would
    have been accumulated so that testing recommendations would vary little
    among the chemicals within a category.
        Question. What progress can you assure me will occur in EPA's work
    on nanoscale materials? In addition, do you expect that EPA will be
    able to make advances in its work in determining when nanoscale
    materials may require further assessment and when there has been
    sufficient testing without requiring undue additional expenses for
    manufacturers?
        Answer. EPA will continue to pursue a comprehensive regulatory
    approach under TSCA to ensure that both new and existing nanoscale
    materials are manufactured and used in a manner that protects against
    unreasonable risks to human health and the environment. EPA's approach
    includes pre-manufacture notifications; Significant New Use Rules;
    information gathering rules; and test rules. For example, EPA has
    played a leading role in guiding the development of test data and
    harmonized approaches to the testing, assessment, and management of
    nanomaterials with other Federal agencies for several years. EPA will
    continue to work in fiscal year 2013 with other Federal agencies
    through the National Nanotechnology Initiative and internationally with
    other governments to identify and develop these sources of data, with
    an emphasis on providing guidance for applying internationally
    harmonized chemical test guidelines to nanomaterials. EPA is already
    assessing and addressing the potential risk from carbon nanotubes and
    other nanomaterials. As new data are developed for nanomaterials, EPA
    will refine its approach to both risk assessment and risk management.
    EPA will identify those nanomaterials or categories of nanomaterials
    that require additional data development or risk management as well as
    the nanomaterials that do not warrant further testing or other actions.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester

              CAMELINA BIODIESEL AND THE RENEWABLE FUELS STANDARD

        Question. Just over 2 years ago, Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) released a final rule setting up the Renewable Fuels Standard
    (RFS2). Every year since then, EPA has had to drastically revise its
    advanced biofuel quotas down, due to the fact that there was no chance
    the biofuel industry could meet them.
        Part of the RFS2 rule was the establishment of a process to approve
    new feedstocks for production of biofuel. However, since the RFS2 was
    established, Canola is the only feedstock that has been approved
    through that process.
        At the same time, I know that Montana producers have been working
    toward approval of biodiesel from camelina and ethanol from barley
    almost since the day the RFS2 was established.
        I have watched with growing concern the lack of newly approved fuel
    pathways eligible for Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs),
    particularly given the backlog of petitions that the EPA is
    considering. EPA did approve a handful of pathways in January, only to
    withdraw that approval shortly thereafter, resulting in yet another
    crop year without recognition of these innovative fuels.
        I am concerned that unless EPA enhances the diversity of fuel
    pathways eligible for RINs, the renewable fuels standard will continue
    to act as a barrier to entry for new and promising feedstocks by
    supporting incumbents that frankly don't need the help.
        To what extent is EPA's inability to approve new fuel pathways
    contributing to the lack of advanced biofuel? What is EPA doing to get
    the petition program for new fuel pathways working as intended?
        Answer. As a clarification, in the past 2 years, EPA has not had to
    reduce the advanced biofuel mandate, only the cellulosic volume
    mandate. Therefore, we do not believe that the new fuel pathway
    approval process is contributing to a shortage of advanced biofuels.
    Since the RFS2 volume standards are nested (with cellulosic fuels being
    a subset of advanced fuels), the total advanced biofuel mandate can
    remain unchanged even if cellulosic volumes are reduced. To date, EPA
    has not reduced the overall advanced volume mandates since our analysis
    has shown that there is a sufficient supply of advanced biofuels. What
    this means is that refiners and blenders have still been obligated to
    acquire sufficient advanced biofuel to fulfill the statutory mandate,
    even though the EPA Administrator lowered the required volume for
    cellulosic biofuel. Biodiesel from camelina and ethanol from barley
    could potentially qualify as advanced biodiesel, if the fuel pathways
    satisfy certain criteria.
        In the final RFS2 rule, EPA developed a petition process to allow
    for new potential pathways to be reviewed and incorporated into the RFS
    program. In the last 2 years, EPA has made significant progress in
    evaluating new feedstocks and fuels under the RFS program. For example,
    EPA has approved canola as a new feedstock and six other new fuel
    pathways through the petition process. In addition, EPA released for
    public comment analysis on six other feedstocks (arundo donax,
    camelina, energy cane, napiergrass, palm oil, and sorghum). EPA
    recognizes the need to review and include new advanced biofuel
    feedstocks to help further the goals of the Energy Independence and
    Security Act. To this end, EPA tried to expedite the approval of arundo
    donax, camelina, energy cane, and napiergrass through a direct final
    rulemaking process. However, EPA received relevant adverse comments as
    part of the public review process and was legally required to withdraw
    the direct final rule and proceed instead with a proposed rule. EPA is
    working to respond to these comments and finalize the analysis of these
    pathways as quickly as possible.

                             ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY

        Question. Administrator Jackson, I understand that your agency is
    in the process of developing guidance for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
    projects. I am a strong supporter of enhanced oil recovery and believe
    it is a win-win for the storage of CO2 as well as getting
    more oil out of existing fields. EOR helps to localize the impact of
    oil field development, while increasing our energy security with
    domestic production.
        I have heard some concern from some in industry that this proposed
    guidance makes could hinder EOR use and expansion.
        Question. Are you supportive of developing EOR?
        Answer. EPA remains committed to the safe implementation of
    enhanced oil and gas recovery technologies. Since the 1980s, EPA has
    worked with State co-regulators to ensure that injection of
    CO2 (and other fluids) for enhanced oil and gas recovery is
    conducted in an environmentally sound manner that enables increased
    energy security through domestic hydrocarbon production.
        Question. Can you assure me that EPA will continue to work with
    stakeholders to assure that guidance on this program is workable and
    encourage the use of EOR?
        Answer. EPA will continue to work with stakeholders, including
    State co-regulators and industry representatives, to develop this
    guidance and intends to implement it in a manner that is consistent
    with existing EOR regulations and Underground Injection Control program
    authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

                         OIL SPILL RESPONSE AND TRIBES

        Question. Administrator Jackson, last year on the Blackfoot
    Reservation in Montana there was a small oil spill from an oil
    distribution pipeline. This occurred about the same time we had the
    larger spill on the Yellowstone River. Unfortunately the small spill
    wasn't found for nearly 1 month because it was in a distribution line.
        In Montana a number of tribes, including the Blackfeet are actively
    developing their traditional energy resources, in particular oil and
    natural gas. Unfortunately, many tribes lack a full staff of people to
    regularly monitor well and develop safeguards for the development of
    energy resources.
        Question. What is EPA doing to provide technical assistance to
    tribes who have expanding energy development to develop safeguards are
    in place to prevent incidents like what happened on Browning?
        Answer. EPA conducts numerous workshops and inspections to provide
    technical assistance to tribes who have expanding energy development
    regarding oil spill prevention and response. EPA routinely includes
    inspections of production facilities on tribal lands with tribal
    environmental personnel to train the tribe on the requirements of the
    SPCC regulation and address facilities the tribe may have concerns
    about. EPA also routinely answers technical questions from the tribal
    environmental office to provide assistance on the requirements of the
    spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) regulation, respond
    to spills and complaints, and address noncompliance.
        The following examples are representative of the types of
    assistance EPA provides to tribes that are developing their traditional
    energy resources:
      --In 2010 and 2011, EPA worked with Fort Berthold officials on spill
            response capabilities and conducted workshops to improve
            compliance with SPCC regulations. In previous years, EPA
            similarly conducted SPCC workshops on the Uintah & Ouray,
            Southern Ute, and Wind River Reservations.
      --In August 2011, EPA provided technical assistance to the Blackfeet
            Tribe by conducting interactive SPCC training for nine
            participants from tribal environmental staff, emergency
            response staff, and a representative from the Bureau of Indian
            Affairs (BIA). This training focused on how to identify
            facilities that could pose a high risk for a spill or that may
            not be in compliance. EPA also discussed with the tribe
            concerns they had regarding facilities or spills that had
            occurred.
      --In June 2011, EPA inspectors were accompanied by tribal personnel
            during the SPCC inspections conducted on the Fort Berthold
            reservation. In August 2011, EPA inspectors were accompanied by
            Blackfeet Tribal environmental and emergency staff, as well as
            a BIA representative, on SPCC inspections.
      --During Tribal Region Operation Committee meetings held at the
            Region 8 office, the prevention and preparedness program
            presented and distributed outreach materials. The region also
            distributed materials on oil spill prevention during the Denver
            March Pow Wow.
      --In September 2011, EPA held a 4-day oil response training course
            for members of the Three Affiliated Tribes. This course is
            designed for EPA Federal On-Scene-Coordinators (FOSCs), U.S.
            Coast Guard (USCG) FOSCs, and tribal, State, and local
            responders who are involved in inland oil spill prevention and
            cleanup. The course was focused around a hands-on practical oil
            spill response scenario on fast water usually found in rivers
            in the western regions of the United States. Course
            participants learned physical and chemical properties;
            statutory and regulatory framework; factors affecting response
            and cleanup decisions; how to read rivers; determine oil
            recovery locations; determine various methods of boom
            deployment; and deploy oil recovery methods on fast water
            rivers.
      --In addition to oil spill prevention and response training, EPA
            initiated meetings with all 27 tribal governments to create a
            foundation for open communication and to understand the
            priorities, risks and vulnerabilities of the Region 8 tribes.
            The region plans to meet with the tribes in order to conduct an
            assessment of tribal emergency planning and preparedness
            capabilities in order to tailor an appropriate technical
            assistance and training regimen specific to the tribal needs.
      --With oil and gas production being one of the top priorities for the
            tribes, on June 13, 2012, EPA conducted a workshop to help
            tribal communities understand potential issues and resources
            available to prepare for and address environmental accidents,
            spills, and releases due to oil and gas drilling and production
            processes. Information included an overview of the production
            process itself, a summary of the various EPA laws and
            regulations that cover oil and gas production, and information
            from other guest speakers including, but not limited to,
            private industry, the Department of Transportation, and the
            Bureau of Land Management.
        As with EPA's activities in previous years, there are also plans to
    continue one-on-one outreach, SPCC technical assistance, and joint
    inspections with certain tribes in 2012.
        EPA has a goal to update and create new Area Contingency Plans that
    would include Browning, Montana. As part of this effort, EPA Region 8
    has held meetings with representatives from the tribes, U.S. Fish &
    Wildlife Service, BIA, Army Corps of Engineers, Departments of
    Agriculture and State, and local agencies to discuss subarea
    contingency planning for the Missouri River-Lake Sakakawea area.

                         LIBBY, MONTANA SUPERFUND SITE

        Question. Montana also has some big challenges with Superfund. In
    Montana we have the dubious honor of having 11 Superfund sites on the
    National Priorities List. These are some of the largest and most
    complex in the United States. And Administrator Jackson, as I've said
    each year as you come before this subcommittee it needs your personal
    attention.
        Let me take a moment to talk about Libby, Montana. It has been more
    than 10 years since EPA's work in Libby commenced, and there are still
    a number of unanswered questions and actions with questions. Currently
    the toxicological review of Libby Amphibole Asbestos has a draft form
    and is being circulated.
        Question. When do you believe you will be able to finalize that
    study? And when can you start using the Science Advisory Board's (SAB)
    information to make decisions about if homes are safe or clean for the
    citizens of Libby?
        Answer. EPA currently anticipates completing and posting the
    Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Toxicological Review of Libby
    Amphibole Asbestos in fall 2013. EPA's SAB has indicated that they
    expect their peer review advice will be published by November 2012. As
    per the IRIS process, EPA will then conduct any further analyses needed
    to respond to the peer review and revise the draft assessment to
    respond to comments. After internal and interagency reviews, a final
    Toxicological Review of Libby Amphibole Asbestos will be posted on
    IRIS.
        To date, risks from exposure to Libby Amphibole have been
    substantially reduced through cleanup actions at 1,670 properties in
    Libby, including homes, commercial buildings, parks, and other
    recreational spaces. Once the Toxicological Review of Libby Amphibole
    Asbestos is posted on IRIS, the toxicity values can be used for human
    health risk assessments. EPA will evaluate the remaining properties in
    Libby and reassess the properties that have undergone cleanup actions
    to determine whether additional cleanup is required. Region 8 will be
    able to publish a draft cumulative human health risk assessment for the
    Libby Superfund Site approximately 6 months after the IRIS posting of
    the Libby Amphibole toxicity values. The results of the human health
    risk assessment, as well as community opinions and concerns, will be
    considered by EPA as it evaluates alternatives and selects an
    appropriate response to address site risks.

                            CLARK FORK CLEAN UP SITE

        Question. Currently in the State of Montana has great work going on
    the Clark Fork River restoring a watershed. This work will restore
    clean water, fish, and aquatic species habitat and revitalize a
    corridor home to many of Montana's farms and ranches.
        This site, listed in 1985, has waited a long time for clean up.
        The State and EPA have entered into a consent agreement with the
    State as lead agency, a position well deserved after their good work in
    Silver-Bow County and on Milltown Dam.
        There is more than $100 million ready to put people to work in the
    restoration economy in Montana. Unfortunately, as of my last update,
    this work has is still stalled for while lawyers bicker over small
    technicalities and details.
        Question. Can I have your commitment that you will work the lead
    agency, the State of Montana, to get any issues resolved and make sure
    this project commences in a timely fashion so that by this summer we
    can be putting people back to work cleaning up the banks of the Clark
    Fork?
        Answer. EPA remains committed to working with the lead agency, the
    Montana Department of Environmental Quality (Montana DEQ), to help the
    Montana DEQ implement the remedy in an efficient and effective manner.
    Under a 2008 consent decree, the Montana DEQ received $123 million from
    Atlantic Richfield to perform State-lead Superfund remedial design,
    remedial action, and natural resource damage restoration for the Clark
    Fork River Operable Unit (Clark Fork Site) of the Milltown Reservoir
    Sediments/Clark Fork River Superfund Site. EPA has consistently met
    review times requested by the Montana DEQ for deliverables and has
    worked expeditiously to resolve issues to help the Montana DEQ complete
    design and construction on the Clark Fork River.
        The Montana DEQ began construction in 2010 by removing arsenic and
    lead contaminated soil from eight residential properties located on
    East Side Road in Deer Lodge. The Montana DEQ also cleaned up six
    residential properties adjacent to the Clark Fork River in Deer Lodge
    in 2011. Cleanup construction was completed at the Trestle Area Bridge
    in Deer Lodge in fall 2011. Construction firms out of Butte, Missoula,
    and Lincoln, Montana were able to bid successfully on these
    construction projects.
        In addition, engineering firms from Helena and Butte, under
    contract to the Montana DEQ, collected design level data in 2011 at the
    Grant Kohrs Ranch National Historic Park and the Clark Fork Coalition
    Ranch. The Montana DEQ has already incorporated data collected during
    these investigations into Design Summary Reports. Draft preliminary
    designs are anticipated in fall 2012, with final design packages going
    out for construction bids in 2013.
        Finally, the Montana DEQ is currently incorporating design review
    team comments into its final design for cleanup of the first 1.6 miles
    of the Clark Fork River directly below the Warm Springs Ponds (Reach A,
    Phase 1). Montana DEQ will solicit bids later this summer for a multi-
    year construction project that will begin in fall 2012.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

                       DESIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM

        Question. Administrator Jackson, I would like to bring to your
    attention some concerns I have with the Design for the Environment
    (DfE) program. This program is intended to identify chemicals for which
    increased margins of safety may be needed and to make suggestions on
    alternative chemicals that would provide increased margins of safety.
    As I understand it, Congress did not explicitly fund or create this
    program, nor did the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issue
    regulations outlining any criteria on which to select products for
    which substitutes are sought. Furthermore, there is no criteria that
    exists to define the improved safety of the alternatives. While the
    program may be deemed voluntary, the process will lead to manufacturers
    substituting alternatives, none of which have been approved by a
    government agency as safe for use or by industry as technically or
    commercially viable. Therefore the DfE program can effectively drive
    major structural changes in the chemical industry while avoiding the
    rigor of the regulatory process.
        I am very concerned with the lack of transparency in the
    decisionmaking process and the lack of defined criteria upon which DfE
    chemical evaluations are based.
        Are the chemical evaluations under the DfE program done consistent
    with other EPA chemical evaluations or assessments such as under the
    Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)?
        Answer. Yes, DfE chemical evaluations are consistent with other EPA
    evaluations, including IRIS, and use similar criteria. For example, the
    IRIS assessment process includes obtaining information through a
    comprehensive literature search and data call in. The IRIS assessment
    process also includes professional EPA science experts evaluating
    research studies on health effects and providing judgments regarding
    issues such as appropriate study choice, characterization of effects,
    and uncertainty factors, among others. Data sources for DfE evaluations
    include the following:
      --Publicly available data obtained from a literature review;
      --Data contained in confidential business information received by
            EPA;
      --Structure-Activity-Relationship based estimations from EPA's
            Pollution Prevention Framework and Sustainable Futures
            predictive methods; and
      --Professional judgment of EPA science experts with decades of
            chemical review experience.
        When IRIS assessments are available, they are a primary
    consideration for DfE chemical evaluations.
        Question. If chemical evaluations for DfE are not conducted in a
    similar fashion, what is the evaluation process and where is it
    documented?
        Answer. The DfE approach for conducting chemical evaluations is
    similar to evaluations in other EPA programs.

             WASTEWATER OPERATIONS--UNDERGROUND PIPE INFRASTRUCTURE

        Question. Efforts are currently being made by innovative companies
    to assist small- and medium-sized cities to maximize cost savings and
    asset management for their underground pipe infrastructure. Efforts
    involve aggregating data and leveraging information to the benefit of
    municipalities' wastewater operations and financial planning. What is
    EPA currently doing to aggressively compliment or incentivize
    municipalities to embrace this proven, comprehensive, cost savings
    practice?
        Answer. EPA has been in the forefront, especially in the area of
    Asset Management practices, with a whole series of initiatives to
    assist communities in making more efficient and effective long-term,
    life-cycle based decisions regarding water and wastewater
    infrastructure. The key elements in the EPA strategy are based on
    providing training and knowledge transfer and supporting the
    development of new tools and techniques to foster better municipal
    system outcomes. Over the past decade, approximately 60, 2-day ``hands-
    on'' workshops have been held with more than 4,500 local water and
    wastewater personnel attending these training sessions. In addition,
    EPA has worked closely with the Water Environment Research Foundation
    to establish a focused research program to address some of the key
    knowledge questions associated with the aging of our water and
    wastewater infrastructure. Much of this work is focused on underground
    pipe infrastructure, where the issues associated with the aging of the
    networks are most prominent. Finally, a number of State SRF programs
    have adopted Asset Management related incentives associated with their
    funding decisions and a few States have started integrating Asset
    Management requirements into their National Pollutant Discharge
    Elimination System permit process.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski

                       INTEGRATED RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM

        Question. In testimony before the Congress in July, 2011,
    Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Science Advisor stated that the
    EPA did not intend to implement the reforms identified in chapter 7 of
    the National Academy of Science (NAS) peer review report on the
    formaldehyde Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment for
    draft assessments that had then been released for peer review but not
    finalized. Since that time, EPA has also chosen not to implement those
    reforms to certain draft assessments subsequently released for peer
    review. EPA's stated rationale for that decision was that NAS did not
    intend to delay IRIS assessments pending development of program-wide
    reforms. However, a review of the specific NAS recommendations for
    improving the formaldehyde assessment demonstrates that they parallel
    the NAS recommendations for longer-term IRIS reform. Clearly, then, NAS
    wanted and expected EPA to implement on a chemical-specific basis going
    forward recommendations comparable to those NAS was recommending that
    EPA develop over a longer-term for the program as a whole.
        Given NAS' conclusion that its recommendations are ``critical for
    the development of a scientifically sound IRIS assessment'' and EPA's
    conclusion that all the NAS' recommendations are warranted, what is
    EPA's justification for implementing those reforms for some chemicals,
    like formaldehyde, but not others in like or earlier stages of
    development than formaldehyde at the time of the NAS report?
        In its recent progress report to the Congress on the status of its
    IRIS reform efforts and elsewhere, EPA has stated that it agrees that
    all the NAS recommendations are scientifically sound and should and
    will be implemented by EPA. However, EPA is applying only a few of
    those reforms to some of the assessments in the pipeline and none of
    them to others now under development.
        Answer. EPA agrees with and is implementing the NAS
    recommendations. Consistent with the advice of the NAS in their
    ``Roadmap for Revision'' in chapter 7 of the formaldehyde review
    report, EPA is implementing the recommendations using a phased
    approach. Specifically, the NAS stated that ``the committee recognizes
    that the changes suggested would involve a multiyear process and
    extensive effort by the staff of the National Center for Environmental
    Assessment and input and review by the EPA Science Advisory Board and
    others.'' In implementing the recommendations in a phased approach, EPA
    is making the most extensive changes to documents that are in the
    earlier steps of the assessment development process.
        For assessments that are in the later stages of development, EPA is
    implementing the recommendations without taking the assessments
    backwards to earlier steps of the process. Phase 1 of implementing the
    NAS recommendations has focused on editing and streamlining documents
    and using more tables, figures, and appendices. However, for some
    assessments, EPA went beyond the changes that were slated for Phase 1
    to incorporate changes slated for Phase 2. For example, the final
    dioxin reanalysis (released as part of the Phase 1 batch of
    assessments) included:
      --Evaluation tables for epidemiology study summaries;
      --Health effects study descriptions in an appendix to streamline the
            main text;
      --Graphical and tabular displays of potential points of departure and
            oral reference dose candidate values; and
      --Links to the Health and Environmental Research Online (HERO)
            database for all citations.
        EPA is now in Phase 2 of implementing the NAS recommendations, as
    evidenced by the recent release of the draft IRIS assessment of
    ammonia. This assessment represents a major advancement in implementing
    the NAS recommendations. EPA is using a new document structure,
    including an executive summary presenting major conclusions, a preamble
    describing methods used to develop the assessment, distinct sections on
    Hazard Identification and Dose-Response Analysis, and more tables and
    figures to clearly present data. Additionally, as part of Phase 2, EPA
    is addressing all of the short-term recommendations provided by the
    NAS, including:
      --Eliminating redundancy in format to substantially reduce the volume
            of text;
      --Adding a preamble to describe the methods of the assessment;
      --Providing detailed information about the literature search and
            describing how studies were selected for evaluation;
      --Using the HERO database to allow public access to all studies
            considered and cited in the assessment;
      --Using standardized evidence tables instead of long text
            descriptions;
      --Conducting a more thorough and standardized evaluation of studies,
            including strengths and weaknesses;
      --Developing a more integrated synthesis of health information
            organized by toxicological effect, including a discussion of
            weight of evidence;
      --Clearly describing all decision points;
      --Presenting candidate reference values for multiple endpoints, where
            appropriate; and
      --Considering the possibility of combining multiple studies or
            effects for deriving toxicity values, instead of choosing the
            most sensitive effect.
        Phase 3 of implementation, which will begin when EPA convenes a
    workshop on weight of evidence, will incorporate the longer-term
    scientific recommendations made by the NAS, including:
      --Incorporating a systematic identification of the relevant evidence;
      --Developing and utilizing criteria for evaluating the strength of
            the evidence; and
      --Developing language for describing the strength of the evidence of
            causation so that a standardized approach is used that is
            comparable among different agents and outcomes.
        Question. Given EPA's concurrence with NAS' conclusion that all
    these reforms are critical to scientifically sound assessments, upon
    what basis has EPA concluded that some assessments now being prepared
    are more deserving of these reforms than others?
        Answer. As discussed in the response to question 1, EPA has used a
    systematic approach to implementing the NAS recommendations in a phased
    manner based on stage of assessment development.
        Question. The recommendations are being applied based on the stage
    of development of the assessment. Thus, those in the earliest stage of
    development are in Phase 3, while those in the later stages are in
    Phases 1 and 2. We did this so as not to unduly delay the release of
    final assessments and to ensure that the effort placed in drafting the
    document was not lost. This is consistent with the advice of the NAS.
        If EPA's basis is that it is important to finalize quickly
    assessments now in the later stages of development, has EPA concluded
    that it is more important to get these assessments prepared quickly
    than it is to get them prepared correctly, that is, in a manner that
    both EPA and NAS have concluded is critical to scientifically sound
    assessments?
        Answer. EPA is working as quickly as possible to finalize
    assessments. However, quality and correctness of assessments are not
    being sacrificed for speed.
        Question. Sound science and independent, open-to-the public,
    scientific peer review are the cornerstones of the IRIS program and the
    foundation upon which IRIS is built. Every IRIS assessment that has
    been finalized has been through rigorous independent external peer
    review and has been revised to address the peer review comments,
    ensuring that EPA is using the best-available sound science.
        The Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of NAS recently
    informed the Senate and House Appropriations Committees that it had
    unanimously concluded that in lieu of the two discretionary NAS IRIS
    assessment peer reviews called for by the conference report language
    for EPA's appropriation in title II of Public Law 112-74, it would be
    more productive and valuable for the IRIS program if NAS undertook a
    comprehensive in-depth review of EPA's IRIS report development process
    and the changes in that process contemplated by EPA. Do you concur with
    that conclusion?
        Answer. Yes, EPA agrees that it would be more productive and
    valuable for the IRIS Program if the NAS undertook a comprehensive in-
    depth review of the IRIS assessment development process in lieu of peer
    reviewing two draft IRIS assessments. It is most appropriate for the
    NAS to address broad scientific issues rather than conducting reviews
    of individual IRIS assessments.
        Question. EPA is committed to a strong and robust IRIS program. The
    EPA welcomes NAS' review of the IRIS assessment development process and
    looks forward to working with the NAS to continue to strengthen the
    IRIS program.
        We have received several reports of newly developed IRIS toxicity
    values that are well below naturally occurring background levels of the
    chemicals involved to which the public is routinely exposed. If these
    values were scientifically valid, wouldn't one expect to find evidence
    of adverse health effects that to date are not apparent?
        Answer. By definition, a reference dose (RfD) is an estimate (with
    uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral
    exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that
    is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects
    during a lifetime. That is, the RfD is the level of exposure that a
    person could experience every day over their entire lifetime without an
    appreciable risk of harmful effects. The derivation of an RfD generally
    includes the use of uncertainty factors that account for limitations in
    scientific information. Therefore, it is designed to be public health
    protective. It is expected that a person's exposure to a certain
    chemical might vary throughout their lifetime, increasing at some
    points and decreasing at others. Exceeding the RfD for one day, or a
    week or more does not necessarily mean that an individual has a greater
    risk of a health effect. As exposure increases above the RfD for
    prolonged periods, then the potential risk for health effects
    increases. It is generally not possible to determine an exact exposure
    level at which the risk of adverse effects will start to increase. Nor
    is it generally possible to determine exactly how many days of exposure
    above the RfD it would take to increase the risk of health effects.
        In addition, the term ``background'' may mean different things,
    such as the production of endogenous compounds or naturally occurring
    substance. Just because something occurs naturally in the environment
    does not mean it is without harm. In some cases, naturally occurring
    substances may lead to adverse health effects in humans. For example,
    people in certain locations outside the U.S. are exposed to high levels
    of naturally occurring arsenic in their drinking water. Health effects,
    such as skin pigmentation and cancer, have been identified in these
    populations. In most cases, however, well-conducted epidemiological
    studies have not been performed to evaluate whether adverse effects are
    occurring at background levels of exposure.
        Finally, the human body does not discern between naturally
    occurring and manmade substances. The toxicity of a chemical is the
    same regardless of the source, and understanding the toxicity of a
    chemical, natural or not, makes for better informed decisions.
        Question. Moreover, in as much as the principal purpose of IRIS
    assessments is to educate the public and risk managers as to
    concentrations of chemicals above which unacceptable risks may exist,
    how useful are these values when they are at levels that risk managers
    and the public cannot rectify?
        Answer. IRIS assessments are useful to risk managers and the
    public. IRIS assessments provide information on the toxicity of
    chemicals. Risk managers use IRIS values, along with information about
    exposure, to characterize the public health risk of chemicals. When
    making decisions, they also take into consideration other factors, such
    as statutory and legal considerations, risk management options, public
    health considerations, cost/benefit considerations, and economic and
    social factors.
        It should also be noted that just because something occurs
    naturally in the environment does not mean it is without harm. The
    human body does not discern between naturally occurring and manmade
    substances. The toxicity of a chemical is the same regardless of the
    source, and understanding the toxicity of a chemical, natural or not,
    makes for better informed decisions. It is important that risk managers
    and the American public have the most up-to-date information on the
    health effects of chemicals in their environment.
        Question. When EPA develops a toxicity value that is lower than
    background levels in such public spaces as urban areas and schools, or
    at people's homes, does it evaluate the implications of such a value on
    public perception of safe levels of chemicals and on use of societal
    resources to address such exceedingly low values?
        Answer. IRIS assessments provide information on the toxicity of
    chemicals. When this information is combined with specific exposure
    information, government and private entities can use IRIS to help
    characterize the public health risks of chemical substances. When risk
    managers make decisions, they consider additional information, such as
    the use of societal resources, statutory and legal considerations, risk
    management options, public health considerations, cost/benefit
    considerations, and economic and social factors.
        Question. The IRIS program is very important to establishing
    credible cleanup standards that touch many people and organizations.
    It's very important that these standards be credible and be based on
    the best-available science. The Congress has asked EPA to implement the
    NAS recommendations with regard to the IRIS program to restore its
    credibility. Yet implementation is slow and reports are still moving
    through the approval process without the benefit of being subjected to
    the rigor recommended by the NAS. Could you explain why you are pushing
    through new standards for individual substances absent the sound
    science approach recommended by NAS?
        Again, our goal is to have the best-possible science guide this
    standard setting.
        Answer. EPA is using a systematic approach to implementing the NAS
    recommendations in a phased manner, based on stage of assessment
    development. Every IRIS assessment that has been finalized has been
    through rigorous independent external peer review and has been revised
    to address the peer review comments, ensuring that EPA is using the
    best-available sound science.
        Question. IRIS assessments and IRIS toxicity values are not
    standards. An IRIS human health assessment is a scientific and
    technical report that provides information on hazard identification and
    dose response. When information from an IRIS assessment is combined
    with specific exposure information, government and private entities can
    use IRIS to help characterize the public health risks of chemical
    substances. It is during the risk management part of the risk
    assessment/risk management paradigm that standards are developed. In
    making risk management decisions, EPA considers the supporting science,
    as well as statutory and legal considerations, risk management options,
    public health considerations, cost/benefit considerations, and economic
    and social factors.
        Could you explain why you are willing to have the IRIS program
    subjected to wide criticism by rushing through standards absent the
    rigor of an NAS type review?
        Many of us on the subcommittee have already heard from constituents
    that have problems with some of the proposals in the works.
        EPA has stated that it does not want its reforms in response to the
    NAS report to delay issuing of IRIS reports.
        Answer. IRIS assessments and IRIS toxicity values are not
    standards. An IRIS human health assessment is a scientific and
    technical report that provides information on hazard identification and
    dose response. When information from an IRIS assessment is combined
    with specific exposure information, government and private entities can
    use IRIS to help characterize the public health risks of chemical
    substances. It is during the risk management part of the risk
    assessment/risk management paradigm that standards are developed. In
    making risk management decisions, EPA considers the supporting science,
    as well as statutory and legal considerations, risk management options,
    public health considerations, cost/benefit considerations, and economic
    and social factors.
        EPA is using a systematic approach to implementing the NAS
    recommendations in a phased manner based on stage of assessment
    development. This is consistent with the advice of the NAS in their
    ``Roadmap for Revision'' in chapter 7 of the formaldehyde review
    report. The NAS did not intend for their recommendations to slow down
    or delay issuing IRIS assessments, but rather noted that ``the changes
    suggested would involve a multiyear process and extensive effort by the
    staff of the National Center for Environmental Assessment and input and
    review by the EPA Science Advisory Board and others.''
        Independent, open-to-the public, scientific peer review is a
    cornerstone of the IRIS Program. Every draft IRIS assessment is subject
    to independent, external scientific peer review. Every IRIS assessment
    that has been finalized has been through rigorous independent external
    peer review and has been revised to address the peer review comments,
    ensuring that EPA is using the best-available sound science.
        Question. Given EPA's statement that IRIS documents do not have
    regulatory effect and given EPA's existing statutory authority at
    cleanup sites and for regulatory standards and permitting, are there
    any specific EPA program needs for IRIS values that cannot be met
    through EPA's other existing authorities? If so, please explain these
    needs. If not, please explain why it is sound public policy not to
    carry out the NAS recommendations before issuing IRIS values?
        Answer. IRIS was designed to develop assessment values for use
    throughout EPA, and this remains the case. The IRIS program develops
    health assessments and toxicity values in concert with scientists from
    across EPA's programs and regions. The toxicity values are then added
    to the IRIS database for use by EPA's program and regional offices and
    others. Time and again, EPA's program and regional office have
    indicated their need and strong support for the IRIS program.
        The IRIS program is responsible for developing IRIS health
    assessments and providing the associated toxicity values in the IRIS
    database. EPA's program and regional offices determine which toxicity
    values to use in their work. While we know that IRIS values are widely
    used, the IRIS program does not track what toxicity values the program
    offices use in every aspect of their work. The rigorous assessment
    development process, which includes opportunity for public comment and
    independent external peer review, ensures that EPA decisions will be
    based on the best-available science.

                           REGIONAL HAZE REGULATIONS

        Question. What steps has EPA taken to coordinate more effectively
    with States on regional haze issues in response to the congressional
    directive included in the conference report accompanying the fiscal
    year 2012 Appropriations Act?
        Why is EPA rejecting State Implementation Plans that reduce
    visibility impairment consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the
    congressional directive to work with the States?
        Answer. Since 1999, EPA has been collaborating with the States and
    with their regional planning organizations on the development of
    regional haze plans. Our preference has always been to allow States
    that are moving forward to complete their work, and then to give due
    deference to the emission controls decisions that they reach based on
    accurate technical information. In fact, we have fully approved the
    plans for the District of Columbia and the following 12 States:
      --California;
      --Delaware;
      --Illinois;
      --Kansas;
      --Maine;
      --Maryland;
      --New Hampshire;
      --New Jersey;
      --Rhode Island;
      --South Dakota;
      --Vermont; and
      --Wisconsin.
        All have proposed to fully approve the Alaska, Colorado,
    Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, and Oregon plans.
        In addition, for the following 10 States, we have fully approved
    the regional haze plans with the single exception that we have adopted
    a simple ``housekeeping'' Federal plan to substitute reliance on the
    Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for these States' earlier
    decision to rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule, an approach that
    will not result in any additional control requirement for any
    powerplants in these States solely for regional haze purposes:
      --Georgia;
      --Indiana;
      --Iowa;
      --Kentucky;
      --Missouri;
      --Ohio;
      --Pennsylvania;
      --South Carolina;
      --Virginia; and
      --West Virginia.
        We collaborated with these States on this approach of adopting the
    CSAPR-based Federal plan. These States do not need to take any further
    action to meet the current regional haze planning requirements. We
    fully expect to add Tennessee to this group once the State submits and
    we approve a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for a
    particular source (Eastman Tennessee) so that this source can pursue
    its preferred approach to the regional haze requirements. We have also
    relied on a CSAPR-based Federal plan element in the case of Nebraska,
    such that Nebraska also does not need to make any changes in its SIP.
    North Carolina and Alabama need to amend their SIPs to substitute
    reliance on CSAPR for their original reliance on CAIR, but otherwise we
    have fully approved their plans.
        We have also been collaborating very closely with Florida on staged
    revisions to its plan to address the fact that Florida cannot rely on
    CSAPR to meet all of its regional haze requirements for powerplants. We
    have proposed approval of the revisions submitted to date and
    anticipate proposing approval of the remaining revisions as they are
    submitted. Mississippi also could not rely on CSAPR to meet all of its
    regional haze requirements and therefore we had to disapprove its plan,
    but we were not required to issue a Federal plan so we did not do so.
    We are working with Mississippi to help it address this issue within
    the next 2 years so that a Federal plan can be avoided.
        In Arkansas and Louisiana, we could not fully approve the SIP and
    we were required to take final disapproval action on some portions
    already, but we were not required to issue a Federal plan so we did not
    do so. We are working with these States to help them address the
    disapproval issues within the next 2 years so that a Federal plan can
    be avoided. The same situation will apply for Utah if we finalize our
    proposed disapproval of portions of its SIP.
        In Hawaii, Montana, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, by mutual
    agreement we have developed and proposed complete Regional Haze Federal
    plans because those governments did not have the resources to develop
    SIPs.
        Of the 11 States not mentioned above, final actions remain to be
    taken on 10 States. For these 10 States, if we do not fully approve the
    SIP we are required by a consent decree to adopt a Federal plan.\1\
    Because of this requirement, we have already adopted final partial
    Federal plans for New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. We have
    proposed to disapprove portions of the SIPs for Arizona, Michigan,
    Minnesota, Nevada, New York, and Wyoming, and there is not sufficient
    time remaining for the State to submit new plan revisions. However, we
    are duly considering the comments received from these States on our
    proposed disapprovals. Also, we will collaborate with these States if
    they wish to replace the final Federal plan with a State plan. We have
    negotiated significant consent decree extensions for portions of the
    SIPs from Arizona, Washington, and Oklahoma, and for the entire SIP
    from Texas, and we will take advantage of this time to collaborate with
    these States.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ This distinction in consent decree terms across States stemmed
    from the interaction of the provisions of the Clean Air Act and the
    timing of the actions taken by the States to submit their plans, not
    from any choice on the part of the EPA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question. The stringent pollution control equipment being selected
    by EPA as BART under the Regional Haze Rule is that which would
    typically be classified as best-available control technology (BACT) or
    maximum achievable control technology (MACT), which is more stringent
    than typically would be classified as BART.
        What is the basis for this change?
        Answer. EPA assesses all regional haze SIPs in accordance with the
    Regional Haze Rule BART Guidelines, which were issued in 2005. With
    respect to BART determinations, EPA reviews the State's assessment of
    each individual source considering five statutory factors. These five
    factors are:
      --the costs of compliance;
      --the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance;
      --any existing pollution control technology in use at the source;
      --the remaining useful life of the source; and
      --the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be
            anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
        As determinations are made on a source-specific basis considering
    all of the five factors, there is no promotion of one control
    technology over another. Similarly, there is no ``bright line'' as to
    what the EPA considers to be cost-effective technology nor is there any
    presupposition that BART is more or less stringent than BACT or MACT
    would be for affected sources. The magnitude of the visibility
    improvement expected may warrant greater emission reductions at a
    higher cost, for example when the visibility improvement is very large.
    Alternatively, a BART determination may require fewer emission
    reductions at a lower cost when the visibility improvement is not as
    significant.
        Question. EPA's regional haze SIP requirements are found in the
    Regional Haze Rules (40 CFR 51.300), Appendix Y to Part 51 (Guidelines
    for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule), and the preamble
    discussion in the Federal Register (70 FR 39104) concerning Appendix Y.
    Appendix Y indicates that NOX control costs more than $1,500
    per ton are not cost effective for BART purposes.
        Is EPA no longer relying on Appendix Y presumptive limits, despite
    being part of the BART guidance relied on by States and companies? If
    so, what is the justification for this disregard for Appendix Y?
        Answer. EPA is still using its guidance on presumptive limits.
    Appendix Y does not indicate that NOX control costs more
    than $1,500 per ton are not cost effective for BART. In Appendix Y, EPA
    states that most sources can meet the presumptive limits for less than
    $1,500 per ton, but the guidelines do not establish that value as a
    threshold for cost effectiveness. States must conduct a proper
    evaluation of the five statutory factors, as required by 40 CFR
    51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) and section 169A(g) of the CAA, before determining
    whether the presumptive emission limits are the ``best available
    retrofit controls'' for affected units. Because the five factors are
    evaluated separately and weighted accordingly, there are no ``bright
    line'' thresholds for cost effectiveness or visibility improvement.
        Question. When a State has determined that alternatives (Selective
    Non-Catalytic Reduction technology or combustion controls, such as Low
    NOX Burners) could achieve visibility improvements at much
    lower cost with visibility benefits that are on a reasonable path to
    the 2064 goal, what is EPA's legal justification for requiring
    different, more expensive retrofit controls and more stringent
    emissions limits?
        Answer. The overarching goal of section 169A of the CAA is for
    States to submit SIPs that ensure reasonable progress toward remedying
    visibility impairment in Class I areas. Each SIP must include the
    measures necessary to make reasonable progress, including BART limits
    (or alternatives that achieve greater reasonable progress than BART).
    Section 169A of the CAA defines the BART requirements as ``an emission
    limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the
    application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for
    each pollutant which is emitted'' by a BART eligible facility, and
    requires that States consider five factors when assessing a control
    determination for BART:
      --the costs of compliance;
      --the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance;
      --any existing pollution control technology in use at the source;
      --the remaining useful life of the source; and
      --the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be
            anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
        In considering these five factors, States must use technically
    sound approaches in estimating costs and visibility improvements.
    Assuming that a State does this, the BART requirement is satisfied by
    putting in place emission reduction measures that are reasonable in
    light of the costs and visibility benefits associated with a control
    technology, not by any presumed path between current conditions and
    natural conditions.
        Question. The EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition,
    was published in 2002 and has been used by EPA in estimating costs in
    its BART determinations.
        Given that it was published in 2002, is it out-of-date? What steps
    are being taken by EPA to update it?
        Answer. The current version of the Control Cost Manual is the sixth
    edition. Revisions of the Control Cost Manual usually include either
    publication of new chapters or substantial revisions to existing ones.
    Given the size of the Control Cost Manual (18 chapters) and the
    reliance by many parties on its contents, EPA limits completion and
    publication of new editions to avoid confusion on the State of the
    contents.
        The current version of the Control Cost Manual includes a well-
    recognized control cost methodology that provides consistency for
    States and local agencies in reviewing cost estimates prepared for BART
    and other programs, and offers a foundation for the comparison of cost
    estimates prepared by different sources in different locales. This
    methodology is still well-recognized and valuable today. It should be
    noted that a major reason for EPA disapproval of cost estimates
    included in Regional Haze SIPs has been the failure to follow the
    methodology for cost estimation provided in the Control Cost Manual by
    either including items that are not part of this methodology or not
    including all cost items. EPA has no reason to believe that the
    methodology for cost estimation is out-of-date.
        Question. How does EPA, a State, or a company integrate current
    cost information for purposes of regional haze compliance planning with
    the methodology prescribed by EPA's 2002 cost manual?
        Answer. The Control Cost Manual has considerable cost and other
    information (design and installation, to name two) to serve as a basis
    for the preparation of BART analyses. However, we want to be clear that
    the Control Cost Manual is not the only source of cost information for
    a BART analysis. For instance, the reference to the Control Cost Manual
    in the BART Guidelines, which is an important basis for cost analyses
    to be done for Regional Haze SIPs, clearly recognizes the potential
    limitations of the Manual and the need to consider additional
    information sources.
        A source can use data supplied by an equipment vendor or firm (i.e.
    quotes, bids, or budget estimates) as cost information for a BART
    analysis. The basis for using these data should be clearly documented,
    either by the equipment vendor or firm or by a referenced source (e.g.,
    the Control Cost Manual or other recognized source of cost
    information). Thus, where the Control Cost Manual's information is
    valuable and up to date for use in BART analyses, then it should be
    used; where additional equipment cost data is needed to overcome any
    limitations with the Control Cost Manual's data, such information
    should be clearly documented as previously expressed, and should be
    provided to support analyses using the Control Cost Manual's
    methodology.
        Question. Given that the Regional Haze program is a program to
    protect the aesthetics of national parks and national wilderness areas,
    and not human health, should the required visibility improvement be
    discernible?
        Answer. Failing to consider less-than-perceptible improvement in
    visibility impairment would ignore the CAA's intent to have BART
    requirements apply to sources that contribute to, as well as cause,
    such impairment (70 FR 39104; RH Regulations and Guidelines for Best
    Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, July 6, 2005). A
    perceptible visibility improvement is not a requirement of the BART
    determination as a visibility improvement that is not perceptible may
    still be determined to be significant. The importance of visibility
    impacts below the thresholds of perceptibility from each of a number of
    individual sources cannot be ignored given that regional haze is a
    problem that is produced by a multitude of sources and emissions that
    are distributed across a broad geographic area.
        Question. EPA has used CALPUFF Version 5.8 to conduct visibility
    modeling to analyze the impacts on visibility impairment from proposed
    NOX retrofit technologies.
        How does EPA respond to scholarly, peer-reviewed studies asserting
    that CALPUFF Version 5.8 overestimates visibility improvements?
        Answer. While the studies mentioned are stated to be peer-reviewed,
    they are largely papers included as part of general proceedings at
    conferences, as opposed to a formal peer review associated with
    submission to scientific journals. Therefore, we do not consider these
    references suitable for establishing the validity of a model or
    demonstrating that a model has undergone independent scientific peer
    review in accordance with EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models
    (published as Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51). These guidelines, which
    oversee the EPA's approach to updating air quality models, require that
    studies supporting the air quality model's validity be appropriately
    peer-reviewed through publication in a professional journal, a panel
    review by subject experts, or other formal and well-documented process.
        That said, in promulgating the BART guidelines, the EPA made the
    decision to recommend the use of the CALPUFF model to estimate the 98th
    percentile visibility impairment rather than the highest daily impact
    value as proposed. This decision acknowledged that the regulatory
    version of the CALPUFF model could lead to modeled over predictions
    and, therefore, provide conservative (higher) results for peak
    impacts.\2\ The decision to use the 98th percentile rather than the
    highest daily value is EPA's adjustment to account for potential
    overestimates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``Most important, the simplified chemistry in the model tends
    to magnify the actual visibility effects of that source. Because of
    these features and the uncertainties associated with the model, we
    believe it is appropriate to use the 98th percentile--a more robust
    approach that does not give undue weight to the extreme tail of the
    distribution.'' 70 FR 39104, 39121.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question. What does EPA need to do to update CALPUFF Version 5.8?
    Is this underway?
        Answer. In coordination with the Federal Land Mangers (FLMs), EPA
    is currently pursuing updates to the current regulatory version of
    CALPUFF (Version 5.8) to address known ``bugs'' and expects to complete
    these updates later this year. EPA and FLM representatives met with
    WEST Associates and the model developer, TRC, in February 2011 and
    discussed the current status of the regulatory version of CALPUFF and
    the updates implemented by TRC related to underlying model formulation
    and to account for atmospheric chemistry. The information provided to
    EPA at that meeting indicated that the planned updates account for new
    science related to complex chemistry reactions in the atmosphere.
    Because this is a regulatory application for which this model was never
    approved under Appendix W, these changes would necessitate a notice and
    comment rulemaking and not a simple update as previously done to
    address bug-fixes.
        At this time, EPA and the FLM representatives are planning to
    review all available models to determine their suitability for these
    analyses, including updated versions of the CALPUFF modeling system.
    After review of public comment from EPA's 10th Modeling Conference, EPA
    will provide more concrete plans on the process and plans for updating
    Appendix W to address chemistry for individual source impacts on ozone,
    secondary PM2.5 and regional haze/visibility impairment.
        Question. Why is EPA not allowing the use of more recent versions
    of CALPUFF, such as Version 6.4?
        Answer. The newer version(s) of CALPUFF have not received the level
    of review required for use in a regulatory context. Based on EPA's
    review of the available evidence, the models have not been shown to be
    sufficiently documented, technically valid, and reliable for use in a
    BART decisionmaking process. Because of documented concern with the
    science updates in the new CALPUFF versions, which affect air quality
    related values, EPA has not approved these new versions of the CALPUFF
    model as a ``preferred'' model. The use of the regulatory version is
    approved for increment and NAAQS analysis of primary pollutants only.
    Currently, CALPUFF Versions 6.112 and 6.4 have not been approved by EPA
    for even this limited purpose.
        Under the BART guidelines, CALPUFF should be used as a screening
    tool and appropriate consultation with the reviewing authority is
    required to use CALPUFF in a BART determination as part of a SIP or
    FIP. Moreover, Appendix W does not identify a particular modeling
    system as ``preferred'' for modeling conducted in support of State
    implementation plans under 40 CFR 51.308(b) nor for supporting
    secondary particulate matter or visibility assessments. Under this
    general framework, EPA followed the general recommendation in Appendix
    Y to use CALPUFF as a screening technique only subject to Appendix W
    requirements, which include an approved protocol for using the current
    5.8 version.
        Furthermore, it should be noted, that the U.S. Forest Service
    (USFS) and EPA review of CALPUFF (Version 6.4) results for a limited
    set of BART applications clearly indicates that the lower results are
    driven by two input assumptions and not associated with the ``improved
    chemistry.'' Use of the ``full'' ammonia limiting method and finer
    horizontal grid resolution are the primary drivers in reducing modeled
    visibility impacts in CALPUFF (Version 6.4). These input assumptions
    have been previously reviewed by EPA and the FLMs and have been
    rejected based on lack of documentation, adequate peer-review, and
    technical justification and validation.
        Question. In its cost estimates, it appears that EPA is
    substituting the judgment of its experts, the National Park Service,
    and USFS for the cost judgments of the States, utilities and most
    notably expert engineering firms. For example, EPA's cost estimates are
    significantly lower than the cost estimates prepared by Black and
    Veatch, Sargent and Lundy, and Burns and McDonnell--each of whom is
    actively engaged in the business of designing and retrofitting
    Selective Catalytic Reductions (SCR) and other pollution control
    equipment on existing powerplants.
        What is the legal authority for EPA's lower cost estimates?
        What is the legal authority for rejecting cost estimates based on
    actual construction experience and market-supported bid documents?
        Answer. When reviewing State plans, EPA must consider all the cost
    information in the record. However, it would be arbitrary and
    capricious for EPA to accept submitted cost information without any
    analysis of its accuracy or consideration of significant issues raised
    in comments. It would also be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to
    simply reject cost estimation studies submitted by a State or source,
    and we have not done so to date. Where EPA has itself estimated the
    cost of control, this is because of specific flaws in the cost estimate
    submitted by a State, and both our finding that there were flaws and
    our own cost estimates have then been subject to public notice and
    comment.
        Question. How is EPA taking into account the impact of higher
    elevations present in the Western United States over those in the
    Eastern United States in its regional haze retrofit technology
    decisions, and what is the effect of higher elevations on the operation
    of SCRs?
        Answer. A retrofit SCR at high elevation could require a somewhat
    larger unit than what might be required at lower elevations. Any
    differences in costs necessary for larger units would be part of the
    factors considered in making the BART determination. For example, in
    the case of the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico, which is at
    a particularly high altitude compared to other powerplants, we modified
    our original cost estimates to increase SCR costs in response to
    comments from the owners of the station on this particular point. Cost
    estimates submitted by other Western States, often prepared by the
    affected sources, have not always included an explicit cost adjustment
    for this possibility.
        Question. How is EPA taking into account retrofit challenges
    associated with congested site and equipment layouts of individual
    facilities in its cost estimates of SCRs?
        How is EPA taking into account the need for an affected utility
    company to move and relocate previously installed pollution control
    equipment in order to accommodate SCRs?
        Answer. Where the State has provided reasoned cost estimates of
    equipment staging and other operational or logistical concerns in
    installing retrofits, EPA adopts and approves the State's figures when
    evaluating a SIP for approval. In cases where EPA must estimate these
    costs independently, EPA relies on its engineering judgement and
    experience to make reasoned cost estimates. In some instances, EPA has
    conducted site visits and revised its estimates to accommodate spacing
    concerns and in another case, has invited public comment to better
    estimate costs and compliance timing concerns for a source that was
    faced with several SCR retrofits.
        Question. In computing the cost per ton of emission reductions
    expected to result from adding new controls on a unit, what is the
    legal justification for EPA lowering its cost effectiveness
    determinations by including reductions already achieved by emission
    controls that already exist on that unit?
        For example, if Low NOX Burners already exist on a unit,
    why does EPA assume that emission reductions resulting from those Low
    NOX Burners should instead be attributed to new SCR controls
    and thus result in lower dollars per ton removed amount for the SCR
    controls?
        Answer. These questions address the distinction between what is
    commonly referred to as average versus incremental cost effectiveness
    when evaluating the cost factor for the BART determination. Average
    cost effectiveness is the overall cost per ton of implementing a given
    control option compared to the control (if any) that is in place now or
    was in place as of some historical baseline date. Incremental cost
    effectiveness is the marginal cost per ton of implementing each
    succeeding and more stringent control option. Usually, incremental
    cost/ton will be higher than average cost/ton. The BART Guidelines
    recommend consideration of both types of cost effectiveness metrics
    when making a BART determination. It is a misperception that EPA
    considers only the average cost effectiveness when reviewing regional
    haze SIPs, i.e., that we give credit to SCR for emission reductions
    that could be achieved by Low NOX burners. The records of
    our actions on regional haze SIPs document that EPA has considered both
    metrics when reviewing whether a State has made a technically correct
    and reasoned BART determination, or when EPA makes a BART
    determination. When we use BART outcomes that have been decided in
    other States or for other sources in the same State as benchmarks for
    what costs are reasonable, we logically compare incremental cost/ton
    values to incremental cost/ton values, and average cost/ton values to
    average cost/ton values. EPA does not use a bright line test for either
    the average or the incremental cost/ton.
        Question. CAA requires reasonable progress toward the goal of
    reducing regional haze at national parks and wilderness areas for 2064.
        If EPA requires the most stringent pollution reduction equipment on
    nearby coal plants today, what steps will be left to take in the future
    to achieve this goal?
        Answer. In the regional haze rule, EPA recognized the relatively
    long time horizon necessary to achieve the aggressive statutory goal of
    the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
    impairment of visibility in Class I areas. CAA, however, neither
    requires States to achieve that goal by 2064 nor does it excuse States
    from adopting reasonable measures that would achieve the goal more
    quickly. EPA adopted an analytical requirement in the regional haze
    rule requiring States to consider the measures necessary to achieve the
    national goal by 2064. The adoption of this analytical requirement does
    not mean that States should delay the adoption of reasonable measures
    such that the national goal is not achieved until 2064.
        States must adopt, in their SIPs, the measures necessary to make
    reasonable progress, which is defined as the emission reduction
    measures that are reasonable to put in place in a given planning period
    in light of costs and visibility benefits, not by any presumed path
    between current conditions and natural conditions. Given the
    significant impact on visibility from many coal plants and the highly
    cost effective control measures, in many cases the installation of
    controls on coal plants is appropriate to ensuring reasonable progress.
    Even with such measures, much additional work will still be necessary
    in future planning periods to meet the national goal.

            INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT--EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514

        Question. Executive Order 13514 requires the Federal Government to
    purchase energy-efficient computer equipment that has been approved by
    Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). EPEAT is a
    proprietary list owned by the Green Electronics Council (GEC), which
    certifies information technology equipment to the Institute of
    Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 1680 standard. GEC charges
    six-figure fees to manufacturers to certify that their equipment is
    compliant with IEEE 1680 and eligible for government purchase. Other
    testing labs have indicated that they are capable of certifying
    products to IEEE 1680 at a much lower price.
        Is EPA taking any steps to allow for competition, which will reduce
    the prices that the Government pays for computer equipment?
        Answer. EPA is not responsible for the management of EPEAT or GEC,
    but EPA has a representative on the EPEAT Advisory Council who, in that
    capacity, has opportunities to provide suggestions to the GEC on ways
    to improve this green purchasing tool.
        Through its role on the EPEAT Advisory Council, EPA has
    communicated, and the GEC has recognized, the value of increasing
    competition for verification services under the EPEAT Program. In May
    2012, the GEC entered into a formal partnership with four third-party
    certification organizations to expand the breadth and depth of
    verification options available to manufacturers under the EPEAT
    program. These organizations--UL Environment, Intertek, VDE, and DEKRA
    SE--just took part in an extensive training GEC organized on the EPEAT
    system in preparation for their verification of products on the EPEAT
    Registry. For further information, please see http://www.epeat.net/pre-
    network.
        By way of clarification, the GEC utilizes a sliding scale under
    which the annual fees that manufacturing companies pay for verification
    services are calibrated according to their sales volume. Thus, smaller
    firms with lower sales volume pay significantly less in annual fees
    than do firms with higher sales. For further information about fees,
    please see http://www.epeat.net/documents/subscriber-resources/epeat-
    mse-1680.1-fee-schedule.2011-12.pdf.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven

                           FORT BERTHOLD RESERVATION

        Question. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Synthetic
    Minor Source rule has the potential to shut down oil and gas drilling
    on the Fort Berthold Reservation if a workable rule is not finalized by
    August 30, 2012. Will EPA have a rule finalized by August 30 to ensure
    the economic activity continues on the Fort Berthold Reservation? If a
    plan is not finalized by August 30, how will EPA provide a pathway to
    compliance for operators to ensure drilling will continue on the
    Reservation?
        Answer. In responding to the question, EPA assumes that the
    ``Synthetic Minor Source rule'' refers to the Review of New Sources and
    Modifications in Indian Country Rule (also known as the Tribal Minor
    New Source Review Program) published July 1, 2011 (76 FR 38748). EPA
    does not believe there is the potential to shut down oil and gas
    drilling on the Fort Berthold Reservation. In fact, just the opposite
    is true. For projects in Indian country that exceed major source
    thresholds, EPA has now made ``synthetic minor'' permits available.
    This streamlined permitting mechanism has previously been available in
    States, but only became available in Indian country with the
    publication of the Tribal Minor New Source Review (NSR) Program.
    Without this streamlining mechanism, oil and gas drilling projects on
    Fort Berthold that exceed major source thresholds would be subject to
    permitting under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
    Program.
        Ten companies operating on the Fort Berthold Reservation are
    currently subject to consensual enforcement agreements for drilling
    operations that may have been conducted without first obtaining the
    appropriate permits. EPA is actively working with these companies to
    amend their agreements to allow construction of new wells during July
    and August of 2012 without first obtaining synthetic minor permits from
    EPA. This action will effectively protect the companies through the end
    of August 2012, when the agreements expire.
        We recognize that additional measures are necessary to maintain the
    continued pace of development of oil and gas resources on the Fort
    Berthold Reservation. To accomplish that goal, EPA, in consultation
    with the tribes and the Fort Berthold Reservation operators, is
    developing a targeted rule for the Fort Berthold Reservation that would
    provide enforceable controls on specific oil and gas production
    equipment. For the large majority of oil production sources, these
    controls are likely to be sufficient to limit emissions to below the
    major source PSD thresholds. EPA also proposed synthetic minor permits
    for several of these sources. These proposed permits and the comments
    received regarding them have informed the rule development.
        EPA has committed to develop the Tribal Minor NSR rule in a timely
    manner. Management in both the regional and headquarters offices fully
    support this effort and have already committed substantial technical
    and legal staff resources to the rule. To date, there have been no
    permit-related delays in the development of new oil wells on the
    Reservation. If Fort Berthold operators desire an added layer of
    insurance against operating delays or interruption of activities they
    are encouraged to file synthetic minor permit applications for
    equipment they intend to operate in the near term after August 30,
    2012. EPA does not believe this added insurance is necessary, but will
    process quickly any permits that it receives.

           PERMITTING GUIDANCE--DIESEL FUEL AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

        Question. May 4, 2012, EPA released draft permitting guidance for
    using diesel fuel in oil and gas hydraulic fracturing.
        How is EPA going to enforce this guidance with States that have
    primacy?
        Question. In a State with Underground Injection Control primacy,
    will EPA have the ability to over-file against a company that does not
    permit a well that uses diesel?
        Answer. EPA's draft permitting guidance for diesel fuels hydraulic
    fracturing was directed at EPA permit writers where EPA is the
    enforcement authority. As indicated in the draft guidance, it also sets
    forth EPA's best current interpretation of the existing statutory and
    regulatory requirements with respect to diesel fuels hydraulic
    fracturing, and, therefore, may be useful to States. States with
    primacy for the Class II Underground Injection Control program have
    some latitude in designing a permitting program for diesel fuels
    hydraulic fracturing. While in some cases the EPA may have the
    authority to bring an enforcement action in a primacy State, it is not
    the EPA's intention to assume the role of State primacy agencies.

           PERMITTING GUIDANCE--DIESEL FUEL AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

        Question. Please identify what is the source of dollars EPA is
    using to complete the study identified by the Congress in EPA's fiscal
    year 2010 budget?
        Answer. EPA is using the funds that the Congress appropriated
    through the Science and Technology (S&T) appropriation in fiscal years
    2010, 2011, and 2012 to continue to study the relationship between
    hydraulic fracturing and drinking water as specified in the 2010 Senate
    Appropriations Committee conference report.
        Question. Please identify the source of dollars the EPA is using
    for any other study of hydraulic fracturing the EPA is a party.
        Answer. Currently, we are not doing any hydraulic fracturing
    research outside of the fiscal year 2010 ``Plan to Study the Potential
    Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources''. EPA will
    continue to use the drinking water research S&T appropriated funds to
    complete this study.
        Question. Please identify the source of funds for each individual
    study.
        Answer. The only hydraulic fracturing study EPA is conducting is
    the fiscal year 2010 congressionally requested, ``Plan to Study the
    Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water
    Resources.'' All current hydraulic fracturing research falls under the
    purview of this study plan. EPA will continue to use the drinking water
    research S&T appropriated funds to complete this study.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Reed. If there are no further questions, I will
    conclude the hearing.
        [Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., Wednesday, May 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 2013

                                  ----------

                                           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 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 2013 funding for the
    National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a level of $155 million, which
    aligns closely with President Obama's fiscal 2013 budget request.
        I would first like to thank Chairman Jack Reed and Ranking Member
    Lisa Murkowski for your efforts last year to appropriate $155 million
    to the National Endowment for the Arts. Your leadership helped to
    prevent a large cut that was being proposed in the House of
    Representatives. The arts community owes you and your colleagues a debt
    of gratitude for your public stance in support of NEA's critical
    Federal leveraging dollars. Those dollars help support creative sector
    jobs, improve community access to high quality artistic programming,
    spur innovation, and strengthen the country's nonprofit arts
    infrastructure. Thank you again for your support.
        I want to take this opportunity to describe an improving nonprofit
    arts landscape and the role NEA plays in that improvement. This is not
    to say there are no challenges. According to our new 2012 National Arts
    Index, nonprofit arts organizations are still struggling to maintain
    their bottom lines as Government and private-sector support for the
    arts decreases due to the economic downturn. Even as the country
    continues to move out of the worst of the recession, nonprofit arts
    organizations are not immune to the prevailing economic realities. 45
    percent of them ended the year with a deficit in 2009--an increase from
    36 percent in 2007. Our research shows that this closely mirrors the
    recession's impact on other types of nonprofit organizations.
        But upon closer inspection of the nonprofit arts, a resilient
    industry built upon a solid foundation for future growth is revealed.
    Despite the current harsh economic landscape, the creative sector has
    maintained its well-earned reputation as one of the country's premier
    economic drivers. I am pleased to say that the nonprofit arts are
    playing a true leadership role in restoring our economy. The arts are
    about jobs. The arts are about the revitalization of communities. NEA
    is the signature Federal resource that enables nonprofit arts
    organizations and institutions to leverage relatively modest Federal
    seed money and maximize their influence.
        You have heard me cite the numbers from our studies before, but
    they bear repeating. Especially as our elected officials are tasked
    with assessing what priorities to fund while the Nation struggles to
    balance its books and still provide essential services. Our Arts &
    Economic Prosperity III study shows that the nonprofit arts industry
    generates $166 billion in economic activity every year, supporting 5.7
    million jobs in the United States and generates nearly $30 billion in
    Government revenue.
        Since its creation in 1965, NEA has grown the arts and culture
    sector significantly. The year of its founding, there were fewer than
    7,000 nonprofit arts organizations; today there are 113,000. Five State
    arts agencies have blossomed to 50 and some 200 local arts agencies to
    5,000. NEA's one-to-one matching grant requirement has created a
    positive economic domino effect that promotes communities, businesses,
    and local government working in unison to deliver quality arts
    programming. And this creates jobs. Also since that time, the number of
    artists in the United States has grown from 560,000 to 2.2 million--now
    accounting for 1.5 percent of the total workforce.
        And that is just the nonprofit side of the ledger. Our analysis of
    Dun & Bradstreet data shows that there are an additional 800,000 for-
    profit arts businesses such as film, design, and architecture firms
    with 3.3 million people on the payroll. Our 2012 Creative Industries
    study provides a research-based approach to understanding the scope and
    importance of the arts to the Nation's economy. Arts-centric businesses
    from nonprofit museums, symphonies, and theaters to for-profit film,
    architecture, and advertising companies represent 4.25 percent of all
    businesses and 2.15 percent of all employees nationwide.
        As of January 2012, Rhode Island is home to 3,248 arts-related
    businesses that employ 13,445 people. Alaska is home to 2,229 arts-
    related businesses that employ 6,522 people. Nationally, there are
    904,581 businesses in the United States involved in the creation or
    distribution of the arts. Arts are the cornerstone of tourism. Arts
    travelers are ideal tourists--they stay longer and spend more. The U.S.
    Department of Commerce reports that the percentage of international
    travelers who include arts and culture events during their stay has
    increased annually for the last 6 years. The arts industry generates
    $150 billion annually in consumer spending domestically and the U.S.
    export of goods has increased to the point where is it running a $41
    billion trade surplus.
        As you can see, the arts are big business. NEA is helping lead the
    way for the nonprofit aspects of this business to continue aiding in
    our Nation's recovery.
        The creative community's rate of return to Federal and State
    coffers would be the envy of any industry. Whether it is through
    supporting State arts agencies, Blue Star Museums, Art Works grants,
    the tried and true Mayors Institute on City Design (MICD), or the
    innovative Our Town initiative, NEA is the Nation's most recognized
    partnership between the Government and culture and plays a crucial role
    in fostering a highly developed creative sector.
        NEA, under the leadership of Chairman Rocco Landesman, has fully
    grasped the challenges of its primary role of ensuring access to the
    arts to all Americans through their signature grants but also by
    providing a range of programming and research that addresses and
    measures changing audiences and artistic delivery. The cornerstone
    grant programs like Art Works, Challenge America Fast Track Grants, and
    Our Town continue to advance distinctive cultural art forms, promote
    artistic access across the country, and help revitalize communities.
        NEA continues to be pivotal for investments in local cultural
    programming. Chairman Landesman continues to build upon the proven
    successes of NEA grants models with inventive agency initiatives that
    recognize the changing landscape and their unique position to help
    strengthen communities through partnerships with local and State
    governments, the business sector, and the nonprofit arts.
        With these guiding principles in mind, the creative placemaking
    concept of Our Town was born. According to NEA, ``Communities across
    our Nation are engaging design and leveraging the arts to create
    livable, sustainable neighborhoods with enhanced quality of life,
    increased creative activity, distinct identities, a sense of place, and
    vibrant local economies that capitalize on existing local assets.'' A
    limited amount of grants ranging from $25,000 to $125,000 are made to
    improve quality of life, sustainability, and livability of communities
    with the arts as an anchor toward those goals.
        Artists, designers, community organizations, and Government
    agencies work to together to systematically ``Improve their quality of
    life; Encourage creative activity; Create community identity and a
    sense of place and Revitalize local economies.''
        I want to acknowledge the work that Chairman Landesman and the
    agency have done to address the ever-changing arts landscape. Today,
    audiences are absorbing and participating in the arts in many different
    ways. NEA is constantly evolving with the times while still ensuring
    quality arts programming reaches all our communities. We are excited
    that the administration has proposed doubling Our Town funding to $10
    million in grant funds.
        In conclusion, I respectfully request that the subcommittee fund
    NEA at $155 million, as you did last year. Recent decreases in funding
    have led to fewer grants and less leveraging support that impact jobs
    in every State. Recent efforts by the agency to streamline the grants
    process and trim administrative costs have led to incremental boosts
    for all grant categories across the board. It is my profound hope that
    the subcommittee can do even more for citizen participation in the arts
    by continuing to demonstrate leadership, believing in the nonprofit
    arts sector and by supporting NEA.
        The cultural community stands ready to assist you in supporting
    these fundamentally important programs and initiatives. Thank you for
    the honor of testifying before the subcommittee today.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of American Forests

        Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: American Forests
    appreciates the opportunity to submit written public testimony
    regarding our fiscal year 2013 appropriation recommendations. We
    understand the economic realities facing the Nation and the need for
    fiscal responsibility, and we thank this subcommittee for its support
    of key Federal conservation programs in the fiscal year 2012
    Consolidated Appropriations Act. The return on investing in our
    Nation's forests is great, whether those forests are public or private,
    urban, or rural. The economic, social, and environmental benefits
    healthy forests provide are clear incentives for Federal investment.
    American Forests funding requests are generally consistent with the
    President's proposals, with the exception of an increase for Forest
    Health Management to $128 million.
        American Forests is a national nonprofit 501(c)(3) conservation
    organization that restores and protects urban and rural forests.
    Founded in 1875, American Forests is the oldest national nonprofit
    conservation organization in the country. Throughout history, American
    Forests has served as a catalyst for many of the most important
    milestones in the conservation movement, including the founding of the
    United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (USFS),
    the national forest and national park system. Today, American Forests'
    primary objectives are:
      --ensuring healthy forests and expanding forest cover throughout the
            United States;
      --restoring and protecting threatened forest ecosystems;
      --assuring that public and private forests are managed in ways that
            give high priority to ecosystem services; and
      --assessing and managing threats such as climate change, invasive
            species, insects and disease, wildfire, and conversion of land
            to nonforest uses to limit their impacts on healthy forests.
        The economic benefits of our Nation's forests highlight the
    importance of American Forests' priorities. For example, combined
    spending on hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching associated with
    National Forest System lands totals $9.5 billion in annual retail
    sales, supports 189,400 jobs and provides $1.01 billion in annual
    Federal tax revenues.\1\ Protecting and restoring our forests will
    ensure economic and environmental viability for communities that rely
    on them for clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat, increased health
    and well-being, and recreational opportunities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Southwick Associates, ``The Economics Associated with Outdoor
    Recreation, Natural Resources Conservation and Historic Preservation in
    the United States'', October 10, 2011, p. 2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ensuring Healthy Forests and Expanding Cover
        USDA Secretary Vilsack's vision for an ``all-lands'' approach to
    managing forests at the landscape and watershed scale fits with
    American Forests' objectives of ensuring healthy forests in urban and
    rural settings whether privately owned or publicly managed. American
    Forests supports the following programs within the USDA to assist
    communities and private land owners with efforts to protect, restore,
    and sustainably manage their forests.
        United States Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry.--Urban
    forests are integral to any community striving to reinvest in itself,
    to encourage an active and healthy citizenry, and to create a more
    sustainable environment and economy through green infrastructure.
    American Forests works to better understand the environmental, social,
    and economic benefits of urban forests and to encourage greater
    investment in the protection and restoration of urban forests. We
    support the administration's request of $28.04 million. While this is a
    reduction from the fiscal year 2012 funding level, we believe that
    urban forestry activities will fare well in the new Landscape Scale
    Restoration Program which the agency proposes as a next step in its
    redesign effort for State and Private Forestry. We support funding the
    new Landscape Scale Restoration Program at $18 million and believe that
    it will provide opportunity for innovative urban forestry projects at a
    landscape or watershed scale.
        United States Forest Service Forest Legacy.--The Forest Legacy
    Program has become a key tool for USFS working in partnership with
    State governments and nonprofit conservation organizations to protect
    environmentally important private forests threatened by conversion to
    nonforest uses. American Forests supports the administration's request
    for an increase more than fiscal year 2012 enacted to $60 million.
        United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
    Conservation Service and United States Forest Service Farm Bill
    Conservation Programs.--The Natural Resources Conservation Service
    (NRCS) and USFS partner with private landowners, providing technical
    and financial assistance to help protect farm and ranch lands and
    private forestlands. USFS provides key assistance for management plans
    on private lands through the Forest Stewardship Program. The NRCS has
    the responsibility for implementing most of the landowner assistance
    programs in the conservation title of the 2008 farm bill. In fiscal
    year 2013, NRCS programs will support conservation practices on an
    additional 27 million acres at a total cost of approximately $3.9
    billion, and achieve a record total cumulative enrollment of nearly 329
    million acres in conservation programs such as the Conservation Reserve
    Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation
    Security Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. American
    Forests supports full funding for these conservation programs.
    Restoring and Protecting Threatened Forests
        Specific forested landscapes need to be prioritized due to their
    level of degradation, ecological importance, or cultural significance.
    American Forests is encouraged by USFS's initiative to increase the
    pace of restoration of the national forests, to prioritize those most
    in peril, and to address restoration needs through an integrated
    landscape-level approach
        United States Forest Service Integrated Resource Restoration.--The
    consolidated budget line item for restoration with specific performance
    measures has the potential to increase the rate of restoration in a
    much more focused manner. This focus is evident in USFS's recent report
    ``Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on Our National
    Forests''. The 3-region test pilot created in fiscal year 2012 was an
    important first step to fully understand how this integrated effort
    would work. American Forests' supports the concept and believes that
    better outcomes and greater efficiencies can be achieved through more
    widespread use of the Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR),
    particularly in combination with the agency's new Watershed Condition
    Framework. USFS used this framework in 2011 and 2012 to complete its
    first national assessment of watershed health across the entire
    National Forest System, to identify priority watersheds and to prepare
    Watershed Restoration Action Plans. While there is currently no
    dedicated funding for this activity, the agency can make progress on
    implementing these plans through greater use of the IRR.
        United States Forest Service Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration.--American Forests truly appreciates the full funding
    Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration received in fiscal year
    2012. The addition of 10 more projects to the program will enhance the
    collaborative and science-based ecosystem restoration of priority
    forest landscapes while benefiting local communities. In the first 2
    years of the program, fiscal years 2010 and 2011, the cumulative
    outputs generated by the projects included:
      --228 million board feet of timber;
      --2,100 jobs created or maintained;
      --$80 million in labor income;
      --167,000 acres of hazardous fuels reduction to protect communities;
      --110,000 acres of fire-prone forest restoration; and
      --198 miles of road conditions improved to reduce sediment in
            streams.
        American Forests supports the full funding of this program at $40
    million.
        United States Forest Service Federal Land Assistance, Management
    and Enhancement Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund.--As part of a broad
    coalition supporting Federal Land Assistance, Management and
    Enhancement (FLAME), we believe it is critical to fund FLAME at $315
    million. The intent of FLAME was to eliminate the need to transfer
    funds from other USFS programs in order to fund emergency wildfire
    suppression--a practice that undermined the agency's ability to
    implement other critical programs. Failure to adequately fund FLAME
    this year could force the agency to revert to the old practice and have
    disastrous effects on those programs.
    Prioritizing Ecosystem Services
        American Forests is dedicated to promoting all the ecological and
    societal benefits that forests provide us. Prioritizing protection of
    these forests that provide the ecosystem services saves municipalities
    money in wastewater treatment and stormwater management. They provide
    recreational opportunities and protect wildlife. The USFS is not the
    only steward of our Nation's forests, as the Department of the
    Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, and
    Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), as well as the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) have numerous programs dedicated to the health
    and restoration of forested lands. American Forests encourages funding
    these programs at the administration's requested levels.
        Bureau of Land Management National Landscape Conservation System.--
    The System comprises 27 million acres of protected public land managed
    to maintain and enhance conservation values and allow for multiple,
    sustainable uses. The System's goal is to conserve, protect, and
    restore these important landscapes for their outstanding cultural,
    ecological, and scientific values. Of the 59 million visitors to BLM
    lands in 2010, approximately 20 million visited these units and
    recreation activities on NLCS units created approximately 20,000 jobs.
    American Forests believes the administration's request for $69.55
    million is needed to prevent critical damage to these resources, ensure
    proper management and provide for quality visitor experiences.
        Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System.--The
    Refuge System, with 556 refuges on more than 150 million acres across
    the country is vital to protecting America's wildlife and ensuring that
    these habitats are a priority. Visited by approximately 45 million
    people each year generating nearly $4 billion and more than 32,500 jobs
    to regional economies,\2\ investment in the Refuge system is
    imperative. While it is well documented that an annual operations and
    maintenance budget should total at least $900 million,\3\ American
    Forests supports the administration's request for $494.8 million, an
    $8.8 million increase more than fiscal year 2012 enacted.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Department of the Interior's Economic Contributions, 2011.
        \3\ Restoring America's Wildlife Refuges 2011: Assets for All
    Americans, Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Program.--For nearly
    40 years, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has helped prevent the
    extinction of our Nation's treasured wildlife and plant species, many
    of which thrive in forested habitat. While the ESA has made significant
    strides in protecting our most imperiled species--99 percent of species
    protected under the ESA have been rescued from extinction and 20
    species have been restored to the point of no longer needing
    protection--there are still major shortfalls. Numerous species in need
    of protection, including the whitebark pine, are precluded from the
    list due to lack of adequate resources. American Forests supports the
    administration's request for an additional $3.74 million more than
    fiscal year 2012 to a total of $179.69 million.
        National Park Service.--American Forests was instrumental nearly
    100 years ago in the creation of the national parks and continues to
    this day supporting the service that is the steward of the Nation's
    most cherished natural and cultural resources--397 park units, 23
    national scenic and historic trails, and 58 wild and scenic rivers.
    However, many of these forested parks are threatened by a series of
    stresses. Invasive species and uncontrolled outbreaks of pests have
    left these forested treasures vulnerable. American Forests is dedicated
    to restoring these parks, especially those in the intermountain west
    affected by the mountain pine bark beetle. As such, we support the
    administration's request for funding the National Park System at $2.986
    billion.
        Environmental Protection Agency Urban Waters Program.--No
    ecological boundaries separate urban, community, and rural forests--and
    all forests play vital roles in delivering clean water to communities
    of every size. EPA's Urban Waters Partnership brings together multiple
    Federal agencies (including USFS) to support stewardship and local
    restoration efforts to improve urban watersheds and accelerate water
    quality improvements by promoting green infrastructure, volunteer
    monitoring, and outreach to communities. American Forests supports the
    request of $4.7 million.
    Managing Under a Multitude of Pressures
        With all that forests provide, we need to better understand the
    multitude of pressures they face and manage them in a sustainable
    manner. Forests can be managed in ways that mitigate the impacts of a
    changing climate, invasive species, insect infestation, disease, large
    wildfires, and conversion to nonforest uses.
        United States Forest Service Forest Health Management.--This
    program provides insect, disease, and invasive plant survey and
    monitoring information on forest health conditions on Federal and non-
    Federal lands and provides technical and financial assistance to
    prevent, suppress, and control outbreaks threatening forest resources
    and watershed conditions. The number of acres affected by only the
    highest-priority pests is astronomical and the prevention and
    suppression needs are many. Since 1997, 41.7 million acres of conifer
    forests from the west coast to the Rocky Mountains have been affected
    by mountain pine bark beetles. From 2000-2009, bark beetle caused
    mortality over an estimated 21.7 million acres in the intermountain
    west. American Forests proposes funding this critical program at $128
    million in fiscal year 2013, a level higher than the administration's
    request. Our recommendation reflects the need to restore funding to a
    level more consistent with its funding prior to fiscal year 2012, when
    it was cut by $25 million.
        United States Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Research.--USFS
    research and development provides scientific information and new
    technologies to support sustainable management of the Nation's forests
    and rangelands. The priority research areas of forest disturbances,
    forest inventory and analysis, watershed management and restoration,
    urban natural resource stewardship, and localized needs are all
    integral to better understanding our forests. American Forests supports
    the USFS Forest and Rangeland Research at the administration's request
    for $292.79 million.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the African Wildlife Foundation; American
    Veterinary Medical Association; Association of Zoos & Aquariums; Bonobo
     Conservation Initiative; Born Free USA; The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund
          International; Fauna & Flora International; Humane Society
     International; The Humane Society of the United States; International
    Crane Foundation; International Elephant Foundation; International Fund
    for Animal Welfare; the Jane Goodall Institute; The Nature Conservancy;
     Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Center for Elephant Conservation;
        Rare Species Fund; International Rhino Foundation; Safari Club
     International; Sea Turtle Conservancy; Wildlife Conservation Society;
                            and World Wildlife Fund

        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
    subcommittee, the undersigned groups submit this testimony on the
    importance of the international conservation programs within the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Office of International Affairs,
    specifically the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, the Wildlife
    Without Borders (WWB) and International Wildlife Trade programs. These
    programs enjoy the support of a broad-based coalition comprised of 33
    organizations representing sportsmen, conservationists, zoos,
    aquariums, circuses, veterinarians, animal welfare groups, and their
    more than 20 million members. We thank you for your past and consistent
    support for these programs. In fiscal year 2013, we respectfully
    request your support for continued funding of the Multinational Species
    Conservation Fund at the administration's requested level of $9.98
    million. We also request continued support for the Office of
    International Affairs at $13 million, as requested by the
    administration in the fiscal year 2013.
        Wildlife conservation programs are a modest, but essential piece of
    the United States' engagement with the developing world. Efforts to
    conserve our planet's wildlife and habitat are of the highest urgency.
    Extinctions are irreversible and increasing at an unprecedented rate.
    Because wildlife recognizes no political borders, an effective response
    requires nations to work together cooperatively, and because these
    animals often reside in relatively impoverished developing countries,
    support from interested countries such as the United States is crucial.
    The U.S. Government has been a consistent leader in this respect, and
    the modest funding for these programs goes a very long way, reaping
    significant returns and making them an excellent investment.

                    MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

        Through the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF), the
    United States supplements the efforts of developing countries
    struggling to balance the needs of their human populations and endemic
    wildlife. These modest Federal programs, administered by the FWS, make
    targeted investments in conservation of several global priority
    species. In 1989, the Congress passed the African Elephant Conservation
    Act authorizing a dedicated fund in response to the threat posed to
    that species by rampant ivory poaching. Four more funds have since been
    authorized to support the conservation of Asian elephants, great apes,
    marine turtles, and tigers and rhinos. Each of the funds is authorized
    at $5 million, with the exception of the Rhino-Tiger Conservation Fund,
    which was intended as a double fund to address both sets of species,
    and is therefore authorized at $10 million. Appropriated funds for the
    programs have remained roughly 30 percent or less of the authorized
    level.
        MSCF programs have played a critical role in saving wild
    populations of these species by controlling poaching, reducing human-
    wildlife conflict and protecting essential habitat. They have generated
    enormous constituent interest and strong bipartisan support in the
    Congress. The MSCF has awarded more than 1,800 grants to more than 265
    organizations for conservation projects in more than 75 countries.
    These small grants consistently leverage between 2 to 3 times as much
    in matching funds from public and private partners. From 1990 to 2011,
    the Congress appropriated a total of $88 million for MSCF grant
    programs, which generated more than $200 million in matching and in-
    kind contributions. Administrative costs for the program are low, and
    97 percent of the appropriated funds are distributed through grants. By
    conserving iconic species, these programs help sustain large areas of
    habitat home to a rich diversity of flora and fauna. By working with
    local communities and improving livelihoods, they build capacity and
    support for conservation in the developing world, contribute to
    economic growth and stability, and support U.S. interests in
    strategically important regions of the globe. Following are success
    stories for each of the five funds.
        Rhino-Tiger Conservation Fund.--In both Africa and Asia, rhinos are
    suffering a poaching crisis. Fewer than 50 Javan rhinos now remain in
    the wild in Indonesia, with none in captivity. Last year saw the
    extinction of rhinos in Vietnam when the last individual in that
    country was found killed by poachers. South Africa, which is home to 80
    percent of the planet's remaining black rhinos, is experiencing a
    shocking rise in rhino poaching driven by Asian demand for rhino horn,
    which is worth up to $30,000/lb on the black market. Earlier in the
    decade, perhaps a dozen animals were killed in South Africa annually.
    Since 2007, there has been an exponential increase. In 2011 a total of
    448 rhinos were killed--nearly four times as many as in 2009. Other
    African countries fear the poaching will spread to their rhino
    populations. Through the RTCF, FWS is working to respond. RTCF support
    to World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and local partners for anti-poaching,
    habitat restoration and rhino monitoring in Nepal helped to ensure that
    no rhinos were poached in that country in 2011. In Namibia, support for
    camel patrols have reduced illegal wildlife trade, providing security
    and regular monitoring of Namibia's black rhinos, which have rebounded
    to become the world's largest free-roaming population. This ongoing
    recovery is contributing to the exponential growth in local economic
    benefits for rural Namibians due to wildlife-based tourism, thanks in
    large part to U.S.-supported conservation efforts over the past two
    decades, including through the RTCF.
        As few as 3,200 wild tigers remain throughout all of Asia--down
    from 5,000-7,000 a decade ago. Tiger body parts continue to be in high
    demand on the global black market, including organs and bones, which
    are used in Asian tonics and medicines purchased by wealthy buyers
    believing they convey strength, virility or status. RTCF funding is
    supporting the creation and expansion of tiger reserves and protected
    areas in Malaysia, India and Thailand, anti-poaching and enforcement
    efforts in Sumatra, and research, monitoring and capacity building in
    countries such as Nepal, where WWF helped conduct the first ever
    nationwide assessment of tiger populations, distribution and prey base
    in 2009. Last July, the Government of Thailand arrested tiger poachers
    operating in the Western Forest Complex, one of the country's most
    important protected areas and a critical landscape for tigers and other
    wildlife. The arrest, which yielded an abundance of evidence about
    poaching activities in the region, was an achievement of the SMART
    patrol, a systematic, evidence-based adaptive management program
    designed to increase monitoring and enforcement. With RTCF support,
    Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) is helping to train rangers in
    countries such as Thailand on SMART patrol methods. In November 2010, a
    Global Tiger Summit was held in St. Petersburg, Russia at which tiger
    range states and supportive countries, including the United States,
    pledged to ramp up coordinated efforts to save tigers, with a goal of
    doubling wild tiger populations by 2022. To address critical needs for
    both rhinos and tigers, we recommend at least $2.697 million for the
    RTCF in fiscal year 2013, the same as in the administration's fiscal
    year 2013 budget request.
        African Elephant Conservation Fund.--Despite much success in
    elephant conservation over the past two decades, ivory remains a
    lucrative commodity, and rising demand in China along with ongoing
    instability and porous borders in many areas of Central Africa provide
    opportunities for well-organized gangs of poachers to decimate that
    region's remaining elephant populations. This winter, heavily armed
    northern Sudanese and Chadian poachers crossed into Cameroon's Bouba
    N'Djida National Park and slaughtered an estimated 300-400 elephants--
    more than one-half of the park's remaining population. The scale of the
    ongoing slaughter is unprecedented, and the cross-border incursion has
    prompted an intervention by the Cameroonian military to defend the
    country's sovereignty and save its remaining elephants, with lives lost
    on both sides. The poachers have suspected connections to the Jangaweed
    militia, and profits from illicit ivory sales are believed to help fund
    their purchases of guns and other armaments. The African Elephant
    Conservation Fund (AfECF) is supporting improved protected area
    enforcement in several African countries, including hiring and training
    of local ``ecoguards''. Ecoguards in Chad's Zakouma National Park
    prevented organized gangs from poaching one of the last and largest
    herds of elephants in the Sahel. In Cameroon's Campo Ma'an National
    Park, the AfECF supported a large-scale anti-poaching operation
    involving village and forest patrols, soldiers and game guards that
    flushed out four suspected poachers, including two notorious elephant
    poachers, and resulted in the seizure of 450 lbs of bushmeat. The AfECF
    is also helping address elephant-human conflict. In Malawi, it has
    helped to resolve a growing conflict between an elephant herd and local
    villagers that included human deaths and retaliation killings against
    elephants. AfECF support helped the Government of Malawi and the
    International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) to move the herd--83
    elephants in all--to Majete Wildlife Reserve in Southern Malawi,
    protecting both the elephants and local livelihoods. We recommend at
    least $1.697 million for the AfECF in fiscal year 2013, the same as in
    the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
        Asian Elephant Conservation Fund.--In Thailand, Asian Elephant
    Conservation Fund (AsECF) support has improved wildlife law
    enforcement, established a population monitoring system, and reduced
    conflicts between humans and elephants in Kaeng Krachan National Park
    by working with local communities to deter elephants from raiding
    crops. In Sumatra, it has also supported Flying Squads--teams of
    rangers equipped with noise and light-making devices and trained
    elephants that drive wild elephants back into the forest whenever they
    threaten to enter villages. The Squads have reduced losses suffered by
    local communities, prevented retaliatory killings and helped reduce
    elephant mortality in Riau by 27 percent in 2009 compared to the
    previous 4 years. The AsECF has also supported efforts of the
    International Elephant Fund (IEF) and partners to establish
    Conservation Response Units (CRUs) in Sumatra to mitigate human-
    elephant conflict, reduce wildlife crime in elephant habitat through
    forest patrol and monitoring, and raise local conservation awareness.
    CRU teams have recorded more than 500 cases of illegal logging, and 190
    cases were reported to government law enforcement agencies, resulting
    in the closure of three illegal saw mills and seizure of more than
    300m\3\ of illegal timber, 26 vehicles, 17 chainsaws, and 2 industrial
    saws. More than 150 arrests have taken place and two dozen individuals
    have received prison sentences ranging from 4 months to 4.5 years. We
    recommend at least $1.697 million for the AsECF in fiscal year 2013,
    the same as in the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
        Great Ape Conservation Fund.--In 2008, a Great Ape Conservation
    Fund (GACF)-supported survey discovered more than 125,000 western
    lowland gorillas in the Republic of Congo. The program is now
    supporting Ebola surveillance in that country, helping hire more than
    60 eco-guards and training 20 researchers in carcass sampling and 30
    field team leaders in health and biological sampling techniques. More
    than 900 hunters in 71 villages have participated in educational
    programs on Ebola to help prevent its spread. Two separate GACF grants
    are also supporting efforts in the Central African Republic to secure
    long-term protection of the country's gorillas, beef up trans-boundary
    anti-poaching patrols and create economic opportunities around
    sustainable gorilla tourism. MSCF grants made it possible for the Dian
    Fossey Gorilla Fund's Karisoke Research Center to continue protecting
    the mountain gorillas that live in the Virunga Volcanoes located on the
    border between Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and
    Uganda. Karisoke staff follow daily almost one-fourth of the 480
    remaining Virunga mountain gorillas. A 2010 census found that this
    highly endangered subspecies has achieved a remarkable increase of 26
    percent since the previous count in 2003, with an astounding annual
    growth rate of 3.7 percent. This is the only great ape population to
    have increased in recent decades. The GACF has also supported programs
    in both Rwanda and the DRC to improve the health of communities near
    gorilla habitat by upgrading rural clinics, increasing access to clean
    water, reducing intestinal parasite infestations, and supporting small
    animal husbandry. This reduces the likelihood of people transmitting
    parasites and other diseases to the gorillas and reduces people's need
    to seek water and game in the forest. We recommend at least $2.194
    million for the GACF in fiscal year 2013, the same as in the
    administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
        Marine Turtle Conservation Fund.--Nicaragua's Pacific coast
    provides nesting beaches to four highly threatened species of marine
    turtles. The Marine Turtle Conservation Fund (MTCF ) has provided major
    support to the efforts of Fauna and Fauna International (FFI) to
    protect these turtles, especially hawksbill and leatherback
    populations. Before the FFI program began, nearly 100 percent of the
    area's turtle nests were being poached. As a result of beach monitoring
    and protection programs, construction of egg hatcheries and awareness
    efforts, between 80-100 percent of the nests are now successfully
    protected each year and hatching success is increasing annually. During
    the 2010-2011 nesting season, 90 leatherback nests were recorded and 73
    were protected, a 300-percent increase more than the previous season.
    MTCF support has helped achieve similar successes at nesting sites in
    Costa Rica (WWF) and Gabon (WCS). We recommend at least $1.697 million
    for the MTCF in fiscal year 2013, the same as in the administration's
    fiscal year 2013 budget request.

                        OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

        Within the FWS Office of International Affairs, the Wildlife
    Without Borders (WWB) and International Wildlife Trade (IWT) programs
    provide critical support to the on-the-ground species conservation
    programs of the MSCF. The WWB Regional program supports species and
    habitat conservation in priority regions, including Africa, Latin
    America and the Caribbean, India, and Mexico, through capacity
    building, outreach, education, and training. This includes training
    African wildlife professionals to combat the bushmeat trade and working
    to bolster wildlife laws and increase enforcement capacity in African
    countries. The WWB Global program targets cross-cutting, global threats
    to wildlife; supports signature initiatives to maximize long-term
    impact; and addresses declines of critically endangered species, such
    as amphibians. It also fulfills FWS mandates to support U.S. leadership
    through wildlife statutes and international treaties, such as NAFTA,
    the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, and the
    Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). From
    2006 to 2010, WWB programs awarded more than $14 million, leveraging
    nearly $25 million in matching funds for conservation actions, regional
    capacity building, wetlands and migratory species protection and
    efforts to combat disease and illegal trade. IWT works to prevent
    illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products, calculated as the
    third-largest illegal trade after drugs and arms, worth more than $10
    billion annually with strong links to organized crime and the illegal
    trade in arms and drugs. Illegal wildlife trade also transmits disease
    and invasive species, negatively impacting public health and economic
    productivity in the United States, which is one of the largest
    importers and exporters of wildlife products. IWT ensures this trade is
    legal and does not harm species in the wild and implements scientific
    and management requirements of laws and treaties for traded species,
    issuing 15,000-20,000 permits per year. We recommend $13.054 million
    for the Office of International Affairs, as requested in the
    administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
        We hope you will consider the important issues these programs are
    working to address alongside their proven success, their modest cost
    and the broad-based support they enjoy. We urge the subcommittee to
    fund these programs at the levels outlined above. Thank you for your
    consideration.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Ala Kahakai Trail Association

        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 2013
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
    President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
        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 public benefits
    including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
    drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
    assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
    support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
        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, historical, and recreation 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 a conservation
    offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
        The Ala Kahakai Trail Association is a partner to the Ala Kahakai
    National Historic Trail (NHT) and an active member of the Partnership
    for the National Trail System. The Board is made up of individuals who
    have genealogical ties to the trail and have been and continue to work
    toward the preservation and protection of the approximate 175 miles of
    coastal trail. Many portions of the trail are in immediate danger of
    encroaching development which would significantly compromise the
    integrity and historical value of the trial.
        An analogy one member of our Board used was to liken the national
    trails as the string holding a lei together. Without the string, the
    flowers would remain separate. However, by stringing the flowers
    together a beautiful lei is created. This is the same for the national
    parks. The trails serve as a string to link national parks together. In
    the case of the Ala Kahakai NHT, the trail links four national parks:
      --Puu Kohola National Historic Preservation (NHP);
      --Koloko-Honokahau NHP;
      --Pu`uhonua O Honaunau NHP; and
      --the Volcanoes NP.
        Portions of the Ala Kahakai NHT are already in eminent danger. In
    recent past, a new subdivision road was paved within feet of the trail
    leading to potential damage by vehicular traffic, all-terrain vehicles
    and unmonitored use of the fragile trail system. One preventative
    action is to acquire lands bordering the trail to secure protection
    against irreversible damage. The Ala Kahakai Trail Association is ever
    vigilant in seeking opportunities to acquire properties or to create
    wider buffers for the entire length of the trail. Our association has
    established partnerships with county, State and Federal agencies as
    well as with communities along the trail to fulfill this mission and to
    optimize efforts in protecting the trail.
        The Ala Kahakai Trail Association is writing in support for the
    acquisition in fiscal year 2013 by the National Park Service (NPS) of a
    59-acre property located on the Ala Kahakai NHT and immediately
    adjacent to the southern boundary of Pu`uhonua O Honaunau NHP.
    Acquisition of the Pace property in the Kauleoli ahupua`a of South
    Kona, with its more than half-mile of shoreline, will complement recent
    protection efforts at the national historic park and provide additional
    recreational opportunities for users of the Ala Kahakai Trail.
        The Kauleoli property represents an opportunity to protect land of
    historic and ecological significance, and its acquisition will further
    the missions of two National Park Service units. It lies within the
    priority area identified in the management plan of the trail, and its
    addition will provide further protection to the outstanding resources
    for which Pu`uhonua O Honaunau NHP is renowned. The landowners are
    currently willing to make this stunning landscape available for public
    ownership. There is real danger, however, that the land could be sold
    for development if sufficient funding is not forthcoming in a timely
    fashion.
        To protect these 59 acres with their historical, cultural, and
    ecological resources, the NPS needs $4.5 million from the LWCF for the
    Ala Kahakai NHT. This acquisition is eligible for funding under the
    National Trails program requested in the President's budget for fiscal
    year 2013.
        In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the LWCF of $450
    million, as proposed in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget,
    including critical funding for the Ala Kahakai NHT. I want to thank the
    chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to
    submit testimony on behalf of this nationally important protection
    effort in Hawaii, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding
    request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

        My name is Andy Teuber, I am the chairman and president of the
    Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC). For the fiscal year
    2013 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget we are requesting full funding
    for contract support costs (CSC), currently estimated to be $571
    million for fiscal year 2013.
        ANTHC is a statewide tribal health organization that serves all 229
    tribes and more than 140,000 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.

                    FULL FUNDING FOR CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

        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 reimburse our fixed costs 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 reimbursements are
    underfunded we have to use other program funds to make up the
    shortfall, which means fewer providers that we can hire and fewer
    health services that we can provide to our patients.
        We are very thankful for the increases in CSC that this
    subcommittee has been able to provide, beginning with fiscal year 2010,
    particularly the large increase that tribes and tribal organizations
    received last year thanks to the efforts of this subcommittee. Although
    these increases have gone a long way toward helping to diminish the CSC
    shortfall, a significant CSC shortfall remains.
        The best projections available show that the CSC shortfall for
    fiscal year 2012 will be approximately $60 million, and that the
    shortfall in fiscal year 2013 will be nearly $99 million. Given these
    significant shortfalls, IHS's request for only a $5 million increase in
    CSC for fiscal year 2013 is extremely disappointing. Our disappointment
    is particularly acute when we consider that the BIA has requested full
    CSC for its programs.
        The inadequate IHS request could return us to a situation similar
    to the one we endured from 2002 to 2009, when there were virtually no
    increases for IHS CSC appropriations and the CSC shortfall 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 lay off staff due to lack of funds.
        The opposite is also true: when CSC reimbursement increases occur,
    vacant positions are filled. If ANTHC had full funding of our CSC
    requirements, we would be able to fill scores of provider and support
    positions, including enrollment technicians, financial analysts,
    medical billing staff, professional recruiters, maintenance
    technicians, security officers, information technology support, and
    professional support staff.
        ANTHC respectfully requests that the Federal Government honor its
    legal obligations to tribes and tribal organizations and fully fund CSC
    reimbursements by providing $571 million for IHS CSC reimbursements in
    fiscal year 2013.
        I appreciate your consideration of our recommendation for
    additional CSC 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.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association;
      Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation; Maniilaq Association; and the
                        Norton Sound Health Corporation

        We submit this joint testimony on behalf of four co-signers to the
    Alaska Tribal Health Compact, which is a self-governance agreement with
    the Indian Health Service (IHS) under title V of the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act. Our organizations are
    responsible for providing and promoting healthcare and overseeing a
    variety of health programs in our various regions of Alaska, including
    remote villages. Our request is that the Congress direct the IHS to
    utilize existing fiscal year 2013 appropriations to fully fund the
    Village Built Clinics leases in accordance with section 804 of the
    Indian Health Care Improvement Act. We estimate an additional $6.6
    million more than current IHS resources should be allocated to Village
    Built Clinic (VBC) leases.
        We submit this testimony because we have great concern about the
    IHS's continued choice to underfund VBCs in Alaska. This IHS decision
    has jeopardized the provision of basic health services to Alaska
    Natives in their villages through the Community Health Aide Program
    (CHAP), because CHAP services are provided in the VBCs. The CHAP
    program is mandated by the Congress as the instrument for providing
    basic health services in remote Alaska Native villages. The Community
    Health Aides and Practitioners cannot function as medical, behavioral
    health and dental providers in the villages without well maintained and
    suitable clinic facilities with teleconferencing capability, which the
    IHS has the statutory duty to provide under the Indian Health Care
    Improvement Act (IHCIA).
        Rather than allocate sufficient resources for the VBCs, the IHS has
    shifted its statutory responsibilities onto the villages and tribal
    health corporations themselves, which do not have the financial
    resources to maintain and upgrade the clinics for use by the CHAPs.
    This has caused many of the VBCs, often the only healthcare facilities
    in rural Alaska communities, to be unsafe or closed; others are
    unsuitable for use by the CHAPs. This is a longstanding problem which
    has become worse as the years go by. In 2007, the Alaska Native Health
    Board prepared a White Paper entitled ``The Village Built Clinic
    Programs; Village Clinics in Crisis.'' That Paper described this
    problem in great detail. The ANHB estimated that $5.7 million was
    needed to maintain and improve the VBCs for use by the CHAPs. However,
    no additional funding was provided.
        The Village Built Clinic Lease Program.--VBCs are critical to
    maintaining health services for rural Alaska Natives. The IHS Community
    Health Aide Program was developed years ago to respond to disparities
    in healthcare access and to help facilitate improved health status in
    rural Alaska. CHAP now involves a network of health aides/practitioners
    who provide primary healthcare services and coordinate patient care
    through referral relationships with midlevel providers, physicians, and
    regional hospitals.
        The CHAP cannot operate in most of rural Alaska without clinics in
    which to provide the services. In the 1970s, the IHS established the
    VBC leasing program to provide funds for leasing health clinics from
    Alaska Native Villages for the provision of CHAP services. By 1972 the
    IHS was able to lease 142 clinics for a total cost of $842,000
    appropriated by the Congress, and by 1989 the funding for the VBC
    leasing program was approximately $3 million, which came through the
    IHS Hospitals and Clinics sub-activity of the IHS appropriation.
        Indian Health Service Is Legally Responsible to Fully Fund Village
    Built Clinic Leases.--IHS is required to keep the VBCs in good repair.
    Under the IHCIA amendments of the 1992 Congress required the IHS to
    ``maintain'' the CHAP, and in the recent reauthorization of the Act,
    the Congress requires the IHS to ``develop and operate'' the CHAP for
    Alaska healthcare, health promotion, and disease prevention for Alaska
    Natives living in rural Alaska (25 U.S.C. 1616l(a)(2)). The act also
    requires the IHS to ensure that the VBCs are upgraded to establish a
    teleconferencing capability (25 U.S.C. 1616l(a)(3)). IHS cannot fulfill
    these statutory responsibilities without keeping the VBCs maintained
    and in good repair.
        The IHS has traditionally used ``full-service'' leases (presumably
    under the leasing authority in the Federal Property and Administrative
    Services Act of 1949) as the basis for shifting the cost of operation
    and maintenance of the VBCs to the villages. This was apparently done
    as an agency initiative. We have been unable to find any specific
    language added to the IHS appropriation statute for 1970 authorizing
    the VBC leasing program; nor do the appropriation committee reports for
    that year specifically mention adding funds for this purpose. The
    ``full-service'' leases require the Villages to pay for heat, cleaning,
    utilities, maintenance, and replacement. But the rental amounts--which
    in most cases have not been raised since 1994--are woefully inadequate
    to cover all of these expenses. As a result, we (and other Alaska
    regional health organizations) are forced to subsidize the VBCs,
    draining resources that could otherwise be devoted to healthcare
    services.
        IHS has had direct leasing authority under the IHCIA, since it was
    originally enacted in 1976, to enter into leases that cover a full
    range of costs, such as rent, depreciation, and operation and
    maintenance expenses. Such authority also includes reconstruction or
    renovation by IHS of the leased property. This authority was part of
    the original IHCIA, Public Law 94-437, section 704. Now renumbered as
    section 804 of the act, 25 U.S.C. 1674, it authorizes the Secretary,
    ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' to enter into leases
    with Indian tribes for periods not in excess of 20 years. It provides
    that leased property may be ``reconstructed or renovated'' by the
    Secretary and that lease costs ``include rent, depreciation based on
    the useful life of the building, principal and interest paid or
    accrued, operation and maintenance expenses, and other expenses
    determined by regulation to be allowable.'' The House Report for the
    1976 legislation specifically mentions leasing village facilities in
    rural Alaska to help the IHS meet its responsibilities to provide
    health services in remote villages in Alaska.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ H. Rept. 94-1026 (Apr. 9, 1976), 122-123, reprinted in 1976
    U.S.C.C.A.N. 2760-2761.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Contrary to congressional intent, the IHS has continued to shift
    its responsibilities to the villages and to the Alaska Tribal Health
    Compact co-signers, without regard for the health of the people who
    need the VBCs for services. It has become impossible to keep up with
    the costs of operating and maintaining the VBCs, and thus continuing to
    provide needed CHAP services to rural Alaska Natives. In many
    situations, the CHAP has to be operated in unsafe facilities and, in
    some villages, the VBCs have to be closed and CHAP services suspended
    because of safety hazards to the employees and patients.
        In order to establish proper standards of care, compliance
    accreditation by the Joint Commission has been established as one of
    the terms included in the tribal health corporations annual funding
    agreements. Compliance with several of the Joint Commission's
    environments of care standards are simply not possible due to lack of
    funding made available by the IHS to maintain these facilities.
        Additionally, IHS's failure to maintain the VBCs and upgrade them
    directly hampers the ability of the co-signers to the Compact to meet
    the ``meaningful use'' standards set by the Centers for Medicare and
    Medicaid Services in order to be eligible for incentive payments for
    Electronic Health Records (EHR) technology. IHS should ensure that VBCs
    are brought up to the appropriate technological capability for the co-
    signers to be able to qualify for needed incentive payments to
    implement EHR, which will improve patient health and is an important
    congressional initiative.
        Leases Are Underfunded and Indian Health Service Refuses To Use
    Available Appropriations.--The majority of VBC lease rentals have not
    increased since 1989 and the current funding is not sufficient to cover
    inflationary increases and, in particular, the cost of repair and
    renovation of the facilities needed to keep them in a safe condition.
    Funds in the IHS's hospitals and clinics subactivity allocated by IHS
    to the VBC leasing program increased very slowly over the years. For
    example, from 1997 to 2007, funding for the VBC system increased from
    $3,718,268 to $3,903,434, an increase of less than 5 percent over the
    entire 10-year period and well less than the actual costs to operate
    and maintain the VBCs in the same period. As a result, by the end of
    fiscal year 2006 the lease rentals paid to the villages covered only 55
    percent of the village-built clinics' operating costs.\2\ The
    shortfalls have only grown in the 6 years since then, as fuel costs
    (among others) have skyrocketed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See, Village Built Clinic Programs: Village Clinics in Crisis,
    Alaska Native Health Board, May 2007 at 9. Pay act increases during
    this period were not provided to the VBC leasing program. But even if
    they had been, the additional increase would be minimal and would have
    no material impact on the current shortfall for VBC operating costs.
    Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While the IHS leases allow costs for rent, loan amortization, fuel
    for heat, electricity, water and waste disposal, janitorial services
    and supplies, insurance, and costs associated with minor maintenance,
    none of these allowable costs are currently covered by the existing VBC
    lease payments. In 2007, the operation and maintenance shortfall for
    the average VBC was $28,692 per year. Furthermore, major maintenance
    and improvement costs are not provided by the IHS.
        In the past, when this matter has been brought to the IHS's
    attention, IHS has responded that it provides for VBC leases all of the
    funding that the Congress has appropriated for the program. The IHS
    excludes clinics leased under the VBC lease program from maintenance
    and improvement funding because it asserts that the leases are full
    service leases and the leases do not include a reserve fund for
    building improvements and replacement. IHS has told co-signers to the
    Alaska Tribal Health Compact that they cannot use maintenance and
    improvement funding--provided to them under their self-governance
    agreements--for the VBCs. We just don't accept IHS's statements as
    legally correct, and the agency has provided no legal analysis to
    convince us otherwise.
        Based on our review, the amounts historically traceable to the VBC
    lease program are not capped by statute and are not the only funds
    available for that program. The Indian Health Facilities appropriation
    is a lump-sum appropriation that can be used for construction, repair,
    maintenance, improvement and equipment, and includes a subactivity for
    maintenance and improvement of IHS facilities. The VBCs are IHS
    facilities acquired by lease in lieu of construction and should thus be
    eligible for maintenance and improvement funding. The IHS also has the
    ability to access other IHS discretionary funds to fully fund its VBC
    responsibilities.
        We believe there is no question that the IHS has had sufficient
    funds in its unrestricted appropriations to fully fund the VBCs' needs.
    According to a report issued by the Alaska Native Health Board in 2007,
    the operation and maintenance shortfall for the average VBC was $28,692
    per year. The Board estimated that $5.8 million should have been added
    in fiscal year 2008 to the fiscal year 2007 VBC lease program base in
    order to sustain the program. More than 4 years have gone by since then
    and the funding crisis for the VBCs has continued to get worse.
    Assuming a modest inflationary rate of 3 percent since the Board's
    analysis in 2007, we estimate at least $6.6 million should be added in
    fiscal year 2013 to the VBC lease program base funding.
        We Need Your Help To Ensure That Indian Health Service Fully Funds
    Village Built Clinic Leases.--Despite repeated requests from the Alaska
    Tribal Health Compact Co-Signers, the IHS continues to fund VBC leases
    at less than 60 percent of costs, while adopting standards for VBC
    operation and maintenance and requiring evaluations and inspections
    without supplying maintenance and improvement or other funding to
    assure compliance. Our VBCs are falling apart, cannot keep pace with
    technological advances in health, and hamper our efforts to qualify for
    ``meaningful use'' incentive payments to implement the Electronic
    Health Record in the VBCs. We thus request that the Appropriations
    Committee direct the IHS in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations to
    utilize existing, available appropriations to fully fund the VBC leases
    in accordance with section 804 of the IHCIA.
        The VBC program is a unique and critical component of the CHAP.
    Without VBCs that are suitable for their purposes, the CHAP cannot work
    as intended by the Congress and our people cannot get the healthcare
    they need. Please help ensure that the United States' trust
    responsibility to Alaska Native people for healthcare is fully
    realized. For more information, contact:
      --Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association: Carolyn Crowder,
            carolync@apiai.org;
      --Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation: Robert Clark,
            rclark@bbahc.org;
      --Maniilaq Association: Ian Erlich ierlich@maniilaq.org; and/or
      --Norton Sound Health Corporation: Deven Parlikardparlikar@gmail.com.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the American Association of Museums

        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to submit this testimony. My
    name is Ford Bell and I serve as president of the American Association
    of Museums (AAM). We urge your support for at least $154.3 million each
    for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National
    Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)--the amounts requested in the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal. We also urge your support
    for Historic Preservation efforts funded by the subcommittee.
        AAM is proud to represent the full range of our Nation's museums--
    including aquariums, art museums, botanic gardens, children's museums,
    culturally specific museums, historic sites, history museums, maritime
    museums, military museums, natural history museums, planetariums,
    Presidential libraries, science and technology centers, and zoos, among
    others--along with the professional staff and volunteers who work for
    and with museums.
        AAM is proud to work on behalf of the 17,500 museums that employ
    400,000 people, spend more than $2 billion annually on K-12 educational
    programming, receive more than 90 million visits each year from primary
    and secondary school students, and contribute more than $20 billion to
    local economies.
        Museums are essential in our communities for many reasons:
      --Museums are key education providers. Museums already offer
            educational programs in math, science, art, literacy, language
            arts, history, civics and government, economics and financial
            literacy, geography, and social studies, in coordination with
            State and local curriculum standards. Museums also provide
            experiential learning opportunities, science, technology,
            engineering, and mathematics education, youth training, job
            preparedness, and teacher training.
      --Museums create jobs and support local economies. Museums serve as
            economic engines, bolster local infrastructure, and spur
            tourism. Both the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National
            Governors Association agree that cultural assets such as
            museums are essential to attracting businesses, a skilled
            workforce, and local and international tourism. Museums pump
            more than $20 billion into the American economy, creating many
            jobs.
      --Museums address community challenges. Many museums offer programs
            tailored to seniors, veterans, children with special needs,
            persons with disabilities, and more, greatly expanding their
            reach and impact. For example, some have programs designed
            specifically for children on the autism spectrum, some are
            teaching English as a Second Language, and some are serving as
            locations for supervised family visits through the family court
            system.
      --Digitization and traveling exhibitions bring museum collections to
            underserved populations. Teachers, students, and researchers
            benefit when cultural institutions are able to increase access
            to trustworthy information through online collections and
            traveling exhibits. Most museums, however, need more help in
            digitizing collections.
        Support from the NEH, NEA, and the Historic Preservation Fund plays
    a critical role in helping museums provide all of these essential
    community services.
        NEH is an independent Federal agency created by the Congress in
    1965. Grants are awarded to nonprofit educational institutions--
    including museums, colleges, universities, archives, and libraries--for
    educational programming and the care of collections. NEH provides
    annual grants to State humanities councils located in every State and
    U.S. territory. NEH supports museums as institutions of learning and
    exploration, and keepers of our cultural, historical, and scientific
    heritages.
        Due to the impact of the economic downturn, many institutions and
    nonprofits around the country, including museums, are struggling to
    maintain continued access to high-quality programming and educational
    opportunities in the humanities.
        In 2011, through Preservation & Access, one of NEH's national
    program divisions, more than 90 peer-reviewed, competitive grants
    totaling more than $4.1 million were awarded to museums, historical
    societies and historic sites for a variety of projects to preserve and
    provide access to our Nation's rich cultural heritage. Across all NEH
    divisions (including Preservation, Research, Education, Public
    Programs, Challenge Grants and Digital Humanities), these institutions
    received more than 160 awards totaling $12.4 million in 2011.
        Demand for humanities project support, as demonstrated by NEH grant
    application rates, far exceeds available funding. In fiscal year 2009,
    NEH received 4,366 competitive grant applications representing more
    than $402 million in requested funds, but was only able to fund 16.9
    percent of these peer-reviewed project proposals.
        Here are just two examples of how NEH funding is used to support
    museums' work in your communities:
      --The Rhode Island Historical Society in Providence is using its
            $300,000 fiscal year 2011 Sustaining Cultural Heritage
            Collections grant to install a sustainable environmental
            control system and make building improvements and security
            upgrades to preserve collections documenting the history of
            Rhode Island from pre-European contact to the present.
      --The Sheldon Museum and Cultural Center in Haines, Alaska, is using
            its $6,000 fiscal year 2010 Preservation Assistant grant to
            support a general preservation assessment and the purchase of
            preservation supplies and environmental monitoring equipment.
            The collection consists of 2,515 historical artifacts, 885
            pieces of art, more than 6,000 photographs, 1,677 bound
            volumes, and 1,296 archival items dealing with the history of
            the Chilkat Valley and the town of Haines.
        NEA provides direct Federal funding to State arts agencies and to
    nonprofit arts institutions including museums. Its mission is to make
    art accessible to all and to provide leadership in arts education.
    Established in 1965, NEA brings great art to every congressional
    district. Its grants to museums help them exhibit, preserve, and
    interpret visual material through exhibitions, residencies,
    publications, commissions, public art works, conservation,
    documentation, and public programs. Grants are awarded for specific
    projects and require at least a one-to-one match from the recipient.
    Most recently, a partnership between the NEA and Blue Star Families has
    created the Blue Star Museums program, in which more than 1,500 museums
    of all types across the Nation provide free admission to military
    families from Memorial Day through Labor Day.
        In 2011, NEA made 148 awards to museums, totaling more than $6
    million. Many museums have reduced staff and budgets as a result of the
    recession, which has hit nonprofit arts particularly hard. Despite the
    economic downturn, attendance is up, causing increased pressure to
    serve more people with fewer staff and smaller budgets.
        Receiving a grant from the NEA confers prestige on supported
    projects, strengthening museums' ability to attract matching funds from
    other public and private funders. On average, each $1 awarded by the
    NEA leverages $7 from other sources. Forty percent of NEA's grant funds
    is distributed to State arts agencies for re-granting.
        Here are two examples of how NEA funding is used to support
    museums' work in your communities:
      --The Rhode Island School of Design (on behalf of Museum of Art) in
            Providence is using its $20,000 fiscal year 2011 Access to
            Artistic Excellence grant to support the exhibition ``Ahead of
            the Curve: Richard Brown and Contemporary British Art'', with
            accompanying catalogue and educational programs. The exhibition
            will feature more than 100 paintings, sculptures, and drawings
            by late 20th-century British artists such as David Hockney,
            Anthony Caro, Bridget Riley, Fionna Banner, Yinka Shonibare,
            Anish Kapoor, and Damian Hirst.
      --The Seward Association for the Advancement of Marine Science (aka
            Alaska SeaLife Center) in Seward, Alaska is using its $39,000
            fiscal year 2012 Art Works I grant to support an expedition and
            planning of the exhibition, GYRE, that will engage artists and
            scientists in the global problem of marine debris. In
            partnership with the Anchorage Museum, a group of artists
            including Pam Longobardi, Mark Dion, Alexis Rockman, Andrew
            Hughes, and Sonya Kelliher-Combs will accompany a team of
            scientists aboard the ship R/V Norseman in a research
            expedition to expose artists to the impact of marine debris on
            various ecosystems.

                             HISTORIC PRESERVATION

        In addition to the NEH and NEA, we urge you to fund important
    historic preservation programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction
    providing at least $47 million for State Historic Preservation Offices
    and $9 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. We also urge
    you to restore funding of $25 million for Save America's Treasures and
    $4.6 million for Preserve America, which have not been funded for the
    past 2 fiscal years.
        The 2005 Heritage Health Index of archives, libraries, historical
    societies, and museums concluded that immediate action is needed to
    prevent the loss of 190 million artifacts that are in need of
    conservation treatment.
      --59 percent have collections damaged by light.
      --56 percent have insufficient security to protect their collections.
      --80 percent do not have an emergency plan that includes collections.
      --71 percent need additional training and expertise for staff caring
            for collections.
      --Only 13 percent have access to endowment funds for preservation.
        Historic preservation programs matter now more than ever--not only
    because they protect our national heritage, but because they serve as
    economic development engines and job creators in the thousands of
    communities they serve. For example, Save America's Treasures alone has
    been responsible for supporting more than 16,000 jobs since it was
    created just 10 years ago. A 2009 report to the Congress by the
    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation found that Preserve America
    is addressing many State, local, and regional heritage tourism needs
    with a relatively small Federal investment.
        Thank you once again for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the American Bird Conservancy

        Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member 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 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 (JV), and the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act 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.
        ABC'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 during 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.
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act
        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, the 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 2011, the program supported 367 projects,
    coordinated by partners in 48 U.S. States/territories and 35 countries.
    More than $39 million from NMBCA grants has leveraged more than $152
    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 $4 million for fiscal year 2013.
    Joint Ventures
        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 18.5 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. For every $1 appropriated for JVs
    leveraged more than $35 in non-Federal partner funds. ABC respectfully
    requests that JVs be funded at $15 million for fiscal year 2013.
        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.
    North American Wetlands Conservation Act
        The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (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 has a
    proven track record of success. The program has received more than $1.1
    billion in grants for 2,067 projects that have leveraged approximately
    $3.2 billion in matching funds affecting 26.7 million acres. More than
    4,500 partners have fostered public and private sector cooperation for
    migratory bird conservation, flood control, erosion control, and water
    quality. For every $1 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 $39.5
    million for fiscal year 2013.
        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.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the American Bird Conservancy; American Forest &
     Paper Association; Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies; Audubon;
      Bat Conservation International; Environmental Investigation Agency;
      Fuller Park Community Development Corporation; Hardwood Federation;
       Klamath Bird Observatory; The Nature Conservancy; North American
     Banding Council; Point Reyes Bird Observatory; Sierra Club; Union of
     Concerned Scientists; United Steelworkers; The University of Montana;
    Wildlife Conservation Society; Wild Salmon Center; World Wildlife Fund;
              and The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

        The undersigned groups, representing a diverse coalition of timber
    and labor industry, conservation groups and academic institutions,
    thank Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and subcommittee members
    for their continued support for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Office
    of International Programs. The following testimony recognizes the
    valuable investments made by USFS in promoting U.S. leadership in
    international conservation and helping American interests, business and
    ecological, to remain protected from being undercut by illegal logging
    activities.
        While we understand the subcommittee's responsibility in finding
    the appropriate balance between conservation and navigating a difficult
    fiscal climate, it is important to note that the U.S. Forest Service
    International Programs (FSIP) provides tremendous economic value to the
    American public. Industry and congressional reports estimate that U.S.
    roundwood, sawnwood, and panel exports could increase by approximately
    $460 million each year if illegal logging was eliminated. FSIP works on
    behalf of the American people to level the playing field for the United
    States in international timber trade while protecting the United States
    from invasive species and recovering declining U.S. migratory species.
        We respectfully request the subcommittee support FSIP by
    maintaining fiscal year 2012 funding level for fiscal year 2013 at $8
    million. This would not only ensure the investments undertaken in
    fiscal year 2012 are maintained, but, more importantly, will ensure
    that FSIP remains an integral part of the U.S. forest policy and
    practice.
    Reducing Illegal Logging and Leveling the Playing Field for
            International Timber Trade
        One of most important contributions FSIP makes to the American
    economy is to level the playing field in international trade for U.S.
    timber producers. Illegal logging is a complex and multifaceted issue,
    affecting international trade, the long-term viability of forest
    ecosystems, land tenure, rural poverty, and governance. For the United
    States, it has detrimental impacts on the U.S. forest products industry
    and disrupts market access, resulting in huge losses in potential
    revenue for American producers.
        To combat illegal logging, FSIP dedicates roughly one-quarter of
    its budget toward a variety of measures to prevent illegal logging from
    many different angles:
      --by developing cutting-edge technologies that assist in determining
            wood type and origin;
      --by organizing regional workshops overseas to exchange and transfer
            knowledge;
      -- by supporting numerous global platforms and domestic policymaking
            (such as the Lacey Act); and
      --by building global awareness of legality requirements and
            technology.
        Moreover, with its breadth of expertise in forest management, FSIP
    is coordinating and implementing on-the-ground activities in several
    countries to monitor and manage forest ecosystems, support enforcement
    work and build strong bilateral programs in regions with serious
    illegal logging challenges, such as Peru, Brazil, Russia, and the Congo
    Basin. Some highlights include:
          Hand-Held Wood Identification Device and Wood Identification
            Database.--With support from FSIP and the U.S. Department of
            State, USFS scientists are developing a hand-held wood
            identification device that port inspectors could use to quickly
            determine whether timber shipments match species declarations.
            The device also functions on smart phones equipped with
            cameras. The application will allow the inspector to scan the
            wood shipment and compare the image to those in libraries of
            wood identification data.
          Innovations in DNA Testing.--Funded by FSIP, USFS is working with
            New Mexico State University to support innovation in DNA
            testing of wood samples. This will ultimately ensure that
            declarations citing origin of wood species are accurate,
            improving the abilities of U.S. enforcement agents to determine
            legality under the Lacey Act and/or under the Convention on the
            International Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna
            (CITES).
          Other Technologies and Education.--USFS is also working on a
            range of other wood science and technological efforts overseas
            to enhance data management, timber tracking, and field
            identification manuals as well as conducting field personnel
            training on forest monitoring.
          Targeted Bilateral Assistance.--The FSIP's Peru Forest Sector
            Initiative (PFSI) assists the Government of Peru in complying
            with the obligations of the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
            in partnership with the U.S. Agency for International
            Development. The collaboration focuses on the development of an
            information and control system for chain of custody for CITES-
            listed species, support for population studies for mahogany and
            cedar, design of forest inventories, specialized expertise in
            yield determination and methodology, development of skill in
            forest and wildlife management including community and
            indigenous forest management; organizational design and
            training to regional governments; anti-corruption plans for the
            forest sector; environmental investigation; and environmental
            prosecution training.
    Protecting the United States from Invasive Species
        Invasive forest pests inflict millions of dollars of damage to the
    U.S. economy every year. Researchers currently estimate there are at
    least 20 destructive forest pests likely to enter the United States in
    the coming decade. The threat of invasive species is often manipulated
    by countries and cited as a barrier to U.S. exports. Reducing the
    threat of invasive species will serve to boost the American economy
    while protecting domestic ecosystems. The USDA Forest Service
    identifies and uses bio-control agents for invasive forest pests as
    bio-control agents, which can be an effective and inexpensive method of
    suppressing devastating pests that wreak ecological and economic havoc
    on American forests. FSIP facilitates projects involving agency
    scientists and land managers with counterparts in those countries where
    the invasive species originate. Without international collaboration,
    pests already in the United States will not be controlled and there may
    be future introductions of economically damaging pests. Current
    international cooperation, to protect the U.S.'s forests occurs with
    many countries including China and Russia. FSIP has worked to address
    invasive species including Sudden Oak Death, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid,
    Mile-a-Minute Weed, Beech Bark Scale, European and Asian gypsy moths,
    and Emerald Ash Borer.
    Recovering Migratory Species in Decline by Conserving Habitat
        FSIP invests heavily in protecting overseas habitat for endangered
    species listed on the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Millions of dollars
    invested into domestic habitat conservation for these species is wasted
    if the wintering habitat is not also conserved. For example, wild
    Pacific salmon migrate from the rivers of the West Coast of North
    America and Eastern Russia to the Pacific Ocean. FSIP works in Eastern
    Russia with partner organizations to improve watershed management for
    wild salmon stocks. Also in Russia, FSIP has invested in the recovery
    of the Korean pine-deciduous forests relied upon by prey species such
    as wild boar and deer that has resulted in a steady recovery of the
    Siberian tiger over the past decade.
        In conclusion, we appreciate the support of the Subcommittee and
    request maintaining fiscal year 2012 enacted levels of $8 million for
    the U.S. Forest Service Office of International Programs in fiscal year
    2013. Continued investment in international conservation will improve
    our economic security, while helping our domestic species to flourish
    and protecting our local ecological habitats from invasive species. It
    will also reaffirm our position as the preeminent conservation leader
    in the world.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Fisheries Society; Association of
      Fish & Wildlife Agencies; Association of Zoos & Aquariums; National
     Audubon Society; Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; The Nature
      Conservancy; The Wildlife Society; and Wildlife Management Institute

        Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to offer comments on the
    fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill. On behalf of the 6,366 organizations and
    businesses representing millions of birders, hunters, anglers, boaters,
    hikers, conservation organizations and other outdoor enthusiasts, we
    encourage the subcommittee to provide at least $61.32 million for the
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program in fiscal year 2013. This is
    unchanged from the level funding enacted last year and is the same as
    the administration's fiscal year 2013 request. We also request that the
    non-Federal match requirement remain at 35 percent and that the
    proportion allocated for tribal and State competitive grants remain at
    approximately 7 and 9 percent, respectively, the same as fiscal year
    2012 enacted.
        Although the need is much greater, level funding would help
    maintain essential capacity to conserve the more than 12,000 species
    that States have identified as at-risk in their State Wildlife Action
    Plans. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the only Federal
    program with the singular purpose of preventing Federal endangered
    species listings. It is achieving success as highlighted in the State
    Wildlife Grants Success Stories Report which showed how partnerships in
    every State are conserving vulnerable fish and wildlife, including many
    that are candidates for Federal endangered species listing.
        Preventing new endangered species listings is a goal shared by
    conservationists, business, farmers, and ranchers and has broad
    bipartisan support. Through early and strategic action, we can be
    successful in preventing new endangered species listings and even
    recover species already on the list, such as the Lake Erie Water Snake,
    which was delisted in September 2011 because of State and Tribal
    Wildlife Grant investments. Adequate and consistent funding for the
    program is essential to fulfillment of the shared Federal-State
    responsibility for keeping our Nation's wildlife from becoming
    endangered. Now more than ever, we should be focusing limited resources
    on this kind of smart, effective investment in conservation.
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program has been cut by one-
    third since 2010. The reduction in funding is impacting States' and
    their partner's ability to restore habitat, protect land, incentivize
    private lands conservation, monitor species and habitats, and conduct
    research. Past cuts are slowing conservation work and further cuts may
    jeopardize the success of the program, leading to a higher probability
    for future endangered species listings. There is no other program that
    can take the place of the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program.
        State Wildlife Action Plans, which guide spending of State-
    apportioned funds, were developed collaboratively by leading
    scientists, conservationists, sportsmen, and private landowners and
    identified the most effective and practical means to prevent wildlife
    from becoming endangered. The Congress can demonstrate its commitment
    to these plans in every State and territory by providing the Federal
    share of support, leveraging millions in State and private matching
    funds. This investment in conservation helps support thousands of jobs
    and the $730 billion outdoor recreation industry.
        We ask the subcommittee to support the administration's request to
    maintain the required non-Federal match at 35 percent, the same level
    as fiscal year 2012 enacted. This level of match will help ensure
    program funds are efficiently put on the ground and will support those
    States still recovering from substantial budget cuts to their nongame
    programs the last several years. In addition, we ask the subcommittee
    to keep the proportion of funds for tribal and State competitive grants
    at roughly the same proportion, approximately 7 and 9 percent,
    respectively. Although we feel there is an appropriate role for
    competitive grants, particularly for regional and landscape projects,
    we don't feel growth in competitive grants should come at the expense
    of apportioned funding which is at or near its lowest level since
    inception of the program in 2000. Funding provided to States through
    apportionments is already accountable in the following ways:
      --Funding dispersed through apportionments: are directed by State
            Wildlife Action Plans that were approved by the Director of the
            U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
    --must be subsequently reviewed and approved as grants to FWS; and
      --will adhere to an effectiveness measures framework that will be
            incorporated into FWS's new Wildlife TRACS reporting and
            tracking system beginning in October 2012.
        We understand and appreciate the fiscal constraints that face our
    Nation. However, the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is modest
    compared to the scope of work it funds (proactive conservation in all
    56 States, territories, and the District of Columbia) and the
    importance of that work (recovery of some of our Nation's most
    imperiled fish and wildlife). We appreciate the subcommittee's past
    support for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program and hope
    funding can be maintained in fiscal year 2013 at or more than the
    fiscal year 2012 level.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the American Forest Foundation

        Investments in the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Forest Stewardship
    Program and the USFS Forest Health Program on Cooperative Lands will
    help family forest owners get ahead of increasing threats from invasive
    pests and pathogens, wildfire, and development pressures. It is also
    critical that funding for USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
    Program and overall USFS research and development (R&D) is maintained,
    so these programs continue to provide the information and technical
    resources for landowners to make informed decisions about our forests.
    Investments in forestry programs will help strengthen rural
    communities, support rural jobs, and ensure that communities that rely
    on the clean water and air, wildlife habitat, and forest products from
    these forests, don't face additional costs for these services.
    Additionally, we urge continued support for the Environmental
    Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Environmental Education, which
    invests in the future--our children--ensuring the next generation is
    well-prepared to manage our Nation's natural resources.
        Family forest owners are facing a ``perfect storm'' of threats.
    Wildfires, invasive species and other insects and diseases, pressures
    from development, shrinking forest products markets, and ownership
    changes make it harder than ever to keep America's forests healthy and
    productive. It is therefore essential we ensure these families have
    tools, technical information, and policy support to keep their forests
    as forests, for current and future generations.
        The American Forest Foundation (AFF) urges the subcommittee to
    maintain fiscal year 2012 funding for programs that support good forest
    stewardship on our Nation's 251 million acres of family owned forests
    and ensure the next generation is equipped to conserve and manage these
    forests--for the benefit of all Americans.
        Given the tight budget climate, we understand tough decisions must
    be made. However, we urge you to consider maintaining funding for the
    previously mentioned programs as a high priority, given the impact
    these programs have on rural families and communities, forest
    conservation, and the future of our country's forest resources.
        AFF is a nonprofit conservation organization that works on the
    ground through a variety of programs including the American Tree Farm
    System, representing 83,000 tree farmers who sustainably manage more
    than 26 million acres under rigorous standards. Our mission is to help
    these families be good stewards and keep their forests healthy for
    future generations. Because we know that conserving our forests also
    means enabling the next generation to manage and care for them, AFF is
    also home to the largest environmental education program, Project
    Learning Tree (PLT). Our network of coordinators in all 50 States
    helps train more than 30,000 teachers each year in peer-reviewed
    curricula, correlated to State standards. Since its inception, PLT has
    reached 75 million students, helping them learn how to think, not what
    to think, about complex environmental and natural resources issues.
        Families and individuals steward more of America's forests than the
    Federal Government or corporations. Families and individuals own 35
    percent of our Nation's forests.\1\ These private forests provide
    myriad public benefits--clean air, clean water, recreation, renewable
    resources that build our homes and communities, and good-paying rural
    jobs. Family forest owners invest their own time, resources, and energy
    into keeping their forests healthy and ensuring their children and
    grandchildren have the same opportunities. Sometimes families can do
    this on their own, but in many cases, these families need help, both
    technically and financially. In addition to the private, consulting
    forester workforce, every State has a network of reliable and trusted
    service foresters that help family forest owners make good forest
    management decisions. These boots-on-the-ground make all the
    difference.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ USDA, May 2008, Who Owns America's Forests?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Take Steve and Janet Funk, for example. Steve and Janet are our
    2011 National Outstanding Tree Farmers of the Year from Idaho. When the
    couple first purchased their Tree Farm in the early 1970s, it was in a
    state of total disrepair. The stream banks were heavily eroded and the
    forested hillsides were overstocked and severely neglected. Knowing he
    needed professional guidance, Steve looked toward his State forestry
    agency, the Idaho Department of Lands, and local extension programs.
    Steve proceeded to work with these professionals to complete his first
    Forest Stewardship management plan, with the goal of restoring water
    quality, wildlife habitat, and the health and productivity of his
    forest.
        State service foresters were always available to help the Funks
    after a harvest, determine what species were best to plant, and
    determine the best management tactics for maximum productivity.
    Resources from the Forest Stewardship Program were instrumental in
    bringing the Funk's tree farm back to life.
        With the proposed cuts to the Forest Stewardship Program, fewer
    family forest owners will have access to State service foresters who
    help millions of America's forest owners keep America's private forests
    healthy. These foresters provide valuable technical advice as well as
    help forest owners write management plans to guide the future
    management of their land. We simply cannot have healthy forests without
    foresters.
        Steve and Janet Funk are just 2 forest landowners from a collection
    of more than 1,200 forest owners in 48 States who, in the last 4 weeks,
    signed a letter calling on the Congress to maintain support for the
    Forest Stewardship Program. These folks can't imagine how they would
    continue sustainably managing our Nation's forests without the
    assistance of our network of State foresters.
        In addition to active landowners like the Funks, there is a large
    portion of family forest owners, estimates suggest close to 95 percent,
    that aren't actively engaged in the management of their lands.\2\ We
    know from the latest trends in forest health and wildfire, that leaving
    nature to take its course is no longer a viable option. We must find
    ways to engage these landowners in active management of their
    woodlands. The Forest Stewardship Program provides support for State
    agencies to reach these landowners and help them engage in management
    that will improve the health of their land.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Brett J. Butler. 2010. Family Forest Owners of the United
    States, 2006: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010
    RPA Assessment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Proper forest management is critical to ensuring the long-term
    sustainability of our Nation's forests. Every day forests across the
    country face threats from invasive pests and pathogens. Forests--58
    million acres--are at risk of being overtaken by insects, disease, and
    other invasive species, threatening to change the existing structure of
    our forest ecosystems. The implications of this forest loss on our
    Nation's clean water supply, wildlife habitat, recreation, renewable
    energy supply, and rural communities would be devastating.
        Pulling Examples From Across the Country.--Last year, the Asian-
    longhorned beetle, which threatens 15 tree species from maples to
    birches, was found, for the first time, in southern Ohio.\3\ In
    California and Arizona, the goldspotted oak borer has already killed
    more than 80,000 live oak and black oak trees in less than 15 years.\4\
    And in Minnesota, forest owners are gearing up for what would be a
    devastating attack of thousand cankers disease on their black walnut
    trees. These are just a few in a long list of invasive threats our
    forest owners face.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ USDA Agriculture Research Service. 2011. Behavior and Biology
    of the Asian Longhorned Beetle.
        \4\ Center for Invasive Species Research, University of California,
    Riverside. 2011. The Goldspotted Oak Borer.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Efforts such as the USFS Forest Health Program, help landowners
    better understand the threats they face and the management techniques
    which mitigate harm. In the case of the emerald ash borer, the Forest
    Health Program created an integrated program strategy, dedicated to
    reducing the adverse impacts of this pest on Northeastern area forests.
    Similar efforts for other threats are a main focus of these programs,
    ensuring our Nation's forest landowners are equipped with the best
    knowledge to make the most informed management decisions.
        USFS's Forest Health Programs are critical tools in identifying,
    mitigating, and eliminating the impacts of invasive pests and
    pathogens. Without these programs, our Nation's forests, and the
    livelihoods that depend on them, would be left unprotected.
        Both of these programs, the Forest Stewardship Program and the
    Forest Health Program, must be grounded in sound science and sound
    forest information. That's where USFS's FIA Program and EPA's R&D come
    in. These programs provide irreplaceable data about our forests, the
    health and conditions, and give landowners the tools to know how to
    manage the growing threats they face. The R&D function is not only
    essential for providing forest management research, it is also on the
    leading edge of providing new information about the use of wood
    products through life-cycle assessments. With more information about
    the environmental and economic benefits of using wood products,
    especially in the growing green building market, decisionmakers can
    make informed building material choices. And we believe as the science
    shows, wood is one of the top materials when it comes to reducing
    greenhouse gas emissions and storing carbon, reducing energy
    consumption and pollution, and creating jobs. With more decisionmakers
    choosing wood, family forest owners have more demand for their products
    which helps ensure they have the resources to reinvest in keeping their
    lands healthy. We urge the subcommittee to support the Forest
    Stewardship and Forest Health programs and we continue to call on USFS
    to invest in life-cycle assessment research in particular.
        Steve, Janet, and our vast network of Tree Farmers also understand
    the importance of educating the next generation of Tree Farmers and
    natural resource managers. The Funks want to ensure that the next
    generation will take on the challenge of good stewardship and continue
    to conserve these lands. This is a growing concern, with 170 million
    acres of family forests expected to change hands in the next few
    decades as family forest owners increase in age.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Brett J. Butler. 2010. Family Forest Owners of the United
    States, 2006: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010
    RPA Assessment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Steve and Janet, like so many tree farmers, do their part to
    educate local schoolchildren on the importance of proper forest
    management. In addition to hosting numerous school tours, every year,
    they coordinate with their State Project Learning Tree Coordinator to
    host more than 40 State teachers on their tree farm. These educators
    learn first-hand the many public benefits of healthy forests and the
    management necessary to protect these forest goods and services--
    information that then goes back to the classroom, reaching hundreds
    more schoolchildren.
        Programs like EPA's Office of Environmental Education, authorized
    by the National Environmental Education Act, or USFS's Conservation
    Education Program, help support Project Learning Tree efforts and
    enable more Tree Farmers, like Steve and Janet, to reach even more
    kids. Without these program resources, fewer kids would understand the
    important connection of our country's well-being to the natural world.
    Educating the next generation is key to conserving and maintaining
    healthy forests for the long-run, and these education programs make it
    happen.
        To conclude, AFF recognizes the subcommittee must find areas to
    reduce spending. We simply ask the subcommittee to consider the impact
    these reductions may have on the country's more than 10 million family
    forest owners and every American who benefits daily from the benefits
    of well-managed, working forests. We urge the subcommittee to work to
    maintain funding levels for the USFS's Forest Stewardship Program,
    Forest Health Cooperative Lands Program, Forest Inventory and Analysis
    Program, Research and Development Program, Conservation Education
    Initiative, and EPA's Office of Environmental Education.
        I thank the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to provide
    some insight on these programs and appreciate consideration of my
    testimony. I am more than happy to answer any questions on these
    programs and our Tree Farm network.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Geosciences Institute

        Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geosciences
    Institute's (AGI) perspective on fiscal year 2013 appropriations for
    geoscience programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. AGI is a
    nonprofit federation of 50 geoscientific and professional associations
    that represents more than 250,000 geologists, geophysicists, and other
    Earth scientists who work in industry, academia, and government.
    Founded in 1948, 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 $1.2 billion for USGS, $333 million for NPS's
    Resource Stewardship Program, and $857 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. 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.
    U.S. Geological Survey
        Virtually every American citizen and every Federal, State, and
    local agency benefits either directly or indirectly from USGS products
    and services. A wide variety of industries rely on 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.
        USGS addresses a wide range of important problems facing the
    Nation:
      --natural hazards;
      --environmental change;
      --water resources;
      --waste disposal; and
      --energy and mineral resources.
        AGI in ``Critical Needs for the Twenty First Century: The Role of
    the Geosciences'' lists seven critical and policy actions to help the
    Nation meet these needs through the geosciences, including the USGS
    (available online at www.agiweb.org/gap/criticalneeds/index.html). With
    a burgeoning human population, rising demand for natural resources and
    the rising costs of natural hazards, it is critical to more fully
    integrate USGS data and understanding into actions for a sustainable
    world. USGS plays a prominent role in meeting national needs, while
    growing the economy, building a skilled workforce and ensuring a
    natural resource-literate public.
        AGI strongly supports smart growth of about $98 million compared to
    the USGS fiscal year 2013 request for a total budget of $1.2 billion.
    Please avoid proposed cuts of $48 million and distribute an additional
    $50 million for energy, minerals, water, hazards, geospatial analyses,
    mapping, and data preservation. Enhancing infrastructure, observations,
    data, and understanding builds the workforce inside and outside of USGS
    and spurs economic growth through wise resource management.
        Mineral Resources Program.--The value of domestically processed
    mineral materials was about $633 billion in 2011. The USGS Mineral
    Resources Program (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 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 Department of the
    Interior, Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
    Department of State, the Federal Reserve, other Federal, State and
    local government entities, foreign governments, private companies, and
    the general public. Analyses based on the MRP data are essential for
    guiding economic and environmental policy and for providing options for
    land-use decisions posed by industry, government, and private land
    owners. We urge the subcommittee to support the Mineral Resources
    Program at a level of $54 million so that it may perform its core
    missions without a loss of critical information and jobs. This level is
    the same as the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2005 levels and more
    than the fiscal year 2013 request of $45 million.
        Please avoid proposed cuts of $5.25 million in Mineral Resources to
    research related to minerals and human health, research on rare earth
    elements, analysis, and assessments of resources in Alaska and in other
    countries, jobs associated with this work and external funding for
    States and universities.
        AGI appreciates the consolidation of energy, minerals and
    environmental health, but we are concerned about two significant
    proposed cuts. Please avoid cuts of $1 million to the Energy Resources
    Program's State Cooperative Project for assessments of coal and oil
    shale resources. Please avoid cuts of $2 million to Toxic Substances
    Hydrology to reduce research on pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and other
    emerging contamination as well as environmentally robust approaches to
    uranium resource extraction and shale gas development.
        Water Program.--AGI is concerned with the decreased funding in the
    President's request for 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 2013, AGI supports
    efficient budgets to sustain many critical water programs including
    National Streamflow Information, Ground Water Monitoring Network, the
    National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA), Hydrologic Research and
    Development, Hydrologic Networks and Cooperative Water. We respectfully
    ask that water programs in the fiscal year 2013 request be restored to
    a total budget of $231 million, by removing proposed cuts to the
    Cooperative Water program (-$5 million in request), the Water Resources
    Research Act (-$6.5 million), the National Water Quality Assessment
    Program (-$6.5 million), and Hydrologic Networks and Analysis (-$3.7
    million).
        Please avoid proposed cuts to the Cooperative Water program to
    eliminate research and monitoring of local to State level water quality
    and availability or cuts to Water Resources Research which eliminates
    research grants to 54 institutes at universities. Please avoid proposed
    cuts to the National Water Quality Assessment Program for reductions in
    monitoring sites, well water sampling, and laboratory methods
    development for pharmaceuticals, pesticides, antibiotics, and other
    emerging contaminants in water systems or to the Hydrologic Networks
    and Analysis which eliminates real time and archived water resources
    data for all users.
        National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 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, the massive earthquakes in New Zealand,
    Chile, Haiti, Pakistan, and Wenchuan, and the local earthquake in
    Mineral, Virginia 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 modernization
    of existing seismic networks and for the development of the Advanced
    National Seismic System (ANSS)--a nationwide network of shaking
    measurement systems focused on urban areas. ANSS can provide real-time
    earthquake information to emergency responders as well as building and
    ground shaking data for engineers and scientists seeking to understand
    earthquake processes and mitigate damage.
        With 2,142 of 7,100 stations in operation at the end of fiscal year
    2011, the ANSS is far from achieving its goals. 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 NSF. 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 (NEHRP) through the
    Earthquake Hazards Program. AGI strongly supports reauthorization of
    NEHRP in 2012 (H.R. 3479/S. 646), the passage of the Volcano Warning
    Act (S. 566) and appropriations to meet the goals of both measures in
    fiscal year 2013. AGI strongly supports robust appropriations of at
    least the request for the Earthquake Hazards Program ($58.9 million),
    the Volcano Hazards Program ($25 million) and Landslide Hazards Program
    ($3.9 million).
        National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program.--AGI is very
    grateful to the Congress for passing the re-authorization of the
    National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGDP) 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.
    AGI supports a modest increase of $1.5 million for the NCGDP for a
    total of $29.5 million in fiscal year 2013. This additional support
    would restore the Federal and State Partnerships to almost fiscal year
    2010 levels; still far less than authorized levels of $64 million.
        National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program.--The
    data preservation program (Public Law 109-58, section 351) is
    administered by 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 President's budget request for fiscal year 2013 places the
    National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation and the
    Biological Information Management and Delivery Program within a single
    subactivity called science synthesis, analysis, and research. 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.
    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 $856.8 million for the
    Smithsonian Institution in fiscal year 2013.
    National Park Service
        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. NPS's Geologic Resources
    Division was established in 1995 to provide park managers with geologic
    expertise. Working in conjunction with USGS and other partners, the
    division helps ensure that geoscientists are becoming part of an
    integrated approach to science-based resource management in parks. AGI
    supports the President's small increase ($333 million for NPS Resource
    Stewardship for fiscal year 2013) so the NPS can 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 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 2013
    appropriations recommendations for the 29 colleges funded under the
    Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act (Tribal
    College Act); the Bureau of Indian Education postsecondary
    institutions; and the Institute of American Indian Arts. The Bureau of
    Indian Education administers these programs, save for the Institute of
    American Indian Arts, which is congressionally chartered and funded
    directly through the Department.
        In fiscal year 2013, TCUs seek $82,872,000 for institutional
    operations, an endowment program, and technical assistance grants under
    the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of
    1978 or Tribal College Act; of which, $73.5 million for titles I and II
    grants (27 TCUs); $109,000 for title III (endowment grants), and
    $601,000 for technical assistance. In fiscal year 2011, the clear
    intent of the Congress was to level fund the institutional operating
    grants for the TCUs funded under titles I and II of the Tribal College
    Act, having appropriated the same funding level for the overall pot of
    funds available to support Tribal College Act programs. However,
    because of a spike in enrollments at the TCUs, the operations funding
    actually dropped by $549 per Indian student. TCUs are being penalized
    for their successful efforts to recruit and retain students. Our fiscal
    year 2013 request restores the funding for institutional operating
    grants to the fiscal year 2010 level based on the per Indian student
    allocation.
        AIHEC's membership also includes tribally controlled postsecondary
    career and technical institutions whose institutional operations
    funding is authorized under title V of the act; AIHEC supports their
    request for $9.372 million. There are 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.
        AIHEC supports their independent requests for support of the
    institutional operating budgets of these institutions.

                      NEED FOR CHANGE IN FUNDING STRATEGY

        Today there are 37 TCUs operating on 75 campuses in 15 States.
    These institutions, 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, were begun specifically to serve the higher
    education needs of American Indians. Annually, these institutions serve
    students from more than 250 federally recognized tribes, more than 75
    percent of whom are eligible to receive Federal financial aid.
        A process should be articulated, beginning in the fiscal year 2013
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, to
    compare and fund TCUs annually on a ``per Indian student'' basis, as
    authorized under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities
    Assistance Act, rather than a lump sum. The current funding strategy
    fails to take into account annual growth in TCU student populations, so
    what might look like ``level'' funding year to year actually translates
    into annual funding decreases. TCU student enrollments are growing as
    TCUs work to help meet national education (completion) and
    accountability (retention) goals, but the overall funding pot is
    remaining nearly stagnant. In fiscal year 2011 alone, TCUs grew by more
    than 1,660 full-time Indian students. This growth, encouraged by the
    Federal Government, resulted in a loss of funding of $549/full-time
    Indian student, or $9.2 million, in just 1 year, compared to the TCUs'
    fiscal year 2010 funding level.
        The Congress put the student-based funding formula in law to help
    reflect the realities of operating small and geographically remote
    higher education institutions engaged in strengthening tribal
    communities and growing American Indians in postsecondary education.
    But over the years, appropriations have focused on the overall dollar
    amount, with no attention to how that impacts a TCU's actual operating
    budget when allocated per student. It is imperative that a student-
    focused formula be employed when determining funding priorities.
        This is not simply a matter of appropriations fluctuating greatly
    and continually 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. Ultimately, the TCUs need to be fully
    funded at the authorized level of $8,000 per Indian student. To
    illustrate the reasonableness of this request, Howard University (HU),
    located in the District of Columbia, is the only other minority-serving
    institution, besides the TCUs, to receive basic institutional
    operations funding from the Federal Government. The similarity ends
    there as HU's Federal support (exclusive of its medical school) amounts
    to more than $19,000 per student. In contrast, the majority of the TCUs
    currently receives $5,235 per Indian student, with no Federal funding
    toward basic operations for the non-Indian students, which account for
    approximately 20 percent of TCU enrollments. HU needs this funding--no
    question. So do TCUs.

                             FURTHER JUSTIFICATIONS

        Tribal Colleges and Universities Provide Critical Access to Vital
    Postsecondary Education Opportunities.--Tribal Colleges and
    Universities provide access to higher education for American Indians
    and others living in some of the Nation's most rural and economically
    depressed areas. According to U.S. Census data,\1\ the annual per
    capita income of the U.S. population is $26,059. By contrast, the
    annual per capita income of American Indians is $15,671 or about 40
    percent less. In addition to serving their student populations, TCUs
    offer a variety of much needed community outreach programs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Source.--U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Tribal Colleges and Universities Are Producing a New Generation of
    Highly Trained American Indian Teachers, Tribal Government Leaders,
    Nurses, Engineers, 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.
        Tribal Colleges and Universities 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 associate degrees with 13 offering
    bachelor's and 2 conferring master's degrees, making TCUs 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.

                                ADDITIONAL FACTS

        Enrollment Gains and New Tribal Colleges and Universities.--
    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 370 percent. Between fiscal year 2005
    and fiscal year 2012, five additional TCUs have become accredited and
    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 forced TCUs to slice an already inadequate
    annual funding pie 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.
        Federal Trust Responsibility.--The emergence of TCUs is a direct
    result of the special relationship between American Indian tribes and
    the Federal Government. TCUs are founded and chartered by their
    respective American Indian tribes, which hold a special legal
    relationship with the Federal Government, actualized by more than 400
    treaties, several Supreme Court decisions, prior congressional action,
    and the ceding of more than 1 billion acres of land to the Federal
    Government. Beyond the trust responsibility, the fact remains that TCUs
    are providing a public service that no other institutions of higher
    education are willing, or able, to provide by helping the Federal
    Government fulfill its responsibility to the American people,
    particularly in rural America. Despite the fact that only enrolled
    members of a federally recognized tribe or the biological child of a
    tribal member may be counted as Indian students when determining an
    institution's share of the operating funds, TCUs have open enrollment
    policies. Approximately 20 percent of TCU enrollments are non-Indians.
    These institutions are simply and effectively providing access to
    quality higher education opportunities to reservation community
    residents.
        Gaming and the Tribal Colleges and Universities.--Although several
    of the reservations served by TCUs do have gaming operations, these are
    not the mega casinos located in proximity to urban outlets and featured
    in the mainstream media. Only a handful of TCUs receive regular income
    from the chartering tribe's gaming revenue, and the amounts received
    vary greatly from year to year. Most reservation casinos are small
    businesses and use the gaming revenue to improve the local standard of
    living and potentially diversify into other, more sustainable areas of
    economic development. In the interim, where relevant, local TCUs offer
    courses in casino management and hospitality services to formally train
    tribal members to work in the local tribally run casinos.
        Although some form of gaming is legalized in 48 States, the Federal
    Government has not used the revenues generated from State gaming as a
    justification to decrease Federal funding to public colleges or
    universities that are State-run.
        It has been implied that those tribes that operate the few
    enormously successful and widely publicized casinos should be financing
    higher education for all American Indians. However, no State is
    expected to share its gaming revenue with a nongaming State.
       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. To fully
    fund the TCUs institutional operating grants would require an increase
    of $27 million more than the current funding level. However, we do
    recognize the budget constraints the Nation is currently facing and
    consequently, we are not requesting that level of increase in fiscal
    year 2013, but rather seek to restore funding to the fiscal year 2010
    level of $5,784 per Indian student, which calls for an increase of $
    $6.1 million more than fiscal year 2012 and $3.7 million more than the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget request. Additionally, we seek to
    maintain level funding for the technical assistance grants, as included
    in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request. Details of the
    request are 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 2013
    appropriations requests.
                                     ______

      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), United States Forest
    Service (USFS), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal
    year 2013. AIBS encourages the Congress to provide the USGS with at
    least $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2013, with at least $177.9 million
    for the Ecosystems activity. We further request that the Congress
    provide the USFS Forest and Rangeland Research program with at least
    $295.3 million, and EPA's Office of Research and Development with at
    least $600 million.
        AIBS is a nonprofit scientific association dedicated to advancing
    biological research and education for the welfare of society. AIBS
    works to ensure that the public, legislators, funders, and the
    community of biologists have access to and use information that will
    guide them in making informed decisions about matters that require
    biological knowledge. Founded in 1947 as a part of the National Academy
    of Sciences, AIBS became an independent, member-governed organization
    in the 1950s. Today, AIBS has nearly 160-member organizations and is
    headquartered in Reston, Virginia, with a Public Policy Office in
    Washington, DC.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        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 information that
    is needed for commercial activity and natural resource management. The
    data collected by the USGS are not available from other sources and our
    Nation cannot afford to sacrifice this information.
        The ecosystems activity within USGS underpins the agency's other
    science mission areas by providing information needed for understanding
    the impacts of water use, energy exploration and production, and
    natural hazards on natural systems. The USGS conducts research on and
    monitoring of fish, wildlife, and vegetation--data that informs
    management decisions by other Interior bureaus regarding protected
    species and land use. USGS science is also used to control invasive
    species and wildlife diseases that can cause billions of dollars in
    economic losses. Collectively, the knowledge generated by these USGS
    programs is used by Federal and State natural resource managers to
    maintain healthy and diverse ecosystems while balancing the needs of
    public use.
        Other examples of successful USGS ecosystem initiatives include:
      --Development of comprehensive geospatial data products that
            characterize the risk of wildfires on all lands in the United
            States. These products are used to allocate firefighting
            resources and to plan fuel reduction projects.
      --Identification of white-nose syndrome, a fungus that is devastating
            U.S. bat populations and could jeopardize the multi-billion
            dollar pest control services provided by bats.
      --Identification and evaluation of control measures for Asian carp,
            sea lamprey, Burmese pythons, and other invasive species.
      --Study of the impacts of solar energy and other next generation
            energy sources on wildlife and endangered species.
        Through the Cooperative Research Units, the USGS and their partners
    address pressing issues facing natural resource managers at the local,
    State, and Federal levels. Examples of recent research initiatives
    include studying the effects of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on
    wildlife and fisheries, and improving management of elk and waterfowl.
    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. More
    than 500 graduate students each year receive training by USGS
    scientists at Cooperative Research Units. The program is also an
    efficient use of resources: each Federal dollar invested in the program
    is leveraged more than three-fold.
        The National Streamflow Information Program within the Water
    Resources mission area 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.
        The requested fiscal year 2013 budget would support several science
    priorities. The proposed budget would enable the USGS to develop
    methodologies to better prevent, detect, and control Asian carp and
    other invasive species. USGS would also be able to provide enhanced
    surveillance and diagnostic tools, and to develop management tools for
    white-nose syndrome and other ecologically and economically costly
    wildlife diseases. Additionally, USGS would be able to study and better
    inform decisions about new energy sources. Importantly, the proposed
    budget would increase support for USGS research on high-priority
    conservation and land-use issues faced by other Interior bureaus, which
    lack intramural scientific resources to study these issues.
        Although the proposed budget supports many USGS priorities, the
    requested funding level would result in cuts to other programs that
    support agency core missions. For instance, USGS would have to diminish
    efforts to assess the Nation's water quality and reduce studies on the
    impacts of environmental contaminants. Given the agency's 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
    and operations costs while maintaining the proposed increases for other
    areas.
        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 and use, 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 Department of the Interior,
    but also contributes to management decisions made by other agencies and
    private sector organizations. USGS science is also cost-effective, as
    the agency's activities help to identify the most effective management
    actions. In short, increased investments in these important research
    activities will yield dividends.

                              U.S. FOREST SERVICE

        USFS research provides scientific information and new technologies
    to support sustainable management of the Nation's forests and
    rangelands. These products and services increase the basic biological
    and physical knowledge of the composition, structure, and function of
    forest, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget request would cut funding for the
    Forest and Rangeland Research by $2.5 million. If enacted, the budget
    would reduce the USFS's capacity to conduct research relevant to
    wildfires, control of invasive species, and management of wildlife and
    fish. Given the importance of this scientific work to the management of
    public and private lands, we urge the Congress to fund the program at
    the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        The Office of Research and Development (ORD) supports valuable
    extramural and intramural research that is used to identify and
    mitigate environmental problems facing our Nation. 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, ORD provides the scientific basis upon which EPA monitoring and
    enforcement programs are built.
        Despite the important role played by ORD, its funding has declined
    by 11 percent since fiscal year 2004, when it peaked at $646.5 million.
    At $575.6 million, the budget request for fiscal year 2013 falls far
    short of addressing past and current shortfalls. We ask that the
    Congress restore funding for ORD to at least the fiscal year 2010
    level.
        The Ecosystem Services Research program within ORD is responsible
    for enhancing, protecting, and restoring ecosystem services, such as
    clean air and water, rich soil for crop production, pollination, and
    flood control. The program has been chronically underfunded, according
    to the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB). Indeed, the current level of
    funding ``provides inadequate funding for research that supports
    multiple EPA regulatory programs and that the SAB has characterized as
    transdisciplinary with the `potential to be transformative for
    environmental decisionmaking' . . .'' according to an SAB analysis of
    the fiscal year 2012 budget request. The fiscal year 2013 request fails
    to correct this problem, instead proposing a reduction of $600,000.
    Moreover, funding for EPA ecosystem research has been cut nearly in
    half since 2004. We ask that the Congress address the chronic
    underfunding of the program.
        The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program supports valuable
    research on human health and the environment through competitively
    awarded research grants. The program enables EPA to fill information
    gaps that are not addressed by intramural EPA research programs or by
    other agencies. A report by the National Academy of Sciences found that
    the ``STAR program is an important part of the overall EPA research
    program.'' That same report recommends that funding for the STAR
    program should be at 15 to 20 percent of the overall ORD budget, ``even
    in budget-constrained times.'' Despite a proposed increase for the
    program, the fiscal year 2013 request would fund STAR at less than 15
    percent of the overall ORD budget. We urge the Congress to fund STAR at
    the recommended level.
        The 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 National Academy of
    Sciences called the fellowship ``a valuable mechanism for enabling a
    continuing supply of graduate students in environmental sciences and
    engineering.'' Since its inception in 1995, this successful program has
    supported the education and training of 1,500 fellows who have gone on
    to pursue careers as scientists and educators. The agency's request
    would flat fund the program. Given the fellowship's valuable role in
    preparing environmental scientists and engineers, we ask for the
    program's funding to be increased accordingly.
        ORD's Safe and Sustainable Water Resources program supports
    research that underpins safe and sustainable water. In addition to
    helping to ensure safe drinking water for society, the program's
    research focuses on better understanding resiliency of watersheds to
    stressors and factors that affect watershed restoration. The budget
    request would allow the program to pursue research that will inform
    decisions about water safety and to ensure the sustainability of our
    coastal watersheds and estuaries.
        In conclusion, we urge the Congress to restore funding for the ORD
    to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. These appropriation levels would
    allow ORD to address a backlog of research needs.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the American Lung Association

                        SUMMARY: FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
        Improving Air Quality and Addressing Climate Change:
            Federal Stationary Source Regulation...............         34.1
            Federal Support of Air Quality Management..........        134.8
            Climate Protection Programs........................        108.0
            Clean Air Allowance Trading Program................         20.8
            State and Local Air Quality Management Grants......        301.5
            Diesel Emission Reduction Act Grants...............         30.0
            Federal Vehicle and Fuels Certification............        101.9
        State Indoor Radon Grants..............................          8.0
        Indoor Air: including Radon Program....................          4.1
        Research: Air, Climate, and Energy.....................        105.8
        Enforcement............................................         15.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The American Lung Association is pleased to support the
    Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) program to improve the nation's
    air during fiscal year 2013. 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 U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency has the necessary resources to protect the public health from
    air pollution, and we urge the subcommittee to pass an fiscal year 2013
    bill free from any policy riders.
        Protecting the public from the health threats of pollution is a
    core mission of the EPA, and it has a long history of success.
    Furthermore, the public expects EPA to implement the Clean Air Act and
    strongly supports EPA's effort to reduce air pollution. In March, we
    released a bipartisan public opinion poll that shows strong public
    support the EPA's efforts to update clean air protections. Nearly
    three-quarters (73 percent) of voters say that we do not have to choose
    between air quality and a strong economy--we can achieve both. And a 2-
    to-1 majority (60 to 31 percent) believes that strengthening safeguards
    against pollution will create, not destroy, jobs by encouraging
    innovation.
        Implementing the Clean Air Act to protect health and save lives is
    a tremendous responsibility and the EPA workload is vast. In fiscal
    year 2013, we expect 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 Clean Air Act is implemented in a way
    that protects the most vulnerable. As a Nation, we need EPA to be able
    to do all of these things. Below, we have highlighted key provisions of
    the President's fiscal year 2013 budget that deserve your attention
    and/or support.

              IMPROVING AIR QUALITY AND ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE

        We support the President's budget increases to improve air quality
    and address climate change. Specifically, we support EPA's request for
    the Federal Stationary Source Regulation budget increase of $6.8
    million, including an additional $2.4 million to fund the review of
    existing Clean Air Act standards for criteria pollutants including
    ozone and particulate matter to ensure that the air pollution health
    standards effectively convey to local communities when the air is
    unhealthy to breathe, as required by law; as well as the requested $2
    million for the development of new source performance standards to
    reduce greenhouse gases. As EPA advances clean air protections, more
    coordination will be needed and we urge you to provide the resources to
    do so as requested.
        We also support EPA's request for an additional $8.5 million for
    Climate Protection Programs, including $2.9 million for the Greenhouse
    Gas Reporting Program, and the $2 million requested by EPA to develop
    Carbon Pollution Standards for Power Plants. 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. It is clear that EPA is taking a careful and common
    sense approach to addressing climate change, including setting carbon
    pollution standards for power plants.
        The American Lung Association supports the increase requested by
    EPA to provide Federal Support for Air Quality Management of $11.9
    million (including $531,000 for science and technology needs) to assist
    States, tribal, and local air pollution agencies in the development and
    implementation of plans to meet standards established by EPA. People
    who live near major sources of pollution often face the greatest health
    risk. Through development of faster, electronic reporting, closing of
    data gaps, and continuing to develop the science necessary to reduce
    pollution to healthy levels, EPA supports States, tribes, and local
    agencies and directly benefits communities.
        The Clean Air Allowance Trading Program is responsible for
    development, implementation, and assessment, and provides regulatory
    and modeling support for efforts to address major regional and national
    air issues from stationary sources. Clean air allowance trading
    programs help implement the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
    (NAAQS) and reduce acid deposition, toxics deposition, and regional
    haze. Pollutants include sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
    oxides (NOX), and, as a co-benefit of SO2
    emission reductions, mercury. Please support a funding level of
    $792,000 (including $715,000 to meet science and technology needs) to
    implement this important program.
        Finally, we urge the Congress to provide at least the requested
    $101.9 million for the EPA Federal Vehicle Fuels Standards and
    Certifications Programs. It is critically important to increase the
    budget for EPA's Federal Vehicle Fuels Standards and Certifications
    Programs, particularly to improve the effectiveness of the
    certification and compliance testing programs in the face of increasing
    demand, more challenging oversight requirements, and the increasing
    diversity of technologies. Currently, EPA conducts very limited testing
    of small imported engines but a high fraction of these engines fail the
    test. Additional resources are needed to improve testing and compliance
    for this important program to protect public health.
        We strongly support EPA's planned work to update gasoline sulfur
    and tailpipe standards. Light duty cars and trucks remain a significant
    source of air pollution. This work is vital to address any adverse air
    quality impacts that may result from increased use of renewable fuels.

                            INDOOR AIR AND RADIATION

        Indoor air quality is a major concern for the American Lung
    Association, and we support the $17.8 million budget request for the
    Reducing Risks from Indoor Air Program to promote comprehensive asthma
    care that integrates management of environmental asthma triggers and
    healthcare services through community based programs, and we appreciate
    EPA's special attention to communities most at risk including children,
    low-income and minority populations.
        However, we strongly oppose the $1.9 million cut to the Indoor Air
    Radon Program (including $200,000 for science and technology needs) and
    the elimination of the $8 million State radon categorical grants
    proposed in the President's budget. Exposure to radon continues to be a
    significant risk to human health, and is the largest cause of lung
    cancer after tobacco.\1\ Without the guidance and funding support from
    EPA, State programs will simply not be able to protect the public from
    the threat of radon. Please fully restore these programs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Assessment of Risks
    from Radon in Homes (2003).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Please restore the Tools for Schools which has succeeded in
    improving environmental conditions and reducing asthma triggers in
    schools across the country. More schools need this help. Please fund
    this important program.

               SUPPORT FOR STATE AND LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

        The American Lung Association strongly supports increased funding
    for State and local air pollution agencies, which 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 revised and new
    safeguards set under the Clean Air Act and must adopt and enforce a
    range of new emissions reduction programs--including the recently
    finalized Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants that will
    save up to 11,000 lives per year when fully implemented. At this
    critical juncture, State and local air pollution agencies need more
    resources, not less, to ensure proper implementation of the Clean Air
    Act and protection of the public so we strongly support the requested
    additional $65.8 million for State and Local Air Quality Management
    Grants.
        However, we strongly oppose cuts in the President's budget to the
    widely supported Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) program that was
    reauthorized in late 2010. Twenty million old diesel engines are in use
    today that pollute communities and threaten the public and workers.
    Immense opportunities remain to reduce diesel emissions and protect
    public health through the DERA program. Please restore funding to the
    $30 million level.
        As mentioned previously, we strongly oppose the elimination of the
    $8 million State radon categorical grants as proposed in the
    President's budget. Without the financial support from EPA, the State
    programs will not be able to protect the public from the pervasive
    threat of radon.

                       RESEARCH: AIR, CLIMATE, AND ENERGY

        The American Lung Association strongly supports EPA's Air, Climate
    and Energy Research Program. Research is essential to improve the
    understanding of the health effects of air pollution and determining
    what levels of pollution should be set to protect the public with an
    adequate margin of safety. Specifically, we urge the Congress to
    provide at least the additional $15 million requested in the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget for improved air quality
    monitoring. Improving the Nation's air pollution monitoring network is
    absolutely critical in providing better information to enhance Federal,
    State and local knowledge and empower efforts to protect the health of
    their communities. Continued investment in other areas of research,
    especially in climate change and biofuels, is also vital to informing
    future agency action.

                                  ENFORCEMENT

        The American Lung Association supports EPA's request for
    enforcement funding to ensure that air pollution standards and
    requirements are being met to protect public health. In order to
    effectively protect the public and promote justice for
    disproportionately impacted populations, EPA must have the ability to
    enforce penalties for permit violations and respond to civil
    enforcement actions authorized by the Clean Air Act. We ask the
    Congress to fully fund EPA's enforcement program appropriation request
    of $15.8 million, in the interests of the Nation's youngest, oldest,
    and most economically challenged citizens.

                                   CONCLUSION

        For 40 years the Clean Air Act has charged 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
    EPA is meeting the required deadlines and updating standards to reflect
    the best science with the maximum health protection, and to pass and
    fiscal year 2013 bill free of any policy riders. Thank you for the
    opportunity to present the recommendations of the American Lung
    Association. Every day we are fighting for clean, healthy air for all
    Americans to breathe.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology

        The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
    the following testimony on the fiscal year 2013 appropriation for
    science and technology (S&T) programs at the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA). The ASM is the largest single life science organization
    in the world with more than 38,000 members.
        The administration's proposed fiscal year 2013 budget of $807.3
    million for EPA's S&T activities is $13.5 million; a 1.7-percent
    increase more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. This request is
    roughly 10 percent of the total EPA budget proposal, and it provides
    crucial resources for EPA's science based regulatory responsibilities.
    The S&T funding supports research and development (R&D) efforts,
    personnel costs, laboratory purchases, and other operating expenses,
    resources necessary to strengthen the science underlying EPA's
    environmental standards and their enforcement.
        The fiscal year 2013 EPA budget provides critical resources for the
    Agency's current strategic plan, which identifies five goals to guide
    EPA research, education, regulatory, compliance, and enforcement
    functions during fiscal year 2011-2015:
        Goal 1: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
        Goal 2: Protecting America's Waters
        Goal 3: Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable
            Development
        Goal 4: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
        Goal 5: Enforcing Environmental Laws
        EPA has developed five cross-cutting strategies to help achieve the
    Strategic Plan's goals, one of which is ``advancing science, research,
    and technological innovation.'' EPA's strategic successes depend upon
    best practice science capabilities enabled by adequate S&T funding. EPA
    research programs contribute new knowledge to regulatory science;
    analyze environmental samples; provide technical support to Federal,
    State, and local labs; monitor regulated pollutants; check compliance
    and enforce Federal regulations; and respond to emergencies.
        In the past year, EPA monitored United States air quality following
    Japan's nuclear disaster, awarded grants to universities and health
    departments to develop new controls for bed bug infestations, and
    accepted a congressional directive to evaluate the potential impacts of
    hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. In January, EPA announced its
    fiscal year 2012-2013 ``priority goals''--selected as measurable and
    achievable within 2 years, designed to advance the agency's long-term
    strategic objectives. One priority goal is the clean-up of 22,100
    contaminated U.S. sites by September 30, 2013. As specified in the
    administration's request, the fiscal year 2013 budget also would
    support restoring water quality in the Great Lakes, implementing new
    computing tools to improve environmental monitoring data-gathering, and
    developing new standards for vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions. Such
    EPA actions require frequent testing and a thorough understanding of
    current scientific knowledge.

     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FUNDING BUILDS TECHNICAL EXPERTISE IN
                             ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

        The EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) currently manages
    research programs in six priority areas to advance environmental
    science:
      --air, climate, and energy;
      --safe and sustainable water resources;
      --sustainable and healthy communities;
      --chemical safety for sustainability;
      --human health risk assessment; and
      --homeland security research.
        EPA scientists and engineers conduct this research at ORD's three
    national laboratories, four national centers, and two offices situated
    in 14 facilities. These centers and labs are responsible for studies
    spanning the agency's S&T research portfolio:
      --National Exposure Research Laboratory--employs more than 400
            scientists, engineers, and staff to develop the knowledge and
            tools needed for environmental risk assessments as well as
            optimal responses to contaminants.
      --National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory--
            conducts research on the effects of contaminants and
            environmental stressors on human health and ecosystems, to
            identify and evaluate risks.
      --National Risk Management Research Laboratory--focuses on practical
            actions to solve environmental problems like improving air
            quality, cleaning contaminated sites, and reducing greenhouse
            gas emissions.
      --National Center for Computational Toxicology--uses high-throughput
            screening technologies, systems biology, and advanced computer
            models to develop better tools that can screen thousands of
            chemicals for toxicity.
      --National Center for Environmental Assessment--prepares technical
            reports and risk assessments on how pollutants, etc., might
            impact human health and the environment; also develops new risk
            assessment methods and tools.
      --National Center for Environmental Research--manages EPA's
            competitive grants and fellowship programs to develop the next
            generation of U.S. scientists and engineers.
      --National Homeland Security Research Center--created in 2002,
            provides the scientific knowledge to counter biological,
            chemical, and radiological pollutants.
        Research at EPA's Microbiological and Chemical Exposure Assessment
    Research Division (MCEARD) is concerned about microorganisms in the
    environment that could be beneficial or harmful to human health. MCEARD
    scientists have established risk assessment tools and methods to detect
    molds, bacteria like Escherichia coli, viruses, Giardia parasites, and
    other microbes in water, soil, and air samples. The agency's
    researchers have contributed significantly to commonly used protocols
    for monitoring microbial contaminants throughout the United States.
        Across its six priority programs, ORD is placing more emphasis on
    finding sustainable solutions, within a sustainability focused
    operational framework recently developed by the National Research
    Council at EPA's request. In addition, the six programs routinely
    leverage collaborations with other EPA offices, Federal agencies, and
    State and local stakeholders. With its Federal partners, EPA's S&T
    expertise is integral to the Nation's homeland security efforts. EPA is
    the lead agency for Federal preparations against terrorist attacks via
    water and for decontamination of indoor and outdoor areas post-attack.
    Biosecurity-related discoveries by ORD scientists and engineers also
    have clear applications to other sectors of public health and
    environmental sciences. As part of its homeland security
    responsibilities, EPA will use fiscal year 2013 funds to implement a
    Regional Center of Expertise for Chemical Warfare Agent Laboratories,
    coordinating agency efforts into a more efficient operation.

      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FUNDING PROTECTS AGAINST THREATS TO
                              HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS

        Every action taken by EPA to protect public health and the
    environment must be supported by solid S&T expertise and risk
    assessments. In the fiscal year 2013 budget, S&T funding distributed
    among EPA's five strategic goals would fall less than fiscal year 2011
    levels, but slightly more than fiscal year 2012 enacted levels with one
    exception:
      --taking action on climate change and improving air quality, $271
            million (4.3-percent increase);
      --protecting America's waters, $151 million (1.2-percent increase);
      --cleaning up communities and advancing sustainable development, $183
            million (2.3-percent decrease);
      --ensuring the safety of chemicals and preventing pollution, $185
            million (2.4-percent increase); and
      --enforcing environmental laws, $18.5 million (2.5-percent increase).
        To achieve EPA's strategic goals, fiscal year 2013 funds will
    support prioritized actions in the coming year, all dependent upon S&T
    capabilities, including the following:
      --About 70 Federal rules directing EPA's air toxic control efforts
            are due for review, and EPA experts and health risk data will
            shape the resultant standards and their enforcement.
      --EPA will replace outdated technologies to detect air contaminants
            currently used in the national monitoring networks, using S&T
            funds to develop improved monitors for ambient air pollutants
            that are more cost-effective for EPA, State, and local
            agencies.
      --Fiscal year 2013 increases include funds for the Drinking Water
            program that will provide additional technical assistance to
            States. By September 30, 2013, EPA also will have collaborated
            with 20 States to specifically improve small drinking water
            systems. A partnership created last August with the U.S.
            Department of Agriculture will direct fiscal year 2013 EPA
            resources toward protecting rural drinking water and wastewater
            systems.
      --With the Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey, EPA
            researchers will prepare a detailed study of potential air,
            ecosystem, and water quality impacts of hydraulic fracturing.
      --The EPA Pollution Prevention Program will focus its R&D efforts on
            evaluating and encouraging greater use of greener chemicals,
            products, and technologies.
        EPA programs play a role in preserving healthy environments in U.S.
    communities. In January, EPA provided nearly $10 million in grants to
    38 States, territories, and tribes to protect swimmers at beaches
    against bacterial and other contamination. A recent annual EPA report
    showed that EPA actions in fiscal year 2011 stopped more than 1.8
    billion pounds of harmful pollution in the Nation's air, land, and
    waters. In the past year, EPA safeguarded our food supply by issuing
    compliance orders to several beef feedlots in the Midwest and warning
    against consuming fish from contaminated waters in Texas. The agency
    also announced improvements to its Integrated Risk Information System
    (IRIS), an online repository of EPA's scientific evaluations of health
    risks associated with environmental contaminants. There currently are
    540 chemical substances in the IRIS database.
    Environmental Protection Agency Funding Stimulates Scientific and
            Economic Innovation
        In fiscal year 2013, EPA grants will continue to support both the
    university researchers who make new discoveries in environmental
    sciences and the educational institutions that train our future
    scientists and engineers. One example is EPA's principal sponsorship of
    the University of California's Center for Environmental Implications of
    Nanotechnology, created in 2008 to help design environmentally safe
    nanomaterials for what is expected to become a $1 trillion industry in
    the near future. Another is the exemplary Science To Achieve Results
    (STAR) fellowship program, which supports graduate environmental study.
        ASM recommends that the Congress provide increased funding for EPA
    science programs in the fiscal year 2013 budget for the agency. EPA's
    effectiveness in enforcing Federal environmental standards clearly
    depends upon the quality of EPA science and technology and increased
    resources are needed for the important EPA mission of protecting the
    public against unhealthy environments. The external portion of EPA's
    S&T funds which goes to universities is of major importance in training
    the next generation of scientists and engineers who will implement more
    cost-effect and sustainable protection of human health and the
    environment.
                                     ______

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

        Dear Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
    subcommittee: On behalf of the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop
    Science Society of America (CSSA), and the Soil Science Society of
    America (SSSA), I am pleased to submit comments in strong support of
    enhanced public investment in the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S.
    Geological Survey, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ASA, CSSA,
    and SSSA urge the subcommittee to support USFS at a minimum level of
    $4.86 billion; the U.S. Geological Survey at a level of $1.1 billion,
    and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science and Technology
    appropriation at $807 million.
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA represent more than 18,000 members in academia,
    industry, and government, and 13,000 Certified Crop Advisers. The
    largest coalition of professionals dedicated to the agronomic, crop,
    and soil science disciplines in the United States, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA
    are dedicated to utilizing science in order to meet our growing food,
    feed, fiber, and fuel needs. With an ever-expanding global population
    and increasing food demands, investment in food and agriculture
    research is essential to maintaining our Nation's food, economic and
    national security.
    U.S. Forest Service
        USFS sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of the
    Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future
    generations, and the health of soils represents a vital component of
    forest management.
                Forest and Rangeland Research
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA urge the subcommittee to support funding for
    Forest and Rangeland Research at a level of $292 million in fiscal year
    2013 to maintain an essential level for basic research. The research
    and development arm of USFS provides scientific information and new
    technologies to support the sustainable management of the Nation's
    forests and rangelands. This knowledge and technology is essential to
    foster healthy watersheds, forest products, wildlife protection,
    outdoor recreation opportunities and other benefits across the United
    States.
                Water, Air, and Soil Research and Development Program
        USFS scientists in this department have conducted essential
    research such as developing a software tool to predict the impact of
    contaminant releases, including radioactive materials, to surface
    waters (which was later used for assessment purposes at Japan's
    Fukushima Daiichi nuclear powerplant). In another project, researchers
    with USFS's Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center
    applied models to measure water supply stress in relation to carbon and
    biodiversity. All of these tools provide important information for
    decisionmakers.
                National Forest System
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support a funding level of $1.6 billion for the
    National Forest System, as requested in the President's fiscal year
    2013 budget proposal. This funding is essential to not only provide for
    the maintenance of forests and grasslands that contribute to air and
    water quality, plants, and wildlife, but also to respond to the
    public's interests and needs. The National Forest System programs
    support water-quality protection and improvement; recreation
    opportunities for the public; energy for the Nation; forest products;
    wildlife habitat; and forage for domestic animals--all while
    maintaining or improving the health of the land.
    U.S. Geological Survey
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the President's 2013 budget request for
    $1.1 billion for USGS, a $34.5 million increase more than the fiscal
    year 2012 enacted level. USGS is uniquely positioned to address many of
    the Nation's greatest challenges. USGS plays a crucial role in reducing
    risks from earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, landslides, wildfires, and
    other natural hazards, assessing water quality and quantity, providing
    geospatial data to improve agricultural production, soil management,
    and crop adaptation. In addition, the science provided by the USGS is
    increasingly in demand as new energy supplies are developed,
    competition for water grows, and the cost of natural disasters expands.
    USGS is working in every State and has nearly 400 offices across the
    country and works with more than 2,000 Federal, State, local, tribal
    and private organizations.
    Environmental Protection Agency
        In order to fulfill its mission of protecting human health and the
    environment, we need to maintain investments in the Environmental
    Protection Agency's ecological and exploratory research as well as
    partnerships with academia and State and local government.
                Science and Technology
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the President's budget request of $807
    million for the EPA Science and Technology appropriations account. This
    request includes $576 million for research through the Office of
    Research and Development (ORD), which conducts intramural and
    extramural research across a broad spectrum of disciplines. ORD seeks
    out the science and engineering solutions necessary to realizing a
    healthy, productive, and sustainable environment. ORD has worked with
    the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop models for how
    chemicals could impact human health, partnered with major cities to
    investigate solutions to water security issues, and collaborated with
    local municipalities to improve stormwater management practices.
                Science To Achieve Results
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the President's budget request of $81
    million for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants and
    fellowships that are awarded to scientists and universities throughout
    the country to conduct targeted research in a competitive and
    independently peer reviewed program. This research has addressed
    children's health issues, hydraulic fracturing, potential endocrine
    disruptors, water infrastructure, and air monitoring.
        Thank you for your consideration of our requests.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Society of Landscape Architects;
      City Parks Alliance; International Mountain Bicycling Association;
    League of American Bicyclists; PGA of America; and The Trust for Public
                                      Land

        To the Chair and members of the subcommittee, as national
    organizations representing people who design, create, manage, protect
    and use the Nation's urban parks, we are writing to express our strong
    support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in fiscal year
    2013 and to urge you to allocate robust funding to this valuable
    program in the fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies appropriations bill, including the proposed LWCF stateside
    competitive grant program.
        At this time of national fiscal crisis, investments that create
    jobs and grow our economy must be paramount. LWCF benefits local
    economies, communities, and the environment. Natural amenities like
    parks, open space, and rivers fuel economic investment, particularly
    when they are close to our population centers. Parks, greenways, and
    trails augment surrounding property values--contributing to higher tax
    revenues--encourage tourism, and attract employers drawn to the
    enhanced quality of life for residents. The shared outdoor spaces also
    provide opportunities for recreation and exercise critical to
    countering skyrocketing rates of childhood obesity and other health
    problems. Moreover, our parks and public lands protect critical
    drinking water supplies through watershed, forest, and wetland
    conservation.
        Already, outdoor recreation activities contribute $730 billion
    annually to the U.S. economy, supporting 6.5 million jobs, according to
    the Outdoor Industry Foundation. New investments in parks could quickly
    create an added 100,000 to 200,000 positions--jobs based largely in
    local communities and, thus, hard to outsource.
        As you begin the process of drafting the fiscal year 2013 budget,
    we request $450 million in funding for LWCF. These investments will
    support public land conservation and ensure access to the outdoors for
    Americans, in cities and rural communities alike. We also encourage
    your support for the proposed stateside competitive matching grant
    program that would be allocated $20 million under the authorities found
    in sections 3, 5, and 6 of the LWCF Act. Through this proposed
    competitive program, States would be eligible to apply for projects
    which:
      --enhance and create urban parks and community green spaces;
      --develop public access to rivers, lakes, streams, and other bodies
            of water through water trails and blueways; and
      --conserve rural landscapes.
        This matching grant program would leverage private and
    philanthropic support at the local level, where urban parks have
    fostered a vital network of private-public partnerships to sustain
    them. The public values supported by these targeted LWCF investments
    are critically important to the future health of local communities and
    their residents.
        The entire suite of LWCF programs protects natural resource lands,
    outdoor recreation opportunities and working forests at the local,
    State and Federal levels, ensuring that critical wildlife habitat,
    hunting and fishing access, State and local parks, Civil War
    battlefields, productive forests, and other important lands are
    protected for future generations. The LWCF stateside program is the
    Government's primary investment tool for ensuring that children and
    families have access to close-to-home recreation. It has funded more
    than 41,000 projects including sports fields, outdoor recreation
    facilities and trails touching all 50 States.
        LWCF receipts are not revenues for general purposes--they are
    payments to the Government specifically intended for conservation
    spending. More than $17.5 billion has been siphoned from the LWCF trust
    fund since the program's inception in 1965; these funds have been
    diverted from their original conservation purpose with no
    accountability. This chronic redirection of funding has created a large
    backlog of conservation needs, including already-negotiated
    acquisitions from willing sellers, and has led States and Federal land
    management agencies to postpone or cancel many important projects.
        The LWCF is one of the most important long-term investments we can
    make to help spur our economy, create jobs by putting more Americans
    back to work in tourism and recreation, and help American's stay
    healthier by making it easier to spend more time outside.
        By working together to protect our natural heritage and leveraging
    resources like LWCF to provide children and families with access and
    opportunities to enjoy the outdoors, we can make our communities
    healthier, sustainable, and more economically competitive.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute

        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal
    year 2013 funding for White-Nose Syndrome activities of the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS); U.S. Geological Service; Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM); and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS); and for the Wild
    Horse and Burro program of the Bureau of Land Management.
        Since the Congress last received testimony on the devastation being
    wrought on bat populations by White-Nose Syndrome (WNS), the picture
    has grown more alarming. In January, FWS released new estimates of the
    death toll: Having now spread to 20 States (this time last year it was
    16) and 4 Canadian provinces, with more than 200 sites affected, WNS
    has caused the deaths of at least 5.7 million hibernating bats.
    Mortality rates at many affected sites continue to be at or near 100
    percent. Insect-eating bats provide pest-control services worth at
    least $3.7 billion, and possibly as much as $53 billion, per year to
    U.S. agriculture. When the death toll stood at 1 million, scientists
    estimated that that many bats could have eaten nearly 700 tons of
    insects per year. With the disappearance of bats due to White-Nose
    Syndrome--necessitating greater use of pesticides and raising the price
    of food for consumers--our country's agriculture industry is at risk of
    serious economic losses that will likely be noticeable in 4 to 5 years.
    There are public health impacts as well due to greater numbers of
    disease-carrying insects.
        The above-mentioned agencies have been hard at work to understand
    the fungus, Geomyces destructans, involved in the deaths of so many
    bats, to identify steps to control and prevent its spread, and assist
    States with WNS oversight, surveillance, research, education, and
    outreach. Scientists succeeded in mapping the genome of the fungus and
    identifying its origin. Now, having also been able to conclude that
    Geomyces destructans does indeed cause WNS, they are in a better
    position to deal with it. Projects underway include but are not limited
    to:
      --detailed studies of the fungus, its transmission, and possible
            means of mitigation, including nonchemical control; and
      --improving WNS detection techniques; and developing a better
            understanding both of bats' resistance and susceptibility to
            infection and of the persistence of the fungus in the
            environment.
        Additional priorities include assessing the post-WNS world,
    evaluating remnant populations, and determining the broader ecological
    impacts of WNS.
        We very much appreciate the Congress's concern over this wildlife,
    environmental, and economic disaster, and the steps it took in the
    fiscal year 2012 appropriations redirecting $4 million in FWS spending
    to WNS, as well as instructing BLM and USFS to prioritize research
    related to WNS and the inventorying and monitoring of bat resources on
    agency lands. There is a need, however, for new funds to support the
    many research, surveillance, prevention, and mitigation efforts needed
    to address this increasingly urgent problem. As noted above, much has
    been accomplished since the disease was first detected and scientists
    are on the verge of accomplishing a good deal more. Modest increases in
    the agencies' budgets for WNS will prevent the unraveling of this hard-
    won progress.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: +$4.5 Million
        FWS leads the Federal Government's WNS efforts and supports all of
    the working groups under the White-Nose Syndrome National Plan. Its
    accomplishments include assembling an investigative team, support for
    research and State response activities, developing national and State
    plans, putting containment protocols in place, and providing
    surveillance.
        We ask the subcommittee to maintain the President's fiscal year
    2013 recovery fund request of $81.909 million, including the requested
    $1.897 million within that amount for WNS, to be supplemented by an
    additional $2.603 million for WNS, for a total of $4.5 million, for an
    incremental increase in the Congress's fiscal year 2012 commitment.
        These funds are needed for the following:
      --Interagency coordination, providing and relaying scientific
            information and guidance to and among Federal and State
            agencies, tribes, landowners, recreation, and conservation
            groups to ensure best practices on WNS-related issues, such as
            research findings, status of disease spread, and fungus
            decontamination procedures;
      --identifying priorities for applied research that will assist in
            combating WNS and managing its spread, and funding projects
            that support these goals;
      --support to State wildlife agencies to conduct disease surveillance,
            monitor bat populations, implement conservation measures, and
            conduct research; and
      --conservation action for bat species in decline due to WNS,
            including assessing populations and spectrum of threats and
            providing guidance to Federal and State agencies and private
            landowners on the needs of species.
    U.S. Geological Survey: +$1 Million +1 FTE
        We ask the subcommittee to maintain the $1 million increase
    requested in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget in order to allow
    enhancements to USGS's WNS surveillance and diagnostic capabilities,
    and to support research on topics such as the following:
      --Immunology and pathogenesis (the origin, development, and resultant
            effects of WNS);
      --vaccine development;
      --prevalence and survival of WNS fungus in cave environments; and
      --modeling WNS disease processes.
        These activities support the goals of the following working groups
    of the National Plan:
      --diagnostics;
      --disease management;
      --epidemiological and ecological research;
      --disease surveillance; and
      --conservation and recovery.
    National Park Service: +$300,000
        Fourteen parks have significant cave resources (there are 4,000
    caves in NPS sites), account for 2,600 jobs, and generate $105 million
    in ``value added'' to the local communities. Seven of these sites are
    affected by WNS; they receive approximately 22 million visitors per
    year. We ask the subcommittee to provide $300,000 for the National Park
    Service's WNS efforts, which include the following:
      --Preventing WNS spread by conducting visitor decontamination and
            monitoring flow of visitors on an as-needed basis;
      --conducting on-the-ground surveillance of disease; and
      --monitoring for disease presence or absence on NPS lands.
        These activities support the goals of the National Plan Disease
    Management Working Group.
    Bureau of Land Management: +$1 Million
        In order for BLM to comply with the Congress's fiscal year 2012
    directive to ``prioritize research related to WNS in bats and the
    inventory and monitoring of bat resources on BLM-administered lands'',
    we ask the subcommittee to provide $1 million for BLM's WNS efforts.
    This will fund conducting bat inventories of the BLM's presently known
    caves and abandoned mines, which will support the goals of the National
    Plan Disease Management Working Group.
    U.S. Forest Service: +$1.5 Million
        In order for USFS to comply with the Congress's fiscal year 2012
    directive to ``prioritize research related to WNS as well as inventory
    and monitoring of bat resources on Forest Service lands'', we ask the
    subcommittee to provide $1.5 million. With this level of funding, the
    USFS will be able to undertake the following:
      --Research on topics such as enhancing environmental conditions for
            bat survival in the face of WNS, possible biological controls
            for WNS, and ways to measure the status and fitness of bat
            populations;
      --preventing WNS spread by conducting visitor decontamination and
            monitoring flow of visitors on an as-needed basis;
      --conducting on-the-ground surveillance of disease;
      --monitoring for disease presence or absence; and
      --managing forests to optimize bat habitat.
        Among other pests in their diet, bats eat mosquitoes and gypsy
    moths, and there are 15 beetles and 10 moths in the diet of the little
    brown bat alone, one of the species badly affected by WNS.
    Massachusetts expects an increase in defoliation by the winter moth,
    which is also found in Connecticut and New Hampshire, all of whose bat
    populations have been significantly decimated by WNS. More research
    into the economic impact on forests from the loss of bat populations is
    greatly needed.
        These activities support the goals of the Disease Management,
    Epidemiological and Ecological Research, and Conservation and Recovery
    Working Groups of the National Plan.
    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, these wild horses are at
    risk of mistreatment by BLM, which misuses most of its budget to round
    up and warehouse wild horses and burros to make room for privately
    owned cattle. Wild horses have been removed from more than 19 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. AWI
    requests that any increase in appropriations under the Wild Free-
    Roaming Horses and Burros Act be solely used for implementation of
    humane, on-the-range management methods such as immunocontraception
    versus unnecessary roundup. AWI strongly encourages that this ``no-
    kill'' language also be maintained to ensure the BLM does not kill
    healthy wild horses and burros:

        ``Provided, That appropriations herein made shall not be available
    for the sale or destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and
    burros in the care of the Bureau or its contractors''.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Arctic Slope Native Association Limited

        Thank you for the honor and opportunity to provide testimony. My
    name is Marie Carroll and I am the President/Chief Executive Officer of
    the Arctic Slope Native Association Limited (ASNA) based out of the
    northernmost community of the United States of America, Barrow, Alaska.
    We operate the Samuel Simmonds Memorial Hospital under the Self
    Determination Act through a title V 683 Compact with the Indian Health
    Service (IHS). Our service area is the size of the State of Minnesota.
        IHS began the work to replace our 48-year-old hospital in 1991. In
    1996, ASNA took over management of the health facilities under 638
    Compact with IHS. Since then, ASNA took over the project justification
    and other related documents to get the project in line with the IHS
    facilities construction program. ASNA is constructing the hospital
    through a title V hospital construction agreement with IHS. I am
    pleased to report to you that our hospital construction project is on
    time and on budget, it is also the first project of its size to be
    constructed by a tribal health organization under title V. We
    anticipate the completion of the project in December of this year. IHS
    and ASNA have agreed to go through the acceptance and commissioning
    process jointly at the end of this year.
        ASNA plans to move from the 48-year-old, 2 by 4 facility to a more
    modern hospital in April 2013. However, we have a challenge because our
    staffing package was excluded in the fiscal year 2013 President's
    budget. IHS has told ASNA that they did not recommend a staffing
    package for fiscal year 2013 because of the uncertainty of full funding
    for our construction budget in fiscal year 2012. Thanks to the Congress
    our project was fully funded in fiscal year 2012 which has kept our
    project on time and on budget without additional cost of delaying a
    project in the Arctic environment. Which brings me to the final point,
    ASNA has been responsible in carrying out the construction program, we
    are now without a staffing package to bring a new hospital on line in
    April unless our staffing package be fully funded along with other
    tribal facilities opening in fiscal year 2013 at least through the
    portion of the fiscal year that the facilities are operational.
        We are grateful for the new facility that will benefit not only the
    Alaskan Native people who reside in the northernmost communities in our
    country, it will also benefit everyone who lives there or visits our
    region because we operate the only hospital north of the Arctic Circle.
        In my language we end our public statements by simply saying,
    Quyanaq, meaning thank you.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Arctic Slope Native Association; the
       Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma; the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; the
    Citizen Potawatomi Nation; the Kodiak Area Native Association; the Nez
        Perce Tribe; the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe; the Southcentral
     Foundation; the SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium; the St.
     Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the Tanana Chiefs Conference

        My name is Lloyd Miller and I am a partner in the law firm of
    Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP, of Washington, DC. I
    am submitting this testimony on behalf of 11 tribes and tribal
    organizations that experienced contract support cost shortfalls but who
    have been denied their day in court, due to no fault of their own. On
    behalf of these 11 tribes and tribal organizations we request that the
    Committee include language which would deem their claims to have been
    timely filed so that they can finally have their day in court. The
    language would not guarantee any outcome on the claims, and would only
    assure that the tribes and tribal organizations are permitted to bring
    them.
        The 11 tribes and tribal organizations named here were all caught
    in a double catch-22 that was not of their making.
        The first catch-22 concerned two law suits that were pending before
    New Mexico Federal Judge Leroy Hansen. One was a class action lawsuit
    against the Bureau of Indian Affairs over unpaid contract support
    costs, and is called the Ramah case.\1\ The other was a class action
    law suit against the Indian Health Service over unpaid contract support
    costs and is called the Zuni case.\2\ These were essentially identical
    law suits. The Ramah BIA suit was filed in 1990, and the Zuni IHS suit
    was filed in 2001.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan, No. 1:90-cv-00957 (D.N.M. filed
    Oct. 4, 1990).
        \2\ Pueblo of Zuni v. United States, No. 1:01-cv-01046 (D.N.M.
    filed Sept. 10, 2001).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the BIA class action case, Judge Hansen ruled in 1993 that
    individual tribal contractors did not need to individually ``present''
    their own claims to the Government in order to be covered by the law
    suit. Instead, Judge Hansen ruled, the claims that were filed by the
    Ramah Navajo Chapter were sufficient to cover all tribal contractors.
    Later, in 1999 and 2001, portions of this lawsuit were settled and all
    qualifying tribal contractors in the country shared in the
    settlements.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Babbitt, 50 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (D.N.M.
    1999); Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Norton, 250 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (D.N.M.
    2002).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Zuni class action law suit against IHS was filed in 2001, and
    for 4 years it was handled by Judge Hansen. Since Judge Hansen had
    already ruled in the Ramah case that individual tribal contractors did
    not need to present their individual claims in order to be covered by
    the class action law suit--and because Judge Hansen's decision was the
    only decision in the country to address this issue--individual tribal
    contractors likewise relied on the 2001 Zuni class action law suit to
    protect their claims. They did not file individual claims.
        In 2005, the Zuni law suit was assigned to a new Judge. Within a
    few weeks the Government informed the new Judge that the Government
    intended to challenge Judge Hansen's earlier 1993 ruling. Shortly after
    this development--again, in 2005--all of the 11 tribes and tribal
    organizations named above filed individual claims against the
    Government. The claims reached back as far back as fiscal year 1996 (5
    years before the Zuni case was filed, but 9 years before the 2005
    claims were filed). Eventually, the new Judge handling the Zuni case,
    Judge Johnson, announced that he disagreed with Judge Hansen's 1993
    decision. Judge Hansen ruled that a class action law suit does not
    protect individual tribal contractor's claims if those claims have not
    been separately presented to the Government within 6 years after they
    first accrued. (Partly for this reason, Judge Johnson ended up refusing
    to certify the Zuni case as a class action. It was later dismissed.)
        This was the first catch-22. The 11 tribes and tribal organizations
    named here relied on Judge Hansen's ruling that a class action lawsuit
    relieves individual tribal contractors of the burden of filing their
    own claims. No one could have predicted that the Zuni case being
    handled by Judge Hansen would be transferred to Judge Johnson, and that
    Judge Johnson would then disagree with Judge Hansen and require all
    tribal contractors to present their claims one by one.
        The second catch-22 concerns what happens when a class action law
    suit is not certified. The usual rule is that individuals who are
    covered by an uncertified class action are protected during the time
    that the law suit was pending. They do not lose any rights. If the
    class is not certified, the individuals are then free to go forward on
    their own, and they are given the extra time that the law suit was
    pending to pursue their own individual claims. This is called ``class
    action tolling'', because the class action law suit ``tolls'' the time
    for the individual to act on his or her own.
        That is the usual rule. But when the 11 tribes and tribal
    organizations sought to rely on the usual ``class action tolling rule''
    to pursue their individual claims, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
    held that the ``class action tolling rule'' does not apply in
    Government contract litigation. As a result, claims that were filed
    more than 6 years after the claims arose are considered untimely.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Arctic Slope Native Assoc., Ltd. v. Sebelius, 583 F.3d 785
    (Fed. Cir. 2009). Subsequent cases have ruled that the ``equitable
    tolling'' doctrine also does not apply in this setting to preserve the
    timeliness of claims more than 6 years old. See, e.g., Menominee Indian
    Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, _ F. Supp. 2d _, 2012 WL 192815
    (D.D.C. 2012).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This is the second catch-22. In 2001, these 11 tribes and tribal
    organizations assumed that the usual class action tolling rules would
    protect them if there were ever any problem with the Zuni class action
    law suit, only to learn, for the very first time in 2009, that the
    usual rules do not apply to this kind of law suit. By then--even by
    2005--it was too late to cure the problem of the claims having been
    presented too late.
        Two catch-22 situations should not stand in the way of tribes
    having their day in court on legitimate assertions that the Government
    underpaid their contract support cost requirements. For this reason, we
    request that the Committee consider including in the bill the following
    language:

        ``: Provided, That claims presented to an Indian Health Service
    contracting officer on or before October 31, 2005, and involving claims
    which accrued after October 1, 1995, and on or before September 30,
    1999, shall be deemed timely presented''.

        The proposed language would deem the claims that were filed in
    2005, and covering contract years 1996-1999, to have been timely filed.
    If enacted, each of the 11 tribes and tribal organizations will finally
    have its day in court. The proposed language does not guarantee any
    outcome, just a day in court.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
                                  Reservation

        My name is Thomas ``Stoney'' Anketell, I am a member of the
    Executive Board 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 2013 budget. We are a large, land-based
    tribe located in northeastern Montana. The Fort Peck Reservation
    encompasses 2 million acres. The Reservation Native American population
    is approaching 8,000 and our tribal enrollment is more than 12,000
    members. Our greatest need is healthcare, infrastructure, economic
    development and public safety.
        The tribes' unemployment rate on the reservation is 56 percent. Of
    our tribal members who are working, 4 in 10 live below the poverty
    level. Given the enormous unemployment and poverty rates on the
    reservation, our needs for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Indian
    Health Service (IHS), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    programs and services are substantial.
        The United States has a continuing trust responsibility to assist
    tribes 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 much
    better off.
        Contrary to what some may think, the appropriation of funds for
    Tribal Governments is not a discretionary act by the United States,
    rather these appropriations represent the Federal Government's
    fulfillment of its mandatory obligation under the treaties and
    agreements entered into with tribal governments. We kept our word. The
    United States must do the same.

                            BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

        The Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System.--The health status of
    a community is directly related to the quality of our available water.
    That is why the Fort Peck Tribes took the lead in building the Fort
    Peck Reservation Rural Water System project, a Project 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. Under the law, the BIA has the statutory obligation to
    fund the operation and maintenance of this Project. We are very excited
    that the BIA has included $750,000 in programmatic funding for the
    operation of this important Project in its budget. However, the cost of
    operating this Project in fiscal year 2013 will be $1.866 million.
    Thus, the BIA will need an additional $1.11 million to meet its
    statutory obligation with regard to the operation of the Fort Peck
    Reservation Rural Water Project if the Congress appropriates only what
    the BIA has requested.
        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 the water treatment facility. The
    integrity of the Water Treatment facility is vital, as the EPA has
    determined that the well 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.
    Again, while the BIA budget includes $750,000 for the O&M of this
    important Project, more funding is needed. Specifically, an additional
    $1.11 million is needed to fully operate the Fort Peck Reservation
    Rural Water System in fiscal year 2013.
        Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development and Road
    Maintenance.--The tribes are very supportive of the BIA's request for
    $8.5 million for energy development in Indian country. However, we are
    concerned that of this amount $2.5 million will be directed only at the
    Fort Berthold Reservation. We believe that these resources should be
    more equitably distributed among the tribes who are presented with the
    opportunities now being experienced at Fort Berthold.
        The Bakken formation, which is in play at Fort Berthold extends to
    the Fort Peck Reservation. An April 2008 USGS Report determined that
    there are 3 to 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken
    formation alone. This represents a once in a lifetime opportunity for
    our tribal government--working in close collaboration with our Federal
    trustee--to use the bounty of our natural resources to create jobs and
    spur sustainable economic development to erase the persistently high
    rates of unemployment and poverty on our Reservation.
        However, our experience--like that at Fort Berthold a few years
    ago--is that the BIA Regional and Agency staff often do not have
    adequate technical expertise in the complex field of energy
    development, and they do not always appreciate that ``time is of the
    essence'' when it comes to energy development.
        Consequently, the Fort Peck Agency's long delays in processing
    mineral leases and other critical energy development paperwork often
    frustrate our energy development plans and serve only to push oil, gas
    and other types of energy and mineral development off the Reservation.
    In fact, BIA approval of oil and gas leases can take so long that
    Indian probates have been known to open and close before any BIA action
    is ever taken. We know from the experience at Fort Berthold that if the
    BIA makes an investment in the people at the agency level to ensure
    that they have the knowledge and capacity to work in the field of
    energy development great things can happen. We believe the same
    opportunities exist on the Fort Peck Reservation and the BIA needs to
    make the same commitment that it made to the Fort Berthold Tribes to
    the Fort Peck Tribes.
        Another disincentive to drilling on Indian lands is the $6,500 that
    the BLM charges for a permit application to drill on Federal land,
    including Indian and tribal trust lands. In fiscal year 2010, the
    Appropriations Committee increased this fee from $4,000 to $6,500. In
    theory, this fee is intended to cover the BLM's cost of processing the
    drilling permit application. However, the funds collected on Indian
    lands are not dedicated to processing permits on Indian lands.
    Moreover, the fee is highly disproportionate to the $75 that the State
    of Montana charges to process the same kind of permit on State fee
    land. This is creates a disincentive for developers to consider Indian
    and tribal lands. We would ask that Indian lands be exempt from the BLM
    fee.
        Closely related to economic development is the adequacy and safety
    of our public roads. We have seen the increased fatalities at Fort
    Berthold resulting from the explosion of truck traffic on the
    reservation resulting from oil drilling. Paved roads have deteriorated
    rapidly from the increased traffic, often by overweight vehicles.
    Please reverse the harmful trend of the last 30 years, and increase
    funding for the BIA Road Maintenance Program by $10 million, so that
    tribes can provide routine and emergency road maintenance services to
    ensure the safety of our existing roads. Years of budget cuts have
    undermined our ability to maintain our transportation infrastructure to
    an adequate design standard. This is a public safety issue.
        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 and detention
    facilities.
        I want to particularly support the $6.5 million requested to fund
    the operations of the newly constructed detention facilities. The Fort
    Peck Tribes received a 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
    will be operational in fiscal year 2013. 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. Please ensure that the BIA and OFMC have the
    resources needed to maintain these facilities after they are built. We
    lack infrastructure. When built, these facilities must be properly
    maintained or they will deteriorate far sooner under our harsh Montana
    winters.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

        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 health care
    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 the
    sacrifice of our traditional way of life.
        Fort Peck Dialysis Center.--There is a desperate need on our
    Reservation for a fully staffed and equipped health facility capable of
    providing a full range of medical services to our members. The IHS
    needs to evaluate and plan the process for new 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 additional
    73-100 pre-renal patients. If we cannot expand our services, these
    patients will have to travel great distances for this life-sustaining
    care. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act now allows the Indian
    Health Service to dedicate resources to dialysis, which is an important
    aspect of healthcare in Indian communities. We request that the
    subcommittee direct the Indian Health Service to report to the Congress
    on its efforts to address the need for dialysis treatment in Indian
    country, especially rural areas such as the Rocky Mountain Region.
        Contract Health.--We recognize the significance of the requested
    $20 million increase in Contract Health Care 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
    Contract Health Care budget--to $11 million--to meet the growing health
    demands of our more than 12,000 tribal members. Far too many members
    are not referred out for Contract Health Care Services which their
    primary healthcare providers determine are medically necessary because
    we only have CHS dollars to treat life threatening illnesses and
    injuries.
        Currently, the IHS does not refer individuals for necessary medical
    care, even when they have medical insurance, because the IHS does not
    want to pay the minimal co-pays or deductible for these services. As a
    result, our members do not get the care they need until it reaches the
    critical ``life or limb'' stage at which point the IHS would still only
    have to pay the minimal co-pay or deductible. It would seem that it
    would be far better public policy to pay the co-pay or the deductible
    for preventive care rather than let medical conditions worsen until a
    person's health deteriorates to a life-threatening 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 and implemented within available healthcare funds.
        At a minimum, the Congress should request that a study be conducted
    to examine how CHS funds are expended and to make recommendations that
    will help save lives.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        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 $96.3 million for the Tribal
    General Assistance Program (Tribal GAP program). 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. The tribal GAP
    program is critical to maintaining tribal capacity in these areas.
        Thank you for providing me the opportunity to present the views of
    the Fort Peck Tribes.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Association of American State Geologists

                                    SUMMARY

        Within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) budget, we
    recommend that a sum of $29.5 million be budgeted for the National
    Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program in fiscal year 2013, rather than
    the proposed $28 million, by not implementing the proposed $1.5 million
    cut to the base program, and by incorporating funding for two new
    initiatives:
      --WaterSMART; and
      --Hydraulic Fracturing.
        Also within the USGS budget, we strongly support the National
    Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program, and we are
    pleased that plans as we understand them call for funding of this
    activity at least equal to the fiscal year 2012 ($996,000) level as
    part of the program with which this activity has been merged.
        We believe that USGS is responsible for programs that are essential
    for the functioning of the U.S. Government and of the Nation, for
    optimization of the health, wealth, and security of the American
    people, as well as preservation and appreciation of our natural
    heritage.
        Whether at the U.S. Federal level, the U.S. State level, or in
    national or regional jurisdictions throughout the world, geological
    survey agencies fulfill the role of maintaining systematic information
    on the landmass administered by the Government they serve, as well as
    additional roles where geologic information is needed by Government.
        Whereas academic research institutes have a conceptual mandate,
    geological survey agencies have a unique and essential spatial mandate
    associated with their landmass. While academic centers focus on
    research and education, geological surveys are engaged in mapping over
    areas, and monitoring over time, as essential roles that accompany
    their needed research roles.
        This jurisdiction-wide, long-term function builds and maintains a
    body of knowledge regarding an understanding and accounting of earth
    materials, processes, and geologic history, based on mapping,
    monitoring, and research. Benefits for society result, as this
    systematic, accessible, and authoritative knowledge is used in relation
    to energy, mineral, and water resources, as well as hazards. Management
    of these issues, guided by sound information, is needed by society to
    ensure orderly progress toward their objectives.
        In a Federal system, both Federal and State governments require
    geological survey agencies to carry out their mission and mandates in
    an informed manner. States strongly endorse and support the unique
    Federal role of the USGS, which addresses national programs,
    specialized capabilities, and the needs of the Federal Government.
    State geological surveys meanwhile work closely with users on the
    priorities of each State. In our roles, we benefit from partnerships
    with USGS, while our roles were strongly endorsed last year by a paper
    released by the American Institute of Professional Geologists.
        While USGS functions with a budget of more than $1 billion,
    supported by on the order of 10,000 employees, State geological surveys
    in total are funded at a level of $250 million per year, and are
    supported by more than 2,000 employees.
        The work of the U.S. Federal and State geological surveys is
    closely coordinated. State geological surveys therefore have a great
    interest in the role of the USGS, as this role is a major factor in
    fulfillment of our roles.
        The President's budget proposal outlines support for successful and
    effective USGS programs that stimulate economic development, that save
    lives and property from natural disasters, and that protect the
    environment and public health. Through competitive grants and
    partnership programs, USGS directly benefits from collaboration with
    leading experts across the Nation.
        We endorse identification of priorities to which resources need to
    be shifted. We agree with the importance of a National Groundwater
    Monitoring Network, other water programs such as those related to
    stream gages, improved disaster mitigation and response, improved
    information needed to guide the economic benefits and risks of
    hydraulic fracturing, and increased attention to rare earth element
    research and assessment.
        We note with concern, however, potential reduction to important
    programs, including the minerals program, coal assessments, and several
    water programs. We are particularly concerned about proposed reductions
    to partnership and grant programs that promote efficiency, as well as
    preserving long-term datasets.
        Proposed reductions to the minerals programs are difficult to
    reconcile with the rapidly growing urgency of the efforts that are
    needed to ensure our access to materials that allow our economy to
    function. We endorse conservation and recycling, and we recognize that
    increasing global population and standard of living will require more
    mining.
        Most mineral commodities occur in the United States, where these
    materials can be mined using the world's best practices for
    environmental stewardship and health and safety for workers and the
    public. The USGS has a vital role in documenting domestic production
    and reserves, and in assessing the likelihood of future discoveries
    that will add to our mineral and energy resources.
        The dominance of China as a producer and consumer of mineral and
    energy commodities is a major factor that will influence our future.
    This can best be understood by utilizing critical data that are
    collected and reported by the USGS. USGS minerals data collection was
    considered to be an essential Government function in two 2008 National
    Academy of Sciences reports. We therefore believe these are programs
    and functions that should not be cut.
        We also are concerned about proposed reductions to energy-related
    programs, such as grants to States for coal resource assessments. Coal
    remains a major source of inexpensive electricity for America, while
    coal and other carbon-based energy fuels such as unconventional sources
    of oil and natural gas will continue to dominate global energy supply
    for years to come. It therefore is important that research is
    developing ways to reduce fossil-fuel-related emissions.
        While the Department of Energy maintains information on domestic
    energy production, USGS's role in long-term forecasting of energy
    supplies is unique and necessary. Much of this work is done in
    collaboration with States, using data largely compiled and provided by
    States, and the Association of American State Geologists supports this
    working relationship.
        State Geologists recognize, however, that geologic maps showing
    sediment and rock materials at and below the land surface are the
    foundation that guides all programs dealing with issues such as energy,
    minerals, construction, water, and hazards.
        In Ohio, for example, developers and engineers who used modern
    geologic maps saved about $50,000 for every project. Typically, many
    projects use the same map, multiplying these cost savings many times
    over. Furthermore, economists documented Kentucky's geologic maps to be
    worth 25 to 39 times the cost of the mapping.
        Less than one-half of the United States, however, is covered by
    adequate geologic maps, and many maps need to be updated due to the
    progress of science, new technology, and much new data. USGS therefore
    needs to have a vibrant geologic mapping program, as do State
    geological surveys nationwide, and we welcome the Federal role in
    maintenance of standards and coordination.
        Geologic mapping at the resolution and coverage done by geological
    survey agencies is clearly a role for Government, because the public
    benefits and cost savings are broad, and businesses must limit their
    work to small areas of immediate interest to their activity.
        While the mapping is guided by the accumulated knowledge of
    Government geologists, geologic mapping commonly utilizes surveys
    conducted by the private-sector, such as immensely useful new airborne
    laser elevation surveys known as LiDAR.
        We therefore place emphasis on our advocacy for the National
    Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, a subactivity within the USGS
    Core Science Systems Activity, funded at $26.3 million in fiscal year
    2012. Given its proven record in stimulating economic development and
    protecting the public, we believe that this program should grow to its
    authorized level of $64 million per year in upcoming years.
        All Federal dollars in the portions of this program that we are
    involved with are matched one to one with State dollars. Despite this,
    significant State geologic mapping resources that could be used to
    match Federal dollars are being left on the table.
        We certainly are pleased, however, that the President's budget
    proposal recognizes the key role of geologic mapping in pressing
    priorities, in particular related to water and hydraulic fracturing, by
    proposing transfers to the program in relation to these topics.
        Given the importance of geologic mapping, however, we not only
    endorse these proposed transfers, but we also suggest that a proposed
    reduction to the base of the program not be implemented, thus resulting
    in a further expansion of this crucial activity. We also note that it
    is good that the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Act provides
    clear guidance for distribution of these proposed increases.
        In turn, geologic mapping is underpinned by precious data and
    materials accumulated by scientists over decades. We thus recognize the
    fundamental importance of the National Geological and Geophysical Data
    Preservation Program, also a subactivity within the Core Science
    Systems Activity, funded at about $1 million in fiscal year 2012. This
    is another cooperative program with States, which doubles the Federal
    investment.
        The 2002 National Academy of Sciences report on Geoscience Data and
    Collections--National Resources in Peril made the case for preserving
    these irreplaceable data and physical samples and led to congressional
    authorization of this program at $30 million per year within the Energy
    Policy Act of 2005. We have seen many uses for these data and samples
    in exploration for domestic mineral and energy resources. We believe
    that this program should grow.
        In the President's budget proposal, we note that this program has
    been merged with allied activity, and we applaud efficiencies that will
    be thus achieved, while we strongly support the activity being
    maintained at a funding level at least equivalent to that of fiscal
    year 2012.
        In summary, the Association of American State Geologists strongly
    endorses the President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal for USGS,
    because we strongly endorse what we regard as the essential role that
    USGS fulfils in building and maintaining essential information needed
    by the U.S. Government and by people nationwide.
        In particular, we endorse programs that are operated as
    partnerships, thus leveraging funds, as well as encouraging
    coordination, efficiency, and adoption of nationwide standards.
    Nevertheless, we have concerns about proposed reductions in important
    programs.
        We appreciate this opportunity to offer information that we hope
    will be helpful for the work of the subcommittee.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Association of Art Museum Directors

        Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record
    regarding fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the National Endowment
    for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
    We respectfully request that the subcommittee approve a funding level
    of $155 million for the NEA and $155 million for the NEH, which would
    restore them to their fiscal year 2011 levels.
        The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) is composed of the
    directors of more than 200 art museums in the United States, as well as
    several in Canada and Mexico. Its mission is to support its membership
    in fostering vibrant communities. The AAMD is a current grantee of the
    NEA.
        Both the NEA and the NEH help museums achieve their mission of
    preserving, exhibiting and interpreting art to the broadest possible
    audiences. To cite a recent example, the Los Angeles County Museum of
    Art (LACMA) received grants from both the NEA and the NEH to support
    the exhibition Children of the Plumed Serpent: The Legacy of
    Quetzalcoatl in Ancient Mexico, its accompanying catalogue and
    educational activities.
        According to the exhibition Web site:

        ``Recent scholarship demonstrates that a confederacy of city-states
    in southern Mexico . . . successfully resisted both Aztec and Spanish
    subjugation. Children of the Plumed Serpent explores the extraordinary
    wonders in fresco, codices, polychrome ceramics, gold, turquoise,
    shell, textiles, and other precious materials that were produced by
    these confederacies between AD 1200 and 1500, as their influence spread
    throughout Mesoamerica by means of vast networks of trade and exchange.
    A ruling class of nobles, or caciques, believing that Quetzalcoatl, the
    human incarnation of the Plumed Serpent, had founded their royal
    lineages, called themselves the `Children of the Plumed Serpent' . . .
    The culture hero Quetzalcoatl, the Plumed Serpent, epitomizes a Mexican
    sense of national identity that is deeply rooted in the heroic
    qualities of its ancient art.''

        Children of the Plumed Serpent opens at LACMA on April 1, 2012.
    After its run in Los Angeles it will travel to the Dallas Museum of
    Art. Together, the NEA and NEH contributed nearly 25 percent of the
    cost of the exhibition, which totaled approximately $1.3 million. As is
    always the case, the NEA and NEH ``seal of approval'' leveraged other
    contributions. There is no doubt that the Federal grants had a huge
    impact in keeping Children of the Plumed Serpent in its desired format
    and scope.
        The exhibition highlights the role of museums in cultural exchange
    and collaboration. The U.S. Department of State, having determined it
    to be in the national interest of the United States, awarded it
    protection from seizure, assuring that the works would be returned to
    their lenders. Further, LACMA collaborated with two important cultural
    institutions in Mexico, the National Council for Culture and the Arts
    and the National Institute for Anthropology and History. The exhibition
    also received indemnity from the Federal Council on the Arts and the
    Humanities, which is administered by the NEA and without which many
    objects would not be able to travel to the United States.
        (In connection with the indemnity program, which the Congress
    expanded in 2007, we respectfully suggest that it may be time to look
    again at raising the limits available for domestic and international
    exhibitions.)
        The educational outreach of the exhibition is targeted to low-
    income, primarily Hispanic parts of the metropolitan area, and will
    include bilingual materials. Typically, attendance at the museum is
    about 12-percent Hispanic, but it doubles when there is a Latin
    American exhibition. Attendance for Children of the Plumed Serpent is
    estimated at about 100,000 people in its LACMA venue. For the past
    decade, LACMA has had a Latin American Initiative, with at least one
    exhibition per year. Last year's show, Contested Visions in the Spanish
    Colonial World, which examined the significance of indigenous peoples
    within the artistic landscape of colonial Latin America, also received
    an NEH planning grant and a grant from NEA; attendance was 56,748. That
    exhibition was on view at LACMA from November 6, 2011 through January
    29, 2012 and is currently touring to two museums in Mexico.
        More information about the exhibition is available online at:
    www.lacma.org/art/exhibition/children-plumed-serpent-legacy-
    quetzalcoatl-ancient-mexico.
        Museum staff notes that the majority of the cost of exhibitions
    often comes down to labor and materials--shipping, crating, couriers to
    accompany the art, and installation. This was dramatically illustrated
    recently by the ongoing creation and installation of Levitated Mass,
    which entailed quarrying and transporting a 340-ton boulder more than
    100 miles across southern California. As LACMA director Michael Govan
    told the Los Angeles Times:

        ``This is not money used for buying something but for building
    something: it goes to concrete workers, truckers, quarry workers, so
    this money is being injected into the economy and lives of working
    people. It's not unlike the impulse of the 1930s WPA Works Progress
    Administration to put craftspeople in a down economy to work. For me,
    there is a key distinction: Are you putting money into the pockets of a
    European gallery or putting money into the American economy?''

        To put into context the educational scope of the museum: it serves
    between 600,000 and 1 million people a year, including more than
    300,000 through its education programs. Education activities include
    art-making programs in schools and libraries, tours of the museum for
    students and adults, art classes for children, teenagers, and adults,
    summer and holiday art camps for children, programs for college
    students, high school internships, family days, workshops and
    curriculum materials for teachers, lectures, concerts, films,
    conversations with artists, and more. Across the entire State, the
    museum's education programs reach 351 organizations including 217
    schools, 67 colleges and universities, 31 community organizations, 22
    cultural organizations, and 14 healthcare organizations. Nearly 70,000
    individuals and families are members of LACMA; membership fees start at
    $25 for college students, which entitles them to free admission all
    year. All children under 18 are NexGen members, which allows them free
    admission and free admission for one accompanying adult.
        LACMA is also a proud participant in the Blue Star Museums
    initiative, which offers free admission to military families from
    Memorial Day to Labor Day.
        The map below shows the extent of the museum's outreach, with each
    dot symbolizing an organization that uses LACMA's educational services.

        The AAMD mapping project, which is supported in part by an NEA
    grant, now encompasses 100 museums, including.
        Please note that the maps are generally produced in color and with
    more detail. The map depicted was altered to fit the testimony format
    required by the subcommittee.
        Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the mapping project gives
    museums the capacity to analyze their community service by geography
    and socio-economic level, allowing them to target resources to where
    they are most needed. For example, just last week a museum requested a
    list of majority-minority census tracts in its service area.
        With the NEA's help, the mapping project has given us a new level
    of understanding of the reach and depth of museum programming in their
    communities. Further, surveys of our membership show that one-third of
    them offer free admission to all, while two-thirds offer free admission
    to children. The average full price of admission for adults is under
    $10, but nearly all offer steep discounts and/or free days. One hundred
    percent of AAMD member museums serve K-12 schools; 93 percent serve
    colleges and universities; and 68 percent of our museums serve
    preschools. In total, AAMD members serve about 40,000 schools across
    the Nation. One-third have programs for people with Alzheimer's, and
    their caregivers, and an increasing number offer art instruction for
    medical and nursing students, which has been proven to increase their
    powers of observation, leading to better diagnostic skills.
        None of this work is possible, however, unless museums can care for
    and present art to the public. In these basic, core functions, the help
    of the NEA and NEH has been and continues to be invaluable.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony for the
    record.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Association of Public and Land-Grant
                                  Universities

        On behalf of the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities
    (APLU) Board on Natural Resources (BNR), we thank you for your support
    of science and research programs within the United States Geological
    Survey (USGS) and the Environmental Protection Agency. We appreciate
    the opportunity to provide recommendations for the following programs
    within USGS:
      --$8.8 million for the Water Resources Research Institutes; and
      --$18.9 million for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units.
        Within the Environmental Protection Agency, we recommend $81
    million for the Science to Achieve Results extramural grants and
    fellowship programs.
        APLU BNR requests at least $8.8 million for the Water Resources
    Research Institutes (WRRI). The APLU BNR request is based on the
    following:
      --$7 million in base grants for the WRRI as authorized by section
            104(b) of the Water Resources Research Act, including State-
            based competitive grants; and
      --$1.8 million to support activities authorized by section 104(g) of
            the act, and a national competitive grants program.
        Federal funding for the WRRI program is the catalyst that moves
    States and cities to invest in university-based research to address
    their own water management issues. State WRRI take the relatively
    modest amount of Federal funding appropriated, match it 2:1 with State,
    local, and other funds and use it to put university scientists to work
    finding solutions to the most pressing local and State water problems
    that are of national importance. The Institutes have raised more than
    $15 in other funds for every $1 funded through this program. The added
    benefit is that often research to address State and local problems
    helps solve problems that are of regional and national importance. Many
    of the projects funded through this program provide the knowledge for
    State or local managers to implement new Federal laws and regulations.
    Perhaps most important, the Federal funding provides the driving force
    of collaboration in water research and education among local, State,
    Federal and university water professionals. This program is essential
    to solving State, regional and inter-jurisdictional water resources
    problems. For example, the Idaho Institute conducted work in 2011 for
    the City of Boise and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to
    determine whether the Boise Front geothermal aquifer was adequate for
    supplying current and increased withdrawals. Similarly, Institutes in
    Louisiana, California and North Carolina have made major contributions
    in emergency planning and hurricane recovery, protecting groundwater
    aquifers from sea water intrusion, and reducing water treatment costs.
        The institutes also train the next generation of water resource
    managers and scientists. Last year, these institutes provided research
    support for more than 1,400 undergraduate and graduate students at more
    than 150 universities studying water-related issues in the fields of
    agriculture, biology, chemistry, Earth sciences, engineering and public
    policy. Institute-sponsored students receive training in both the
    classroom and the field, often working should-to-shoulder with the top
    research scientists in their field on vanguard projects of significant
    regional importance.
        In addition to training students directly, Water Resources Research
    Institutes work with local residents to overcome water-related issues.
    For example, the California Institute for Water Resources, like most of
    its peers, holds field days, demonstrations, workshops, classes,
    webinars, and offers other means of education in an effort to transfer
    their research information to as many users as possible. Outreach that
    succeeds in changing a farmer's approach to nitrogen application or
    reducing a homeowner's misuse of lawn treatments can reduce the need
    for restrictive regulation.
        APLU BNR requests at least $18.9 million for the Cooperative Fish
    and Wildlife Research Units (CRU). This program serves to:
      --train the next generation of fish and wildlife managers;
      --conduct research designed to meet the needs of unit cooperators;
            and
      --provide technical assistance to State and Federal personnel and
            other natural resource managers.
        Originally established to provide training for students in fish and
    wildlife biology, the units were formally recognized by the Cooperative
    Units Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-686). The CRU provide experience and
    training for approximately 600 graduate students per year, a critical
    need as State and Federal workforces face unprecedented retirements
    over the next 5 to 10 years. The CRU also provides valuable mission-
    oriented research for their biggest clients, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service and cooperating State agencies. Today, there are 40 Cooperative
    Research Units in 38 States.
        Each unit is a true Federal-State-university collaboration in that
    it is a partnership between USGS, a State natural resource agency, a
    host university, and the Wildlife Management Institute. For every $1
    the Federal Government puts into the program, $3 more are leveraged
    through the other partners. The U.S. economy has long relied on the
    bountiful natural resources bestowed upon this land. Federal investment
    in the CRU will be returned many times over though the training of
    future natural resource managers who will guide the Nation in
    sustainable use of our natural resources. The research conducted by CRU
    scientists directly supports the difficult management challenges faced
    by natural resources managers. The examples below demonstrate the value
    of the CRUs to wildlife issues with local and national importance.
      --The Minnesota Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit currently
            has 3 Federal employees, 3 post-doctoral research fellows and a
            total of 12 graduate students. Current research funded by the
            Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Federal agencies
            totals $4.9 million. Among the numerous projects being
            conducted by unit personnel, a project determining the
            olfactory sensitivity of Asian carp to putative hormonal sex
            pheromones has recently received national attention. The Asian
            carp is an invasive species that threatens many of the Nation's
            freshwater native fish because they are more competitive than
            native fish for food. The Minnesota CRU hopes to use the sex
            pheromones to attract and trap Asian carp, removing them
            permanently from the Nation's freshwater lakes and rivers.
      --The Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit has 3 Federal
            scientists who are training 22 graduate students and supervise
            8 year-round staff plus 15 seasonal staff and 5 work-study
            students. Total grants and contracts for these three scientists
            exceed $1.5 million and include projects related to gray wolf
            monitoring and population estimation, improving fish passage at
            lower Columbia River dams, and defining ``recovery'' for
            endangered species.
        APLU BNR supports the President's request of $81 million for the
    Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants and fellowship programs. The
    STAR program funds extramural research grants and graduate fellowships.
    Using a competitive and peer-reviewed process, the STAR program
    supports targeted research in support of EPA's mission. The funded
    research falls into three areas: grants awarded to individuals or small
    groups, grants awarded to multidisciplinary teams, and fellowships for
    masters and doctoral students. The STAR program allows EPA to solicit
    independent research apart from the research EPA itself conducts.
    Because the research is conducted at many of the best universities
    across the Nation, it is not unusual for the findings to be published
    in highly respected, peer-reviewed journals, allowing for widespread
    dissemination of the research.
    About Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities and the Board
            on Natural Resources
        APLU's membership consists of 221 State universities, land-grant
    universities, State-university systems and related organizations. The
    Board's mission is to promote university-based programs dealing with
    natural resources, wildlife, ecology, energy, and the environment. BNR
    representatives are chosen by their President's office to serve and
    currently number more than 500 scientists and educators, who are some
    of the Nation's leading research and educational expertise in
    environmental and natural-resource disciplines. APLU institutions
    enroll more than 3.5 million undergraduate students and 1.1 million
    graduate students, employ more than 645,000 faculty members, and
    conduct nearly two-thirds of all federally funded academic research,
    totaling more than $34 billion annually.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Association of State Drinking Water
                                 Administrators

                                   WHO WE ARE

        Edward G. Hallock, president, on behalf of the Association of State
    Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), is pleased to provide testimony
    to the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee on
    fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the Environmental Protection
    Agency. ASDWA represents the State drinking water programs in the 50
    States, territories, District of Columbia, and the Navajo Nation in
    their efforts to provide safe drinking water to more than 275 million
    consumers nationwide.

                               SUMMARY OF REQUEST

        ASDWA respectfully requests that, for fiscal year 2013, the
    subcommittee appropriate funding for three State drinking water
    programs at levels commensurate with Federal expectations for
    performance; that ensure appropriate public health protection; and that
    will result in enhancing economic stability and prosperity in American
    cities and towns. ASDWA requests $200 million for the Public Water
    System Supervision (PWSS) program; $1.287 billion for 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
    justification for 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 Public Water System Supervision Program (PWSS); and
      --the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) Program.
        These two programs, with their attendant State match requirements,
    provide the means for States to work with drinking water systems to
    ensure that American citizens can turn on their taps with confidence
    that the water is both safe to drink and 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 times of crisis.
        Vibrant and sustainable communities, their citizens, workforce, and
    businesses all depend on a safe, reliable, 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. Firefighting also relies on potable water from public
    water systems to ensure public safety. 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. 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, including 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
    and the water is safe to drink. A number of incidents in the United
    States over the past several years that have led to illnesses or deaths
    from unsafe drinking water serve as stark reminders of the critical
    nature of the work that State drinking water programs do every day and
    the dangers of inadequately funded programs,
        The Public Water System Supervision Program.--To meet the
    requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 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. More than 90 contaminants are
    regulated in Federal drinking water regulations and, the pace of
    regulatory activity has accelerated in recent years. 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 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 also 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 Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund Program.--Drinking
    water in the United States is among the safest and most reliable in the
    world, but it is threatened by aging infrastructure. The DWSRF program
    is helping, but greater levels of Federal support are needed. The
    payback on this investment has been exceptional. In the core DWSRF
    program, $12.4 billion in cumulative capitalization grants and $2
    billion in American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funds since
    1997 have been leveraged by States into nearly $22 billion in
    infrastructure loans to small and large communities across the country.
    Such investments pay tremendous dividends--both in supporting our
    economy and in protecting our citizens' health. State drinking water
    programs have also used DWSRF funds to support the technical assistance
    and training needs of numerous small drinking water systems and to help
    these often challenged water systems obtain the technical, managerial,
    and financial proficiency needed to meet the requirements of the SDWA.
        State Drinking Water Security Responsibilities.--State drinking
    water programs are critical partners in emergency planning, response,
    and resiliency at all levels of government. State primacy agencies
    provide key resources and critical support regardless of whether the
    emergency is rooted in terrorism, natural disasters, or cyber
    intrusions. 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 continuing economic downturn.
    This has meant operating with less State-provided financial support--
    which has historically compensated for inadequate Federal funding.
    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 and are
    stretched to the breaking point. 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, more than 16 years from the date of
    those amendments, falls far short of the need. $105 million was
    appropriated for the PWSS program in fiscal year 2012. The President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget requests $109 million for the PWSS grant--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 a
    number of 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 EPA where it is likely to
    languish because of EPA's own resource constraints and lack of ``on the
    ground'' expertise. This situation has created a significant
    implementation crisis in several regions of the country and is
    ultimately delaying implementation of critically needed public health
    protections.

      FISCAL YEAR 2013 REQUEST LEVELS AND SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT PROGRAM
                                  OBLIGATIONS

        The Public Water System Supervision 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.
        ASDWA respectfully requests that the fiscal year 2013 funding for
    the PWSS program be appropriated at $200 million. This figure begins to
    fill the above-described resource gap and is based on the expense of
    implementing new drinking water rules, taking on a number of other new
    initiatives, and accounting for the eroding effects of inflation.
        The Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund Program.--States were
    very encouraged by the $1.387 billion appropriated for the DWSRF in
    fiscal year 2010 but are disappointed at the subsequent downward
    trend--$963 million in fiscal year 2011 and $919 million in fiscal year
    2012 and the alarming administration request of $850 million for fiscal
    year 2013--a figure not seen since 2008. 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 to provide assistance to more than 8,500 projects,
    improving health protection for millions of Americans. According to the
    most recent figures available, this equals a 177.4-percent return on
    the Federal investment. Approximately 72 percent of projects and 38
    percent of assistance has been provided to small communities (serving
    less than 10,000 people). However, EPA's most recent National Drinking
    Water Infrastructure Needs Survey (2007) indicated that water system
    needs total $334.8 billion over the next 20 years to comply with 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.
        ASDWA respectfully requests $1.287 billion in fiscal year 2012
    funding for the DWSRF program. This was the amount appropriated in
    fiscal year 2011 and ASDWA believes this is an appropriate funding
    level on an ongoing basis.
        Security Responsibilities.--After 7 years of supporting State
    security programs through a small grant of approximately $5 million in
    EPA's appropriation, no funds have been provided for this purpose since
    fiscal year 2009 and none are requested for fiscal year 2013. State
    drinking water programs need funds to continue to maintain and 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 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, chronic flooding in the Midwest, and most recently,
    from the 2011 Northeast experience with Hurricane Irene and Tropical
    Storm Lee, 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. States continue to expand their efforts to reflect a more
    resilient ``all hazards'' approach to water security and to focus their
    efforts toward smaller water systems. These systems rely heavily on the
    States to help them meet their needs and identify potential funding
    sources.
        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, ASDWA respectfully recommends that Federal fiscal
    year 2013 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. The financial needs of these programs is
    particularly acute when one considers that the Budget Control Act of
    2011 sequestration may well cut an additional 9 percent from whatever
    is ultimately appropriated. In 1996, the Congress provided the
    authority to ensure that the burden would not go unsupported. For
    fiscal year 2013, ASDWA asks that the promise of that support be
    realized.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of Bat Conservation International

        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. 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 $7.8 million plus one
    full-time employee in fiscal year 2013 funding to address White-nose
    Syndrome (WNS), a disease decimating North American bats.
        WNS poses the gravest threat ever faced by U.S. bats. Since its
    discovery in 2006, the disease has killed at least 5.7 million bats. It
    is named for the previously unknown, cold-loving white fungus that
    causes the disease, found on the faces and wings of infected bats. 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 20 States and 4 Canadian provinces in the 6 years since WNS
    was first observed in a cave near Albany, New York. The Northeastern
    United States has borne the brunt of WNS so far, but the disease or its
    fungus has spread as far south as Alabama. It has also reached as far
    west as Oklahoma, in a location closer to the Pacific Ocean than to the
    site of WNS's first observation in New York.
        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. WNS or the
    fungus currently affects nine species, including the federally
    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 15
    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 one-half to all of its body weight in insects per
    night, consuming vast numbers of pests that damage crops such as corn,
    cotton, and potatoes. A study published last year in the journal
    ``Science'' estimates the value of bats to the U.S. agriculture
    industry ranges from $3.7 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 be used in detoxifying industrial wastes and
    producing safer pesticides and antibiotics.
        The loss of bats would have serious ecological and economic
    consequences. With millions of bats dead from WNS, their would-be prey
    insects are surviving to attack crops and forests. The ``Science''
    article argues that, as a result of WNS, North American agriculture
    will begin noting economic losses within 3 to 4 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.
        Population declines from WNS could 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. Due to WNS, the
    Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is conducting a status review of the
    little brown bat and listing reviews of the northern long-eared bat and
    eastern small-footed bat. At the State level, Ohio and Wisconsin have
    each listed four bat species, and other States are considering
    designations. Bat species affected by 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.
        BCI appreciates the commitment the Congress has demonstrated toward
    fighting WNS. In fiscal year 2010, the Congress made an appropriation
    of $1.9 million to FWS for WNS. In the fiscal year 2012 spending
    package, the Congress directed FWS to spend no less than $4 million on
    WNS, and directed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States
    Forest Service (USFS) to prioritize WNS activities. We thank the
    Congress for recognizing not only the gravity of WNS, but also the
    institutional and geographic scope of the response needed to fight the
    disease. The Federal Government--in conjunction with partners in State,
    local, and tribal agencies, academic institutions, and nonprofits--has
    mounted an admirable response to the disease within the framework of
    the National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in
    Managing White Nose Syndrome in Bats (National Plan).
        The increases for WNS requested in the President's fiscal year 2013
    budget will enable Federal agencies to capitalize on, and add to, the
    hard-won progress they have made against WNS. Researchers have answered
    many of the basic science questions about this previously unknown
    disease, and are ready to apply the knowledge to exploring management
    and conservation measures. Failing to fund WNS this year will undermine
    the accomplishments Federal agencies and their partners have made to
    fight this devastating epidemic.
        BCI therefore supports the requests for WNS funding in the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget, and we urge the subcommittee to
    maintain them. If the subcommittee can invest more in fighting WNS to
    protect bats and the valuable contributions bats make to the economy,
    agriculture, and the environment, we suggest the following outlays.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--$4.5 Million
        We ask the subcommittee to maintain the $1.897 million for WNS in
    the President's fiscal year 2013 budget, and to maintain the
    President's fiscal year 2013 Recovery Fund request of $81.909 million.
    An additional $2.603 million for WNS--for a total of $4.5 million--
    would incrementally increase the Congress's fiscal year 2012
    commitment.
        This will fund:
          Research.--Identify priorities for applied research that will
            assist in combating WNS and managing its spread, and fund
            projects that support these goals.
          Interagency Coordination.--Provide and relay scientific
            information and guidance to and among Federal and State
            agencies, tribes, landowners, recreation, and conservation
            groups to ensure best practices on WNS-related issues, such as
            research findings, status of disease spread, and fungus
            decontamination procedures.
          State Support.--Provide funding for State wildlife agencies to
            conduct disease surveillance, monitor bat populations,
            implement conservation measures, and conduct research.
          Conservation Action for Bat Species in Decline Due to White Nose
            Syndrome.--Assess populations and threats; provide guidance on
            needs of species to Federal and State agencies and private land
            owners.
    U.S. Geological Survey--$1 Million Plus One Full-Time Equivalent
        We ask the subcommittee to maintain the requested increase in the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget for $1 million and one full-time
    employee to carry out work related to WNS.
        This will support:
      --Enhancing WNS surveillance and diagnostic capabilities.
      --Research, on topics such as:
        --Vaccine development;
        --Pathogenesis--the origin, development, and resultant effects--of
                WNS;
        --Prevalence and survival of WNS fungus in cave environments;
        --Modeling WNS disease processes.
        These activities support the goals of the following working groups
    of the National Plan:
      --Diagnostics;
      --Disease management;
      --Epidemiological and ecological research;
      --Disease surveillance; and
      --Conservation and recovery.
    National Park Service--$300,000
        We ask the subcommittee to provide $300,000 for the National Park
    Service's WNS efforts.
        This will fund:
      --Preventing WNS spread by conducting visitor decontamination and
            monitoring flow of visitors on an as-needed basis.
      --Conducting on-the-ground surveillance of disease.
      --Monitoring for disease presence or absence.
        These activities support the goals of the National Plan Disease
    Management Working Group.
    Bureau of Land Management--$1 Million
        In order for BLM to continue the Congress's fiscal year 2012
    directive to ``prioritize research related to WNS in bats and the
    inventory and monitoring of bat resources on Bureau-administered
    lands'', we ask the subcommittee to provide $1 million for BLM's WNS
    efforts.
        This will fund bat inventories of the BLM's presently known caves
    and abandoned mines, supporting the goals of the National Plan Disease
    Management Working Group.
    U.S. Forest Service--$1 Million
        In order for USFS to continue the Congress's fiscal year 2012
    directive to ``prioritize research related to White Nose Syndrome as
    well as inventory and monitoring of bat resources on Forest Service
    lands'', we ask the committee to provide $1 million to be divided
    between the Research and Development branch and the National Forest
    System branch.
        This will fund:
      --Research, on topics such as:
        --Enhancing environmental conditions for bat survival in the face
                of WNS.
        --Possible biological controls for WNS.
        --Ways to measure the status and fitness of bat populations.
      --Preventing WNS spread by conducting visitor decontamination and
            monitoring flow of visitors on an as-needed basis.
      --Conducting on-the-ground surveillance of disease.
      --Monitoring for disease presence or absence.
      --Managing forests to optimize bat habitat.
        These activities support the goals of the following National Plan
    Working Groups:
      --Disease management;
      --Epidemiological and ecological research; and
      --Conservation and recovery.
        Money spent on WNS is a wise investment. First, preventing the
    spread of WNS will spare businesses the regulatory and other impacts of
    bat die-offs. In addition, implementing WNS response generates jobs.
    Finally, conducting 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 is truly worth a pound of cure.
        Thank you 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 Bernalillo Board of County Commissioners

        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 2013
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
    President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
        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 public benefits
    including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
    drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
    assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
    support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
        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, historical, and recreation 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 a conservation
    offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
        As part of the LWCF request in fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service included an allocation of $1.5 million for Middle Rio
    Grande National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). I am pleased that this funding
    was included in the request and urge the Congress to provide necessary
    funds for LWCF for this important project.
        The 570-acre Price's Dairy property is located in the South Valley
    of Albuquerque, New Mexico, 5 miles south of downtown. This tract is
    one of the largest remaining farms in the Middle Rio Grande Valley and
    the largest agricultural property within the Albuquerque metro region.
    The city of Albuquerque is among the fastest-growing urban areas in the
    United States, and its developing sprawl contributes to a loss of
    history and culture while placing significant stress on the natural
    resources of the Valley and the Rio Grande.
        Over the years, various attempts have been made to preserve this
    property. During that time, other large-acreage properties on the river
    have been subdivided and developed and the water rights sold to support
    other needs. With a landowner who seeks a conservation outcome, the
    opportunity exists now to protect this section of the Rio Grande,
    engage the next generation though environmental education and outreach,
    and support economic development on the south side of the city. This is
    a property that has high environmental values but also will benefit New
    Mexico residents and visitors far into the future.
        These conservation efforts culminated on September 29, 2011, with
    an announcement by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to authorize the Price's Dairy property
    as the Middle Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge (MRGNWR). The unit
    would be the first urban refuge in the FWS southwest region.
    Overwhelming public support for the new refuge was generated throughout
    the FWS's planning process, and it was named one of the 50 State
    projects under the Obama administration's America's Great Outdoors
    Initiative.
        The creation of this new refuge will protect the natural resource
    values of the property that would be lost through subdivision and
    development, bolster environmental education and outreach for local
    students and residents, and provide a gateway to the larger regional
    park system. In addition, because of the property's significant senior
    water rights, the protection of this property would also add to the
    health and vitality of the adjacent Rio Grande, which is struggling to
    support the people and wildlife that depend on it for water. About 70
    percent of the State's population--more than 1.3 million people--live
    in the 10 counties along the Rio Grande.
        The FWS proposal creating the new MRGNWR emphasizes restoration of
    river, bosque, and wildlife habitats on the property. The section of
    the river next to Price's Dairy has been designated critical habitat
    for Rio Grande silvery minnow and southwestern willow flycatcher, two
    endangered species. The restoration of the landscape and the
    redistribution of acquired senior water rights on the property to
    increase instream flows would meet objectives to improve habitats and
    their viability, lower the threat to fish and wildlife of drought, and
    mitigate expected effects of climate change. Price's Dairy provides an
    important waypoint for migratory birds such as sandhill cranes, Arctic
    geese, and varied duck species that move up and down the river from
    summer breeding grounds in the north to wintering havens in the south.
        The river corridor also provides an opportunity for hiking and
    biking along the planned Rio Grande Trail, which is proposed to
    parallel the river as it cuts through New Mexico from north to south.
    The MRGNWR would provide an important trailhead for this system and
    also be a new southern terminus of the city of Albuquerque's existing
    Paseo del Bosque Trail. These recreational connections would improve
    public access to the Rio Grande and underscore the significant Federal,
    State, local, and private efforts to promote recreation and the
    outdoors.
        As an urban refuge, the MRGNWR will connect Albuquerque residents
    to the outdoors in ways not previously available. The refuge plan calls
    for the eventual construction of an onsite environmental education
    center to enhance student learning and connection with nature. The
    refuge unit could also become the site of agricultural extension
    offices, a native plant materials center, small farm demonstration
    plots that promote regionally cherished crops, and university-level
    scientific and agricultural research.
        Protection of Price's Dairy offers myriad benefits for the public.
    As open space and as a trailhead, it would provide recreational
    opportunities for an underserved part of the Albuquerque metro area.
    Its proximity to the Rio Grande, large undeveloped acreage, and
    existing farming activity offer the FWS and State agencies an
    opportunity to engage in sound environmental restoration practices
    while connecting young people and urban residents to the natural world.
    With the attraction of a FWS visitor's center and the nearby access to
    Interstate 25, there are also economic benefits to the South Valley.
        The acquisition of the property and associated senior water rights
    is expected to cost up to $20 million. Demonstrating the importance of
    the project to the Albuquerque metropolitan area, the Bernalillo County
    Board of Commissioners, of which I am a member, unanimously voted on
    September 28, 2010 to appropriate $5 million in county funds for the
    acquisition. These funds were made available only over a period of 2
    years from approval and expire in late September 2012. To match these
    funds, other funding is being sought from a variety of local, State and
    Federal sources, and the landowner agreement in place requires a Phase
    I closing by the end of June 2012.
        To date, in addition to the county funds, $1 million has been
    secured from the Albuquerque Metropolitan Flood Control Authority and
    $1 million from the Bureau of Reclamation. The fiscal year 2013
    President's budget request for FWS includes an allocation of $1.5
    million from the LWCF to the MRGNWR, which may be supplemented by
    additional LWCF dollars and FWS grants. In order to ensure that this
    project moves forward in a timely way, the fiscal year 2013 President's
    budget recommendation is urgently needed, while the effort to secure
    supplemental local, State, Federal, and private funds continues.
        In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the LWCF of $450
    million, as proposed in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget,
    including critical funding for the Middle Rio Grande NWR. 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 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 CRRC regarding the
    proposed fiscal year 2013 budget. As is everyone, we are aware of the
    ongoing economic problems in the United States. 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.
        After failing to seek funding for CRRC for more than a decade, we
    are very pleased that the BIA has recognized its obligation to CRRC and
    has requested $350,000 for CRRC in fiscal year 2013. In its fiscal year
    2013 budget justification, the BIA recognized CRRC's role in developing
    the capabilities of its member villages to better facilitate their
    active participation in resource use and allocation issues in Alaska.
    We urge the subcommittee to support this funding and include it in the
    final bill.
        Chugach Regional Resource Commission History.--CRRC is a coalition
    of Alaska Native Villages, organized in 1987 by the seven Native
    Villages located in Prince William Sound and Lower Cook Inlet in
    southcentral Alaska:
      --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 hold for
    environmental and natural resource management and protection--the
    creation of CRRC ensured that natural resource and environmental issues
    received sufficient attention and focused funding.
        Employment.--Through its many important programs, CRRC has provided
    employment for up to 35 Native people in the Chugach Region annually--
    an area that faces high levels of unemployment--through programs that
    conserve and restore our natural resources.
        An investment in 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 leveraged its $350,000 from BIA into almost $2
    million annually to support its several community-based programs.
    Specifically, the $350,000 base funding allowed CRRC to maintain core
    administrative operations, and seek specific projects funding from
    sources such as the Administration for Native Americans, the Exxon
    Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, the State of Alaska, Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
    U.S. Department of Education. This diverse funding pool has allowed
    CRRC to develop and operate several important programs that provide
    vital services, valuable products, and necessary employment and
    commercial opportunities. 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 and is currently working on sea cucumbers. 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 and production.
          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 & Wildlife Society and tribes across the country
            (including Alaska) to develop a university level textbook to
            accompany these courses.
          In addition, we are in the process of completing a K-12 Science
            Curriculum for Alaska students that integrates Indigenous
            knowledge with western science. This curriculum is being
            piloted in various villages in Alaska and a thorough evaluation
            process will ensure its success and mobility to other schools
            in Alaska.
          Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council.--CRRC is a member of
            the Council responsible for setting regulations governing the
            spring harvest of migratory birds for Alaska Natives, as well
            as conducting harvest surveys and various research projects on
            migratory birds of conservation concern. Our participation in
            this State wide body ensures the legal harvest of migratory
            birds by Indigenous subsistence hunters in the Chugach Region.
          Statewide Subsistence Halibut Working Group.--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 urge the Congress to sustain the $350,000 included in the BIA's
    fiscal year 2013 budget for CRRC. We appreciate the opportunity to
    submit this important testimony.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Cherokee Nation

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee thank you for accepting testimony into the record on
    fiscal year 2013 budgetary concerns regarding Native American Issues.
    Cherokee Nation requests that in setting fiscal year 2013 Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Services (IHS) budget
    priorities, the Federal Government uphold its Trust Responsibility to
    tribes.
        Cherokee Nation was one of the first tribes to enter into a treaty
    with the United States. In that tradition, the Cherokee Nation executed
    a self-determination contract in 1990 under title III of the Indian
    Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), which gave
    the tribe more authority to administer its programs. In just two
    decades, Cherokee Nation has taken over the administration of several
    BIA and IHS programs, including healthcare, education, and law
    enforcement. ISDEAA is a powerful mechanism that provides tribes with
    the opportunity to control and administer essential governmental
    services and engage in local economic and resource development.
        Cherokee Nation is the largest employer in northeastern Oklahoma
    and has an economic impact of more than $1.06 billion on the State's
    output level, including $401 million in State income impacts, and
    supports 13,527 jobs in a predominantly under-developed, rural region
    of Oklahoma. While 3,250 people are employed in the Nation's
    Government, an ever-increasing number of people are employed in the
    Nation's diverse portfolio of businesses, including hospitality,
    healthcare, aerospace, and technology sectors.
        The combined revenue from the tribe's business operations helps
    fund essential Government services while offering a foundation to
    expand and diversify economic development and create job growth in
    Oklahoma. Therefore, adequate funding for both IHS and BIA is vital to
    maintain and increase our recent progress and strength.

                      FIXED COSTS--CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

        One of the most important budgetary issues facing Indian Country
    for the next fiscal year is the funding of contract support by BIA and
    IHS. In Indian Country, every $1 lost in contract support costs is $1
    subtracted from healthcare, education, law enforcement, and other
    critical governmental services. The contract support cost (CSC)
    deficiency has caused severe financial strains on Cherokee Nation's
    programs and facilities.
        Because CSCs are fixed costs that a contractor must incur, tribes
    are required to either:
      --reduce funds budgeted for critical healthcare, education, and other
            services under contract to cover the shortfall;
      --divert tribal funds to subsidize the Federal contract (when such
            tribal funds are available); or
      --use a combination of these two approaches. For every $1 million
            that the Cherokee Nation must divert from direct patient care
            to cover CSCs, the Cherokee Nation health system must forego
            5,800 patient visits.
        While the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for IHS is
    $4.42 billion--an increase of $115.9 million more than the fiscal year
    2012 enacted level--IHS sees only a very modest $5 million increase in
    IHS funding for contract support. The Cherokee Nation appreciates the
    increase, but it is less than a 1-percent increase more than the fiscal
    year 2012 enacted level. At this level, the IHS contract support cost
    shortfall is estimated to increase to approximately $100 million in
    fiscal year 2013. This shortfall will substantially impact Cherokee
    Nation, which, like other tribes across the United States, operates
    replacement or joint venture facilities throughout our tribal
    jurisdiction.
        The projected CSC shortfall will force the Cherokee Nation to
    divert investments in job creation and other important programs to
    avoid decreasing primary care, dental treatment, and pharmaceutical
    coverage. As long as the Federal Government maintains the status quo of
    inadequate funding, the United States is failing in its partnership
    with tribes and is ignoring its Trust Responsibility.
        Fortunately, BIA does not have the same CSC shortfall crisis.
    Cherokee Nation appreciates the President's budget proposal because it
    increases Indian self-determination funds by $8.8 million. This
    increase must be protected during the appropriations process to avoid
    the same problems IHS has with CSC funding and BIA should be seen as a
    model for IHS.
        We appreciate past and current efforts to reduce shortfalls, but it
    is unacceptable for sequestration or domestic deficit reduction efforts
    to single out tribes by cutting tribally administered health and law
    enforcement programs. The Federal Government has a moral and legal
    obligation to fund these essential governmental services. The trust
    responsibility is not, and should not be viewed as, discretionary
    spending.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

        Under a Self-Governance compact with the Department of Health and
    Human Services, the Cherokee Nation constructs and maintains waterlines
    and improves sanitary services throughout the region. Furthermore, in
    conjunction with IHS contract support cost dollars, the tribe operates
    a sophisticated network of eight rural outpatient health centers that
    provide Native people with primary medical care, dental service,
    optometry, radiology, mammography, behavioral health promotion and
    disease prevention, and a public health nursing program.
        In addition to these services, the Cherokee Nation operates WW
    Hastings Indian Hospital in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. Hastings is a 60-bed
    facility offering outpatient and ancillary services with more than
    300,000 outpatient visits each year and more than 335,000 prescriptions
    filled annually. Adequate funding is required to continue this
    successful partnership in fulfillment of the Unites States' trust
    obligations and IHS must be exempt from future reductions during
    appropriations and the sequestration process as prescribed in the
    Budget Control Act of 2011.

                      EXPANDING THE JOINT VENTURE PROGRAM

        The IHS Joint Venture program demonstrates the shared commitment of
    tribal nations and IHS. This program provides additional health
    facilities within the Indian health system and the staff necessary to
    support the facilities across Indian Country. This program has been
    effective in the Oklahoma City area as well as providing staff at our
    clinics across eastern Oklahoma. Cherokee Nation requests the Joint
    Venture program be funded at an adequate level, including CSC funds.

                      INDIAN HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT FUND

        In addition to the well-documented disparate funding between IHS
    and other federally funded health programs, funds among the various IHS
    areas are distributed inequitably. In order to address such inequities,
    the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund (IHCIF) was created to achieve
    parity among the IHS areas. Over the years, tribes have recommended the
    Federal Government implement a time-limited plan to bring all IHS
    operating units to the 80-percent level. To achieve parity, a $1
    billion investment will be required during a 4-year period.

     SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BLOCK GRANT
                                     FUNDS

        The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for Substance Abuse
    and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is $3.4 billion, a
    $141.9 million decrease from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Each
    State receives block grant (formula) funds from SAMHSA for providing
    behavioral health services to all residents within the State. However,
    when an American Indian is in need of behavioral health services, he
    typically seeks care through an IHS or tribally operated facility, as
    opposed to a State agency or State-operated facility. As with
    competitive and discretionary funds, increasing and giving the Cherokee
    Nation access to this type of funding would expand our opportunity to
    improve our behavioral health services and better meet the system's
    current demand.

                            BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

        Cherokee Nation compacts with the Department of the Interior to
    administer a wide array of Federal programs serving American Indians.
    Full Federal funding is crucial for continued administration of social
    services, child wellness programs, child abuse services, adult and
    higher education, housing improvement, law enforcement service, road
    and bridge construction, planning and maintenance, forestry and real
    estate programs, and Johnson O'Malley education programs.

                         INDIAN GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM

        The Indian Guaranteed Loan Program, established under the Indian
    Financing Act of 1974, helps Cherokees and other Native Americans
    access capital by guaranteeing and insuring loans to promote economic
    development throughout Indian Country. The program leverages
    appropriated monies by a ratio of 13 to 1. However, in the upcoming
    budget, the program sees a $2.1 million reduction to $5 million because
    it is purportedly duplicative of programs in other agencies. However,
    these programs do not replace the Guaranteed Loan Program. Cherokee
    Nation requests this highly successful program be fully funded so
    tribes may access loans when attempting to increase their economic
    livelihood in often economic-depressed regions.

                          TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATIONS

        We join our fellow Self-Governance Tribes in continuing to request
    funding increases for the fundamental services provided as Tribal
    Priority Allocations (TPA). Of the 566 federally recognized tribes, 235
    tribes manage their own affairs under Self-Governance agreements with
    the BIA. Although these tribes account for 42 percent of the federally
    recognized tribes, they received roughly only 15 percent of BIA budget,
    which bears the responsibility for providing services to all federally
    recognized tribes. Collectively, most of the varied programs fall under
    the broad category of ``Tribal Priority Allocations.''
        The President's fiscal year 2013 budget includes $2.5 billion for
    BIA, which is $4.6 million or 0.2 percent less than the fiscal year
    2012 enacted level. While this is basically level with fiscal year
    2012's budget, any decrease strains tribal governments. Further, the
    budget proposes a total of $897.4 million in TPA and these funds must
    be protected as the budget process proceeds.

      SEQUOYAH SCHOOLS AND THE TRIBAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS PILOT PROJECT

        In 1985, Cherokee Nation gained control of Sequoyah Schools, a
    former, underperforming BIA boarding school. After years of tribal
    control, Sequoyah is now regionally and State accredited, consistently
    meets Adequate Yearly Progress goals and is flourishing. While Sequoyah
    receives funding from Bureau of Indian Education grants, the Cherokee
    Nation also utilizes tribal funding from motor vehicle tag sales to
    fund the School.
        The Campus now covers more than 90 acres and houses more than 400
    students in grades 7-12 representing 42 tribes. Cherokee Nation and
    other tribes better understand how to educate our children and provide
    cultural curricula that revitalizes and protects language and tribal
    history. The School also creates an academic environment that mirrors
    college preparatory schools by utilizing an advanced curriculum and
    using data collection to track student progress and School performance,
    which allows the administrators to quickly address any deficiencies or
    problems that develop.
        Therefore, Cherokee Nation is very appreciative of the $2 million
    appropriated for the Tribal Education Departments (TEDs) Pilot Project
    in the fiscal year 2012 Department of Education budget. Funding for
    TEDs is also authorized in No Child Left Behind Act for DOI, but has
    not been funded. This pilot project will increase the role of TEDs in
    education and will help tribes provide an equitable learning
    environment for our children. Therefore, we request $2 million in
    fiscal year 2013 for the TED pilot project.
        The pilot project will allow tribes and the Federal Government to
    utilize a method of funding that has been demonstrated to increase
    efficiency and self-determination in other areas. The pilot project
    allows TEDs to receive funding as authorized in the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for education programs and authorizes
    the TED to directly administer such ESEA programs in a similar fashion
    as the Cherokee Nation receives and administers funding for IHS and BIA
    self-governance programs. The Nation respectfully requests this
    subcommittee work with the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor,
    Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies and
    Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to
    ensure the pilot project is funded and that the appropriations act
    language directs the Department of the Interior and Education to
    directly provide ESEA funding to the tribes chosen to participate in
    the pilot project.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Cherokee Nation is committed to providing Federal services and
    direct, local-level programs, including job creation, education, health
    and law enforcement services, in a time when economic issues and
    desired deficit reduction hinder Federal attempts to accomplish the
    same. The Federal Government's current fiscal situation does not negate
    its trust responsibility to Cherokee Nation and Indian Country. Thank
    you for your continued support and for the opportunity to provide
    testimony on these critical fiscal year 2013 budget issues. Please
    contact the Cherokee Nation Washington Office at 202.393.7007 with any
    questions or requests for additional information.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Children's Environmental Health Network

        The Children's Environmental Health Network (CEHN) providing
    testimony on fiscal year 2013 appropriations, especially appropriations
    for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Agency for Toxic
    Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
        We are writing today to provide testimony on the fiscal year 2013
    budget currently before your subcommittee, especially the budget
    proposed by the President for the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA).
        This year, CEHN is celebrating its 20th anniversary as a national
    nonprofit organization whose mission is to protect the developing child
    from environmental hazards and promote a healthier environment. The
    Network's Board and committee members include internationally
    recognized experts in children's environmental health science and
    policy who serve on key Federal advisory panels and scientific boards.
    We recognize that children, in our society, have unique moral standing.
        The Network is deeply concerned about the health of the Nation's
    children and urges the subcommittee to help all children grow up in
    healthy environments by embracing its role in protecting our
    environment and our health.
        American competitiveness depends on having healthy educated
    children who grow up to be healthy productive adults. Yet, growing
    numbers of our children are diagnosed with chronic and developmental
    illnesses and disabilities. The National Academy of Sciences estimates
    that toxic environmental exposures play a role in 28 percent of
    neurobehavioral disorders in children and this does not include other
    conditions such as asthma or cancers. Thus, it is vital that the
    Federal programs and activities that protect children from
    environmental hazards receive adequate resources.
        CEHN urges the subcommittee to provide funding at or above the
    requested levels for the following EPA activities:
      --Office of Children's Health Protection (OCHP);
      --Children's Environmental Health Research Centers of Excellence;
      --Office of Research and Development;
      --School and Child Care Environmental Health;
      --The Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units; and
      --The National Children's Study.
        CEHN also urges full funding of all activities that advance healthy
    school and childcare environments for all children.
        As epidemiologists see increasing rates of asthma, learning
    disabilities, and childhood cancers; as parents seek the causes of
    birth defects; as researchers understand more and more about the fetal
    origins of disease, policymakers must do a much better job of
    understanding and acting on the connections between children's health
    and the environments in which they spend their time.
        These environments include but go beyond home, school, and
    childcare settings. A growing number of studies are finding unexpected
    impacts of prenatal environmental exposures on health in later years.
    For example, prenatal exposures to either a common air pollutant or a
    common pesticide have both been linked to lower IQs and poorer working
    memory at age 7.
        Thus, all agencies should assure that their children's programs
    build on and respond to the growing evidence of the importance of
    prenatal exposures to a child's health and future.
        This evidence also highlights the shortcomings of the Toxic
    Substances Control Act, which does not adequately protect human health,
    including that of vulnerable populations such as children. The Network
    urges you, as Members of Congress, to support the long overdue reform
    of this important statute to give priority to the protection of human
    health under this law.
        A variety of factors, such as children's developing systems, their
    unique behaviors and differing exposures, mean that children can be
    more susceptible than adults to harm from toxic chemicals. Standards
    and guidelines that are based on adults cannot be assumed to be
    protective of children. EPA programs of highest importance in the
    protection of children are described below.
        Environment Protection Agency's Office of Children's Health
    Protection.--EPA's efforts to protect children from environmental
    hazards have been led by OCHP since 1997. Despite an effective track
    record, funding for OCHP has been level, at approximately $6 million,
    since its creation. CEHN strongly supports an increase in funding for
    OCHP for its work on environmental health in the home, school and child
    care settings. This valuable work includes the office's interagency
    work promoting healthy housing and healthy children, where we find that
    environmental interventions result in great cost savings, not to
    mention the health problems averted, such as asthma episodes and lead
    poisoning cases. There is great interest but few resources for these
    approaches. OCHP--and EPA--must also build on the research on prenatal
    exposures, an area of growing concern. OCHP should help healthcare
    providers better understand the science and in translating these
    findings for clinical consultation and communicating with patients.
    CEHN urges the subcommittee to provide funds more than the proposed
    level for OCHP.
        Children's Environmental Health Research Centers of Excellence.--
    The Centers, jointly funded by EPA and National Institute of
    Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), 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. We were pleased to see
    the commitment by EPA's Office of Research and Development to this
    program in the budget language and applaud the recent release of
    Requests for Proposals for the Children's Centers. 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. It was these
    centers, for example, that generated the findings I mentioned earlier
    about connections between prenatal exposures and lower IQ at age 7. We
    urge you to provide full funding for these Centers.
        Office of Research and Development.--This office is critical in
    efforts to understand environmental impacts on children's health.
    Children's environmental health is a priority of EPA's strategic plan
    and we were pleased to see the mention in the fiscal year 2013 budget
    supporting continued research on children's issues. Yet the funding and
    research dedicated to this area is not specifically listed or
    identified in the plan. If this area is indeed a priority, where are
    measurable goals on this area of research? Where is the documentation
    of the amount and type of research conducted as well as how the
    protection of children is given priority throughout Office of Research
    and Development (ORD)? We ask that your subcommittee direct the office
    to improve transparency by tracking and reporting on the funding and
    research across the office dedicated to children's environmental
    health.
        ORD's focus on sustainability in its work is commended; no truly
    sustainable development paradigm could be developed without protecting
    children and their future. Children's environmental health is an issue
    that cuts across all of ORD's programs. For example, EPA's National
    Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory scientists are
    protecting children's health through the development of cost-effective
    methods to test and rank chemicals for their potential to cause
    developmental neurotoxicity. Historic methods using laboratory animals
    are expensive and time consuming. To date, only a small number of the
    thousands of chemicals currently in commerce have been assessed for
    their potential toxicity and for their effects on the child's
    developing nervous system. These new testing methods can screen in
    hours to days instead of months to years and will provide faster, less
    expensive ways of assessing potential toxicity.
        These new testing methods, however, do not replace the need for
    continued research in childhood exposures and health effects. Our
    understanding is that of the $81 million proposed for the grants
    program, only $6.3 million is targeted to children's research (for the
    centers mentioned above). Much of the research in this field cannot be
    conducted in a short timeframe and requires sustained funding if
    scientists are to conduct research and measure effectiveness.
        School and Chlid 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 childcare. Yet,
    little is known about the environmental health status of the Nation's
    childcare centers or how to assure that these facilities are protecting
    this highly vulnerable group of children. Environmental health is
    rarely if ever considered in licensing centers or training childcare
    professionals. Similarly, 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 EPA maintain and expand its
    activities for healthy school and child care settings, such as the
    Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools program.
        Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units.--Funded jointly by
    EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the
    Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units (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. We urge the subcommittee to provide adequate
    funding for both EPA's and ATSDR's portions of this program.
        National Children's Study.--The National Children's Study (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
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NIEHS--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. CEHN urges
    the subcommittee to restore the budget of NCS for fiscal year 2013 to
    ensure that EPA has sustained funding for the necessary infrastructure
    for data access and the ability to collaborate with its partners on the
    NCS.
        Children's Health and Healthy Children Must be an Ongoing Priority
    for This and Every Administration.--Since CEHN's creation 20 years ago,
    great leaps forward have been made. We commend the EPA for its great
    progress in recognizing children's unique susceptibilities to
    environmental toxicants. More remains to be done, however. CEHN urges
    the subcommittee to direct EPA to assure that all of its activities and
    programs--including regulations, guidelines, assessments and research--
    specifically consider children.
        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. A wonderful example
    doing just that is EPA's long-awaited decision to limit emissions of
    mercury and other toxicants from power plants. Mercury is a potent
    neurotoxin, which can permanently damage a child's sensitive nervous
    system. If we want our children to reach their full potential, we need
    to get mercury out of their environment. This proposal is a practical,
    cost-effective, and vital step toward this goal. Other benefits of this
    rule will be decreased exposures to pollutants that can cause cancer or
    trigger asthma attacks.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these critical issues,
    and thank you for your concern about the environmental health of
    children.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Cook Inlet Tribal Council

        Chairman Reed and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Gloria O'Neill and I
    am the President and CEO of Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC), an Alaska
    Native tribal nonprofit organization which serves as the primary
    education and workforce development center for Native people in
    Anchorage. CITC has been designated tribal authority through Cook Inlet
    Region Inc., organized through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
    and recognized under section 4(b) of the Indian Self-Determination Act
    and Education Assistance Act, Public Law 93-638. CITC builds human
    capacity by partnering with individuals to establish and achieve both
    educational and employment goals that result in lasting, positive
    change for themselves, their families, and their communities.
    Demographics and Expanding Service Population
        CITC's programs serve Alaska Native and American Indian people in
    the Cook Inlet Region, which includes Alaska's most urbanized and
    populated communities, and is home to an Alaska Native/American Indian
    population of more than 40,000, approximately 40 percent of the Native
    population of the State of Alaska. In Anchorage alone, the Native
    population is approximately 22,000, about 20 percent of the total
    Native population in the State. Anchorage is the fourth-largest Native
    community in the Nation. CITC's programs address many of the social,
    economic, and educational challenges faced by Alaska Native people. For
    example, Alaska Native students are twice as likely to drop out as
    their non-Native peers; 33 percent of Alaska's unemployed are Alaska
    Native people, and almost 20 percent of Alaska Native people have
    incomes below the Federal poverty line--nearly three times the rate of
    non-Native people.
        In-migration from rural, largely Alaska Native communities to the
    urban areas in the Cook Inlet Region is accelerating as Alaska Native
    people find it increasingly difficult to make a living in rural Alaska.
    Fifty-nine percent of CITC's participants have been in Anchorage for 5
    years or less; and employment, training, and education are frequently
    cited as reasons for moving to Anchorage. In contrast, the current
    Bureau of Indian Affairs funding formula for CITC is based on the
    population figure of 14,569--from the 1990 census--which leaves CITC
    with a funding shortfall to meet the needs of the 40,000 Alaska Native
    and American Indian people currently residing in our service region.
    CITC is able to create and maintain successful programs, despite this
    shortfall, due to flexibility granted by the 477 program that allows us
    to leverage our existing funding and maximize efficiencies.
    Public Law 102-477 is Essential to Effective Service Provision
        The Indian Employment Training and Related Services Demonstration
    Act, Public Law 102-477, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 3401-3417 (or the ``477
    program''), administered by the Office of Indian Energy and Economic
    Development in the Department of the Interior, provides a critical
    foundation for maximizing the effectiveness of CITC's programs. The law
    allows the consolidation of funding streams from the U.S. Departments
    of the Interior (DOI), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor (DOL)
    into a single employment and training program. The 477 program enables
    flexibility on the part of the receiving organization to plan the
    programming to best fit the needs of the community and minimize
    administrative redundancy by merging reporting requirements, while
    still adhering to the Government Performance Results Act's stringent
    accountability standards.
    Cook Inlet Tribal Council 477 Programs
        The 477 Program is essential to the success of our program as it
    allows CITC to increase effectiveness and innovation, enhance
    interoperability, and eliminate inefficiency while maximizing program
    outcomes. The wrap-around services we provide include job training and
    placement, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and child
    care. CITC's Employment and Training Services Department (ETSD)
    provides comprehensive services to assist Native job seekers. CITC's
    employment and training programs are based on the premise that
    effective solutions to workforce development require integrated
    approaches to ensuring job readiness, training, and placement. By
    working closely with State and Federal programs, community and tribal
    nonprofits, universities, vocational training centers, employers, and
    Native corporations, CITC is able to provide a wide array of training
    and employment assistance, coupled with supportive services, to help
    overcome many barriers to employment.
        CITC is the sole provider of tribal TANF in Anchorage, a key
    component of our 477 program. Our TANF program is built on an
    integrated service model that connects participants to the range of
    programs offered throughout CITC's departments. Through our integrated
    service model, CITC has reduced caseloads as well as effectively
    implemented TANF prevention. This is precisely the type of innovation
    and interoperability that would be impossible without the flexibility
    provided by the 477 program.
        Furthermore, efficiencies gained within the TANF program resulted
    in a 5-year savings of $7.1 million--savings that have been re-invested
    in supportive services and programs going directly to participants. 477
    allows tribes and tribal entities (e.g., CITC) to administer federally
    funded employment and job training programs as a single program, with a
    single budget and single set of reporting requirement. CITC relies on
    the 477 program to provide our people more effective and integrated
    services while reducing costly administrative redundancy.

        Over the past 5 years CITC 477-supported programs have:
      --Provided 8,257 job seekers with career coaching, training, and job
            search assistance; 5,403 (65 percent) of these individuals were
            placed in jobs. In 2010, the average hourly wage (AHW) of a job
            seeker coming to CITC for services was $9.95--upon leaving CITC
            their AHW was $17.23.
      --Transitioned 2,270 TANF recipients from welfare to work, with an
            AHW of $11.53.
      --Provided training opportunities and job placement in critical
            employment sectors, including:
        --Customer Service/Retail Management (AHW $11.01);
        --Driver's Education (AHW $14.16) and CDL Driver's Certification
                (AHW $16) Union Apprenticeship (AHW $number needed);
        --Weatherization Training (AHW $14.77-$22.15);
        --Healthcare: CNA, LPN, RN, Medical Coding (AHW $13.79)
        We are proud of the effective programs that we provide and the
    success that our participants enjoy. The 477 program is critical to our
    effectiveness, especially in this environment of shrinking funding
    sources.
    Subcommittee Support for 477
        Last year the tribes sought assistance from the Congress regarding
    two problematic changes the agencies proposed to the administration of
    the 477 program that would significantly undermine its success:
      --ending the practice of transferring 477 program funds to
            participating tribes and tribal organizations through Public
            Law 93-638 contracts or Self-Governance agreements, as
            authorized by the Indian Self-Determination and Education
            Assistance Act (ISDEAA); and
      --a new requirement that 477 tribes and tribal organizations report
            their 477 expenditures separately by funding source number for
            audit purposes.
        This subcommittee has been very responsive to the tribes' concerns
    and supportive of the 477 program. The House/Senate Appropriations
    conferees on the fiscal year 2012 Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies appropriations bill instructed the Federal agencies to engage
    in consultations with the 477 tribes and tribal organizations to reach
    consensus on the transfer and reporting of funds administered by tribes
    through program plans adopted by tribes and approved by the Department
    of the Interior under the 477 program.
        The Federal agencies and 477 tribes agreed to try to resolve their
    differences over these issues, which led to the formation of the Public
    Law 102-477 Administrative Flexibility Work Group. This group has met
    weekly and included policy and program representatives from DOI, which
    administers the 477 program, HHS, DOL and the Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB), as well as representatives from 10 affected tribes and
    tribal organizations. In the meantime, the agencies agreed to
    temporarily allow funds to continue to be transferred through ISDEAA
    and have suspended the reporting requirements instituted in the March
    2009 OMB Circular. The agencies and tribes have moved toward consensus
    in some general areas:
      --First, the agencies and tribal representatives agree in principal
            that the 477 program is one provided for tribes by virtue of
            their status as Indians. Its targeted purpose is to facilitate
            employment opportunities for Indian youth and adults, as well
            as to encourage tribal self-sufficiency consistent with self-
            determination principles. The 477 program is structured so that
            tribal program plans, as authorized under the 477 act, are
            approved and administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and
            thus can be funded through ISDEAA.
      --Second, the both sides have agreed in principal that the 477 act
            authorizes tribes to develop 477 program plans to integrate
            services and expenditures from various agency programs in a
            single, coordinated, comprehensive tribal program plan with a
            single budget and a single annual report delivered to DOI. The
            current reporting system includes OMB-approved statistical,
            narrative, and financial reporting forms. The Federal agencies
            have identified limited additional reporting information
            required by law but not currently reported in the consolidated
            reports provided annually to DOI. Discussion is ongoing as to
            what, if any, additional information needs to be included in
            the statistical, narrative, and financial reports.
        In spite of this progress, it has become clear that the agencies
    continue to question one of the fundamental purposes of the 477
    program--to allow tribes and tribal organizations to reallocate their
    funds within their approved 477 program in order to address local
    issues and programmatic needs in the most effective manner. From our
    perspective, giving this authority and responsibility to tribes to meet
    their own needs is exactly the point and strength of the 477 program.
    It is precisely this flexibility that has allowed us to be so
    successful. In addition, the tribal representatives have requested, but
    not received, written confirmation that this funding mechanism will
    continue without restriction and be available for new programs coming
    into the 477 program in the future. Finally, the tribes continue to
    request that the 2009 OMB Circular A-133 be permanently suspended or
    rescinded.
        Given this disagreement of fundamental principle, we urge the
    subcommittee to remain involved in this issue and supportive of the 477
    program. Specifically, we request that the subcommittee maintain
    section 430, the language on 477 that was included in the bill last
    year, and amend to clarify the intent of the program by adding
    following language:

        ``(3) all funds transferred under an approved Public Law 102-477
    plan may be reallocated and rebudgeted by the Indian tribe or tribal
    organization to best meet the employment, training and related needs of
    the local community served by the Indian tribe or tribal
    organization.''.
    Conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, CITC, as a 477 tribal organization is grateful for
    this subcommittee's interest in and support for the 477 program. This
    program is essential to our ability to meet the needs of our people in
    innovate and efficient ways that allow us to provide wrap around
    services designed on a model of integration and interoperability. The
    Tribal Work Group representatives remain concerned that, in the absence
    of specific legislative authorization as provided in section 430 with
    the above addition, the spirit, the letter and the opportunities of the
    Public Law 102-477 law will be subject to changes in implementation
    from administration to administration.
        Thank you for your time and consideration.
                                     ______

     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 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill. The National Wildlife Refuge System stands alone
    as the only land and water conservation system with a mission that
    prioritizes wildlife and habitat conservation and wildlife-dependent
    recreation. Since 1995, the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
    (CARE) has worked to showcase the value of the Refuge System and to
    secure a strong congressional commitment for conserving these special
    places. Located in every U.S. State and territory, refuges conserve a
    diversity of America's environmentally sensitive and economically vital
    ecosystems, including oceans, coasts, wetlands, deserts, tundra,
    prairie, and forests. We respectfully request a funding level of $495
    million for the operations and maintenance accounts of the National
    Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) for fiscal year 2013.
        This testimony is submitted on behalf of CARE's 22 member
    organizations, which represent approximately 15 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 Institute
    National Audubon Society
    National Rifle Association
    National Wildlife Federation
    National Wildlife Refuge Association
    Safari Club International
    The Corps Network
    The Nature Conservancy
    The Wilderness Society
    The Wildlife Society
    Trout Unlimited
    U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
    Wildlife Forever
    Wildlife Management Institute

        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 $495 million for fiscal year 2013
    essentially maintains the NWRS at a flat funding level. It includes
    only a modest increase more than the fiscal year 2012 appropriation in
    order to keep fuel in the trucks, pay for rising utilities and building
    rent, and cover other fixed costs. The NWRS generally requires an
    annual increase of at least $15 million to offset these rising costs,
    but our request for approximately $8 million in additional funding for
    fiscal year 2013 accounts for the current salary freeze for Federal
    employees.
        An appropriation of $495 million in fiscal year 2013 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 less than already insufficient
    levels. It would enable refuge staff to continue making progress toward
    protecting and restoring America's wildlife and habitat, and providing
    a positive experience for nearly 46 million annual visitors who use
    refuges for hunting, fishing, watching wildlife, and educational and
    interpretive 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 FWS
    staff to hastily catalog the assets of gulf coast refuges in order to
    recoup the cost of damaged resources from responsible parties. Without
    adequate baseline data, most refuges are ill-prepared to assess or
    respond to such impacts, and the inventory and monitoring program is
    needed to fill the widespread information gaps that exist across the
    NWRS.
        Many years of inadequate budgets have left the NWRS's operations
    and maintenance (O&M) backlog at nearly $3.2 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.
        Annual budgets that do not cover fixed costs are particularly
    harmful because the NWRS is already stretched thin responding to
    damages from natural disasters. From fiscal years 2005-2011, the NWRS
    sustained $693 million in damages from natural disasters including
    hurricanes, flooding, tornadoes, fires, a tsunami, and an earthquake.
    The damages in 2011 alone were almost $200 million, approximately 40
    percent of the NWRS's O&M funds for the year. Of the $693 million in
    damages, the Congress appropriated $254 million in emergency
    supplemental funding, but the remaining $439 million has been added to
    the NWRS's $2.5 billion deferred maintenance backlog.
        Today, more than 35 percent of America's national wildlife refuges
    have no on-site staff, leaving no one 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, and only
    10 percent of this acreage was treated in 2011. Further, a crippling
    shortage of law enforcement officers has left refuges sorely under-
    protected from illegal activities such as drug production and
    trafficking, wildlife poaching, illegal border activity, assaults, and
    many types of natural resource violations. Currently, only 244 full-
    time law enforcement officers are tasked with managing the 150-million-
    acre NWRS--the equivalent of one officer per 650,000 acres--which an
    independent analysis recommends be patrolled by a force of 845
    professional officers. For instance, one officer in the Pacific region
    is responsible for covering nearly 54 million acres of the NWRS alone.
        National wildlife refuges are critically important on local and
    regional scales. According to data from a recent report by Southwick
    Associates, the NWRS generates $8 in economic activity for every $1
    appropriated by the Congress. Further, more than 32,500 American jobs
    are attributed to recreation on refuges. And, as stated in the fiscal
    year 2013 budget justification for FWS, ``On a national level, each $5
    million invested in the Refuge System's appropriations (salary and
    nonsalary) impacts an average of 83.2 jobs, $13.6 million in total
    economic activity, $5.4 million in job-related income and $500,000 in
    tax revenue. Each 1-percent increase or decrease in visitation impacts
    $16.9 million in total economic activity, 268 jobs, $5.4 million in
    job-related income, and $608,000 in tax revenue. Therefore, maintaining
    a healthy visitor program at national wildlife refuges is vital to the
    economic well-being of communities all across the Nation.''
        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. The Southwick
    Associates report states that in 2010, refuges generated more than
    $32.3 billion in these ecosystem services, a return of more than $65
    for every $1 appropriated by the Congress.
        Refuges are vital places for the American people to connect with
    nature and get involved. Currently, refuge Friends groups and
    volunteers do approximately 20 percent of all work on refuges. In 2011,
    these 1.5 million hours equated to roughly 8 volunteers for every 1
    refuge employee, or the equivalent of almost 650 full-time employees.
    Without staff to oversee volunteers, their commitment and passion is
    lost, as is their desperately needed contribution to the NWRS.
        Funding increases in fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010
    allowed for meaningful progress toward properly patrolling and
    enforcing laws on the NWRS's 150 million acres, maintaining recreation
    and education programs for the public, sustaining high water quality,
    completing habitat restoration projects, and more, although our new
    marine monuments comprising one-third of the NWRS largely remain a
    major unfunded need. Cutting O&M 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 $495 million in fiscal year 2013.
        On behalf of our more than 15 million members and supporters, CARE
    thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to offer comments on the
    fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill and we look forward to meeting with you to discuss
    our request.
                                     ______

              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
    Committee. I am Mickey Peercy, the Executive Director of Health
    Services. I appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony to the
    subcommittee on our top budget priorities for fiscal year 2013 in the
    Indian Health Service.
        The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma is the third-largest Native American
    tribal government in the United States, with more than 208,000 members.
    The Choctaw Nation territory consists of all or part of 10 counties in
    southeast Oklahoma, and we are proudly one of the State's largest
    employers. The Nation operates numerous programs and services under
    Self-Governance compacts with the United States, including but not
    limited to:
      --a sophisticated health system serving more than 33,000 patients
            with a hospital in Talihina, Oklahoma;
      --eight outpatient clinics;
      --referred specialty care and sanitation facilities construction;
      --higher education;
      --Johnson O'Malley program;
      --housing improvement;
      --child welfare and social services;
      --law enforcement; and
      --many others.
        Appropriations for Indian Country remain severely deficient for
    each of these programs, and it is simply not acceptable for such
    programs to be further debilitated by budget cuts. Thus, it is
    essential that programs impacting Indian Country be exempted from any
    sequestration for fiscal year 2013 and forward.
        In my testimony today, I will focus on Indian health and related
    programs, appropriations which are critical in order to address the
    health disparities of Native Americans as compared to other Americans.
    The current funding levels have created a system of rationed healthcare
    and perpetuate these health disparities for Native people.
    Joint Venture--Increase to $90 Million
        The Joint Venture program, although a relatively small program,
    remains the most innovative, timely, and cost-effective means within
    the Indian Health Service (IHS) to acquire new or replacement health
    facilities for Indian Country. The IHS Joint Venture program
    demonstrates the shared commitment of Tribal Nations and the IHS in
    providing additional health facilities within the Indian health system
    and the staff necessary to support the facilities. This strategy has
    been especially effective in the Oklahoma City area, allowing us to
    replace some antiquated facilities and extending healthcare to
    underserved tribal citizens in our communities. However, the need for
    adequate health facilities remains great. We request that funds
    continue to be appropriated for the Joint Venture program on an annual
    basis, including the associated contract support costs and adequate
    operational funds.
    Contract Health Services--Increase of $200 Million
        Contract Health Services (CHS) remain a high priority for the
    Choctaw Nation and many other tribes in the Nation. CHS funds all of
    the referrals from tribal and IHS facilities for specialty care that
    cannot be delivered at the tribal/IHS clinic or hospital site.
    Referrals are often deferred or denied, due to lack of funds, despite
    the determination of medical need by our health providers. The Oklahoma
    City area and the Choctaw Nation suffer some of the highest deferral/
    denial rates of CHS cases in the Nation. For example, denied or
    deferred cases in our health system resulted in some of our patients
    not receiving necessary diagnostic tests, cancer treatment or neurology
    services last year.
    Contract Support Costs--Increase of $100 Million More Than Fiscal Year
            2013 President's Request
        One of the most important appropriation issues facing Indian
    Country is the underfunding of contract support costs (CSC), which
    negatively affects nearly every single Tribal Nation. This issue is
    especially significant for Self-Governance/Self-Determination Tribes
    because it protects direct service operations from sharing in overall
    funding reductions and limitations. Every dollar in unfunded contract
    support costs is a direct reduction in healthcare or other services to
    our tribal citizens.
        CSC appropriations go directly to the Tribal Nations at the local
    level, with immediate positive impact on healthcare and other critical
    programs. CSC funds mandatory costs for which the Federal Government is
    legally and contractually responsible to provide. Failing to adequately
    fund CSC defeats the very program that has most improved health
    conditions for American Indian and Alaska Natives.
        Tribal programs have significantly increased the quality and level
    of services in our health systems compared to direct service programs.
    Since contract support costs are fixed costs that a contractor must
    incur, tribes are required to either:
      --reduce funds budgeted for critical healthcare or other services
            under contract to cover the shortfall;
      --divert tribal funds to subsidize the Federal contract (when such
            tribal funds are available); or
      --use a combination of these two approaches.
        For every $1 million that the Choctaw Nation would be required to
    divert from direct patient care to cover contract support costs, the
    Nation's health system must forego an estimated 5,800 patient visits.
        The reported CSC shortfall is nearly $5.5 million annually for the
    Choctaw Nation alone. The President's budget request for fiscal year
    2013 includes only a $5 million increase in IHS CSC funds for all 567
    tribes in the country, an amount insufficient to fund even the Choctaw
    Nation's shortfall for 1 year. This current budget request is woefully
    inadequate to not only address the present shortfall, but to prevent
    the shortfall from growing in future years. We urge you to consider the
    total unfunded need for CSC, which we estimate for fiscal year 2013,
    will approach $100 million within the IHS.
    Special Diabetes Program for Indians--Support 5-Year Reauthorization at
            $200 Million/Year
        The Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SPDI) was authorized in
    1997 in response to an alarming and disproportionate high rate of type
    2 diabetes in American Indian and Alaska Native people. Tribal advocacy
    has contributed greatly to changing the course of this once devastating
    health menace in Indian Country. Continued innovation and increased
    funding are required to further arrest the disparity and achieve
    equity. SDPI funding has been at $150 million since it was reauthorized
    in 2004. During this time nearly 400 Indian Health Service, Tribal, and
    Urban (I/T/U) Indian health programs have assisted in developing
    innovative and culturally appropriate strategies, vital resources and
    tools to prevent and treat diabetes. Congressional funding remains the
    critical factor in the battle against diabetes which translates into
    documented improvements in blood glucose control, reduced amputation
    rates and decreased cases of kidney failure, just to name a few of the
    maladies associated with this disease. The Choctaw Nation has been an
    aggressive soldier in the fight against diabetes and we ask this
    subcommittee to support the crusade to ensure the continuation of the
    SDPI. We also request that you urge your colleagues on the Labor,
    Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Subcommittee to increase funding for the SDPI program,
    which is administered by IHS. Without the SDPI, the epidemic status of
    Type 2 diabetes will once again be a serious life-changing disease to
    future generations of our people.
    Indian Health Care Improvement Fund--Request $45 Million Increase
        Overall funding for the IHS remains at less than 60 percent of
    need; using the benchmark of the Federal employee benefit package.
    Deplorably, IHS average funding per patient remains less than that
    expended on Federal inmates. In addition to the well-documented
    disparate funding between the IHS and other federally funded health
    programs, funds among the IHS areas are distributed inequitably. The
    Oklahoma City area, specifically, suffers a funding level even below
    that of the average within the IHS. In order to address such inequities
    and resulting health disparities, the Indian Health Care Improvement
    Fund (IHCIF) was created to direct funding to the most severely
    underfunded programs first. Tribal Nations have previously recommended
    that the Federal Government implement a time-limited plan to bring all
    IHS Operating Units to the 80-percent level, and the Choctaw Nation
    supports that position.
        In addition, the Choctaw National supports these National Indian
    Program Priorities
        Mandatory Costs--Provide $304 Million Increase To Maintain Current
            Services.--Mandatory cost increases are necessary to maintain
            the current level of services. These ``mandatories'' are
            unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, pay
            costs, phasing in staff for recently constructed facilities,
            and population growth.
        Alcohol and Substance Abuse Programs--Provide $40 Million
            Increase.--Alcohol and Substance Abuse Programs (ASAP) and
            community-based prevention activities are an integrated part of
            behavioral health programs needed to reduce the incidence of
            alcohol and substance abuse in American Indian and Alaska
            Native communities and to address the special needs of Native
            people dually diagnosed with both mental illness and drug
            dependency. Youth Region Treatment Centers are also funded by
            this line item.
        Funding for Implementation of the Indian Health Care Improvement
            Act.--Implementation of the IHCIA remains a top priority for
            Indian Country. IHCIA provides the authority for Indian
            healthcare, but does not provide any funds to IHS. The American
            healthcare delivery system has been revolutionized while the
            Indian healthcare system waited for the reauthorization of the
            IHCIA. Resources are needed to implement all provisions of the
            IHCIA.
        Office of Tribal Self-Governance--Increase $5 Million to the IHS
            Office of Tribal Self-Governance.--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 2012, there are 337 Self-Governance (SG)
            Tribes managing approximately $1.4 billion in funding. This
            represents almost 60 percent of all federally recognized tribes
            and 33 percent of the overall IHS funding. The Self-Governance
            process serves as a model program for Federal Government
            outsourcing, which builds tribal infrastructure and provides
            quality services to Indian people.
        We also support the testimony presented by the National Indian
    Health Board and the National Congress of American Indians.
        In closing, on behalf of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, and Chief
    Gregory E. Pyle, thank you for the honor to provide this testimony and
    we respectfully urge your consideration and support of these program
    funding requests in the fiscal year 2013 budget for the IHS.
                                     ______

                   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 come before you today
    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 in the Department of the Interior, at its
    authorized amount of $10 million.
        I would like to start by providing a little information about our
    organization. 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 32,000 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
    Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program (CWBPP). This authorized
    competitive matching grants program, operated through the National Park
    Service (NPS) American Battlefield Protection Program 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 NPS boundaries. Since it was first
    funded in fiscal year 1999, the program has been used to protect more
    than 17,500 acres of our Nation's hallowed ground.

    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. By
    preserving these hallowed grounds, we can rightfully honor all who made
    the ultimate sacrifice, whether it was on the rolling fields of
    Gettysburg or the sandy beaches of Fort Wagner.
        Development threatens to erase these sacred sites; living history--
    our shared history--will consequently fade into distant memory. The
    private sector organizations engaged in battlefield preservation--and
    we are just one among many nonprofit battlefield preservation groups--
    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.
        With the sesquicentennial commemoration of the Civil War underway,
    now is the opportune time to reaffirm our national commitment to the
    protection of these hallowed grounds. Throughout the sesquicentennial,
    millions are expected to learn about our Nation's unique history by
    visiting Civil War sites around the country. This anniversary provides
    the perfect opportunity to promote preservation of Civil War
    battlefields.

    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 Commission
    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 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 Commission also recommended that the Congress
    establish a Federal matching grant program to help the nonprofit sector
    save high-priority Civil War battlefields. The Commission's proposal
    for a Federal matching grant program was the genesis of the Civil War
    Battlefield Preservation Program.

    Congressional Funding and First Successes
        Five years after the ``Report on the Nation's Civil War
    Battlefields'' was released, the Congress acted upon the Commission's
    recommendation by setting aside $8 million over a 3-year period from
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund for Civil War preservation
    matching grants. Grants were competitively awarded through the American
    Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP), an arm of NPS. Funding was
    solely for acquisition of properties outside NPS boundaries at
    battlefields identified in the 1993 report. Land could be purchased
    from willing sellers only; there was--and there remains--no eminent
    domain authority.
        Thanks to the new program, there began an unprecedented and almost-
    immediate surge in Civil War battlefield preservation. The $8 million
    appropriation generated $24 million for land acquisition by encouraging
    State and private investment in battlefield land protection. The
    program inspired the Virginia and Mississippi legislatures to
    appropriate $3.4 million and $2.8 million, respectively, to meet the
    Federal match. 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.

    Authorization of the Program
        The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program was first authorized
    through the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002. Supporters
    on Capitol Hill felt that authorization of the program would convey to
    the Department of the Interior congressional intent regarding the
    program's goals and objectives. 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 Commission 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). Authorization has provided funding predictability for the
    program's non-Federal partners, encouraging continued private-sector
    involvement in battlefield preservation.

    Program's Continued Successes and Reauthorization
        Since the program was first funded in fiscal year 1999, Civil War
    Battlefield Preservation Program grants have been used to protect
    17,500 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;
      --Mill Springs, Kentucky; and
      --Prairie Grove, Arkansas.
        The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program 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
        We thank the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies for providing $9 million for the
    Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program in fiscal year 2012. This
    appropriation has allowed for the preservation of many historically
    significant lands at battlefields such as:
      --Bentonville;
      --North Carolina;
      --Franklin, Tennessee;
      --Gettysburg, Pennsylvania;
      --New Market Heights, Virginia;
      --South Mountain, Maryland; and
      --Perryville, Kentucky.
        To build off the successes of the program in fiscal year 2012, we
    respectfully ask the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies to fund the Civil War Battlefield
    Preservation Program at its authorized amount of $10 million. 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, as we commemorate the 150th
    anniversary of the conflict that shaped our Nation, is the opportune
    time to provide robust funding for the Civil War Battlefield
    Preservation Program.
        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. 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 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.

    Conclusion
        There is no question that the Civil War was a defining moment in
    our country's history. For 4 long years, North and South clashed in
    hundreds of battles that reunited our Nation and sounded the death
    knell for slavery. More than 625,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians
    perished as a result of the war.
        Preserved battlefields not only honor the memory of our Civil War
    ancestors, but all of our Nation's brave men and women in uniform.
    Further, preserved battlefields serve as outdoor classrooms to teach
    new generations of Americans about the significance of the Civil War--
    and remind them that the freedoms we enjoy today came at a terrific
    price.
        Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope you and your subcommittee will
    consider our request to provide funding of the Civil War Battlefield
    Preservation Program at its authorized level of $10 million. 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 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum

        Waters from the Colorado River are used by approximately 35 million
    people for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate
    approximately 4 million acres in the United States. Natural and man-
    induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates environmental and
    economic damages. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has estimated
    the current quantifiable damages at about $300 million per year. The
    Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
    (Program) in 1974 to offset increased damages caused by continued
    development and use of the waters of the Colorado River. Modeling by
    BOR indicates that the quantifiable damages would rise to more than
    $500 million by the year 2030 without continuation of the Program. The
    Congress has directed the Secretary of the Interior to implement a
    comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado
    River from lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
    BLM funds these efforts through its Soil, Water and Air Program. BLM's
    efforts are an essential part of the overall effort. A funding level of
    $5.2 million for general water quality improvement efforts within the
    Colorado River Basin and an additional $1.5 million for salinity
    specific projects in 2013 is requested to prevent further degradation
    of the quality of the Colorado River and increased downstream economic
    damages.
        EPA has identified that more than 60 percent of the salt load of
    the Colorado River comes from natural sources. The majority of land
    within the Colorado River Basin is administered by BLM. In implementing
    the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974, the Congress
    recognized that most of the salts in the Colorado River originate from
    federally owned lands. Title I of the Salinity Control Act deals with
    the United States commitment to the quality of waters being delivered
    to Mexico. Title II of the act deals with improving the quality of the
    water delivered to U.S. users. This testimony deals specific with title
    II efforts. In 1984, the Congress amended the Salinity Control Act and
    directed that the Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive
    program for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from
    lands administered by BLM. In 2000, the Congress reiterated its
    directive to the Secretary and requested a report on the implementation
    of BLM's program (Public Law 106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity
    Coordinator to coordinate BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin
    States to pursue salinity control studies and to implement specific
    salinity control practices. With a significant portion of the salt load
    of the Colorado River coming from BLM administered lands, the BLM
    portion of the overall program is essential to the success of the
    effort. Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts will result in
    significant additional economic damages to water users downstream.
        Concentrations of salt in the Colorado River cause approximately
    $300 million in quantified damages and significantly more in
    unquantified damages in the United States and result in poor water
    quality for United States users. 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 cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
            softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
            commercial sector;
      --an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
            and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
      --a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
            utility sector;
      --difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
            terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
            disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
            basins; and
      --increased use of imported water for leaching and cost of
            desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
    of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
    New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum is charged with reviewing the
    Colorado River's water quality standards for salinity every 3 years. In
    so doing, it adopts a Plan of Implementation consistent with these
    standards. The level of appropriation requested in this testimony is in
    keeping with the adopted Plan of Implementation. 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.
        In summary, implementation of salinity control practices through
    BLM has proven to be a very cost-effective method of controlling the
    salinity of the Colorado River and is an essential component to the
    overall Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. Continuation of
    adequate funding levels for salinity within the Soil, Water and Air
    Program will prevent the water quality of the Colorado River from
    further degradation and significant increases in economic damages to
    municipal, industrial and irrigation users.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California

        This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2013 funding for the
    Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) associated
    with the subactivity that assists title II of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-320). This longstanding
    successful and cost-effective salinity control program in the Colorado
    River Basin is being carried out pursuant to the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act and the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500).
        The Colorado River Board of California (Board) is the State agency
    charged with protecting California's interests and rights in the water
    and power resources of the Colorado River system. In this capacity,
    California participates along with the other six Colorado River Basin
    States through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum),
    the interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin
    States' salinity control efforts. In close cooperation with the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and pursuant to requirements of
    the Clean Water Act, the Forum is charged with reviewing the Colorado
    River water quality standards every 3 years. The Forum adopts a Plan of
    Implementation consistent with these water quality standards. The level
    of appropriation being supported in this testimony is consistent with
    the Forum's 2011 Plan of Implementation. If adequate funds are not
    appropriated, significant damages associated with increasing salinity
    concentrations of Colorado River water will become more widespread in
    the United States and Mexico.
        EPA has determined that more than 60 percent of the salt load of
    the Colorado River comes from natural sources. Due to geological
    conditions, much of the lands that are controlled and managed by BLM
    are major contributors of salt to the Colorado River system. Past
    management practices have led to human-induced and accelerated erosion
    processes from which soil and rocks have been deposited in various
    stream beds or flood plains. As a result, salts are dissolved and enter
    the Colorado River system causing water quality problems downstream.
        Through passage of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in
    1974, the Congress recognized that much of the salts in the Colorado
    River originate on federally owned lands. Title I of the Salinity
    Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to efforts related to
    maintaining the quality of waters being delivered to Mexico pursuant to
    the 1944 Water Treaty. Title II of the Act deals with improving the
    quality of the water delivered to U.S. users. In 1984, the Congress
    amended the Salinity Control Act and directed that the Secretary of the
    Interior develop a comprehensive program for minimizing salt
    contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by BLM. In
    2000, the Congress reiterated its directive to the Secretary and
    requested a report on the implementation of BLM's program (Public Law
    106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to coordinate
    BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin States to pursue salinity
    control studies and to implement specific salinity control practices.
    With a significant portion of the salt load of the Colorado River
    coming from BLM-administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall
    program is essential to the success of the entire effort.
        The BLM's budget justification document for fiscal year 2013 has
    stated that the BLM continues to implement on-the-ground projects,
    evaluate progress in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    (Reclamation) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and report
    salinity control measures in order to further the Plan of
    Implementation associated with the Federal Salinity Control Program in
    the Colorado River Basin. The BLM budget, as proposed in the BLM budget
    justification document, calls for six key performance goals within the
    BLM's Soil, Water, and Air Management Program. One of the goals is to
    reduce saline runoff from public lands into the Colorado River system
    by 10,000 to 20,000 tons of salt from new projects. Additionally, the
    BLM budget justification document reported a cumulative salt-loading
    reduction from ongoing BLM efforts in 2011 that totaled 126,000 tons
    per year. The Soil, Water and Air Management Program subactivity is
    responsible for reducing the discharge of salts to waters of the
    Colorado River Basin to ensure usable water supplies to tens of
    millions of downstream users of which nearly 20 million are located in
    southern California.
        The Congress has charged Federal agencies, including the BLM, to
    proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
    BLM's rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
    effective salinity control measures available. These measures
    significantly complement programs and activities being considered for
    implementation by Reclamation through its Basin-wide Program and by the
    USDA through its on-farm Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
        The 2011 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council
    report states that the funding from BLM's Soil, Water and Air Program
    has been generally expended on studies, research, and implementation.
    These studies and research have successfully identified several
    different tools which could be used to reduce salinity contributions to
    the Colorado River from publicly administered lands. BLM's efforts are
    now transitioning toward implementation of salinity control. During the
    past several years proposals for implementation of salinity control
    specific efforts have exceeded more than $1.5 million. The Advisory
    Council's 2011 report recommends that BLM make at least $1.5 million
    available annually for salinity-specific activities in addition to the
    $5.2 million expended under the Soil, Water and Air Program for general
    improvements within the Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River Board
    supports the Advisory Council's recommendation and urges the
    subcommittee to specifically designate $1.5 million for the Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Program.
        Over the 28 years since the passage of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act, much has been learned about the impact of salts
    in the Colorado River system. Currently, the salinity concentration of
    Colorado River water causes about $300 million in quantifiable damages
    in the United States annually. Economic and hydrologic modeling by
    Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages could rise to more
    than $500 million by the year 2030 without the continuation of the
    Salinity Control Program. For example, damages can be incurred related
    to the following activities:
      --A reduction in the yield of salt-sensitive crops and increased
            water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
      --A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
            water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
            dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
            softeners in the household sector;
      --An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
            softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
            commercial sector;
      --An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
            and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
      --A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
            utility sector;
      --Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
            terms and conditions, an increase in desalination and brine
            disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
            basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling and reuse of the
            water due to groundwater quality deterioration; and
      --Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
            desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
        In addition, the Federal Government has made significant
    commitments to the Republic of Mexico and to the seven Colorado River
    Basin States with regard to the delivery of quality water pursuant to
    the 1944 Water Treaty. In order for those commitments to be honored, it
    is essential that in fiscal year 2013, and in future fiscal years, that
    the Congress continue to provide adequate funds to BLM for its salinity
    control activities within the Colorado River Basin.
        The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
    water resource to the nearly 20 million residents of southern
    California, including municipal, industrial, and agricultural water
    users in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
    Diego, and Ventura Counties. The protection and improvement of Colorado
    River water quality through an effective salinity control program will
    avoid the additional economic damages to users in California and the
    other States that rely on Colorado River water resources.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the 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's (BIA) fiscal
    year 2013 budget. We have specifically identified three funding needs
    and one allocation recommendation:
      --$7.7 million, an increase of $3,054,000 more than the President's
            request for Columbia River Fisheries Management within the
            Rights Protection Implementation account 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;
      --$4.8 million, an increase of $436,000 more than the President's
            request, for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty within the
            Rights Protection Implementation account to implement new
            obligations under the recent agreement adopted by the United
            States and Canada under the Treaty;
      --$328 million for Public Safety and Justice, Criminal Investigations
            and Police Services--of which $718,000 supports enforcement of
            Federal laws at in-lieu and treaty fishing sites on the
            Columbia River. This supports the President's request; and
      --We request that the subcommittee direct the BIA to allocate Rights
            Protection Implementation accounts at the 2008 percentages
            unless or until account holders receive a rationale or
            justification for a variance.
        CRITFC was founded in 1977 by the four Columbia River treaty
    tribes:
      --Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation;
      --Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon;
      --Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and Nez Perce
            Tribe.
        CRITFC provides coordination and technical assistance to these
    tribes in regional, national, and international efforts to protect and
    restore our shared salmon resource and the habitat upon which it
    depends. Our collective ancestral homeland covers nearly one-third of
    the entire Columbia River Basin in the United States.
        In 1855, the United States entered into treaties with the four
    tribes \1\ whereupon we ceded millions of acres of our homelands to the
    United States. In return, the United States pledged to honor our
    ancestral rights, including the right to fish. Unfortunately, a
    perilous history brought the salmon resource to the edge of extinction
    with 12 salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia Basin listed
    under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Treaty with the Yakama Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951;
          -- Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12
    Stat. 963;
          -- Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945;
          -- Treaty with the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 957.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Today, the CRITFC tribes are leaders in fisheries restoration and
    management working with State, Federal, and private entities. 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. Our programs are
    integrated as much as possible with State and Federal salmon management
    and restoration efforts.

         COLUMBIA RIVER FISHERIES MANAGEMENT WITHIN RIGHTS PROTECTION
                                 IMPLEMENTATION

        We are succeeding. The salmon, returning in greater numbers, tell
    us so. But along with success, management issues increase the
    complexity, requiring greater data collection and more sophisticated
    analyses. Funding shortfalls prohibit the achievement of tribal self-
    determination goals for fisheries management, ESA recovery effort,
    protecting nonlisted species, conservation enforcement and treaty
    fishing access site maintenance. We are seeking an increase of
    $3,054,000 more than fiscal year 2012 for a new program base of
    $7,712,000 for Columbia River Fisheries Management.
        The BIA's Columbia River Fisheries Management line item is the base
    funding that supports the fishery program efforts of CRITFC and the
    four member tribes. Unlike State fish and game agencies, the tribes do
    not have access to Dingell-Johnson/Pittman-Robertson or Wallop-Breaux
    funding. The increase will be directed to support the core functions of
    the fisheries management programs of the Commission's member tribes.
        In 2008 CRITFC and its member tribes successfully concluded lengthy
    negotiations resulting in three landmark agreements:
      --the Columbia Basin Fish Accords with Federal action agencies
            overseeing the Federal hydro system in the Columbia Basin; \2\
      --a Ten-Year Fisheries Management Plan with Federal, tribal and State
            parties under United States of America v State of 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 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
    also addressing unmet mitigation obligations, such as fish losses
    associated with the John Day and The Dalles dams.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\The Nez Perce Tribe is not a Columbia Basin Fish Accord
    signatory.
        \3\ See ``Salmon Win A Triple Crown'' at http://www.critfc.org/
    text/wana_109.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 adaption
    strategies on behalf of our member tribes. CRITFC and its member tribes
    currently have insufficient funds to do the technical work and allow
    policy-level participation in the co-management arena.
        The funding provided through the BIA to support tribal fishery
    programs is crucial to the tribes' and 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 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 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
    Commission, 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 $436,000 more than the President's
    request and $600,000 more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Our
    request correlates to the U.S. Section's recommendation.
        The tribal management programs provide needed beneficial and
    technical support to the U.S. Section. The Pacific Salmon Commission
    relies heavily on the various technical committees established by the
    Treaty. The work of these Committees is integral to the task of
    implementing fishing regimes consistent with the Treaty and the goals
    of the Parties. Numerous tribal staff appointed to these committees and
    all of the tribal programs generate data and research to support their
    efforts. For example, indicator stock tagging and escapement monitoring
    provides key information for estimating the parties' annual harvest
    rates on individual stocks, evaluating impacts of management regimes
    established under the Treaty, and monitoring progress toward the
    Chinook rebuilding program started in 1984.

     PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND POLICE SERVICES

        Public safety continues to be a high priority for CRITFC and our
    tribes. Our conservation and criminal enforcement officers are the
    cornerstone of public safety in the popular and heavily used Columbia
    Gorge area patrolling 150 miles of the Columbia River, including its
    shorelines in Oregon and Washington. In this area we are the primary
    provider of enforcement services at 31 fishing access sites developed
    pursuant to Public Law 87-14 and Public Law 100-581 for use by treaty
    fishers. CRITFC's officers have obtained BIA Special Law Enforcement
    Commissions to aid our efforts protecting and serving tribal members
    and Federal trust properties along the Columbia River. We are grateful
    for the support of the BIA Office of Justice Services in obtaining the
    SLECs. We are also very pleased that the BIA has created OJS District 8
    and housed it in Portland. Beginning in February 2011, CRITFC entered
    into a Public Law 93-638 contract with BIA for enforcement services
    along the Columbia River. That contract provides funding for two
    enforcement positions.
        It's important that CRITFC build its enforcement capacity more than
    the level of the two officers currently funded by the BIA Office of
    Justice Services. Our immediate priority is to add two officers.
    Funding for two additional officers would cost $313,560 plus indirect.
    Full funding for this project would be a total budget of $716,053 plus
    indirect which would support four officers, a sergeant and a
    dispatcher.
        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 Dance/USA

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Dance/
    USA is grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of
    our members across the United States. We urge the Committee to
    designate a total of $155 million to the National Endowment for the
    Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2013. This testimony is intended to
    highlight the importance of the Federal investment in the arts to
    sustaining a vibrant cultural community to our national character.
        Dance/USA, the national service organization for not-for-profit
    professional dance, believes that dance is essential to a healthy
    society, demonstrating the infinite possibilities for human expression
    and potential, and facilitating communication within and across
    cultures. Dance/USA sustains and advances professional dance by
    addressing the needs, concerns, and interests of artists,
    administrators, and organizations. By providing services and national
    leadership, Dance/USA enhances the infrastructure for dance creation,
    education and dissemination. To fulfill its mission, Dance/USA offers a
    variety of programs, including data research and regional professional
    development, and works with organizations within and outside the arts
    field with whom common goals are shared. Dance/USA's membership
    currently consists of more than 450 ballet, modern, ethnic, jazz,
    culturally specific, traditional and tap companies, dance service and
    presenting organizations, artist managers, individuals, and other
    organizations nationally and internationally. Dance/USA's member
    companies range in size from operating budgets of under $100,000 to
    more than $50 million.
        The NEA makes it possible for everyone to enjoy and benefit from
    the performing arts. Before the establishment of the NEA in 1965, the
    arts were limited mostly to a few big cities. The Arts Endowment has
    helped to strengthen regional theater, opera, ballet and other artistic
    disciplines that Americans now enjoy. NEA funding provides access to
    the arts in regions with histories of inaccessibility due to economic
    or geographic limitations. The Endowment embodies the ideal that no one
    should be deprived of the opportunity to have art in their lives. The
    Arts Endowment has helped the arts become accessible to more Americans,
    which in turn has increased public participation in the arts.
        Despite diminished resource, the NEA awards more than 1,000 grants
    annually to nonprofit arts organizations for projects that encourage
    artistic creativity. These grants help nurture the growth and artistic
    excellence of thousands of arts organizations and artists in every
    corner of the country. NEA grants also preserve and enhance our
    Nation's diverse cultural heritage. The modest public investment in the
    Nation's cultural life results in both new and classic works of art,
    reaching the residents of all 50 States.
        NEA grants are instrumental in leveraging private funding. On
    average, each $1 from an NEA grant generates at least $8 from other
    sources. Government cultural funding plays a catalytic leadership role
    that is essential in generating private support for the arts.
        The NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of every
    community. The return of the Federal Government's small investment in
    the arts is striking. The nonprofit arts industry generates $166.2
    billion annually in economic activity, supports 5.7 million full-time
    equivalent jobs, and returns $12.6 billion to the Federal Government in
    income taxes. Measured against direct Federal cultural spending of
    about $1.4 billion, that's a return of nearly nine to one. Few other
    Federal investments realize such economic benefits, not to mention the
    intangible benefits that only the arts make possible. Even in the face
    of tremendous cutbacks in recent years, the NEA continues to be a
    beacon for arts organizations across the country.

                               NEA GRANTS AT WORK

        NEA grants are awarded to dance organizations through its core
    programs:
      --Art Works;
      --Challenge America Fast Track Grants; and
      --Federal/State Partnerships.
        The following are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on
    dance programs from the NEA's 2012 Art Works Program:

    Alabama Dance Council
    Birmingham, Alabama
    $10,000
        To support the presentation of the 2012 statewide Alabama Dance
    Festival that will feature performances by Ronald K. Brown's Evidence:
    A Dance Company and Brazz Dance Theater, showcases of Alabama dance
    companies, pre-professional and professional master classes,
    professional dance development workshops, summer intensive auditions,
    and dance education workshops.

    Ballet Hispanic of New York
    New York, New York
    $20,000
        To support the creation and presentation of a new work by artistic
    director Eduardo Vilaro. The work, titled Reina, will be inspired by
    the music of Celia Cruz, the Queen of Salsa.

    Chicago Dancing Festival
    Lombard, Illinois
    $10,000
        To support the presentation of local and national dance companies
    as part of the 2012 Chicago Dancing Festival. Activities include
    performances, open rehearsals, open company classes, and moderated
    lecture-demonstrations.

    Nai-Ni Chen Dance Company
    Fort Lee, New Jersey
    $10,000
        To support dance performances and education and outreach activities
    based on the ancient legends and folklore of the Chinese dragon. The
    project includes curriculum guides for students and teachers.

    Ragamala Dance
    Minneapolis, Minnesota
    $20,000
        To support the creation and presentation of a new work, titled 1001
    Buddhas, inspired by the 12th-century Sanjusangendo temple in Kyoto,
    Japan, famous for its 1001 life-sized statues of Kannon, the Buddhist
    Goddess of Mercy.

    San Francisco Ballet Association
    San Francisco, California
    $70,000
        To support the creation and presentation of new works by several
    choreographers including:
      --Yuri Possokhov;
      --Wayne McGregor;
      --Mark Morris; and
      --Christopher Wheeldon.
        The project includes audience engagement activities such as
    matinees for students and seniors, reduced-price tickets, pre-
    performance discussions, podcasts, and lectures.

    Trey McIntyre Project
    Boise, Idaho
    $15,000
        To support the creation and presentation of a new work, by
    choreographer Trey McIntyre. The dance will be the third piece in an
    autobiographical trilogy and is inspired by the 1970's show Free to Be
    You and Me.

                   THE NONPROFIT PROFESSIONAL DANCE COMMUNITY

        America's dance companies perform a wide range of styles and
    genres. These include both classical and contemporary ballet, classical
    and contemporary modern, as well as jazz, tap, cross-disciplinary
    fusions and traditional to modern work rooted in other cultures. More
    than two-thirds of America's professional dance companies are less than
    45 years old; as an established art form with national identity and
    presence, dance has burst onto the scene almost entirely within living
    memory. And yet, American can boast some of the greatest dance
    companies of the world and can take credit for birthing two indigenous
    dance styles--tap and modern dance.
        One key to this spectacular achievement has been the creation of a
    national marketplace for dance. When the National Endowment for the
    Arts instituted its Dance Touring Program in the 1970s, great dance
    became accessible to every community in America. What used to be a
    handful of professional companies and a scattering of ``regional''
    dance has become a national treasure spread across cities and through
    communities, schools and theaters in all 50 States. Based on data from
    almost 300 nonprofit dance companies from across the United States,
    Dance/USA estimates that dance companies:
      --Employed more than 12,800 people in a mix of full-time and part-
            time positions;
      --Paid approximately $316 million in wages and benefits;
      --Earned $178.9 million, or 30 percent of their income, from
            performances;
      --Received $235.7 million, or 47 percent of their income in
            contributions (including public support, corporate
            contributions, foundation support, and individual donations);
      --Generated more than $585 million in economic activity across the
            United States.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending
    Federal tax dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered
    from a 40-percent budget cut in the mid-nineties and found its budget
    further decreased by $22 million in the past 2 years, leaving its
    programs seriously underfunded. We urge you to continue toward
    restoration and increase the NEA funding allocation to $155 million for
    fiscal year 2013.
        On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of 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.
        Wildlife and its habitat are valuable national assets. Even in the
    face of dire fiscal realities, investments in the protection of
    wildlife and habitat are a wise choice for our Nation. Wildlife related
    recreation is a $122 billion a year industry.\1\ Moreover, protecting
    wildlife and its habitat also supports healthy natural systems that
    provide clean air and water, food, medicines and other products. The
    value of benefits provided by natural habitats in the United States is
    estimated at more than $2 trillion per year.\2\ Defenders appreciated
    the successful efforts of the Senate Appropriations Committee to
    protect wildlife programs from deep cuts both in the Senate bill and in
    H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations bill. Defenders opposes cuts
    to crucial programs that conserve wildlife and habitat, and we support
    the modest but crucial increases in the President's request.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural
    Resources Conservation and Historic Preservation in the United States
    www.nfwf.org/Content/ContentFolders/NationalFishandWildlifeFoundation/
    HomePage/ConservationSpotlights/
    TheEconomicValueofOutdoorRecreation.pdf.
        \2\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        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 in the President's request and oppose one disappointing
    decrease:
        Renewable Energy.--A crucial $4 million increase associated with
    renewable energy development that includes $1.5 million for Endangered
    Species Program Consultation, $750,000 for Conservation Planning
    Assistance, $750,000 for Migratory Bird Management and $1 million for
    the Office of Law Enforcement. This increase will help to ensure siting
    of renewable energy projects in a way that prevents harm to species
    such as golden eagles, seabirds, bats and desert tortoise.
        Cooperative Recovery.--A praiseworthy new initiative to implement
    recovery actions for species listed under the Endangered Species Act on
    National Wildlife Refuges and surrounding lands. The $5.4 million
    increase includes $2.5 million for Refuges, $883,000 for Partners for
    Fish and Wildlife, $800,000 for Fisheries Population Assessment,
    $770,000 for Adaptive Science and $400,000 in the Endangered Species
    program. This initiative will support more efficient efforts across
    landscapes to recover threatened and endangered species.
        Endangered Species.--
      --A $1 million increase to support consultations on pesticides that
            may impact listed species including the development of
            protocols to determine safe levels of exposure. This increase
            is vital to facilitate likely needed consultations on several
            hundred pesticides out of at least 739 pesticide cases
            identified by the Environmental Protection Agency that are
            scheduled for review by 2022.
      --A $1.6 million increase for listing species. This funding will
            support progress in listing more than 250 candidate species,
            many of which have awaited protection for years.
      --A $12.3 million increase for the Cooperative Endangered Species
            Fund to provide assistance to States to protect threatened and
            endangered species.
      --A $998,000 reduction for the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration
            Program that assists livestock owners co-existing with wolves.
            In light of the recent delisting of wolves in the Northern
            Rockies and Western Great Lakes and potential expansion of
            wolves into California, it is important to continue this
            valuable program which is intended to both compensate ranchers
            for livestock losses due to wolves and to implement proactive,
            nonlethal methods to prevent these losses. We urge restoration
            of this funding.
        National Wildlife Refuge System.--A net increase of $9.1 million
    for National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Operations and Maintenance
    in the request includes not only the $2.5 million for Cooperative
    Recovery but also $3 million for baseline inventory and monitoring of
    refuge resources, $3.6 million for Challenge Cost Share projects with
    partners and volunteer groups, $1 million for law enforcement, and $1.4
    million for priority operations. Even with the increase, the request is
    still $8 million less than the fiscal year 2010 level, even though
    refuges need an annual increase of a least $8 million just to keep fuel
    in trucks and pay for rising utilities and other costs. Moreover, in
    2011, devastating disasters including tornadoes, wildfires, hurricanes,
    an earthquake, and a tsunami caused more than $190 million in damages
    to the Refuge System, an amount that totals nearly 40 percent of its
    budget that will put the System at further risk without supplemental
    disaster funding.
        Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science.--Threats
    to the conservation of our natural resources are increasingly large-
    scale and complex. Combined with decreasing financial resources, there
    is a need to work more effectively and efficiently across
    jurisdictional boundaries. This comprehensive initiative is helping the
    natural resource management agencies improve landscape-level
    coordination of conservation efforts and provide science and technical
    capacity to tackle today's complex environmental problems. We oppose
    any cuts to this activity.
        Environmental Contaminants.--A $1.3 million increase in this
    program that has been flat since 2001 to help expedite and complete
    more restoration activities for Natural Resource Damage Assessment and
    Restoration cases.
        International Affairs.--An $83,000 increase which is the fiscal
    year 2012 level with fixed costs to sustain vital efforts to provide
    crucial capacity building, education, and training for priority species
    and habitats of global concern and for the growing permitting, research
    and monitoring workload for species subject to trade, including native
    U.S. species.
        Office of Law Enforcement and Migratory Bird Management.--In
    addition to the increases requested for these two programs related to
    renewable energy development, Defenders wishes to underscore their
    vital importance for wildlife conservation in our Nation. In fiscal
    year 2011, the Office of Law Enforcement's 143 inspectors processed
    approximately 167,000 declared shipments of wildlife and wildlife
    products worth more than $2.7 billion and the 219 special agents
    investigated nearly 13,000 cases, from breaking up smuggling rings to
    working with states to protect U.S. game species from poaching. The
    Migratory Bird Management program is working to reverse precipitous
    declines in U.S. bird populations including native Hawaiian birds,
    ocean birds, coastal shorebirds, arid lands birds, and grassland birds.
        Other Key Grant Programs.--In addition to the increase for the
    Cooperative Endangered Species Fund referenced above, we support the
    President's request for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund,
    $9.98 million, for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, $3.8 million,
    and for the State and Tribal Wildlife grants, $61.3 million.

           UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service
    (USFS) are 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 renewable
    energy development on these lands proceeds in a balanced way that
    maintains the ecological integrity of our public lands and waters,
    conserves wildlife habitat and populations, and contributes to agency
    efforts to successfully recover our most imperiled wildlife. We urge
    strong oversight to ensure that any energy development is done in an
    environmentally sensitive fashion. Given their large land ownerships it
    is imperative that both participate fully in landscape level
    conservation and management efforts.
        United States Forest Service Integrated Resource Restoration/
    Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management.--The budget has again
    proposed merging a number of accounts, including Wildlife and Fisheries
    Habitat Management, into an integrated budget. However, Defenders
    supports continuing Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) as a 3-year
    pilot as directed by the Congress in the final fiscal year 2012 Omnibus
    appropriations bill so that the agency can demonstrate its ability to
    adequately protect habitat for fish and wildlife under the consolidated
    program. We urge no less than the fiscal year 2012 level of $140
    million for Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management. Even at that
    level, the program would be nearly $25 million less than the fiscal
    year 2001 inflation adjusted level.
        United States Forest Service Land Management Planning/Inventory and
    Monitoring.--The budget has again proposed merging these two programs
    into a single line item. As with IRR, we are concerned about such a
    consolidation unless the agency can demonstrate its ability to carry
    out its responsibilities under these two programs, especially given
    that in the coming year, USFS will finalize and begin to implement a
    new forest planning rule that requires sufficient funding for critical
    inventory and monitoring activities, including the assessments that
    will be fundamental to the implementation of the new planning rule. We
    urge no less than the fiscal year 2012 level for each of these two
    programs:
      --$39.9 million for land management planning; and
      --$161.7 million for inventory and monitoring.
        United States Forest Service Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program.--We support the administration's request of $40
    million for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
    (CFLRP), a unique program that was established specifically to create
    job stability, achieve reliable wood supply, restore forest health, and
    reduce the costs of fire suppression in overgrown forests.
        United States Forest and Rangeland Research.--Defenders supports
    the administration's request of $292.8 million for United States Forest
    and Rangeland Research (FS R&D). Within FS R&D our highest priority is
    the Wildlife and Fish Research and Development program that supports
    science-based fish and wildlife management on National Forest System
    lands and beyond such as grappling with the question of how changes in
    snow pack will impact wolverines and other climate vulnerability
    assessments.
        Bureau of Land Managment Sage Grouse.--A critically needed increase
    of $15 million in the BLM Wildlife Management program for sage grouse
    conservation in 10 western States includes $10 million for amendments
    to Resource Management Plans, $2.5 million for on-the-ground habitat
    restoration, and $2.5 million for inventory, monitoring and mapping.
    Almost half of all sagebrush habitat has been destroyed and this loss
    has been compounded by fragmentation of the remaining sage-grouse
    habitat. During the 42 years between 1965 and 2007, population decline
    was estimated at 3.1 percent each year. This modest funding increase is
    desperately needed to support a broad effort to stop this iconic bird's
    decline and avert the need for listing under the Endangered Species
    Act.
        Bureau of Land Managment Renewable Energy.--An increase of $7.1
    million for renewable energy includes support for regional land use
    planning studies and environmental reviews of potential wind energy
    zones. These studies will help to identify future renewable energy
    zones that will avoid areas with potential natural resource conflicts,
    including wildlife conflicts (especially sage grouse, golden eagles,
    desert tortoise, or other sensitive species).
        Bureau of Land Managment Resource Management Planning.--Another
    crucial increase is $4.7 million for Resource Management Planning in
    this program that has been cut by nearly 25 percent since fiscal year
    2010 and needed to help address 47 plans under revision and another 45
    that need revision.
        Bureau of Land Managment Challenge Cost Share.--Defenders supports
    a total of $7.5 million, same as the fiscal year 2012 level for
    proactive wildlife and habitat conservation projects on the ground with
    partners.
                             u.s. geological survey
        The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides the basic science
    necessary for conservation of fish, wildlife and habitat. We urge
    support for the following increases in the request:
          Ecosystems.--A $16.6 million increase that includes $1 million
            for research on White Nose Syndrome that is devastating bat
            populations. The base program also supports crucial scientific
            efforts needed to avoid harm to birds, bats, desert wildlife,
            and other species that could be impacted by the development of
            wind and solar energy.
          Climate and Land Use Change.--A $500,000 increase for the
            National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center/DOI Climate
            Science Centers and a $6.5 million increase in Science Support
            for DOI Bureaus to address scientific needs in planning for
            adaptation to climate change.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        Finally, each day, 6,000 acres of open space in the United States,
    including wildlife habitat, is lost to fragmentation and destruction.
    Once these lands are lost, they can never be recovered. Defenders
    supports the requested increase of $104.7 million for Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF). A portion of the LWCF total, about $108
    million, is for an Interior-Forest Service collaborative interagency
    land acquisition program to protect strategic landscape-scale projects
    that at the same time meet core agency acquisition priorities. This
    innovative initiative will help to bring larger conservation benefits
    and build resilience across landscapes with scarce dollars. Thank you
    for the opportunity to testify.
                                     ______

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

                                REQUEST SUMMARY

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Ervin
    Chavez, School Board President of the Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community
    School (DCGS) on the Navajo Reservation in Bloomfield, New Mexico. With
    me is Faye BlueEyes, Finance Director, who will be presenting our
    testimony on behalf of the DCGS School Board. We will focus on three
    areas of particular concern to our school in the fiscal year 2013
    funding requests for the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). The DCGS
    requests the following, all under the BIE budget category:
      --Provide $109.8 million in facilities operations and $76 million in
            facilities maintenance as recommended by the National Congress
            of American Indians in its budget requests;
      --Support requested $2 million increase, at a minimum, for Tribal
            Grant Support Costs; provide $72.3 million to fully fund;
      --Restore $4.4 million in reductions to the Indian School
            Equalization Program Formula Funds account.

                                   BACKGROUND

        DCGS is a tribally controlled grant school is located in
    Bloomfield, New Mexico, approximately 170 miles northwest of
    Albuquerque, within the boundaries of the Navajo Indian Reservation.
    DCGS is 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.
    There are 109 students currently enrolled in our academic program, and
    67 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. The DCGS mission 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. DCGS, however, has
    struggled with chronic underfunding of virtually each and every one of
    its educational and related programs. We describe below the impacts of
    the underfunding in several key areas.
        Funding for Facilities Maintenance in the Amount of $76 Million and
    Facilities Operations in the Amount of $109.8 Million.--Facilities
    Maintenance funds are intended to provide for the preventative,
    routine, and unscheduled maintenance for all school buildings,
    equipment, utility systems, and ground structures. There are numerous
    studies that attest to the fact there is close correlation between poor
    or inadequate facility conditions and poor student and staff
    performance. And it is documented fact that 63 of the 181 schools for
    which BIE is responsible are rated in ``poor'' condition on the
    Bureau's ``Education Facility Condition Index (FCI) for fiscal year
    2013'', the same number as in fiscal year 2012. Without a significant
    increase in facilities maintenance funding, there is little doubt there
    can be no measurable progress in addressing the ever-growing deferred
    maintenance backlog of at least $967 million (according to the 2011
    draft No Child Left Behind School Facilities and Construction
    Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Report). The report also acknowledged
    that persistent underfunding of Facilities Maintenance contributes to
    more rapid deterioration of the aging buildings.
        The DCGS is, unfortunately, one of the ``poor'' rated schools and
    with an FCI of 0.4001, it is among the poorest-rated facilities. From a
    practical standpoint, this means that we are not able to provide a
    safe, healthy learning environment for our students and staff.
    Realistically, some of the health and safety problems at DCGS include
    the closure of the restrooms servicing our junior high classrooms due
    to leaking sewer lines. Whereas the required industry standard for
    plumbing today is PVC piping, our 40-plus-year-old buildings have
    galvanized pipes that have become so rusted, corroded and contain
    sediment experts estimate only about one-quarter inch diameter of the
    pipes remain open. Repairs are also difficult because extensive
    corrosion makes any disturbance of the pipes makes it susceptible to
    crumbling. Adding to the sewer problems is that the sewage lagoon
    servicing the DCGS is not the adequate size for our complex, thus
    requiring weekly cleanouts, meaning our already over-burdened
    facilities have to send out one staff member to manually hose out each
    of the sewage cells in the lagoon.
        The age of the facilities also impacts the water lines, which are
    also very corroded and contain so much sediment that we must provide
    bottled drinking water for the students (an additional cost that most
    public schools do not face). We also have issues with an outdated
    electrical transformer for which parts are no longer available and
    insufficient internal electrical wiring that must be replaced to avoid
    further electrical fires.
        Most public schools have readily available, reliable Internet
    access. The DCGS, on the other hand, has for years relied on a
    satellite link to support the educational technology needs of the
    students. The Internet access was very unreliable--depending on weather
    conditions and other reasons that were not able to be fully determined
    by the provider--which more often than not resulted in frustrating
    students trying to do research and/or cancelling academic lessons. We
    pleaded with the BIE to assess and address the problem or at least
    facilitate rewiring the facilities to accommodate better IT access but
    sadly that tech support has been so lacking for more than 6 years that
    we have turned to the Navajo Nation Technology Department (NNTD) for
    assistance. Sadly we are placing blind faith that through the Federal
    E-rate program we will be able to recoup the installation payment we
    had to pay upfront for the NNTD to begin work and to also fund the
    additional work to complete the technology upgrades. Even with the
    limited work that has been completed, the students are already seeing
    noticeable improvements in Internet availability.
        Despite our best efforts to maximize the limited facilities
    maintenance funds for upkeep of our buildings, there is only so much
    that our five-member facilities staff can do. The BIE has estimated
    $7.7 million would be needed to fix all that is on the DCGS deferred
    maintenance backlog, and the replacement cost would be $19.1 million.
    The BIE's fiscal year 2013 request for facilities maintenance is nearly
    level funding again ($50.9 million), which means that once again there
    will not be enough to make a significant dent in the maintenance
    backlog of DCGS or any of the other schools.
        Facilities Operations funding is for the ongoing operational
    expenses like electricity, heating fuels, communications, ground
    maintenance, refuse collection, water and sewer service, etc. However,
    the facilities operation expenses are currently funded at approximately
    46 percent of need. In light of the escalating costs of these essential
    services--especially the cost of electricity and heating costs--it is
    evident the BIE's fiscal year 2013 request of $58.6 million (level
    funding) is still grossly inadequate.
        When the facilities operations and maintenance costs are not funded
    at a realistic level, our schools are not able to address the small,
    preventable problems to keep them from becoming bigger and more
    expensive to fix, or we cannot even perform some needed maintenance.
    Further, in emergency situations, school funding must be diverted from
    other programs to meet these needs. For the health and safety of our
    students and staff, we support the NCAI-recommended $76 million for
    facilities maintenance and $109.8 million in facilities operation
    funding.
        Funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs in the Amount of $72.3
    Million.--Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC), formerly known as
    Administrative Costs Grants, are funds provided to tribally operated
    schools to cover the administrative or indirect costs associated with
    the operation of a school. Currently, 125 of the 183 BIE-funded schools
    are operated by tribes or tribal school boards, with another three BIE-
    operated schools possibly being converted to grant status in fiscal
    year 2013. TGSC 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. 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--not the statutorily required
    amount--among eligible recipients. In fiscal year 2012, the funding
    available for TGSC met only 63.7 percent of the need of the schools,
    which is less than the BIE estimated rate for fiscal year 2012. This
    means that at 100 percent of TGSC need, DCGS should have received
    nearly $700,000; instead, we received only $445,000. What happens when
    there is a $250,000 shortfall? At DCGS we have consolidated internal
    controls, streamlined checks and balances, and scaled back
    significantly our management staff. For example, our business office
    now has only two full-time staff to handle all the DCGS business-
    related functions, such as process payroll for 90 on a bi-weekly basis;
    complete all the accounting; complete all tax reporting requirements;
    process account payables-requisitions-purchase orders, and ensure
    conformance with all audit requirements.
        For fiscal year 2013, the BIE requests a $2 million increase, which
    they estimate will provide a TGSC rate of 65 percent of need. The DCGS
    is very concerned this projected percentage is being over reported.
    Consider that the BIE does not request separate start-up funds for
    newly converting schools but they report there may be as many as three
    in fiscal year 2013. With no start-up funds, the additional school
    conversions will consume an inordinate amount of the already limited
    TGSC, thus further limiting the funds available to the ongoing grants/
    contracts.
        The increase sought by the administration not only falls well short
    of the schools' actual support cost needs, it fails to make even
    minimal progress in promoting fairness or equity with respect to the
    Government's support costs paid for other Indian programs. As a result
    of contract support cost (CSC) litigation brought by tribes for BIA and
    IHS failures to fully fund CSC, in all other BIA program areas except
    education, growth has been tremendous. In fact, for the period covering
    fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2012, the nonschool BIA CSC account has
    grown by an astounding $73.9 million, which raised the percentage of
    CSC need paid from 75 to nearly 100 percent. In contrast, the TGSC
    funding during the same period increased by a mere $2.8 million, and
    that was in the last 2 fiscal years; with the TGSC rate rising from 61
    to 63.7 percent during that period. The schools should not have to
    spend years before the courts litigating their being short-changed by
    the BIE. The Congress should fix the problem and fully fund TGSC at
    $72.3 million for the indirect cost requirements of current tribally
    controlled schools, and provide $2 million in start-up funds for newly
    converting schools.
        Restore $4.4 Million to Indian School Equalization (ISEP) Formula
    Funds Account.--The fiscal year 2013 budget request proposes a $4.4
    million (or 1 percent) reduction in ISEP formula funds due to a 1-
    percent decline in student population. The Bureau, however, fails to
    recognize that schools still have costs that are not directly tied to
    the number of students enrolled; in essence a minimum operating costs
    to keep our doors open. For instance, our electrical bill is not based
    on the number of students served, and the buses must cover their routes
    whether there is 1 student or 50 students on that route. Further, as we
    have testified, many of the accounts that support School Operations are
    seriously underfunded so that we must constantly utilize our education-
    program (ISEP) funds to offset nonacademic costs such as student
    transportation, maintenance, administrative functions to name a just a
    few. Despite our best efforts to stretch each and every dollar, in
    school year 2012-2013 DCGS will be forced to reduce the number of
    student school days and instead operate on providing the requisite
    number of contact hours for each grade level.

                                   CONCLUSION

        It is widely acknowledged that investments in education have a
    direct economic impact as well as benefits to the individual. Studies
    have also shown that reductions in education expenditures have
    negatively impacted employment rates. With our native students coming
    from some of the hardest hit areas in these times of economic downturn,
    we ask the Congress to provide the levels of education funding that
    will enable us to provide a quality education in safe and secure
    environment for our students. We are grateful for any assistance you
    can provide.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition

        The following testimony is submitted on behalf of the Federal
    Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC), a 501(c)(6) trade association,
    representing purchasers of United States Forest Service (USFS) and
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM) timber across the country with members
    in more than 24 States, more than 650 member companies representing
    350,000 workers and about $19 billion in payroll.
        The FFRC supports sustainable management of the National Forests
    and BLM lands to produce clean water, enhance wildlife habitat, produce
    forest products including timber and biomass, support rural economic
    development, and to reduce the threats of catastrophic wildfires and
    insect outbreaks. Our members come from every link on the forest
    products value chain, from loggers to landowners and from large pulp
    and paper facilities to forest bioenergy plants. Our member companies
    are frequently located in rural areas, which have higher than average
    unemployment, poverty, and population loss compared to their States'
    averages.
        Many of our member companies rely on the National Forests and BLM
    lands to provide a consistent and sustainable timber supply. Forest
    products companies also represent the lowest cost, and most effective,
    tool for Federal land managers to improve the health of our public
    lands. Increased management and forest products outputs would provide a
    much-needed economic boost to rural America, creating thousands of
    jobs, as well as increasing the pace of forest restoration on our
    public lands, particularly the National Forests. The health of the
    National Forests, the economic health of our member companies, and the
    health of the communities where we live and work, are inextricably
    linked.
        Increasing the Pace of Forest Restoration.--Last month, the
    Secretary of Agriculture announced an initiative to accelerate the pace
    of forest restoration on the National Forests. While we applaud the
    administration for recognizing the urgency of the forest health threat
    on the National Forests, we are concerned that the initiative does not
    go either far, or fast, enough. Some of my member companies have faced
    situations where the USFS is proposing management projects which either
    fail to address pressing forest health concerns, like the pine beetle
    epidemic in the Rockies, or which don't go as far as local
    collaborative groups would like to go, such as in the Northeast
    Washington Forest Vision project around the Colville National Forest.
        Even in these extremely challenging wood markets, some FFRC member
    companies have been frustrated by the Forest Service's lack of
    commitment to sell adequate log supplies. The result is idled
    investments, reduced shifts at sawmills, jobs lost to foreign
    competition, and a failure to position the USFS to help sustain or
    enhance a value-added, manufacturing industry that can capture greater
    domestic and international market share. Our member companies are
    extremely competitive in the global market, and only need a fairly
    priced raw material to capture more of those markets. The time
    available to capture these opportunities is limited, and we urge you to
    reward the USFS's recent initiative by investing in more aggressive in
    management of the National Forests.
        We have worked--and will continue to work--closely with the
    leadership in the USFS and USDA to find ways of reducing overhead and
    making the forest products and fuels reductions program more efficient.
    We believe some of the steps taken by the USFS in their February 2,
    2012 report will help achieve these efficiencies. However, other
    authorities, like allowing the USFS to use designation by description
    on regular timber sales, much as they do on current Stewardship
    contracts, will help reduce unit costs even further.
        Investing in Land Management.--We are very thankful to the
    subcommittee for including national direction to the USFS to increase
    timber outputs from 2.4 to 3 billion board feet in 2012. We urge the
    subcommittee to continue raising the bar for the agency and set a goal
    of 3.5 billion board feet for fiscal year 2013. The current annual
    harvest from the National Forests represents less than 10 percent of
    annual forest growth, and less than half the allowable sale quantity
    under existing forest plans. In many regions, the USFS is falling short
    of its own management goals; including in reacting to the pine beetle
    outbreak in the Rockies and in managing aspen habitat in the Lake
    States. Stepping up management, through formal collaboratives where
    they exist and normal timber programs elsewhere, will help address
    pressing forest health concerns while helping bolster employment in
    rural communities where unemployment is frequently near 20 percent and
    poverty is well more than State averages. Investing in the USFS timber
    program is a very effective job creator, generating 16.5 new direct and
    indirect jobs per 1 million board feet harvested.
        While we appreciate the support for forest management, we urge the
    subcommittee to make new investments in the National Forest Timber
    Management line item this year. This program has not received an
    increase since 2008, and due to inflation it has lost about 5 percent
    of its purchasing power. Further, extraordinarily high overhead rates
    have further eroded the program's effectiveness. To help keep the
    program pointed in the right direction, we urge the subcommittee to
    invest $371 million, an increase of $36 million more than the current
    fiscal year to achieve a fiscal year 2013 target of 3.5 billion board
    feet.
        Forest Roads, Hazardous Fuels Reduction.--It is also urgent that
    the subcommittee restore funding which has been cut since 2010 from the
    Capital Improvement and Maintenance Account, as well as the Wildland
    Hazardous Fuels Reduction program. These two programs are vital to
    maintaining access to the National Forests and in helping to reduce the
    massive, 90-million-acre backlog of lands which urgently need hazardous
    fuels reduction. The work cannot be done economically without the
    ability to use the USFS road system. We continue to oppose a blanket
    moratorium on new roads, because this arbitrarily restricts the agency
    from implementing needed management, and also prohibits the USFS from
    replacing poorly located or damaged roads with new roads which are
    engineered and located properly.
        We appreciate the efforts of the subcommittee to remove the
    arbitrary requirements for hazardous fuels reduction work in the
    Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), but we were troubled that the
    President's budget continues to focus the USFS's efforts there. A
    greater percentage of lands in need of fuels reduction are outside of
    the WUI, and mechanical thinning allows the USFS to take advantage of
    the wood products infrastructure to reduce treatment costs. Extensive
    USFS research shows that mechanical thinning (which included removing
    useable wood fiber) followed by prescribed fire is the best approach to
    significantly reduce threats from wildfire and forest pests.
        Reducing National Environmental Policy Act Costs.--The President's
    Council on Environmental Quality issued a memo on increasing the
    efficiency and effectiveness of environmental reviews required by the
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in December. The USFS has told
    the Congress that complying with NEPA and other environmental laws
    costs them $356 million annually, which is more than the agency spends
    on timber management, or Research, or State and Private Forestry.
    Saving even a portion of these expenses would free up resources to
    actually manage forests and reduce the threat of wildfire and insect
    outbreaks. We urge the subcommittee to direct the USFS and CEQ to take
    more aggressive steps to reduce NEPA costs than the comparison study of
    two landscape restoration projects approved on February 9.
        Timber purchasers across the country report that USFS personnel
    frequently conduct exhaustive NEPA analysis, only to propose and
    implement small-scale land management projects which do not meet the
    objectives the agency set out to meet. Examples include leaving higher
    than called for stand densities, or dropping entire units from proposed
    sales even though doing so leaves forest stands susceptible to insects
    and mortality. The USFS's February 2 report on increasing the pace of
    forest restoration touches on this subject, but we believe direction
    from this subcommittee would help reinforce the urgency of directing
    the resources to management rather than paperwork.
        When National Forests in the Lake States are up to 75 percent
    behind on their management goals for early successional habitat, and
    the National Forests in the Rocky Mountains are falling woefully behind
    in dealing with a massive, 41-million-acre-and-growing pine beetle
    outbreak, finding some way of reducing NEPA costs is urgently needed.
        Land Acquisition.--Considering the fiscal situation facing the
    Nation and the backlog of both forest management and roads and
    facilities maintenance needs on the National Forests, we recommend no
    funding for the National Forest System Land Acquisition line item. It
    makes little sense to increase the size of the National Forest System
    at a time when the agency has a demonstrated backlog in maintenance and
    land management. We recommend that the $59 million recommended by the
    administration be redirected to the land management priorities
    recommended above.
        Bureau of Land Management Forest Management.--The President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget includes a sharp reduction in funding for the
    BLM Public Domain Forest Management Program. The President's budget
    proposes to reduce BLM PD Forest Management funding by nearly 40
    percent, which will result in reduction of 40 percent of associated
    FTEs, 50-percent reduction in biomass volume, and 80 percent reduction
    in Stewardship Contracts. This would mean the BLM would drop from
    offering 123 million board feet in 2012 to offering 19 million board
    feet, a decline of more than 85 percent of the public domain
    timberlands. FFRC supports funding for BLM PD Forest Management Program
    at no less than the fiscal year 2012 level of $9.7 million. Aggressive
    action is also needed to offer regeneration harvests from the O&C lands
    in Oregon that meet the needs of local mills. This will necessitate
    funding at or near fiscal year 2011 levels, coupled with strong
    direction to the agency to fulfill its statutory duty under the O&C Act
    to produce a sustainable flow of timber for local economies.
        Alaska.--The timber industry in Alaska faces several challenges
    stemming from years of controversy over the management of the Tongass
    National Forest. FFRC members depend upon supplies of timber from this
    forest, and have been hard pressed as the Forest Service has placed
    complete restrictions on harvest in roadless areas. Current efforts
    billed as ``restoration'' forestry have instead focused on a particular
    approach to fisheries management and on a transition to harvesting
    second growth timber that will not meet the local industries needs for
    decades. Steps must be taken to offer a timber sale program that
    complies with the National Forest Management Act and can sustain the
    local value added industry in order to save the capacity to manage the
    very small percent of the Tongass that is open to any harvest. Current
    policies of avoiding all litigation risk will surely cause the death of
    the local industry in southeast Alaska, leaving the region dependent on
    a less diversified, tourism-based economy.
        Forest Health and Forest Restoration.--2011 demonstrated that the
    poor health of our National Forests and other Federal Forests impacts
    everyone, from the industries that depend on useable wood fiber to
    casual weekend visitors to the Forests. The large fires in Arizona and
    New Mexico last year forced the closures of popular campgrounds,
    destroyed dozens of recreational cabins, and forced cancellations of
    Fourth of July events at popular mountain resorts. Many miles of forest
    roads and several campgrounds in Arizona remain closed. The large-scale
    beetle infestation in the Black Hills has forced local campground
    owners to spend more than $100,000 annually to remove beetle killed
    trees and spray others in an effort to stop beetles from spreading off
    of the National Forests. The Pagami Creek fire in Minnesota disrupted
    popular hiking and canoeing areas in an around the Boundary Waters
    Canoe Area. Campers, hikers, hunters, and skiers all want to visit
    healthy, green, and growing forests.
        In each of these cases, wood using industries, from start-up
    biomass plants to family run sawmills to internationally competitive
    pulp and paper facilities, stand ready to help the USFS and BLM to
    actively manage the public lands they oversee. Opportunities to expand
    this management, and the benefits that come from it, abound nationwide.
    We thank you for your support for our efforts to manage these lands and
    help our rural communities in the process.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Federation of State Humanities Councils

        The Federation of State Humanities Councils respectfully requests
    that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies allocate $154.255 million for the
    National Endowment for the Humanities and $44 million for the State
    humanities councils for fiscal year 2013.
        As full partners of the NEH, councils receive their core funding
    through the Federal/State Partnership line of the NEH budget and use
    that funding to leverage additional funds from foundations,
    corporations, private individuals, and State governments. In 2011,
    every Federal dollar the councils awarded through grants to local
    institutions leveraged, on average, $5 in local contributions. Councils
    further extend their resources by forming programming partnerships with
    organizations and institutions throughout their States.
        We are requesting a funding increase for fiscal year 2013 for the
    work of the council because cuts over the past 2 years have had serious
    consequences for the communities and institutions the councils serve. A
    recent survey by the Federation of State Humanities Councils revealed
    that councils have had to shrink their grants programs significantly,
    even though requests for council funding have increased due to the
    troubled economy. These reductions in turn have led to fewer dollars
    leveraged and therefore even less funding for local organizations and
    communities.
        Our communities and our Nation as a whole will benefit from
    increased funding to the State councils, in part because State
    humanities council programs serve critical needs. Dozens of councils,
    for example, support family literacy programs, which make a significant
    difference in the lives of participants--low-income families, immigrant
    families, or simply families that need help to engage with words and
    ideas. Thousands of families have benefited from the Prime Time
    program, developed by the Louisiana Endowment for the Humanities and
    now active in a dozen other States throughout the Nation. In 2011, the
    Nebraska Humanities Council's Prime Time program reached 325 families
    in six communities. More than 1,800 free books were distributed through
    the program, and 100 new library cards were issued. Of the
    participating families, 89 percent said that as a result of the program
    they now spend more time reading as a family. Connecticut's Family Read
    program, operating primarily in the State's urban areas, fosters a
    culture of literacy in many public schools and community-based agencies
    where it is most needed, helping to address an achievement gap that is
    among the largest in the Nation.
        Council programs also serve other critical needs. The Literature
    and Medicine program, created by the Maine Humanities Council and now
    offered by 26 other councils, improves patient care and enables
    overtaxed medical personnel to find the renewed energy and inspiration
    to continue in the profession. By expanding into VA hospitals, the
    program provides invaluable resources for caregivers of returning
    veterans. The Missouri council has gone directly to the veterans
    themselves with a program that offers creative writing workshops and
    mentoring for veterans.
        Thirty-one organizations in the State of New York can attest that
    councils serve critical needs. After Hurricanes Irene and Lee hit last
    year, the New York Council for the Humanities swiftly distributed funds
    from an NEH Chairman's Discretionary Grant to provide relief to small
    cultural organizations in the affected area, prompting one museum
    director to observe, ``The council's response reflects an understanding
    of how best to serve the urgent needs of cultural institutions.''
        Council funding ensures that humanities programming is widely
    available to the general public. Councils reached 5,700 communities
    across the Nation in 2011, including rural towns, suburban communities,
    and urban neighborhoods. Councils supported programs in every
    congressional district and served hundreds of thousands of students,
    teachers, healthcare professionals, seniors, veterans, and many more.
        Council programs help communities and institutions not adequately
    served through other means. In rural communities, council programs are
    often the only cultural resources available. For more than 25 years the
    Idaho Humanities Council has offered the ``Let's Talk About It''
    reading and discussion program, which now totals 75 scholar-led
    programs annually and is especially popular with small libraries
    lacking the resources to plan and seek funds for their own programs.
    The program's outreach to small communities is so powerful that it
    attracted the attention of a corporate sponsor that has provided about
    one-third of the program's cost for the past decade. ``Montana
    Conversations'' provides up to 200 programs annually for communities
    with populations of 2,000 or less. The South Dakota council reports
    that in their sparsely populated State, ``libraries, cultural centers,
    and museums often serve entire communities that stretch for miles, and
    these are the very institutions in need of the programming support that
    the South Dakota council can provide.''
        But it is not just rural States that face these issues. In
    California, where libraries have had to cut many services, the council
    joined forces with the California Center for the Book to create
    California Reads, a reading and discussion program. The council awarded
    more than $400,000 to 52 library jurisdictions serving 65 percent of
    the State. The project not only encouraged civic conversation
    throughout the State, but also offered a much-needed boost to
    libraries. In State after State, where cuts in State budgets are slowly
    starving both Government and private institutions, councils have been
    compelled to step in and try to help fill the gap.
        Council programs also serve communities whose stories and issues
    have too long been overlooked. The Oklahoma Humanities Council
    supported ``Carry the Fire'', a Native Humanities forum hosted by the
    Chickasaw Nation Division of Arts and Humanities to create a dialogue
    among tribal members, students, and the general public. The Forum
    explored issues important to the tribal community but unknown to many
    members of the public, such as comparisons of indigenous humanities to
    the humanities in general, the importance of the study of the
    humanities to Native people and others, and indigenous thinking and
    learning styles.
        In Wyoming, the council has made a special effort to engage those
    who have been left out of the mainstream conversations. Last summer the
    council launched the dialogue series ``Government, God, Google, and
    Guns'' as part of the broader program, ``Civility Matters,'' which
    involved sending a traveling tent to summer festivals and interviewing
    Wyomingites on civility issues. They learned that civility also
    includes listening to all voices in a democracy, so this year the
    council launched ``Giving Voice,'' a program that will reach out to
    youth, individuals and families below the poverty line, and those
    struggling with mental health.
        Council programs improve the quality of K-12 education. One of the
    many casualties of the poor economy has been State support for the
    educational structure. Councils have significantly lessened the impact
    of cuts on teachers and students. The Teacher Enrichment Program in
    Texas addresses the dual, interconnected problems of teacher training
    and teacher retention. Heeding studies that suggest that many teachers
    abandoned the profession in part because they felt ill prepared to
    teach their subjects, and recognizing the high cost of teacher
    turnover, the council created teacher institutes designed to provide
    intensive, deep-content enrichment using top-quality faculty. The
    council pays particular attention to early-career teachers working in
    low-performing schools--another example of councils stepping in where
    the need is greatest and no one else is providing help.
        Many councils offer teacher institutes, providing what is typically
    the only professional development in the humanities offered in their
    States. But councils also improve K-12 education in other ways. Several
    councils sponsor National History Day, which was recently awarded a
    National Humanities Medal by the President. The Maryland Humanities
    Council, for example, has been the State affiliate of National History
    Day since 1999, involving more than 18,400 students in 18 jurisdictions
    in 2011. The skills that students develop through Maryland History Day
    have been shown not only to strengthen students' performance in other
    subject areas, including reading, math, and science, but also to
    prepare students for college and their future careers.
        Council programs contribute to the civic health of their
    communities. Using texts and discussion techniques steeped in the
    humanities, councils allow community members to engage in dialogue with
    each other about both local and global problems. From Maryland to
    Indiana to Nebraska to Washington, councils bring a humanities
    perspective to discussions of community problems that allow for
    respectful airing of diverse viewpoints and movement toward possible
    solutions. Councils also engage citizens in the civic life of their
    communities by supporting thousands of reading and discussion groups.
    The Vermont Humanities Council's ``Vermont Reads'' program, now in its
    10th year, has enabled thousands of Vermonters to explore themes and
    ideas generated through the shared experience of reading. This
    intergenerational program, which draws on the expertise of teachers,
    librarians, and community leaders, not only is a catalyst for
    meaningful discussion of important themes but also it has a lasting
    impact on how children and adults understand ``community'' and how they
    experience reading as a lifelong activity.
        Councils extend resources through partnerships. Councils worked
    with an estimated 9,800 organizations in 2011. These included museums,
    libraries, schools, universities, senior centers, veterans' hospitals,
    churches, social service agencies, corporations and local businesses,
    chambers of commerce, State tourism offices, radio and television
    stations, and many more.
        Councils also fostered lasting partnerships among the groups with
    whom they worked. The Minnesota Humanities Center's traveling exhibit,
    ``Why Treaties Matter,'' which explores relationships between Dakota
    and Ojibwe Indian Nations and the U.S. Government, demonstrates
    collaboration in many directions. The council developed the exhibit in
    consultation with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council and the National
    Museum of the American Indian, and they have worked with dozens of
    agencies in Minnesota to create programming around this important
    topic. One host institution said that ``Partnering with the Minnesota
    Humanities Center on `Why Treaties Matter' isn't just about putting an
    exhibit up for a month. It's about working with local organizations to
    increase our capacity to engage audiences and provide multiple
    interpretive experiences and opportunities. Getting the exhibit is
    great, but it's this interaction and education that continues to shape
    our institutions well after the month is over.''
        And finally, funding allocated to councils makes good economic
    sense. Councils protect local economies through their support for
    struggling organizations that have seen other funding sources decline
    or disappear. In addition, every Federal dollar awarded by councils
    leverages, on average, more than $5 for programs carried out by local
    organizations. Even when grants are modest, council support has helped
    small organizations save programs, staff positions, and even
    organizations themselves.
        Council funding and programming yield other economic benefits. The
    many council-sponsored book festivals that take place throughout the
    country are an undeniable economic boon for their host cities. The
    annual Virginia Festival of the Book, created nearly two decades ago by
    the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, has seen increases in
    audience, partners, participating authors, and programs each year. The
    Director of Economic Development of the City of Charlottesville
    estimates the economic impact of the Festival at more than $1 million.
        The Museum on Main Street tours, conducted through a partnership
    with the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service, enliven
    small-town economies by attracting audiences to the exhibits and
    accompanying programs that are sometimes larger than the populations of
    the towns themselves. Councils also provide support for cultural
    heritage tourism efforts to draw additional visitors--and their
    dollars--to local economies. Last year the Rhode Island Council for the
    Humanities provided a grant to the Rhode Island Marine Archaeology
    Project (RIMAP) for ``Rhode Island in the Revolution: A Heritage
    Tourism Project,'' which expanded existing knowledge of the State's
    Revolutionary War history by creating four heritage trails. The council
    has continued its work with RIMAP to expand its reach and impact, with
    plans to add digital applications to allow them to market their tours
    to the public and to Rhode Island schools.
        The State humanities councils invigorate their State's cultural
    institutions, K-12 education, civic health, and local economies. By
    partnering with more than 9,800 local organizations, the councils
    achieve a five-fold return on their Federal funding. The councils
    ensure that this Federal investment benefits the public as a whole--
    citizens in every congressional district and 5,700 communities in 2011.
    In ways both intangible and concrete, the humanities programs made
    possible by the Federal funding to the councils simply make our States
    better places to live.
                                     ______

      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 2013 appropriations for the Indian
    programs funded through the U.S. 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: Education
        We urge the Congress to increase funding for Bureau of Indian
    Education (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
    340 students most of whom are tribal members or descendants of tribal
    members. Most of our students come from very low income households, as
    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
    underfunded. We ask that BIE Elementary/Secondary School Program
    funding be increased as follows:
        Indian School Equalization Program Funding.--We urge the Congress
            to provide $431 million for Indian School Equalization Program
            (ISEP) Formula funds. These are the primary source of funding
            for our school, covering salaries for teachers, teacher aides,
            reading and math specialists, language and culture teachers,
            administrative personnel and school governance (School Board
            costs). While the President's proposed budget would reduce ISEP
            funds to offset other funding increases, ISEP should not be
            reduced as it is critical to the ability of tribal schools to
            recruit and retain qualified teachers and to cover shortfalls
            in other budget areas, such as transportation, facilities and
            maintenance.
        Tribal Grant Support Costs.--We urge the Congress to provide $72.3
            million to fully fund Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC). The
            funds are critical to maximizing tribal self-determination and
            ensuring effective program administration. We rely on TGSC to
            help pay for accounting, payroll, insurance, background checks,
            legal and record-keeping requirements. Inadequate funding of
            TGSC forces our school to use ISEP and other funds to meet
            these important needs.
        School Facility Operations and School Facility Maintenance.--We
            urge the Congress to provide $109.8 million in facilities
            operations and $76 million in facilities maintenance. Facility
            funding is used to keep our building in safe condition, pay for
            preventative and unscheduled maintenance for our school
            building, and cover insurance and increasing utility costs,
            e.g., electricity, heating and cooling, water and sewer.
            Increased funding for school facility operations and school
            facility maintenance is needed as past funding has not kept
            pace with the cost of school operations or the growing backlog
            of Indian schools and facilities needing repair.
        School Construction and Repair.--We urge the Congress to provide
            $263.4 million for BIE school construction and repair. Research
            studies continue to document a link between inadequate facility
            conditions and poor performance by students. Inadequate support
            for school repairs will cause the unmet needs for construction
            and repair to continually increase. Not addressing these
            critical infrastructure needs will only jeopardize student and
            staff safety.
        Student Transportation.--We urge the Congress to provide $73
            million for student transportation. Flat funding levels mean
            that there is no mechanism for replacing buses that need
            replacing, nor any way to keep pace with rising fuel costs.
            Without an increase in funding for student transportation, the
            costs to maintain, repair, and replace buses and cover rising
            fuel costs must be paid out of education program funds.
    Bureau of Indian Affairs: Public Safety and Justice
        We support the President's proposal to increase Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA) funding for law enforcement. We also ask the Congress to
    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. The
    Fond du Lac Band had to assume responsibility for law enforcement after
    the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the State lacked 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 available Federal funds and by
    cooperative agreements with local law enforcement agencies. But those
    sources do not meet our needs. We face huge demands on our Law
    Enforcement Department due to the insurgence of methamphetamine,
    alcohol, illegal prescription drug use, and gang-related activities on
    our Reservation. Prescription drug abuse is an epidemic. Increasing
    numbers of our elders and others are the victims of more frequent
    assaults and robberies that are drug related. Our law enforcement
    officers are responding to a growing number of drug overdoses and
    deaths, as well as juvenile offenses involving drugs, alcohol, thefts,
    assaults and burglaries. They 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 2011 alone, our Law
    Enforcement Department responded to close to 4,900 incidents and
    requests for assistance.
        To address these problems, we need to increase our law enforcement
    staff so we can ensure effective law enforcement coverage 24/7. This is
    especially important because the Band needs to implement a community
    policing model under which the Band operates neighborhood stations at
    the different community centers within the Reservation. 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 large 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 only six vehicles--three patrol cars, and one vehicle each for the
    use of the K-9 officer, investigator and school resource officer. Much
    of the Fond du Lac Reservation is rural, and there are many dirt roads
    as well as minimum maintenance roads. As a result, the vehicles take
    some punishment and, with a patrol area of approximately 136 square
    miles, the mileage covered by each patrol vehicle adds up very quickly.
    Budget limitations make it difficult to repair and replace patrol cars
    in a timely manner.
        In addition to this, the Band has a substantial need for a 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 neither 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, are
    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.
    Bureau of Indian Affairs: Natural Resources
        We very much appreciate the funding for BIA Natural Resource
    programs that the Congress has provided in past years as well as the
    proposed increases for these programs contained in the President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget. 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, 1842, 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 this program have not been increased since 1991.
        We 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's State and Tribal Wildlife Grant
    Program, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and all BIA programs
    related to natural resources and land management at the levels
    indicated in the President's budget request.
        Additionally, as a member of the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife
    Commission, the Fond du Lac Band supports the Commission's request for
    BIA funding of $6.367 million and EPA funding of $1.2 million to
    continue its longstanding treaty rights protection and implementation
    program on behalf of its member tribes.
    Bureau of Indian Affairs: Human Services
        We urge the Congress not to cut funding for Human Services
    programs. Although some of the cuts are due to administrative
    streamlining, increased funding 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 is essential if tribes are to have any realistic hope of
    protecting Indian children, preventing domestic violence, and fostering
    Indian families.
    Indian Health Service
        We fully support the President's proposed increase in funding for
    the Indian Health Service (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 its associated
    complications, 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, IHS programs have consistently fallen short of
    meeting the actual needs. All Indian tribes should receive 100 percent
    of the Level of Need Formula (LNF), which is absolutely critical for
    tribes to address the serious and persistent health issues that
    confront our communities. The Band serves approximately 7,129 Indian
    people at our clinics, but the current funding level meets only 42
    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,
    lacks 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 sum, the needs at Fond du Lac and throughout Indian Country
    remain massive. Congress's 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 Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife
                                     Refuge

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
    Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge (Friends of
    Balcones) and its membership, thank you for your strong support for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The Friends of Balcones
    appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2013
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. We are
    specifically requesting an allocation of $700 million for the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), including $150 million for the NWRS.
        The meaningful funding increases in fiscal years 2008-2010 allowed
    NWRS to emerge from years of chronic funding shortfalls. But
    unfortunately, those substantial gains are undermined by more than $17
    million in cuts to NWRS's funding in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 that
    equate to a larger loss of more than $41 million when annual increases
    in refuge fixed costs are factored in. Consequently, we support the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget request of $495 million because it
    will maintain existing management capabilities. Should across-the-board
    sequestration cuts of 9-10 percent take effect in fiscal year 2013, the
    impacts to NWRS would be devastating and could force FWS to close or
    end major programs at more than 130 refuges.
        We respectfully request the subcommittee support all of the funding
    allocations requested by the National Wildlife Refuge Association as
    detailed and explained in their testimony letter. All of the
    allocations are critical to the health of the NWRS but the one that
    will impact the Balcones Canyonlands NWR the most is the allocation of
    $700 million for LWCF, including $150 million for the NWRS. Balcones
    Canyonlands Refuge, although 20 years old, is only slightly more than
    50-percent complete. The Friends of Balcones urges you to fund the LWCF
    at $700 million so we can continue to buy land toward our goal of
    46,000 acres. Out of that amount, we are requesting $5 million from
    LWCF for 2013. Completing the Refuge is anticipated to cost more than
    $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.
        We feel a sense of urgency to complete the land acquisition for the
    Refuge. Twenty years after the creation of the Refuge and just more
    than 23,000 acres are protected! Austin Texas is a short drive from the
    Refuge and is among the top 10 fastest-growing cities in the United
    States. That rate of development will impact the ability of the FWS to
    complete the Refuge if something isn't done quickly.
        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 toward 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. As you likely know,
    the Texas Hill Country is very special, and the Balcones Canyonlands
    National Wildlife Refuge is one of the best places to experience the
    beauty and uniqueness of this Texas landscape. 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. When
    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.
        There are many willing sellers within the acquisition boundary of
    the Refuge. All we need is money to move forward immediately! An
    appropriation of $5 million will fund purchase of the 350-acre 3 Creeks
    Ranch (second phase of this acquisition) 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.
        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 allocate $700 million for LWCF and set aside $5 million from
    the LWCF for Balcones Canyonlands Refuge for fiscal year 2013.
        In closing, thank you for considering our request of $700 million
    for LWCF. Your actions in support of our request will significantly
    improve our chances and the chances of other Refuges in similar
    situations to create fully functioning Refuges that are a testament to
    America's amazing natural heritage. We are entrusted with the
    protection of our wild spaces for the benefit and enjoyment of current
    and future generations. Anne Frank wrote the following:

        ``The best remedy for those who are afraid, lonely or unhappy is to
    go outside, somewhere where they can be quiet, alone with the heavens,
    nature and God.
        Because only then does one feel that all is as it should be and
    that God wishes to see people happy, amidst the simple beauty of
    nature. I firmly believe that nature brings solace in all troubles.''

        Please help us provide places of solace for all Americans. 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 Friends of Rachel Carson NWR

        Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee, I am Bill
    Durkin, President of the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife
    Reserve 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 Rachel Carson National
    Wildlife Refuge; 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 $495 million in
            fiscal year 2013 for the operations and maintenance budget of
            the NWRS, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
            This would be level funding from fiscal year 2012. 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.
      --Refuges are vital places for the American people to connect with
            nature and get involved. Currently, refuge Friends and
            volunteers do approximately 20 percent of all work on refuges.
            In 2011, these 1.5 million hours equated to roughly 8
            volunteers for every 1 Refuge System employee. Without staff to
            oversee volunteers, their commitment and passion is lost, as is
            their desperately needed contribution to the System. We request
            $80 million for Visitors Services for the NWRS.
      --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 funded at the $700 Million level. 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 and
            easement acquisition tool. The President has included
            meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2013
            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 LWCF should be fully funded at $900 million annually--the
    congressionally authorized level. 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 National Wildlife Refuge is named in honor of one
    of the Nation's foremost and forward-thinking biologists. After
    arriving in Maine in 1946 as an aquatic biologist for the FWS, Rachel
    Carson became entranced with Maine's coastal habitat, leading her to
    write the international best seller The Sea Around Us. This landmark
    study, 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. This year,
    we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of Rachel Carson's
    publication of her historic book, Silent Spring.
        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
    $495 million for the Refuge System's fiscal year 2013 Operations &
    Maintenance (O&M) budget, $80 million for Visitors Services of the
    NWRS, and fund the LWCF at the $700 million level.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of protecting wildlife and its habitat. Enjoy your
    next walk out on a National Wildlife Refuge.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge, Inc.

        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the
    fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill. The Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge is a
    nonprofit volunteer organization that works to support the 26,400-acre
    refuge established in southwest Florida to protect the critically
    endangered Florida panther and its habitat.
        Refuge managers at the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge are
    challenged by a variety of funding shortfalls to fully carry out
    habitat restoration, invasive species control, prescribed burning,
    baseline and updated inventories, education/interpretation, acquisition
    of outparcels and expansion, law enforcement, as well as technical
    assistance and collaborative efforts across boundaries with private
    land owners. For example, as a result of cuts to the refuge's fire
    budget, several fire technician vacancies have not been filled, which
    significantly limits burning the desired acreage to maintain and
    restore habitat for the Florida panther, its prey and the many other
    species found within its natural community.
        Understanding the difficult economic realities, we respectfully
    request a funding level of $495 million for the Operations and
    Maintenance accounts of the National Wildlife Refuge System for fiscal
    year 2013 that would essentially maintain the Refuge System at a flat
    funding level, given increasing fixed operating costs.
        On behalf of our members and supporters, the Friends of the Florida
    Panther Refuge thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to offer
    comments on the fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies appropriations bill and we appreciate your full consideration
    of the aforementioned funding level.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of
                                  Rhode Island

        On behalf of the 150 members of the Friends of the National
    Wildlife Refuge of Rhode Island as well as our hundreds of volunteers
    I, as Chairman of the Friends, write urging you to provide $495 million
    of funding for the refuge system in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
    Background on Rhode Island Friends Group
        In Rhode Island there are five national wildlife refuges
    encompassing more than 2,000 acres which present visitors with very
    different experiences ranging from the woodlands of the Ninigret NWP
    located in Charlestown to a more coastal experience at Sachuest Point
    NWR in Middletown, just north of Newport. Trustom Pond NWR in South
    Kingstown is unique in that it encompasses a coastal pond, the only one
    in our State totally free of shoreline development. The Friends group
    serves all three of these refuges as well as the Block Island NWR and
    John Chafee at Pettaquamscutt Cove NWR. Each refuge has its own unique
    characteristics. Staffing due to the budget constraints has been an
    issue and the Kettle Pond (Ninigret) Visitors Center and Sachuest Point
    Visitors Center as well as the Trustom Pond Contact Station are only
    open on a daily basis due to our dedicated volunteers. Last year more
    than 17,000 volunteer hours were recorded helping out at these
    locations as well as doing other maintenance and other tasks on the
    refuges.
    Budget Request for Operations and Maintenance
        We request that the Committee provide $495 million in fiscal year
    2013 for Refuge System Operations and Maintenance which is about the
    same level as provided in fiscal year 2012. Refuges need more than that
    but given the current economic and fiscal situation, it is unrealistic
    to expect the significant additions needed to properly maintain the
    refuges and staffing and management capabilities. The Cooperative
    Alliance for Refuge Enhancement estimates that the Refuge System needs
    at least $900 million in annual funding to properly administer its 150
    million acres and remains committed to aiming for this goal.
        The Refuges are vital places for wildlife--ours are all along the
    Atlantic Flyway and provide resting and nesting places for more than 80
    bird species as well as other wildlife. The Refuges are also places for
    the American people to connect with nature and get involved. Currently,
    refuge Friends and volunteers do approximately 20 percent of all work
    on refuges. In 2011, these 1.5 million hours equated to roughly eight
    volunteers for every one Refuge System employee. Without staff to
    oversee volunteers, their commitment and passion is lost, as is their
    desperately needed contribution to the System. We request $80 million
    for Visitors Services for the NWRS.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund
        We also request that the Congress fund the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $700 million. This Fund, which was created
    in 1965 and authorized at $900 million per year (more than $3 billion
    in today's dollars), is our most important land and easement
    acquisition tool. With more than 8 million acres still unprotected
    within existing refuge boundaries, and the need to establish key
    wildlife corridors and connections between protected areas, the LWCF is
    more important than ever. Here in Rhode Island there are opportunities
    to acquire land adjoining existing refuges to further protect the land
    and wildlife. Land prices are now at levels not seen in years and the
    opportunities to acquire may never happen again so it is urged that the
    LWCF be funded. We also request that the Congress support the new
    Collaborative Conservation requests of the Departments of the Interior
    and Agriculture, bringing together several Federal agencies around a
    common goal.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Potomac River Refuges

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    Friends of the Potomac River Refuges and its 136 members, we would like
    to thank the subcommittee for their strong support of the National
    Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and for giving us the opportunity to
    submit testimony. We are a nonprofit volunteer organization whose
    purpose is to promote conservation, awareness, and appreciation of the
    wildlife and habitats of the Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge
    Complex and to provide assistance to Refuge programs. We urge you to
    show your continued support of the National Wildlife Refuge System by
    approving the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request of $495
    million for the operations and maintenance of the world's premier
    system of public lands and water set aside to conserve America's fish,
    wildlife, and plants. This level of funding will maintain existing
    management capabilities.
    Potomac River National Wildlife Refuge Complex
        The refuges that comprise the Potomac River National Wildlife
    Refuge (NWR) Complex are approximately 25 miles from Capitol Hill in
    northern Virginia. They border the Occoquan River as it meets the
    Potomac River. The complex is made up of three refuges:
      --Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck NWR;
      --Occoquan Bay NWR; and
      --Featherstone NWR.
        Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck NWR is in Fairfax County, Virginia
    and is the oldest and largest refuge within the Complex containing
    2,277 acres. Residents of the Mason Neck Peninsula saw the need to
    preserve bald eagle habitat and worked with Fish and Wildlife Service
    to create the first national wildlife refuge specifically created for
    the protection of bald eagles. The newest refuge in the complex is
    Occoquan Bay NWR, which was 640 acres of military surplus lands, that
    now provides essential habitat for more than 200 species of birds and
    has been designated by Audubon as an Important Bird Area. The smallest
    refuge in the complex is Featherstone NWR containing 325 acres of marsh
    and riverine habitat important to both waterfowl and eagles.
        In addition to providing critical habitat for wildlife in an urban
    environment the refuges are places where residents and visitors can
    enjoy nature and experience the diversity of plants and animals.
    Visitors enjoy birding, photography, hiking, hunting, and even biking
    and kayaking. Students, whether from surrounding school districts or
    those schooled at home, come to the refuges to observe environmental
    concepts and gain an appreciation for environmental stewardship. Many a
    scouting merit badge has been earned learning about wildlife and
    volunteering on a refuge.
    Current Challenges and Needs
        Even though there were meaningful funding increases to the NWRS in
    fiscal years 2008-2010 the Potomac River Refuges still struggle with
    the impacts of budget cuts in fiscal year 2006. At that time the staff
    was reduced from eight to six full-time employees.
        Effects of Fiscal Year 2006 Cuts.--As a result of those budget cuts
    two positions were eliminated and have not been replaced. Biological
    programs have been generally suspended and maintenance has been
    curtailed. Research and investigation on the refuge by graduate and
    local universities have mostly been eliminated since there is no staff
    available to oversee the programs. Some habitat management is
    continuing, however monitoring of the treatments and management actions
    are not being conducted.
        Maintenance of the 6 miles of trails, 9 miles of roads, and other
    facilities has been reduced and delayed. When storm events wash debris
    or drop trees across trails or roads they may remain obstructed for
    weeks reducing the public's access to the refuge. Maintenance that is
    deferred continues to be added to the NWRS's $2.5 billion deferred
    maintenance backlog.
        Law Enforcement.--The presence of a law enforcement officer has
    improved safety. Prior to his arrival the refuges were plagued with
    prostitution, homeless camps, poaching, drugs, gangs, and illegal
    trespass. These refuges are in an urban area and so they will never be
    crime free, but the presence of law enforcement has greatly reduced
    illegal activities and improved safety for visitors and wildlife. The
    International Association of Chiefs of Police did an analysis of the
    NWRS's law enforcements needs in 2005. The Association recommended a
    force of 845 full-time officers yet the NWRS only has 246 officers to
    protect resources and visitors on the 150-million-acre System. We ask
    that you budget $39 million for Refuge Law Enforcement.
        Visitor Services.--While more than 1.8 million people live within
    20 miles of these refuges in the Washington Metropolitan Area, services
    for potential visitors are very limited. The refuges lack the
    facilities to greet and orient visitors. For years the Potomac River
    Refuges have been on the Service's short list for a visitor/
    administration building, yet nothing has happened. NWRS has almost $1
    billion worth of construction needs. Staff is currently housed in an
    office park miles away from the refuges. Without facilities and
    staffing the Service is only able to reach approximately 1 percent of
    the surrounding population. Visitor enhancements will provide greater
    efficiencies and economic impacts. Refuges that offer a board range of
    programs generate more visits, create more jobs, and provide more
    income to the local communities.
        Volunteer Programs.--Refuges need the staffing and facilities to
    draw visitors in, entice them to volunteer, and become stewards of the
    refuge and their communities. Friends groups and other volunteers
    contribute nearly 20 percent of all the work hours on refuges. At
    Potomac, volunteers are picking up trash, mowing, presenting
    interpretive programs, organizing festivals, and assisting staff. Could
    we do more? Yes, but there are obstacles that prevent volunteer
    programs from reaching their full potential. Without staff to oversee
    and interact with volunteers, projects are not done and volunteer
    retention is difficult. NWRS needs to invest $80 million in visitor
    services in order to capitalize on the opportunities to involve the
    public in fulfilling its mission.
        Challenge Cost Share Program.--The Challenge Cost Share program has
    allowed our Friends organization to leverage our time and funds to help
    our local refuges complete small-scale projects. We, along with other
    partners, have constructed overlooks and sun shelters, created
    interpretive signs, hosted festivals, equipped environmental education
    programs, and removed invasive species. In 2011 the cost share program
    was shelved while reforms could be made. We ask that you re-establish
    the Challenge Cost Share program and provide $3.6 million in funding.
    The Tale of Two Refuges
                Sequestration
        The Friends of the Potomac River are very concerned about the
    devastating impact across-the-board sequestration cuts of 9-10 percent
    in fiscal year 2013 will have on our refuges and the entire NWRS. If
    sequestration occurs refuge management estimates there will just enough
    funds to pay salaries and utilities. The impacts will affect wildlife
    and visitors.
        Impacts on Wildlife.--Managing the habitat will be staff's first
    goal, however management will not be as effective. The deer population,
    which is managed through hunts, will explode. The increased browsing of
    the forest floor reduces biodiversity and decreases forest
    regeneration. This will affect creatures from chipmunks to the bald
    eagles. Invasive animal and plant species will consume native species
    and acres of habitat. The Northern Snakehead and other non-native
    species will have more opportunity to consume and displace native
    species. Mason Neck NWR has the largest blue heron colony in the Mid-
    Atlantic. Mile-A-Minute, a very aggressive herbaceous plant, has been
    found there and left unchecked it could smother trees that the rookery
    depends upon. The grasslands at Occoquan Bay NWR must be burn or mowed
    for nesting grassland birds. The burn program was eliminated with the
    loss of the biologist, and now the mowing program is in jeopardy.
        Impact on Visitors.--If sequestration goes into effect all refuge
    led visitor service programs will be eliminated. The part-time visitor
    service intern will be released. There will be no ranger led programs,
    youth fishing events, festivals at Mason Neck NWR, or scouting
    programs. The Fall Festival that the Friends organize will be suspended
    because the entire staff is involved the event and there will be no
    overtime funds to pay them.
        Access to the refuges will be reduced. Trails and roads that are
    obstructed by storm events will be closed. There will be no extended
    hours during the summer or weekends. Regular trail and road maintenance
    will be deferred. Vaulted toilets will be cleaned every few weeks
    instead of weekly and portable toilets will be closed.
        Friends and other volunteers will not be able to compensate for all
    of these loses. To assist with managing the habitat, volunteers need
    oversight and training, but there will be no funds to pay for the
    training. The Friends organization is willing to expand our
    interpretive programs; the challenge will be access, safety, and the
    quality of wildlife viewing.
                Opportunities To Embrace
        The Potomac River Refuges are the epitome of an urban wildlife
    refuges. Residential and industrial developments border the refuges.
    The surrounding land uses create additional stresses for the refuges
    such as stormwater runoff, illegal trespass, and invasive species. But
    the surrounding communities provide these refuges and the entire Refuge
    System with the exceptional opportunity to engage the public and
    increase their awareness of the NWRS and its role in conservation.
        In 2011, NWRS created a vision to guide the management of the
    System during the next decade and beyond. The new vision seeks to make
    wildlife conservation more relevant to the public and engage them in
    the NWRS. With 80 percent of Americans now living in urban or suburban
    areas, the System is placing special emphasize on helping urban America
    connect with and understand the benefits of its wildlife heritage.
        What better place to engage the American people than at the Potomac
    River Refuges? Increasingly the population has become more racially and
    ethnically diverse; in Prince William County less than one-half of the
    population is reported as non-Hispanic and of one race. These refuges
    have the potential of embracing all Americans and sharing with them our
    wildlife heritage.
    In Summary
        Wildlife Refuges matter to your constituents. Last fall, on a cold
    rainy day, we hosted a festival on Occoquan Bay NWR. A young mother and
    her four children came and all of them looked unprepared for the
    weather. The oldest boy gave me a dollar saying, ``My mother wants you
    to have this.'' The family was living in homeless shelter, but that did
    not stop this wonderful woman from showing her appreciation for the
    natural heritage we all share and demonstrating to her child how
    important it is to support it. I hope all of us will follow her
    example.
        Our members realize that our country is facing difficult economic
    times and we must all share in the challenges of the recovery. We thank
    you for the meaningful funding increases allowed the NWRS in fiscal
    year 2008-2010 that provided stability to our refuges. We respectfully
    ask you to support the following funding allocations for the National
    Wildlife Refuge System that will allow the NWRS to maintain existing
    management capabilities:
      --$495 million for the operations and maintenance accounts of the
            NWRS including:
        --$39 million for refuge law enforcement;
        --$80 million for visitor's services;
        --$3.8 million for Challenge Cost Share; and
      --$37 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service construction account.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of Friends of the Refuge Headwaters

        Chair and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the Friends of
    the Refuge Headwaters (FORH), I am writing regarding the fiscal year
    2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
    and the impact this bill will have on the Refuge we support: the Upper
    Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (Upper Miss
    Refuge). We are very proud to be part of the National Wildlife Refuge
    System and ask that you support the President's funding proposals for
    programs in the NWRS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
        Below I will begin by briefly describing FORH, the Upper Miss
    Refuge, and use of the Refuge by 3.7 million visitors per year. With
    respect to the Upper Miss Refuge in particular, I will explain the
    importance of the following allocations:
      --$495 million for Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of the NWRS. This
            includes $80 million for Visitor's Services, and $39 million
            for Refuge Law Enforcement.
      --$700 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). This
            includes $150 million for the NWRS.
      --$3.8 million in fiscal year 2013 for Challenge Cost Share (CCS).
        The Refuge System has endured significant cuts during the last 2
    fiscal years, the cuts reduced an already austere budget, and they have
    negatively impacted the people who use the Upper Miss Refuge and who
    deeply care about it, as well as the wildlife that is the reason for
    the Refuge's existence. I will illustrate this to you below, and show
    how additional cuts will have harmful consequences out of proportion to
    any money saved by carrying them out. Finally, I will describe how
    deeply people care about the Upper Miss Refuge and their commitment to
    paying for its proper management.
    The Friends of the Refuge Headwaters
        The Friends of the Refuge Headwaters is an all-volunteer group that
    began in 1997. Our mission is to support the Refuge's goals of
    sustaining diverse and abundant wildlife as well as providing
    compatible recreation, education, and interpretation to the public. Our
    current activities include sponsoring public outings for fishing,
    birding, canoeing, planting trees, removing invasive species, surveying
    Refuge users, holding public events with expert speakers, monthly
    meetings, and advertising and communicating through print, electronic,
    and social media. We also seek and write grants to aid the Refuge and
    these grants often require challenge cost shares at rates of 10-20
    percent. That is why it is so important to provide sufficient funding
    for challenge cost shares in the fiscal year 2012 budget: these dollars
    will then be multiplied 5-10 times.
    The Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
        The Refuge winds through 261 miles of the Upper Mississippi River
    across four States:
      --Minnesota;
      --Wisconsin;
      --Iowa; and
      --Illinois.
        It comprises 240,000 acres of bottomland forests, wooded islands,
    marshes, backwaters, and upland prairies. It has more than 300 species
    of birds, more than 100 species of fish, and more than 50 species of
    mammals, as well as 250 bald eagle nests and 5,000 heron and egret
    nests. The Refuge is part of one of the four major waterfowl migration
    flyways in the United States, where birds must find reliable food,
    water, and resting places: during fall migration you can find hundreds
    of thousands of waterfowl using the Refuge on a single day.
        But the Upper Miss Refuge is not just for wildlife. It's also a
    paradise for people. Minnesota is known as the land of 10,000 lakes and
    there are just as many lakes in Wisconsin, but not the part of
    Minnesota and Wisconsin where I live. We live in the land of the land
    of the Mississippi River, and thankfully, the land of the Upper
    Mississippi National Wildlife and Fish Refuge.
    Public Use of the Upper Miss Refuge
        So I will now describe for you how much people use this Refuge and
    how deeply they care about it. That's not hard for me to do, because
    I'm one of them. I'm out on the Refuge a lot and for many reasons. I
    fish year-round, from my boat, shore, or ice, and in the fall I hunt on
    the Refuge. You'll find my wife and I on backwaters or pools in our
    canoe or kayaks, sometimes with friends, exploring and observing
    wildlife. We take walks through the bottomland forest or upland
    prairie, on trails, on ice-covered channels in the winter, or on
    levees. We walk or drive to observation platforms to watch birds. We
    often join with friends to take one or more boats to an island shore
    for a picnic. On a warm summer day we may swim at the riverside bathing
    beach directly across the river from Winona.
        People like us make 3.7 million visits per year to the Refuge to
    hunt, fish, watch wildlife, boat, canoe, camp, or just walk. That's
    because the Refuge is not put away behind a fence or distant from the
    cities that dot the river. It's our backyard. That's why it's so
    heavily used by families, schools, colleges, youth groups such as Boy
    Scouts and Girl Scouts, and many others. If you drive through my town--
    Winona, Minnesota--or through other towns and cities along the river,
    you'll see boats on trailers parked in side-yards, driveways, and often
    on the street. They're fishing boats with rod holders and trolling
    motors, pleasure boats with picnic and swimming gear, or hunting boats
    painted camo and surrounded by a cattail fence, or airboats used by
    trappers. Inside our garages, in the backyard, or on the side of the
    house you'll find canoes and kayaks.
        Any week of the year that you go out into the Refuge, you'll find
    people:
      --a couple of dozen anglers in boats and on shore at a pool below a
            dam (the Refuge receives more than 1 million visits annually
            for fishing);
      --a group of boats pulled up on the sandy beach of an island to swim
            and picnic on a summer day (more than 1.3 million visits for
            such activities);
      --bunches of duck hunters heading out from landings on a fall morning
            (300,000 waterfowl hunters); or
      --birdwatchers lining the sides of an observation platform (300,000
            visit to observe wildlife or for education).
        And they're not just in the easy-to-reach places. You've canoed far
    back into a remote maze of islands, pulled your ice-fishing sled as far
    down a channel as you can stand, or stalked through the forest with
    your gun until you may be lost. And you think you're alone. Around the
    corner comes another person, maybe doing the same thing you are, but
    just as likely there for another reason. But they wouldn't be there if
    the Refuge was not.
    The Austerity in Which the Upper Miss Refuge Operates
        The Refuge is understaffed for many positions and has been for
    years. For example, four law enforcement officers patrol 261 miles of
    river and 240,000 acres throughout four States with more than 3.7
    million visitors. That is an impossible task. Not only is that level of
    enforcement inadequate for the safety and protection of visitors and
    wildlife, but it is a threat to the officers themselves. The officers
    patrol alone and are often far from other enforcement agencies. Imagine
    how it feels to cruise toward an isolated island beach at night to
    confront 100 intoxicated people--and you're alone. For another example,
    two Rangers and four Visitor Services Coordinators plan and carry out
    activities with thousands of visitors and must often simply say no to
    requests for programs from schools, youth groups, and many others.
        Other key positions are simply vacant. The Refuge has 51,000 acres
    of floodplain forest but no Forester, getting guidance instead from the
    Corps of Engineers Forester. Yet those same forests are declining due
    to invasive insects, plants, and trees such the Emerald Ash Tree Borer
    beetle, Buckthorn shrub, Oriental Bittersweet vine, and Black Locust
    tree. There is likewise no Fisheries Biologist, a position that
    provides a crucial link to States. Thus the Refuge has little or no say
    in fish management, fishing tournaments, commercial fishing, fishing
    seasons, fishing methods, or even catch limits, though fishing is an
    extremely popular activity on the Refuge and has large impacts on it.
    Even in the face of an advancing threat like Asian Carp, which have
    caused severe harm to fish populations and injuries to boaters, the
    Refuge can do little. In addition, there is no Private Lands Biologist
    to reach out to adjacent private landowners and help them restore fish
    and wildlife habitat on their lands through both FWS and USDA programs.
        In other cases lack of funding means the Refuge cannot carry out
    its obligations. Currently the Refuge has authorized $2.25 million for
    land acquisition through the LWCF and has land acquisitions waiting for
    either appraisals, signed purchase agreements, or final closing to
    fulfill its obligations for these funds. In sum, the Refuge cannot
    carry out its own goals and this underscores the need to increase the
    operations and maintenance budget.
    Consequences of the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Budget Cuts for the Upper
            Miss Refuge
        The fiscal year 2011 and 2012 cuts have had many negative
    consequences, but I will mention just two. First, the Refuge has
    reduced the number of people it hired seasonally, most of whom are
    young people taking part in the Student Temporary Experience Program
    (STEP). As a result, high school and college students lost an important
    path for gaining direct on-the-job experience. Second, the Refuge has
    reduced its outreach programs for the general public at weekend and
    evening events, most often within the communities adjacent to the
    Refuge. Not only does this mean less education, interpretation, and
    recreation for children and adults, but it also means fewer volunteer
    opportunities on the Refuge, fewer contacts between Refuge staff and
    volunteers and local citizens and leaders, and a decrease in tourists
    who support local economies.
    Consequences of a 10-Percent Budget Reduction for the Upper Miss Refuge
        The Refuge is understaffed and absorbed cuts in fiscal year 2011
    and 2012. To carry out a further cut of 10 percent, the Refuge would
    eliminate special hunts for the disabled, youth, and others requiring
    special accommodations. All weekend environmental education and
    interpretation programs would be eliminated. Visitor centers would not
    provide weekend or evening hours for the public. In addition, there
    would be reductions in environmental education programs for schools,
    weekend outreach/interpretation programs regarding fish and wildlife
    and other refuge programs, restoration projects with State and other
    Federal agencies, oversight of trust species (bald eagle, endangered
    species), and law enforcement including search and rescue operations,
    drug enforcement and accident investigations, hunting and fishing
    contacts, refuge trespassing, and habitat destruction. Clearly, these
    actions will have harmful consequences for wildlife and for the people
    who use the Refuge, and they can be avoided.
    Economic Benefits of the Upper Miss Refuge
        The authors of an economic study that is now 8 years old \1\ found
    that the Refuge generated more than $19 million annually in
    expenditures and economic value, $98 million in economic output, 1,266
    jobs with an income of $21.4 million, and Federal, State and local
    taxes of $10.4 million. Given the importance of Refuge to the economies
    in four States and in the lives of the several million people who use
    it, the budgets for the two refuges is remarkably small. So funding of
    the Refuge has huge leverage. That's one of the reasons why reducing
    the budget will have such large negative consequences and increasing
    the budget would have similarly large positive consequences.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Caudill, J. 2004a. The Economic Effects of the Upper
    Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge: Baseline and
    Effects of Alternatives. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington,
    Virginia. 32 pp.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Public Commitment to the Upper Miss Refuge
        The people who use it have strong feelings about the Upper Miss
    Refuge. We truly care, because it's a big part of our lives. That
    Refuge is part of our regional heritage, just as the National Wildlife
    Refuge System is part of our national heritage. We also have strong
    expectations for it. We want it taken care of so that it's there not
    just for us, but also for our children and grandchildren and beyond.
    When people in this region learned last month that all three species of
    Asian carp had been caught in the river in one day by commercial
    fishermen, we were scared, depressed, and to be honest, angry. Because
    those fish threaten the Refuge that we care about so much, we saw that
    threat coming years ago, and there was a failure to address it.
        We're also willing to pay for management of the Refuge. In 2008, by
    statewide referendum, Minnesotans voted by a large margin to increase
    our sales tax by three-eighths of 1 percent for three decades. 80
    percent of the new revenues are dedicated to protecting, restoring, and
    improving wildlife habitat, surface waters and ground water, and parks
    and trails. Iowans passed a similar amendment in 2010, but are waiting
    on their Legislature to put their wishes into action. I'm confident the
    voters of Wisconsin would do the same if they had the opportunity, as
    would the voters of many other States. We Americans care deeply about
    our lands, waters, and wildlife. Doing so is a proud part of our
    history, as evidenced by more than a century of commitment to our
    National Wildlife Refuge System. We ask that you carry on this
    tradition.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
                                 Refuges, Inc.

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the 152
    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 would like to thank you for your commitment to 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
    Refuges start to decline it will cost many times more than these small
    increases to return them to a condition that will fulfill their
    mandates. We respectfully request that you consider the following in
    your appropriations:
      --Fund the National Wildlife Refuge System $495 million in fiscal
            year 2013, essentially keeping level funding from fiscal year
            2012;
      --Fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $700 million
            for fiscal year 2013;
      --Fund Visitor Services for the NWRS at $80 million for fiscal year
            2013; and
      --Support $3.8 million in fiscal year 2013 for Challenge Cost Share
            (CCS).
        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. Because of
    the incremental increases to the Refuge budgets over the last few
    years, the TBRs have a full-time manager and a law enforcement officer
    every weekend during the summer nesting season. Due to those 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 become the
    visitor center. The Refuge has grant money to fund the first phase of
    the displays. If the budgets are cut, staff may not have time to
    oversee construction of the center displays or to keep the center open
    to the public. This will compromise outreach and education goals for
    the TBRs. The TBR's have made small steps to begin to control the
    invasive plants and animals that threaten the native species. If there
    are budget cuts there will 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 may not be able to meet many of
    their CCP goals. Please consider keeping the operations and management
    budget at $495 million for fiscal year 2013.
        The Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges (FTBNWR) was
    incorporated and became a 501(c)(3) in 2008 to better assist the Tampa
    Bay National Wildlife Refuges with volunteers and fundraising. In 2011
    FTBNWR was able to provide 3,800 hours of volunteer hours to assist the
    refuge staff with exotic invasive control, refuge cleanups, and
    education. FTBNWR has been able to raise funds to remove invasive
    raccoons on the Pinellas Refuges that prevent birds from nesting and
    eat eggs laid by the Terrapin turtles that reside there. The Friends
    also started an Education Program to provide outdoor environmental
    educational programs at our local schools for grades K-5 and also
    environmental field trips to nearby preserves to teach our fourth and
    fifth graders about the NWRS and the environment. We also provide bird
    stewards on Egmont Key NWR during the summer nesting season to enhance
    the visitors experience on the refuge through education and an up close
    look at the birds through spotting scopes. Our refuges do not have
    enough staff to provide these education programs so we have stepped up
    as volunteers. Our volunteers are passionate about the Refuge System
    and donate their time, money, and expertise to protect them.
      --The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) estimates
            that the 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. In this time of tightening budgets, we respectfully
            request that you keep the NWRS budget at the same level as
            fiscal year 2012 ($495 million) so that the Refuges do not
            backslide even further in protecting these valuable lands and
            ecosystems.
      --LWCF was created in 1965 and authorized at $900 million. We ask
            that you fund the LWCF at $700 million for fiscal year 2013.
            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. These
            landscape level conservation efforts through conservation
            easements and land purchases are the best way to protect the
            diversity of flora and fauna. The price of real estate is low
            at this time and the $700 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
            fund the LWCF at $700 million for fiscal year 2013. The LWCF is
            not funded by taxpayer money.
      --The refuges give the American people places to connect with nature
            and get involved. In 2011 refuge Friends and volunteers
            contributed 1.5 million hours of work for the refuge system.
            This is about eight volunteers for every one refuge system
            employee. These Friends and volunteers do approximately 20
            percent of all work on refuges for free. Without a refuge
            system employee to guide them, the volunteers can't perform
            these valuable free services. We request $80 million for
            Visitors Services for the NWRS.
      --Please support the Challenge Cost Share (CCS) with $3.8 million in
            fiscal year 2013. Partners are the key to successful
            conservation. The Federal Government doesn't need to foot the
            bill alone. Through programs that leverage Federal dollars
            (such as the CCS program), partner organizations such as our
            Refuge Friends groups can get matching dollars from other
            entities to give the American taxpayers more for their dollars.
            Projects such as trails, education, boardwalks, and habitat
            restoration give the American public places to connect with
            nature and relax.
        The Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges is one of
    230 Friends groups who support the National Wildlife Refuges. The
    interest in our NWRS is significant and we are proving it with our
    donated time and funds.
        In conclusion, the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
    Refuges believes 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 $495 million for the fiscal year 2013 NWRS operations and
    maintenance budget managed by FWS and to approve $700 million for
    fiscal year 2013 for the LWCF land acquisition budget as well as
    funding refuge Visitor Services at $80 million and the CCS at $3.8
    million.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of 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 2013
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
    President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
        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 public benefits
    including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
    drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
    assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
    support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
        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, historical and recreation 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 a conservation
    offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
        As part of the LWCF request in fiscal year 2013, the National Park
    Service (NPS) included $2.738 million for the acquisition of land at
    Virgin Islands National Park. I am pleased that this funding was
    included in the request and urge the Congress to provide necessary
    funds for LWCF for this important project.
        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 11,086 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 and ruins on the island
    is found within this area.
        Maho Bay is an important destination for visitors to St. John. The
    popular Maho Bay Camps are adjacent to the lands being acquired by NPS,
    and protection of Estate Maho Bay is key to maintaining the character
    and appeal of this area. Visitors to Maho Bay often come back again and
    again because of the unspoiled natural beauty of these lands. The
    Department of the Interior recently reported that in 2010 visitors to
    Virgin Islands NP spent more than $61 million in the surrounding
    community. This spending supported 1,084 local jobs. Major U.S. air
    carriers bring an average of 11,000 visitors to St. Thomas/St. John
    each week. Overall, tourism accounts for 80 percent of the U.S. Virgin
    Islands' GDP and employment.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2013 is the final phase of
    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. The
    land was historically used during the plantation era for agricultural
    activities such as sugar cane, coconut, and cotton cultivation. With
    increasing growth and investment throughout the Caribbean--including
    places not far from the unspoiled beauty of St. John--these vulnerable
    lands have become the focus of intense development threats. In recent
    years, more than one investor has envisioned private development along
    these shores, which would jeopardize the unique character of Maho Bay
    and the visitors' experience of the park.
        Estate Maho Bay was originally 419 acres owned by 11 interests,
    only 3 of which had been acquired by NPS. Following years of litigation
    and negotiation, The Trust for Public Land (TPL), using philanthropic
    support in the form of a loan, obtained seven of the remaining
    interests. A partition of the property was approved. NPS received 114
    acres as its share, and approximately 100 acres will remain in private
    hands, although most of these will have strict covenants to prevent
    incompatible building and uses. TPL is in the process of conveying the
    remaining 205 acres to the Virgin Islands National Park. In fiscal year
    2013, 74 acres will remain for NPS to acquire.
        Recognizing the need to protect this unique property, over the past
    3 years the Congress and two different presidential administrations
    have allocated a total of $6.75 million to the Park Service for Estate
    Maho Bay. This year, $2.25 million is needed from the LWCF to complete
    the purchase of the property. TPL will convey these lands to NPS at a
    significant discount made possible by private donations. The estimated
    value of the 205 acres is $18.6 million.
        The 205-acre Estate Maho Bay project has been made available to NPS
    for $9 million. The appraised value of these lands is $20.5 million,
    more than twice the purchase price. An additional 18 acres of land on
    Mamey Peak, overlooking the ongoing Estate Maho Bay project, have been
    donated by The Trust for Public Land to the Virgin Islands National
    Park. Because of the generosity of TPL's donors, NPS is receiving 223
    acres valued at more than $29.5 million for only $9 million, truly a
    remarkable example of the public-private partnerships that NPS seeks to
    promote.
        This acquisition will ensure continued public access to the beach,
    protect ecologically and historically significant land from
    development, and connect two separate sections of the national park. In
    fiscal year 2013, a total of $2.25 million is needed from the Land and
    Water Conservation for NPS to complete the acquisition of this
    outstanding property in Virgin Islands National Park.
        In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the LWCF of $450
    million, as proposed in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget,
    including critical funding for Virgin Islands National 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 the U.S. Virgin Islands, and I appreciate your
    consideration of this funding request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Friends of Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am submitting
    testimony on behalf of Friends of Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge.
    (Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge is the Headquarters for the 9
    refuges in the Long Island National Wildlife Complex in New York.) We
    ask that you fund the National Wildlife Refuge System operations and
    maintenance (O&M) accounts at $495 million in the fiscal year 2013;
    which is essentially level funding from fiscal year 2012. We estimate
    that refuges would need at least $527 million in fiscal year 2013 to
    maintain management capabilities from fiscal year 2010; this request
    would only maintain status quo at current funding levels. The current
    Federal salary freeze still leaves Refuges needing at least $8 million
    to absorb other fixed costs. The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
    Enhancement (CARE) estimates that the Refuge System needs at least $900
    million in annual funding to properly administer its 150 million acres
    and remains committed to accomplishing this goal. It is of the utmost
    importance that our Nation protects and enhances our National Wildlife
    Refuge System for future generations.
        Economically, according to the Banking on Nature report produced by
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2006, Federal spending on refuges
    offers a 4 to 1 return to local economies. Every $1 you appropriate
    generates $4 in local economic activity and in many cases it's much
    more. This makes an fiscal year 2013 appropriation of $495 a ``win-
    win'' for the habitat and wildlife, for educational opportunities, for
    visitors and for the local economies of the communities surrounding our
    refuges.
        Friends of Wertheim NWR feels that the National Wildlife Refuge
    System deserves $495 million in Federal funding for fiscal year 2013
    because U.S. Fish and Wildlife is the Federal agency charged with
    conserving, protecting and enhancing the Nation's fish, wildlife and
    plants for the continuing benefit of the American people. Another top
    priority of the Service is connecting people with nature: ensuring the
    future of conservation. While there is no doubt that our public lands
    need to be managed through community partnerships/community resources,
    the Federal Government should be the catalyst in making this happen.
        When the funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System is
    compared to the entire national spending it is not even a ``blip on the
    radar screen''. The National Wildlife Refuge System is one of our
    ``National Treasures'' and the dedicated Refuge staff, Friends and
    volunteers do much with very little. Only by being ``faithful
    stewards'' of all of the National Wildlife Refuges in the United States
    will we ensure that they will be here for our children and our
    children's children. This is why we ask that you support our National
    Wildlife Refuge System with adequate funding, $495 million for fiscal
    year 2013.
        Friends of Wertheim NWR also ask that you:
      --Provide $80 million in funding for Refuge System Visitor Services
            programs. Visitor Services funding pays for many Friends and
            volunteer programs. Currently, refuge Friends and volunteers do
            approximately 20 percent of all the work on refuges. Staff is
            needed to oversee the volunteers. The $80 million in funding
            will allow all of the Friends groups to remain effective
            stewards of our refuge and offer programs to get more people
            outdoors in nature.
      --Please support $3.8 million for Challenge for Cost Share (CCS).
            Partners are the key to successful conservation; no Federal or
            State agency can do it alone. Therefore, we support programs
            that leverage Federal dollars such as the CCS Program. Partner
            organizations such as the Friends groups leverage these funds
            and it gives taxpayers more ``bang for their buck'' for
            projects like trails, boardwalks and habitat restoration.
      --We ask that you fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at
            $700 million. LWCF was created in 1965 and authorized at $900
            million per year; which would be more than $3 billion in
            today's dollars. LWCF is our most important land and easement
            acquisition tool. There are more than 8 million acres still
            unprotected within existing refuge boundaries and there is a
            need to establish key wildlife corridors and connections
            between protected areas making LWCF more important than ever.
        Last but not least, please support the new Collaborative
    Conservation requests of the Department of the Interior and
    Agriculture, bringing together several Federal agencies around a common
    goal.
        On behalf of Friends of Wertheim NWR thank you for your
    consideration of our request.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America

        The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges the Congress to fully
    fund the fiscal year 2013 request for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
    and restore cuts in the request to key programs, including the Mineral
    Resources Program, the Water Resources Research Act, and the National
    Water Quality Assessment Methods Development and Monitoring program. As
    one of our Nation's key science agencies, the USGS plays a vital role
    in understanding and documenting mineral and energy resources,
    researching and monitoring potential natural hazards, monitoring
    effects of climate change, and determining and assessing water
    availability and quality. These issues are truly some of society's
    greatest challenges. Despite the critical role played by the USGS,
    funding for the Survey has stagnated in real dollars for more than a
    decade. Given the importance of the many activities of the Survey that
    protect lives and property for natural hazards, stimulate innovations
    that fuel the economy, provide national security, and enhance the
    quality of life, sustained, steady growth in Federal funding for the
    Survey is necessary for the well being of our Nation.
        The Geological Society of America, founded in 1888, is a scientific
    society with more than 25,000 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. 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.
    Broader Impacts of the U.S. Geological Survey
        The USGS is one of the Nation's premier science agencies.
    Approximately 70 percent of the USGS budget is allocated for research
    and development. In addition to underpinning the science activities of
    the Department of the Interior, this research is used by communities
    across the Nation to assist in land use planning, emergency response,
    natural resource management, engineering, and education. USGS research
    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--are a
            major cause of fatalities and economic losses worldwide. Recent
            natural disasters provide unmistakable evidence that the United
            States remains vulnerable to staggering losses. 2011 was a
            record year for natural disasters in the United States, with 12
            separate $1 billion weather/climate disasters, breaking the
            previous mark of $9 billion weather/climate disasters in 1
            year, which occurred in 2008. The combined historic and recent
            geologic records demonstrate that several areas in the United
            States will continue to experience major earthquake and/or
            volcanic activity in the future. An improved scientific
            understanding of geologic hazards will reduce future losses
            through better forecasts of their occurrence and magnitude, and
            allow for better planning and mitigation in these areas. GSA
            urges the Congress to increase funding for the USGS to
            modernize and upgrade its natural hazards monitoring and
            warning systems and support the proposed increases for early
            warning systems in the budget request.
      --Energy and mineral resources are critical to national security and
            economic growth. Improved scientific understanding of these
            resources will allow for their more economic and environmental
            management and utilization. USGS is the sole Federal
            information source on mineral potential, production, and
            consumption. USGS assessments of mineral and energy resources--
            including those that have recently become of greater and
            greater importance (such as unconventional natural gas and
            geothermal resources)--are essential for making informed
            decisions about the Nation's future. Therefore, we are greatly
            concerned about the proposed $5 million cut in mineral
            resources and its effect on the ability of our Nation to safely
            develop new resources.
      --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
            (USGS, 2010). The increases proposed for rare Earth research at
            USGS will help ease our dependence on these foreign sources.
      --Improved understanding of geologic processes across Earth's history
            can increase our confidence in the ability to predict future
            climate States and long-term ecological changes and thus
            enhance the prospects for mitigating or adapting to adverse
            impacts. USGS research on climate impacts is used by the
            Department of the Interior and local partners to make informed
            land-use decisions.
      --The devastating droughts in 2011 reminded us of our dependence on
            water. 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
            resources--and communication of new insights by geoscientists
            in formats useful to decision makers--is necessary to ensure
            adequate and safe water resources for the future. The
            establishment of a National Groundwater Monitoring Network will
            expand our understanding of this critical resource.
      --The budget request proposes a $13 million increase at USGS for
            hydraulic fracturing research as part of a joint effort with
            the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection
            Agency. The USGS would play a critical role in this endeavor to
            better understand and minimize the environmental, health, and
            safety impacts of hydraulic fracturing. The USGS research will
            focus on better understanding induced seismicity, water
            quality, and creating an atlas of shale resources.
        Research in Earth science is also fundamental to training and
    educating the next generation of Earth science professionals. A recent
    study, Status of the Geoscience Workforce 2011, by the American
    Geosciences Institute found:

        ``The supply of newly trained geoscientists falls short of
    geoscience workforce demand and replacement needs. According to the
    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics there were a total of 262,627 U.S.
    geoscientist jobs in 2008, and in 2018, the projected number of U.S.
    geoscientist jobs will be 322,683, a 23 percent increase. These
    projections do not include replacements due to attrition . . . With
    this adjustment, aggregate job projections are expected to increase by
    35 percent between 2008 and 2018 . . . . The majority of geoscientists
    in the workforce are within 15 years of retirement age. Even in oil and
    gas companies, which typically offer the highest salaries of all
    geoscience employing industries, the supply of new geoscientists is
    short of replacement needs. By 2030, the unmet demand for geoscientists
    in the petroleum industry will be approximately 13,000 workers for the
    conservative demand industry estimate.''

        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.'' Likewise, the
    National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by
    Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, said: ``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 U.S. Geological Survey in particular
    are required to stimulate innovations that fuel the economy, provide
    security, and enhance the quality of life.
        GSA supports the efforts of USGS, NASA, NOAA, and OSTP to examine a
    future path forward for the Landsat satellites that maintains funding
    for other key programs within USGS. The Landsat satellites have amassed
    the largest archive of remotely sensed land data in the world, a
    tremendously important resource for natural resource exploration, land
    use planning, and assessing water resources, the impacts of natural
    disasters, and global agriculture production.
    Budget Shortfalls
        GSA supports the fiscal year 2013 budget request for the U.S.
    Geological Survey and the increases provided for key areas such as
    hydraulic fracturing research, early earthquake warning, and
    establishing a National Groundwater Monitoring Network. However, we are
    concerned about cuts in some programs and ask that these areas be
    restored. Some proposed cuts of concern in the budget request include:
      --$6.5 million for Water Resources Research Act Program;
      --$6 million for National Water Quality Assessment methods,
            development, and monitoring;
      --$5 million for the Cooperative Water Program interpretive studies;
      --$5 million for the Mineral Resources Program;
      --$3.3 million for hydrologic networks and analysis information
            management and delivery; and
      --$2 million for toxic substances hydrology methods development and
            assessments.
        We urge the Congress to support the fiscal year 2013 budget request
    and restore these and other detrimental cuts. We recognize the
    financial challenges facing the Nation, but losing irreplaceable data
    can increase costs to society in the long term.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about USGS. GSA
    is grateful to Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies for its leadership in strengthening
    the USGS over many years. For additional information or to learn more
    about the Geological Society of America--including GSA Position
    Statements on water resources, mineral and energy resources, climate
    change, natural hazards, and public investment in Earth science
    research--please visit www.geosociety.org or contact Kasey White at
    kwhite@geosociety.org.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
                                   Commission

    Bureau of Indian Affairs Great Lakes Area Resource Management:
            $6,367,000
        Fiscal year 2013 requested allocation within the administration's
    fiscal year 2013 Rights Protection Implementation request in the amount
    of $32,645,000.
        Agency/Program Line Item.--Department of the Interior, Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, Operation of Indian Programs, Trust-Natural Resources
    Management, Rights Protection Implementation, Great Lakes Area Resource
    Management.
        Funding Authorizations.--Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. 13; Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act, (Public Law 93-638), 25
    U.S.C. 450f and 450h; and the treaties between the United States and
    GLIFWC's member Ojibwe Tribes, specifically Treaty of 1836, 7 Stat.
    491, Treaty of 1837, 7 Stat. 536, Treaty of 1842, 7 Stat. 591, and
    Treaty of 1854, 10 Stat. 1109.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bureau of Indian Affairs Contract Support: $228 Million
        Agency/Program Line Item.--Department of the Interior, Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, Operation of Indian Programs, Tribal Government.
        Funding Authorization.--Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act, (Public Law 93-638), 25 U.S.C. 450f and 450h.
    Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes Restoration: $300 million.
            Tribal Need: $25 million. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
            Commission Need: $1.2 Million (Estimated Annual Need).
        Agency/Program Line Item.--Environmental Protection Agency,
    Environmental Programs and Management, Geographic Programs, Great Lakes
    Restoration.
        Funding Authorizations.--Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1268(c); and
    treaties cited above.

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

        For more than 25 years, the Congress has funded GLIFWC to meet
    nondiscretionary treaty obligations and associated Federal court
    orders. This funding has allowed GLIFWC to implement comprehensive
    conservation, natural resource protection, and law enforcement programs
    that ensure member tribes are able to exercise their treaty reserved
    rights to hunt, fish, and gather throughout the ceded territories, and
    that ensure a healthy and sustainable natural resource base to support
    those rights. These programs also provide a wide range of public
    benefits and assure full participation in management partnerships in
    Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota.
        GLIFWC and its member tribes would like to take this opportunity to
    thank Congress, and specifically this subcommittee, for its strong
    support of these treaty obligations. In fiscal year 2012, the Congress
    increased its support for treaty rights protection and the
    administration followed suit by more fully supporting these treaty
    obligations in its fiscal year 2013 request. GLIFWC recently estimated
    the full cost of its program at approximately $9,870,000, including:
      --$5,434,000 provided in fiscal year 2012 through the RPI line item;
      --approximately $1,800,000 provided by grants and other ``soft''
            funding in fiscal year 2012; and
      --$2,636,000 in unmet needs.
        Funding at the proposed fiscal year 2013 level would begin to
    address these unmet needs. For more detail, the three elements of this
    fiscal year 2013 funding request are:
          Bureau of Indian Affairs Great Lakes Area Management:
            $6,367,000.--This program falls within the Rights Protection
            Implementation (RPI) line item, which is proposed at
            $32,645,000 in fiscal year 2013. Funds provided to GLIFWC under
            the RPI program ensure that GLIFWC's member tribes continue to
            comply with Federal court orders by ensuring effective
            implementation of tribal self-regulatory and co-management
            systems.
          In previous fiscal years, GLIFWC has testified about chronic
            underfunding of the Rights Protection Implementation line item
            and the impacts of that underfunding on GLIFWC's programs. In
            fiscal year 2010, the Congress recognized this threat and
            provided a much-needed increase in support. Following
            congressional lead, the administration has incorporated and
            supplemented that increase in its fiscal year 2013 proposal.
            The funding provided through the Great Lakes Area Resource
            Management line item in fiscal year 2010 allowed GLIFWC to
            restore some program cuts. Funding at the proposed fiscal year
            2013 level would enable GLIFWC to meet even more of its program
            needs, including funding for research and assessments of
            threats to the ceded territories and for conservation
            enforcement officers.
          Bureau of Indian Affairs Contract Support: $228 Million.--GLIFWC
            supports the $228 million proposed for Contract Support. This
            amount would meet the needs identified in the most recent
            Contract Support Shortfall Report to fully fund this account,
            which provides funds to meet costs incurred in fulfilling
            administrative requirements that are mandated when operating
            programs, including costs for accounting, personnel
            administration, and property management. Rectifying this
            chronic underfunding will allow GLIFWC to direct scarce
            resources toward restoring program cuts and service capacity.
          Environmnetal Protection Agency Environmental Programs and
            Management: $300 Million.--GLIFWC supports continued funding
            for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) at no less
            than the administration's proposed fiscal year 2013 level of
            $300 million. It also recommends that at least $25 million be
            provided to the BIA for tribes, to ensure they are able to
            undertake local projects that contribute to the protection and
            restoration of the Great Lakes.
        Sustained funding for GLIFWC at approximately $1.2 million will
    enable GLIFWC to retain jobs created through this program, to fully
    implement projects it undertook to meet the goals of the GLRI, and to
    meaningfully participate in the decisionmaking processes that will
    affect the treaty rights of its member tribes.
        Funding provided through the BIA should be made available under the
    Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). In
    2010, GLRI funding awarded through the ISDEAA was virtually the only
    GLRI funding that was available before the 2010 field season. This
    enabled tribes to begin project implementation much earlier and realize
    substantial, early ``on-the-ground'' ecosystem benefits.

      CEDED TERRITORY TREATY RIGHTS--GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE
                     COMMISSION'S GOAL'S ROLE AND PROGRAMS

        Established in 1984, GLIFWC is a natural resources management
    agency of 11 member Ojibwe Tribes with resource management
    responsibilities over their ceded territory (off-reservation) hunting,
    fishing and gathering treaty rights. These ceded territories extend
    over a 60,000 square mile area that extends to Minnesota, Wisconsin,
    and Michigan.

        Through its staff of 65 full-time biologists, scientists,
    technicians, conservation enforcement officers, policy specialists, and
    public information specialists, GLIFWC's mission is to:
      --ensure that its member tribes are able to exercise their Treaty-
            protected rights to meet subsistence, economic, cultural,
            medicinal, and spiritual needs; and
      --ensure a healthy, sustainable natural resource base to support
            those rights. GLIFWC is a ``tribal organization'' as defined by
            the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act,
            governed by a Constitution that is ratified by its member
            tribes and by a Board composed of the Chairs of those tribes.
                  justification and use of the requested funds
        With the requested stable funding base, GLIFWC will:
          Maintain the Requisite Capabilities To Meet Legal Obligations, To
            Conserve Natural Resources, and To Regulate Treaty Harvests.--
            Although it does not meet all GLIFWC's needs, sustained funding
            at the fiscal year 2013 level 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 GLIFWC's capability to undertake work and participate
            in relevant partnerships to tackle ecosystem threats that harm
            treaty natural resources, including invasive species, habitat
            degradation and climate change.
          Remain a Trusted Environmental Management Partner and Scientific
            Contributor in the Great Lakes Region.--With the requested EPA
            funding base, 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 \2\ 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.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ 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.
        \3\ With the requested fiscal year 2013 funds, GLIFWC would:
          -- continue a ceded territory wild rice enhancement project;
          -- facilitate tribal input and participation in the
    implementation of the revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
          -- continue to participate in the development and implementation
    of the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan;
          -- build upon its longstanding fish contaminant analysis and
    consumption advisory program by testing additional species, testing in
    a wider geographic range, and testing for chemicals of emerging
    concern;
          -- 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; and
          -- enhance its capacity to protect ceded territory natural
    resources by responding to development proposals such as those related
    to mining.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Maintain the Overall Public Benefits That Derive From Its
            Programs.--Over the years, GLIFWC has become a recognized and
            valued partner in natural resource management. Because of its
            institutional experience and staff expertise, 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.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ For example, on March 14, 2012, U.S. District Judge Barbara B.
    Crabb sentenced Norberto Burciago to 10 years in Federal prison for his
    involvement in a conspiracy to manufacture marijuana in the
    Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. The ``grow'' was discovered by
    hunters, monitored by law enforcement, and raided by more than 200 law
    enforcement officers from a dozen local, State, and Federal agencies,
    including 9 officers from the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
    Commission.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     OTHER RELATED APPROPRIATIONS CONCERNS

        Support for the Bureau of Indian Affairs Conservation Law
    Enforcement Officers.--GLIFWC supports BIA's proposal to provide
    $500,000 in fiscal year 2013 to support conservation officers like
    those employed by GLIFWC. This program will assist tribal conservation
    enforcement programs in protecting and monitoring natural resources
    both on and off-reservation.
        Bureau of Indian Affairs Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland &
    Waterfowl Initiative.--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
    longstanding 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 the
    Interior ``Partners in Conservation'' Award.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Green Mountain Club

        As Director of Conservation for the Green Mountain Club, the
    nonprofit organization which maintains the 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 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill. The President's budget for this year recommended
    $60 million for FLP. 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), which as a whole received $450 million in the budget request.
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund 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 public benefits including promoting healthier
    lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking water and
    watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting wildlife and
    fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also support jobs, tourism and
    economic vitality across our communities.
        I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
    tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in the Forest
    Legacy Program will permanently pay dividends to the American people
    and to our great natural, historic and recreational 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
    a conservation offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and
    gas resources.
        As part of the FLP request in fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Forest
    Service included an allocation of $2.72 million for the Northern Green
    Mountains Linkage project in Vermont. I am pleased that this funding
    was included in the request and urge the Congress to provide necessary
    funds for FLP for this important project.
        The Forest Legacy Program in Vermont seeks to achieve significant
    conservation goals for the State by protecting the following types of
    land:
      --large contiguous and productive forest blocks;
      --wildlife habitats dependent on large contiguous forest blocks;
      --threatened and endangered species habitat;
      --State fragile areas and undeveloped shoreline, significant
            wetlands; and
      --important recreational 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, gentle
    terrain, scenic value, and proximity to ski resorts and urban areas.
        The 5,768-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 as well as
    16 miles of streams, several rare species, and high-quality wildlife
    habitat. Using fee and easement acquisitions, the project will link
    68,300 acres of conserved lands, including lands the Green Mountain
    Club has protected for the Long Trail, providing connectivity from the
    Green Mountains 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, improve public access to recreation, and
    secure 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
    region, from boreal forests, temperate mixed hardwoods, and alpine
    meadows to floodplain forests and marshes. 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 and the inspiration for the
    Appalachian Trail, built by the Green Mountain Club between 1910 and
    1930. 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, which 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 Vermont Fish & Wildlife's 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. 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 3,984 acres that will be conserved with fiscal year 2013 Forest
    Legacy funding is made up of four separate parcels. Almost the entire
    expanse--95 percent of the 1,748-acre Jay Brook tract in Westfield is
    higher than 1,500 feet, providing critical wildlife habitat protection
    and an 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 for 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 Forest Legacy Program
    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 year 2009 and fiscal
    year 2010 funds). The 553-acre Moffat property, half of which was
    funded in fiscal year 2011, is part of a significant east-west corridor
    of conserved forestland and contains significant wetlands and sugar
    maple stands. Last, 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 its 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.
        Forest Legacy Program funding in fiscal year 2011 secured the first
    1,784 acres of the Northern Green Mountains Linkage project. A Forest
    Legacy grant of $2.72 million in fiscal year 2013 for the remaining
    3,984 acres would complete this important project. These Federal funds
    are needed to ensure the protection of critical forest resources in
    northern Vermont and will be matched by $950,000 of non-Federal
    contributions for the acquisition of full fee and partial interests
    through conservation easement.
        In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund of $450 million, as proposed in the President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget, including critical funding for the Forest
    Legacy Program and the Northern Green Mountains Linkage 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 Vermont, and I appreciate your consideration of
    this funding request.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Illinois Lake Management Association

        Dear Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the
    Committee: The Illinois Lake Management Association (ILMA) encourages
    the subcommittee to provide the most robust funding possible for the
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program in fiscal year 2013. This
    program is the only one within the Federal Government with the singular
    purpose of preventing Federal endangered species listings, and it is
    achieving success as highlighted in the recent State Wildlife Grants
    Success Stories Report (http://teaming.com/tool/state-wildlife-grants-
    success-stories-report-2011). We also ask that the non-Federal match
    requirement for States remain at 35 percent to help States who are
    still struggling to recover from significant reductions in conservation
    budgets to meet match requirements.
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program provides critical
    capacity for State fish and wildlife agencies and their partners to
    implement congressionally required State Wildlife Action Plans. The
    program is used by States to conserve more than 12,000 fish and
    wildlife species that have been identified as at-risk, including those
    that are candidates for Federal endangered species listing. Despite the
    success of the program, the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program
    has been cut by one-third since 2010. The reduction in funding is
    impacting States' ability to restore habitat, protect land, provide
    incentives to private landowners, monitor, conduct research and
    implement other measures needed to conserve declining fish and
    wildlife.
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program supports
    implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans that were developed
    collaboratively by leading scientists, sportsmen, conservationists and
    private landowners and identified the most effective and practical
    means to prevent wildlife from becoming endangered. The Congress can
    demonstrate its commitment to these plans by providing the Federal
    share of support, leveraging millions in State and private matching
    funds. This investment in conservation helps support jobs and the $730
    billion outdoor recreation industry. The State and Tribal Wildlife
    Grants program is modest compared to the scope of work it funds: The
    recovery of some of our Nation's most imperiled fish and wildlife. We
    hope the Senate Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies can provide the most robust funding possible for the program
    in fiscal year 2013.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Independent Tribal Courts Review Team

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and to address the
    serious funding needs that have limited and continue to hinder the
    operations of tribal judicial systems in Indian Country. I am the Lead
    Judge representing the Independent Tribal Court Review Team. 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
    Independent Tribal Courts Review Team that the Federal tribal courts
    budget be substantially increased in fiscal year 2013 to support the
    needs of tribal judicial systems.
    Budget Priorities, Requests, and Recommendations
        +$10 million increase for tribal courts more than the fiscal year
    2010 enacted level
        Fully fund all provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
        +$58.4 million authorized under the Indian Tribal Justice Act of
    1993, Public Law 103-176, 25 U.S.C. 3601 and re-authorized in year 2000
    Public Law 106-559 (no funds have been appropriated to date)
        The budget requests will support:
      --Hiring and training of court personnel;
      --Compliance with the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010;
      --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
    longstanding Federal policy and acts of the Congress. Funding levels
    from BIA to support tribal justice systems have not met the Federal
    obligations.
        For the past 6 years, the Independent Court Review Team has been
    traveling throughout Indian Country assessing how tribal courts are
    operating. During this time, we have completed approximately 84 court
    reviews. There is no one with more hands-on experience and knowledge
    regarding the current status of tribal courts than our Review Team.
        We have come into contact with every imaginable composition of
    tribe:
      --large and small;
      --urban and rural;
      --wealthy and poor.
        What we have not come into contact with is any tribe whose Court
    system is operating with financial resources comparable to other local
    and State jurisdictions.
    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 members limits the inclination of staff
    to move away; a poor excuse to underpay staff.)
        Compliance with the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010.--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 non-Tribal judicial systems and be competitive to maintain
    existing personnel.
        Tribal Courts Need State-of-the-Art Technology (software,
    computers, phone systems, tape recording machines).--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 2011. Assessments have
    indicated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs only funds tribal courts at
    26 percent of the funding needed. This is further documented in the BIA
    budget book under the Tribal Priorities Allocation Account/Tribal
    Courts reflecting only a $1 million increase ``to enhance the ongoing
    daily operations of the Indian Affairs funded tribal courts and Courts
    of Federal Regulations throughout Indian Country''. That's real bang
    for the buck and certainly validates the adage ``you get what you pay
    for''! The lack of investment in tribal courts is an atrocity given the
    challenges and impediments they must endure to remain effective. tribes
    who have economic development 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. 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 in the DOJ is intended to be temporary, but
    instead it is used for permanent needs; such as funding a Drug Court
    Clerk who then is used as a Court Clerk with Drug Court duties. When
    the funding runs out, so does the permanent position. We have witnessed
    many failed Drug Courts, failed Court management software projects (due
    to training costs) and incomplete Code development projects. When the
    Justice funding runs out, so does the Project.
        As a directive from the Office of Management and Budget, our
    Reviews specifically examined how tribes were using Federal funding. In
    the last 6 fiscal years through fiscal year 2011 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. Tribal Courts need an immediate, sustained and increased
    level of funding. True. However, there are strong indications that the
    Courts will put such funding to good use.
        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
    Team 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.
        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 . . .  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.
    Put your money where your promises have been.
    National Requests
        We support the requests and recommendations of the National
    Congress of American Indians. We support the increases for:
      --contract support costs of $8.8 million;
      --law enforcement of $30 million;
      --10-percent increase more than 2012 for TPA; and
      --an additional $10 million for tribal courts.
        On behalf of the Independent Tribal Court Review Team, Thank you.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission

        My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I serve as Executive Director of
    the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, on whose behalf I am
    appearing today. I appreciate the opportunity to present this statement
    to the subcommittee regarding the views of the Compact's 24 member
    States on the fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Office of Surface
    Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) within the Department of the
    Interior. In its proposed budget, OSM is requesting $57.3 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
    less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. OSM also proposes to
    reduce mandatory spending for abandoned mine lands (AML) program by
    $180 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 $57.3 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. Pursuant to these primacy
    programs, the States have the most direct and critical responsibilities
    for conducting regulatory operations to minimize the impact of coal
    extraction operations on people and the environment. The States
    accomplish this through a combination of permitting, inspection and
    enforcement duties, designating lands as unsuitable for mining
    operations, and ensuring that timely reclamation occurs after mining.
        In fiscal year 2012, the Congress approved $68.6 million for State
    title V grants. This continued a much-needed trend whereby 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 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 more than fiscal year 2007 levels.
    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 2013 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. 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 of
    much needed equipment are canceled or delayed. Furthermore, a clear
    message from 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 generally only match what they
    receive in Federal money.
        It is important to note that OSM does not disagree with the States'
    demonstrated need for the requested amount of funding for title V
    regulatory grants. Instead, OSM's solution for the drastic cuts 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 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. In making the case for its
    funding increase, OSM's budget justification document contains vague
    references to the need ``to improve the implementation of existing
    laws'' and to ``strengthen OSM's skills base.'' More specifically, OSM
    states in its budget justification document (on page 60) that ``with
    greater technical skills, OSM anticipates improved evaluation of
    permit-related actions and resolution of issues to prevent
    unanticipated situations that otherwise may occur as operations
    progress, thereby improving implementation of existing laws''. In our
    view, this is code language for enhanced and expanded Federal oversight
    of State programs. However, without more to justify the need for more
    oversight and the concomitant increase in funding for Federal
    operations related thereto, the Congress should reject this request.
    The overall performance of the States as detailed in OSM's annual State
    program evaluation reports demonstrates that the States are
    implementing their programs effectively and in accordance with the
    purposes and objectives of SMCRA.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ While not alluded to or fully addressed in OSM's budget
    justification document, there are myriad statutory, policy and legal
    issues associated with several aspects of the agency's enhanced
    oversight initiative, especially three recently adopted directives on
    annual oversight procedures (REG-8), corrective actions (REG-23) and
    Ten-Day Notices (INE-35). IMCC submitted extensive comments regarding
    the issues associated with these directives and related oversight
    actions (including Federal inspections) on January 19, 2010, July 8,
    2010 and January 7, 2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 Congress to approve not less than $70 million for
    State and tribal title V regulatory grants, as fully documented in the
    States' and tribes' estimates for actual program operating costs.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ We are particularly concerned about recent OSM initiatives,
    primarily by policy directive, to duplicate and/or second-guess State
    permitting decisions through the reflexive use of ``Ten-Day Notices''
    as part of increased Federal oversight or through Federal responses to
    citizen complaints. OSM specifically addresses this matter in its
    budget justification document (on page 69) where it states that ``OSM
    has an obligation under section 521 of SMCRA to take steps to ensure
    that all types of violations, including violations of performance
    standards or permit conditions and violations of permitting
    requirements, are corrected if the State does not take action to do so.
    Aside from the impact on limited State and Federal resources, these
    actions undermine the principles of primacy that underscore SMCRA and
    are likely to have debilitating impacts on the State-Federal
    partnership envisioned by the act.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 $488 million in fiscal year
    2013. Instead, OSM has budgeted an amount of $307 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 $180 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.
    The proposal, which will require adjustments to SMCRA, 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. We urge the Congress to reject this
    unjustified proposal, delete it from the budget and restore the full
    mandatory funding amount of $488 million. A resolution adopted by IMCC
    last year concerning these matters is attached. We also endorse the
    statement 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 and tribes, a copy of which I
    would like to submit for the record.
        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).
    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 2013 budget.
        One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML
    restoration work is through leveraging or matching other grant
    programs, such as EPA's 319 program. Until fiscal year 2009, language
    was always included in OSM's appropriation that encouraged the use of
    these types of matching funds, particularly for the purpose of
    environmental restoration related to treatment or abatement of AMD from
    abandoned mines. This is a perennial, and often expensive, problem,
    especially in Appalachia. IMCC therefore requests the Committee to once
    again include language in the fiscal year 2013 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 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 $1.2 million.
        Attached to our testimony today is a list of questions concerning
    OSM's budget that we request be included in the record for the hearing.
    The questions go into further detail concerning several aspects of the
    budget that we believe should be answered before the Congress approves
    funding for the agency or considers advancing the legislative proposals
    contained in the budget.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement.

                                  ATTACHMENTS

      QUESTIONS RE OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT'S
                        PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET

        What does OSM plan to do with the additional $4 million that has
    been budgeted for ``enhanced Federal oversight of State regulatory
    programs''? How does OSM justify an increase in money for Federal
    oversight while decreasing money for State title V grants? What is the
    demonstrated need for an additional 25 FTEs to perform Federal
    oversight of State programs? Will this not simply lead to duplication
    of effort, second-guessing of State decisionmaking, undermining of
    State primacy and wasted resources?
        If pressed by the Congress, how expeditiously does OSM intend to
    push the States to recover more of their regulatory costs from the coal
    industry through user fees? Has OSM undertaken a full analysis of the
    administrative and rulemaking complexities inherent in such an
    undertaking?
        OSM's newest AML legislative proposal (to eliminate payments to
    certified States and tribes and to utilize a competitive bidding
    process for the allocation of remaining AML reclamation funds for
    noncertified States) is the fourth time that the agency has put forth
    potential legislative adjustments to the 2006 amendments to SMCRA in
    its proposed budgets. Based on the legislative proposal we have seen to
    date, there are many more questions than answers about how this process
    will work. (See attached list) Does OSM intend to seek input from the
    States and tribes, especially given the role that the States and tribes
    will play in the bidding/selection process and the significant impact
    this will have on current program administration? What is the basis for
    OSM's proposal to essentially upend the carefully crafted legislative
    resolution related to future AML program funding and AML reclamation
    work approved by the Congress in 2006? Has OSM thought and worked
    through the implications for AML program management and administration
    that would result from its legislative proposal?
        Why has OSM chosen to advocate for a hardrock AML reclamation fee
    to be collected by OSM but not distributed by OSM? Why bring another
    Federal agency (BLM) into the mix when OSM has the greater expertise in
    this area?
    Specific Questions re Cost Recovery/User Fees
        OSM has requested an amount for State title V regulatory program
    grants in fiscal year 2013 that reflects an $11 million decrease from
    fiscal year 2012. And while OSM does not dispute that the States are in
    need of an amount far greater than this, the agency has suggested once
    again that the States should be able to make up the difference between
    what OSM has budgeted and what States actually need by increasing cost
    recovery fees for services to the coal industry. What exactly will it
    take to accomplish this task?
        Assuming the States take on this task, will amendments to their
    regulatory programs be required?
        How long, in general, does it take OSM to approve a State program
    amendment?
        The State of Alabama submitted a program amendment to OSM in May
    2010 to raise current permit fees and authorize new, additional fees.
    It took OSM a full year to approve this amendment, resulting in lost
    fees of more than $50,000 to the State. If OSM is unable to approve
    requested State program amendments for permit fee increases in less
    than a year, how does the agency expect to handle mandated permit
    increases for all of the primacy States within a single fiscal year?
        If OSM is not expecting to pursue this initiative in fiscal year
    2013, why include such a proposal in the budget until OSM has worked
    out all of the details with the States in the first instance?
        Speaking of which, what types of complexities is OSM anticipating
    with its proposal at the State level? Many of the States have already
    indicated to OSM that it will be next to impossible to advance a fee
    increase proposal given the political and fiscal climate they are
    facing.
        OSM's solution seems to be that the agency will propose a rule to
    require States to increase permit fees nationwide. Won't this still
    require State program amendments to effectuate the Federal rule, as
    with all of OSM's rules? How does OSM envision accomplishing this if
    the States are unable to do it on their own?
        Even if a Federal rulemaking requiring permit fee increase
    nationwide were to succeed, how does OSM envision assuring that these
    fees are returned to the States? Will OSM retain a portion of these
    fees for administrative purposes?
    Specific Questions re Federal Program Increases
        In OSM's budget justification document, the agency also notes that
    the States permit and regulate 97 percent of the Nation's coal
    production and that OSM provides technical assistance, funding,
    training and technical tools to the States to support their programs.
    And yet OSM proposes in its budget to cut funding to the States by $11
    million while increasing OSM's own Federal operations budget by nearly
    $4 million and 25 FTEs. How does OSM reconcile these seemingly
    contradictory positions?
        OSM's budget justification document points out in more detail why
    it believes additional Federal resources will be needed based on its
    recent Federal oversight actions during fiscal year 2011, which
    included increased Federal inspections. Was OSM not in fact able to
    accomplish this enhanced oversight with its current resources? If not,
    where were resources found wanting? How much of the strain on the
    agency's resources was actually due to the stream protection rulemaking
    and EIS process?
        In light of recent annual oversight reports over the past 5 years
    which demonstrate high levels of State performance, what is the
    justification for OSM's enhanced oversight initiatives and hence its
    Federal program increase?
        Something has to give here--no doubt. There is only so much money
    that we can make available for the surface mining program under SMCRA.
    Both the Congress and the courts have made it clear that the States are
    to exercise exclusive jurisdiction for the regulation of surface coal
    mining operations pursuant to the primacy regime under the law. It begs
    the questions of whether OSM has made the case for moving away from
    supporting the States and instead beefing up the Federal program.
    Unless the agency can come up with a better, more detailed
    justification for this realignment of resources, how can the Congress
    support its budget proposal?
    Specific Questions re Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
            Enforcement Oversight Initiative
        OSM has recently finalized a Ten-Day Notice directive (INE-35) that
    had previously been withdrawn in 2006 based on a decision by then
    Assistant Secretary of the Interior Rebecca Watson. The basis for
    terminating the previous directive was several court decisions that
    clarified the respective roles of State and Federal governments
    pursuant to the primacy regime contained in SMCRA. The Secretary's
    decision also focused on the inappropriate and unauthorized use of Ten-
    Day Notices under SMCRA to second-guess State permitting decisions.
    OSM's new TDN directive flies in the face of both this Secretarial
    decision and Federal court decisions. Does OSM have a new Secretarial
    decision on this matter? If not, how can its recent action overrule
    this prior decision? Has the Solicitor's office weighed in on this
    matter? If so, does OSM have an opinion supporting the agency's new TDN
    directive? Will OSM provide that to the subcommittee?
        In light of limited funding for the implementation of SMCRA, how
    does OSM justify the State and Federal expenses that will necessarily
    follow from reviewing and second-guessing State permitting decisions?
    States have complained that responding to a single OSM TDN, especially
    with respect to State permitting decisions, can require the investment
    of 2-3 FTE's for upwards of a week. How do you justify this?

    QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS RE THE ABANDONED MINE LANDS LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
     IN OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT'S FISCAL YEAR
                                  2013 BUDGET

    The Proposed Competitive Allocation Process
        What is the potential for this new review and ranking process to
    reduce expenditures and increase efficiency without being counter-
    productive? Will it introduce an additional level of bureaucracy and
    result in more time being spent formulating proposals and less on
    actual AML reclamation? The present funding formula, while not perfect,
    at least provides some direction on which to base long-term strategic
    planning and efficient use of available funds. The closest analogy to
    what OSM is proposing by way of its competitive allocation process is
    the way BLM and the Forest Service currently allocate their AML funds
    through competitive proposals to various State offices and regions.
    Because of the uncertainties of funding, neither agency has been able
    to develop significant in-house expertise, but instead often rely on
    SMCRA-funded States like Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado to do
    a good portion of their AML work. Why would OSM want to duplicate a
    system that has proven problematic for other agencies?
        Who would be the ``other parties'' potentially bidding on AML grant
    funds? Would this include Federal agencies such as BLM, USFS, NPS, etc?
    If so, in many cases, those agencies already rely on the States to
    conduct their reclamation work and also determine priorities based on
    State input or guidance.
        What do the State project managers and inspectors do if a State
    does not win a competitive bid for AML funds? How does a State gear up
    if it receives funding for more projects than it can handle with
    present staffing? Each State and tribe has different grant cycles.
    Unless all are brought into one uniform cycle, how will everyone
    compete for the same dollars? In this regard, how can the competitive
    allocation process and the use of the Advisory Council be more
    efficient and simple than what we already have in place?
        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 on AMLIS? 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 do the States and tribes 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?
        What ranking criteria will be used to determine the priority of
    submitted AML project grant requests? The number of people potentially
    affected? The current priority ranking on AMLIS? How would the Council
    determine whether a burning gob pile near a city presents a greater
    hazard than a surface mine near a highway or an underground mine
    beneath a residential area? Would the winning bid be the ``most
    convincing'' proposal? The one with the most signatures on a petition?
    The one with the most influential legislative delegation? Will AMLIS
    continue to serve as the primary mechanism for identifying sites and
    their priority status?
        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?
    What about the amounts due and owing to certified States and tribes
    that were phased in during fiscal year 2009-2011?
        Has anyone alleged or confirmed that the States/tribes are NOT
    already addressing the highest-priority sites for reclamation within
    the context of the current AML program structure under the 2006
    Amendments? 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?
    The Nature and Purpose of the Advisory Council
        Who would be on the AML Advisory Council and how could they
    collectively have better decisionmaking knowledge about hazardous AML
    sites than the State and tribal project managers and administrators who
    work with these sites on a daily basis?
        What will be the criteria to serve on the Advisory Council? Will
    the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements apply to the
    formation and deliberations of the Council? How long does OSM envision
    it will take to establish the Council and when will it become
    operational?
        Will the Advisory Council be providing recommendations to OSM or
    will OSM make all final decisions? Will these decisions by appealable?
    If so, to who? Does OSM envision needing to develop internal guidance
    for its own review process? If so, how long will it potentially take
    from Advisory Council review and recommendation to final OSM decision
    in order to complete the grant process so a State can begin a project?
        What degree of detail will be required in order to review and
    approve competitive grant applications? Will the Council review each
    project? What type of time constraints will be placed on their review?
        Will the Advisory Council consider partial grants for projects that
    may exceed the allocation for a single year? Would minimum program
    States be authorized to apply for a grant that would exceed $3 million?
        Will grant applications be based on an individual project or will
    the grant be based on a project year? How will cost overruns be
    handled?
    Planning for Abandoned Mine Lands Work
        One of the greatest benefits of reauthorization under the 2006
    Amendments to SMCRA was the predictability of funding 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 more accurately and efficiently. How can States/tribes
    plan for future projects given the uncertainty associated with having
    to annually bid for AML funds? NEPA compliance issues alone can take
    years of planning. One State recently asked its State Historic
    Preservation Office for initial consultation regarding project sites
    that may be reclaimed over the next 5 years. This process will also
    have significant impacts on those States that utilize multi-year
    construction contracts that are paid for with annual AML grants.
        State and tribal AML projects are often planned 18 months to 2
    years in advance of actually receiving construction funds, based on
    anticipated funding under the 2006 Amendments. During that time, States
    and tribes are performing environmental assessments, conducting
    archeology reviews, completing real estate work and doing NEPA
    analyses. There could be considerable effort and money wasted if a
    project does not get approved during the competitive allocation
    process.
        At what point does a State or tribe seek approval from the advisory
    council? Considerable investigation must take place prior to developing
    most projects, whether they be acid mine drainage projects or health
    and safety projects. How much time should be spent in design prior to
    proceeding to the Council? How accurate must a cost estimate be prior
    to taking a project before the Council? The greater the accuracy, the
    greater the design time expended, possibly for a project that will be
    rejected.
        State and tribes often seek and obtain valuable matching funds from
    watershed groups, which take considerable lead time to acquire. It will
    be difficult to commit to partners if we don't know what level of
    funding, if any, will be made available from OSM.
        Several States have committed significant amounts of money to
    waterline projects across the coalfields. Local governmental entities
    have started designs and applied for additional funds from other
    agencies to match AML funds in order to make these projects a reality.
    Ending all AML funding for these projects (assuming they are not
    considered ``high priority'') could have significant consequences for
    local communities. Our understanding is that these projects were
    excluded under the 2006 Amendments from the priority scheme contained
    in section 403(a) of SMCRA.
        Does OSM's proposal allow acid mine drainage (AMD) projects to be
    undertaken? Can these be designated as high priority? (Our
    understanding is that those AMD projects undertaken pursuant to the
    ``AMD set-aside program'' are not subject to the priority scheme under
    section 403(a) and that those AMD projects done ``in conjunction with''
    a priority 1 or 2 project are considered ``high priority''.) How do
    States handle ongoing engineering, operating and maintenance costs for
    existing AMD treatment systems? As the administration works diligently
    to develop a new rule to protect streams nationwide, why would it
    advance a proposal to essentially halt the cleanup of streams funded by
    the AML program?
    Overarching Concerns
        Given the original design of SMCRA by its framers that AML funds
    will only be allocated to those States who agree to implement title V
    regulatory programs for active mining operations, to what extent can we
    expect that States will continue to implement and fund their title V
    programs if Title IV funding is drastically cut or eliminated under the
    proposal? Furthermore, since States and tribes will not know what level
    of AML program staffing to maintain from year to year under the
    proposal, who would desire to work for a program that is in a constant
    state of flux?
        The SMCRA 2006 Amendments were the result of roughly 10 years of
    negotiations, discussions, and debates in the Congress. Since the
    legislative process to enact these new proposed changes could take
    years, why didn't OSM begin with the legislation and then follow up
    with an appropriate budget proposal? Why weren't the States/tribes or
    the NAAMLP included in discussions that led to this legislative
    proposal?
        As OSM develops the legislative proposal for a competitive bidding
    process, the agency should consider the impacts on minimum programs and
    consider maintaining the minimum allocation of $3 million for minimum
    program States.
        What type of State AML plan amendments does OSM foresee as a result
    of this new process?
    Proposed Elimination of Funding for Abandoned Mine Lands Emergencies
        While amendments to title IV of SMCRA in 2006 (Public Law 109-432)
    adjusted several provisions of the Act, no changes were made to OSM's
    emergency powers in section 410. Quite to the contrary, section
    402(g)(1)(D)(2) states that the Secretary shall ensure ``strict
    compliance'' with regard to the States' and tribes' use of nonemergency
    grant funds for the priorities listed in section 403(a), none of which
    include emergencies. The funding for the emergency program comes from
    the Secretary's discretionary share, pursuant to section 402(g)(3) of
    the act. This share currently stands at $416 million. OSM's elimination
    of funding for the emergency program will result in the shift of
    approximately $20 million annually that will have to be absorbed by the
    States. This is money that cannot be spent on high-priority AML work
    (as required by SMCRA) and will require the realignment of State AML
    program operations in terms of personnel, project design and
    development, and construction capabilities. In most cases, depending on
    the nature and extent of an emergency project, it could preclude a
    State's ability to undertake any other AML work during the grant year
    (and even following years), especially for minimum program States. How
    does OSM envision States and tribes being able to meet their statutory
    responsibility to address high-priority AML sites in light of the
    elimination of Federal funding for AML emergencies? How does OSM
    reconcile this proposal with the intentions of the Congress expressed
    in the 2006 amendments to move more money out of the AML Fund sooner to
    address the backlog of AML problems that continue to linger?
    Proposed Elimination of Funding to Certified States and Tribes
        From what we can ascertain, OSM proposes to eliminate all payments
    to certified States and tribes--in lieu of funds; prior balance
    replacement funds; and monies that are due and owing in fiscal year
    2018 and 2019 from the phase-in during fiscal years 2008 and 2009. Is
    this accurate? OSM says nothing of what the impact will be on
    noncertified States as a result of eliminating these payments to
    certified States and tribes--especially the equivalent payments that
    would otherwise be made to the historic production share that directly
    relate to ``in lieu of'' payments to certified States and tribes under
    section 411(h)(4). Previously, OSM has stated that ``the amounts that
    would have been allocated to certified States and tribes under section
    402(g)(1) of SMCRA will be transferred to the historical production
    allocation on an annual basis to the extent that those States and
    tribes receive in lieu payments from the Treasury (through the
    Secretary of the Interior) under section 402(i) and 411(h)(2) of
    SMCRA.'' By OSM's own admission in its fiscal year 2013 proposed
    budget, this will amount to $1.2 billion over 10 years. If the in lieu
    payments are not made (as proposed), how can the transfer to historic
    production occur? The result, of course, would be a drastic impact on
    the historic production allocation otherwise available to uncertified
    States. Will OSM address this matter in its proposed legislation? If
    so, how?
        Has OSM considered the fiscal and programmatic impacts that could
    result if the certified States and tribes, who no longer receive AML
    monies, choose to return their title V regulatory programs to OSM
    (especially given the severe reductions being proposed for fiscal year
    2013 in title V grants)?
        Finally, how do the cuts in the title IV program line up with the
    administration's other economic, fiscal and environmental objectives as
    articulated in the deficit reduction and jobs bills that have been
    considered by the Congress? These objectives include environmental
    stewardship, cleaning up abandoned mines (coal and noncoal) nationwide,
    creating green jobs, pumping dollars into local communities, putting
    money to work on the ground in an expeditious manner, sustainable
    development, infrastructure improvements, alternative energy projects,
    protecting public health and safety, and improving the environment. It
    seems to us that there is a serious disconnect here and we remain
    mystified as to how these laudable objectives and OSM's budget proposal
    can be reconciled.
                                     ______

                                   RESOLUTION
                      INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION

    BE IT KNOWN THAT:

    WHEREAS, Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
            1977 (SMCRA) established the Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
            reclamation program; and
    WHEREAS, the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) is a multi-
            state organization representing the natural resource and
            environmental protection interests of its 24 member States,
            including the elimination of health and safety hazards and the
            reclamation of land and water resources adversely affected by
            past mining and left in an abandoned or inadequately restored
            condition; and
    WHEREAS, pursuant to the cooperative federalism approach contained in
            SMCRA, several IMCC member States administer AML programs
            approved, funded and overseen by the Office of Surface Mining
            Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) within the U.S. Department of
            the Interior; and
    WHEREAS, SMCRA, Title IV establishes a reclamation fee on each ton of
            coal mined in the United States to pay for abandoned mine land
            reclamation; and
    WHEREAS, SMCRA, Title IV mandates that 50 percent of the reclamation
            fees collected annually are designated as State share funds to
            be returned to the States from which coal was mined to pay for
            reclamation projects pursuant to programs administered by the
            States; and
    WHEREAS, SMCRA, Title IV also mandates that a minimum level of funding
            should be provided to ensure effective State program
            implementation; and
    WHEREAS, Congress enacted amendments to SMCRA in 2006 to address, among
            other things, continued collection of AML fees and funding for
            State programs to address existing and future AML reclamation;
            and
    WHEREAS, the 2006 Amendments established new, strict criteria that
            ensure States expend funds on high-priority AML sites; and
    WHEREAS, the proposed 2012 budget for the Office of Surface Mining
            Reclamation and Enforcement within the U.S. Department of the
            Interior would disregard the State-Federal partnership
            established under SMCRA and renege on the funding formula under
            the 2006 Amendments by, among other things, eliminating
            mandatory funding for States who have certified the completion
            of their coal reclamation work and adjusting the mechanism by
            which noncertified States receive their mandatory funding
            through a competitive bidding process; and
    WHEREAS, if statutory changes are approved by Congress as suggested by
            the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget for OSM, reclamation of
            abandoned mine lands within certified States would halt;
            reclamation of abandoned mine lands in all States would be
            jeopardized; employment of contractors, suppliers, technicians
            and others currently engaged in the reclamation of abandoned
            mine lands would be endangered; the cleanup of polluted lands
            and waters across the United States would be threatened by
            failing to fund reclamation of abandoned mine lands; minimum
            program State funding would be usurped; the AML water supply
            replacement program would be terminated, leaving coalfield
            citizens without potable water; and the intent of Congress as
            contained in the 2006 Amendments to SMCRA would be undermined

    NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

    That the Interstate Mining Compact Commission opposes the legislative
    proposal terminating funding for certified States and altering the
    receipt of mandatory AML funding for noncertified States contained in
    the fiscal year 2012 budget proposal for the Office of Surface Mining
    Reclamation and Enforcement and instead supports the AML funding
    mechanism contained in current law.

                                       Issued this 10th day of March, 2011

                                       ATTEST:

                                       Gregory E. Conrad,
                                       Executive Director.
                                     ______

            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 2013 for various agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of
    the subcommittee. The League is a national, nonprofit organization with
    more than 39,000 members and 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 theInterior, Fish
    and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Environmental
    Protection Agency.
    Keep Fiscal Year 2013 Bill Free of Extraneous Policy Provisions
        This year, the American people will be celebrating the 40th
    anniversary of passage of the Clean Water Act. With this in mind, the
    League strongly urges the subcommittee not to accept any provision in
    its fiscal year 2013 bill barring the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) from finalizing and implementing Clean Water Act guidance or
    proceeding with the formal rulemaking process to revise its clean water
    regulations. Our organization and other hunting, angling and
    conservation groups across the country actively opposed a similar
    provision advanced by the U.S. House in its fiscal year 2012 bill.
        Since proposing draft guidance last spring, EPA has conducted a
    nearly unprecedented public engagement process for agency guidance.
    During this process, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers held a 90-day
    public comment period. The agencies received more than 230,000 comments
    and have publicly stated that 90 percent of individual comments
    supported the proposal. In mid-February 2012, the Corps and EPA
    submitted revised guidance to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
    for another round of inter-agency review. This process also allows
    nongovernmental organizations to meet with OMB to discuss this policy.
        Guidance proposed by EPA and the Corps is based on sound science
    and clearly complies with the Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC and
    Rapanos. Allowing EPA to proceed with guidance will partially restore
    protections for streams flowing to public drinking water supplies for
    117 million Americans. It will also begin--but only begin--to restore
    protections for some wetlands. Healthy wetlands provide essential
    habitat for waterfowl, fish, and other wildlife, offer cost-effective
    flood protection, and improve water quality. They also support hunting,
    angling, and wildlife watching, which together inject $122 billion
    annually into our economy. Finalizing the guidance will also provide
    more clarity and certainty about Clean Water Act implementation to
    landowners, developers, agency personnel, and State and local
    governments.
    Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, Land and Water
            Conservation Fund
        The League supports providing $450 million for the LWCF in fiscal
    year 2013 as requested by the administration. It is important to begin
    to reinvest in strategic land acquisition to protect critical habitat,
    secure valuable in-holdings, and expand recreational access to existing
    Federal public lands. Dramatically reducing funding for LWCF will not
    provide meaningful savings to taxpayers because it is capitalized with
    revenue from offshore 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.
        In addition to supporting the overall request, the League backs
    proposals by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and USDA Forest
    Service to allocate $2.5 million and $5 million, respectively, to
    projects which expand recreational access to existing public lands
    through easements or acquisition from willing sellers. The League and
    many other national hunting, angling, and conservation groups support
    legislation in the Congress that would achieve a similar purpose by
    annually allocating 1.5 percent of LWCF appropriations to expand
    recreational access.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System Operations
            and Maintenance
        The League joins other members of the Cooperative Alliance for
    Refuge Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 22 wildlife,
    sporting, conservation, and scientific organizations representing
    approximately 15 million of members and supporters, in supporting the
    $495 million requested for operations and maintenance of the National
    Wildlife Refuge system.
        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, the fiscal year 2013 request balances fiscal responsibility
    with pressing resource conservation, visitor services, and law
    enforcement needs.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
        As a member of the Teaming with Wildlife Coalition, the League
    urges the subcommittee to provide at least $61 million in fiscal year
    2013 for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. This amount equals the
    administration's request and the appropriation for the current fiscal
    year. 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. The Federal investment leverages significant funding
    from private, State, and local sources.
    U.S. Geological Survey, Asian Carp Research and Control
        Asian carp pose a serious and potentially devastating threat to the
    long-term health of the Great Lakes. Asian carp have been steadily
    migrating north along the Mississippi River and could reach the Great
    Lakes through a system of canals that artificially connect the
    Mississippi River and Great Lakes basins. Experts warn invasive carp
    could devastate the $7 billion commercial and recreational fishery in
    the Great Lakes. In fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
    requests a $3 million increase to accelerate research designed to
    detect, limit, and control carp in the Upper Mississippi River and
    Great Lakes. In the Upper Mississippi region, the research would focus
    on improving methods to detect Asian carp populations at low levels and
    identifying habitats most vulnerable to colonization. In the Great
    Lakes, research would be directed toward developing methods for oral
    delivery of fish toxicants, identifying and developing chemical
    attractants to aid in targeted removal of carp, and testing seismic
    technology as a means of restricting the passage of carp through locks
    and other navigation infrastructure.
        The League believes one of the most effective ways to safeguard the
    Great Lakes from aquatic invasive species is to restore the natural
    hydrologic separation between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River
    basins. In the mean time, we support this request, which represents a
    prudent near-term investment in invasive carp control.
    U.S. Geological Survey/Environmental Protection Agency, Hydraulic
            Fracturing Research and Analysis
        The League supports requests by the USGS and Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) for funding to continue and augment research
    concerning the potential effects of high-volume hydraulic fracturing on
    water and air quality, surface and groundwater resources, habitat, and
    fish and wildlife. The League supports responsible development of
    domestic energy resources, including natural gas, as well as greater
    emphasis on renewable sources and energy efficiency in order to improve
    energy independence and security. At the same time, the accelerated use
    of hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus region, in particular,
    continues to outpace our knowledge about potential negative impacts on
    a wide range of natural resources.
        The proposed budget would augment research across a range of
    issues. For example, the USGS requests approximately $18.6 million for
    fracturing-related research. With this funding, USGS would prioritize
    research on water quality and supply, air quality, characterizing gas
    resources and the related geologic formations, movement of methane gas
    during the drilling process, and the impacts of fracturing on
    landscapes, habitat, and other natural resources. EPA is requesting
    approximately $14 million in fiscal year 2013 for research in this
    area. This will support an ongoing EPA study assessing the impacts of
    hydraulic fracturing on water resources and other applied research in
    cooperation with USGS and the Department of Energy.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
        The League supports providing $300 million as requested for the
    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. 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, and construction workers and improve
    water quality, support outdoor recreation, and reestablish healthy fish
    and wildlife habitat. These results lay the foundation for long-term
    prosperity in the region.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source Management Program
            (Clean Water Act Section 319)
        The League is concerned that the Congress and EPA have reduced
    funding for section 319, the Non-point Source Management Program. These
    reductions are counterproductive as 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 invest resources that help States and local
    governments more aggressively tackle nonpoint source pollution. The
    League urges the subcommittee to provide at least the amount requested
    by EPA for section 319.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program
        The League supports the administration's request for approximately
    $72.6 million in fiscal year 2013 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 total maximum daily load (TMDL) will not be
    challenging or not require significant investment to reduce point and
    non-point source pollution. However, 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 and financial assistance to achieve
    results on-the-ground and lay the foundation for sustained pollution
    reductions over the long-term.
        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, we are pleased to
    submit this written testimony on our funding priorities and requests
    for the fiscal year 2013 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian
    Health Service (IHS) budgets. While we recognize that the Congress
    faces unusually difficult funding decisions this year, funding for
    tribal programs and services must be a priority in the Federal budget
    if the United States is to fulfill its trust obligation and live up to
    the promises made to American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) tribal
    governments.
        Congressional support of our proposed funding initiatives will
    promote efficiency and accountability, strengthen reservation and
    surrounding local economies, and affirm tribal sovereignty and Self-
    Governance. 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
        $495,000 land purchase for Tamanowas Rock Sanctuary Project.
        $200,000 increase to BIA tribal base budget for fish & 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
                Bureau of Indian Affairs Requests
        Provide $89 million increase for tribal priority allocations.
        Provide $8.8 million increase for BIA contract support cost (CSC).
        Provide $13.7 million increase for fixed costs/pay costs.
        Restoration and increase funding for Indian Loan Guarantee Program.
        Establishment and funding for a Surety Bonding Guarantee Program.
                Indian Health Service Requests
        Hold Harmless Indian Health Programs.
        Provide $99.4 million increase more than President's fiscal year
    2013 budget to fully fund contract support costs.
        Provide $304 million increase to fund mandatory costs for current
    services.
        Provide $45 million increase for the Indian Health Care Improvement
    Fund.
        The leadership of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe remains actively
    involved in both the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and
    the National Indian Health Board (NIHB) and we are extremely supportive
    of their requests.
    Tribal-Specific Appropriation Justification
                $495,000 Land Purchase for Tamanowas Rock Sanctuary Project
        The purpose of the project is to preserve tribal cultural and
    ceremonial access to an important archaeological site of the S'Klallam
    American Indian people. Tamanowas Rock, located in Eastern Jefferson
    County on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, is of great
    cultural and spiritual significance to the tribes in the region, and
    also holds special 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, Washington
    State Parks, and local community have been working for more than 13
    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 Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Base
                        Budget for Fish and Wildlife Management
        Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is one of four 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, 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 United States v.
    Washington including planning, negotiation, regulation, technical
    expertise and enforcement.
        In addition to meeting our own responsibilities under United States
    v. Washington, our tribal staff regularly perform the essential
    fisheries management duties that other governmental jurisdictions are
    charged with but either do not administer or administer poorly. As a
    result, Treaty tribes are assuming responsibility for observing,
    documenting and urging the agencies with regulatory responsibilities to
    act in order to preserve critical fish habitat and protect dwindling
    fish species from further decline. Development pressures along streams
    and rivers have increased the need for local government monitoring and
    enforcement of shoreline regulations; however, local and State funding
    shortfalls have contributed to the decline in biologists and
    environmental enforcement officers. Our immediate concerns are that as
    State and local governments cut back on their capacity to carry out and
    enforce these obligations, our Treaty rights are further imperiled. The
    $200,000 increase to our fiscal year 2012 Self-Governance base is
    needed to implement these essential treaty fish and wildlife management
    services.
    National Requests and Priorities
                Bureau of Indian Affairs Requests
        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 budget should include the following critical increases:
          Tribal Priority Allocation General Increase--Provide $89 million
            (10-percent increase more than fiscal year 2012 enacted).--TPA
            is one of the most important funding areas for tribal
            governments. Tribes use these funds to administer social
            service programs for our tribal communities including, critical
            services such as law enforcement, education, transportation,
            natural resources and economic development. This funding has
            steadily eroded due to inflation and population growth. We urge
            you to adequately fund TPA to enhance the health and well-being
            of tribal reservations and the surrounding non-Native
            communities.
          Contract Support Costs--Provide $8.8 Million Increase as Included
            in the President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request for BIA to
            Fully Fund Contract Support Cost.--The Indian Self-
            Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, (Public Law
            93-638) allowed Indian tribes to manage Federal trust programs
            for the benefit of their citizens that would otherwise be
            administered by the U.S. Government. Under Self-Determination
            contracts or Self-Governance compacts, tribes administer a vast
            array of governmental services, including healthcare, law
            enforcement services, education, housing, land and natural
            resource management, as well as many other vital social service
            programs. The greatest impediment to the successful
            administration of these trust programs is the failure on the
            part of the U.S. Government to fully fund contract support
            costs.
          Fixed Costs/Pay Costs--Provide $13.7 Million Increase.--Most
            Federal agencies receive adjustments to their fixed cost rates
            each year to cover inflationary costs associated with fringe
            benefits and pay costs. Tribes have never received similar
            adjustments to account for these costs.
          Indian Loan Guarantee Program--Restoration and Increase
            Funding.--The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) loan guarantee
            program is vital to tribes because it creates jobs, provides
            new sources of revenue to tribal communities, and critical
            support in advancing economic development in Indian Country.
            Part of the rationale to cut back this program is that the
            program could be duplicating other services, such as SBA loan
            programs. This assumption is wrong and will undermine the
            tribes economic development efforts.
          Surety Bonding--Establishment and funding of a Surety Bonding
            Program.--There has long been a need for a Surety Bonding
            program for Indian Country. The traditional bonding industry--
            uncomfortable and unfamiliar with sovereign tribes--requires
            excessive waivers of sovereign immunity to issue surety bonds
            for our companies requiring these bonds. This industry
            impediment clearly suppresses our business opportunities.
                Indian Health Service Requests
        Our tribe strongly encourages the following:
          Hold Harmless.--Hold Indian health programs harmless and protect
            prior year and proposed fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013
            increases from budget roll-backs, freezes, and rescissions. We
            are encouraged by the increased investments in Indian health 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.
          Contract Support Costs)--Provide $145 Million for IHS to Fully
            Fund CSC, Including Direct CSC.--Tribal healthcare systems have
            proven successful in providing quality, culturally appropriate
            services to their citizens. However, the success of the program
            will not be realized, without adequate CSC funding to support
            these efforts.
          Fund Mandatory Costs--$400 million.--Mandatory costs include
            adjustments for inflation, pay costs, staffing for new
            facilities and population increases. Failing to fund these
            mandatory requirements forces the tribes to cut vital
            healthcare services.
          Fund the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund--$45 million.--The
            purpose of the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund is to ensure
            the equitable provision of healthcare services to Indian
            people. The fiscal year 2010 $45 million appropriation brought
            all operating units within the IHS to a 45-percent Level of
            Need Funded (LNF). We are requesting $45 million in 2013 to
            further decrease the disparity.
        In closing, thank you for this opportunity to provide this written
    testimony.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation
                     Plan Industry and Government Coalition

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    California Industry and Government Coalition for the Kern County Valley
    Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (KCVFHCP), we are pleased to submit
    this statement for the record in support of our funding request for the
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for
    fiscal year 2013.
        First, the Coalition supports the President's budget request for
    the Department of the Interior's Cooperative Endangered Species
    Conservation Fund, especially funding for HCP land acquisition.
        Second, the Coalition urges the subcommittee to appropriate
    additional funding for land acquisition above the funding requested by
    the President. The additional funding requested by the Coalition
    anticipates that $1 million will be needed by the Kern County program
    to be used for purposes of acquiring and maintaining habitat preserves.
        The Coalition's request is supported by the timely need to complete
    and implement the KCVFHCP. The County's local oil and gas production
    industry and Water Districts have contributed more than $573,500 to the
    development of this program. In 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service allocated $500,000 of Federal Endangered Species Act section 6
    funds to assist in program implementation (land acquisition and
    endowment). The California State Government has authorized $1 million
    to augment the Federal funds. In order to secure the $3 million total
    necessary to assist in the implementation of the plan, we will require
    $1 million for fiscal year 2013 and $500,000 for fiscal year 2014.
        The Coalition requests that the subcommittee appropriate the
    maximum possible amount for this program, so that the funding pool can
    accommodate our request and need. We are confident that the plan's
    merits and need support this request.
        Kern County's program is unique from other regions in the Nation in
    that it contains some of the highest concentrations of plant and animal
    species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the
    continental United States. The region is occupied by 11 wildlife
    species and 14 plant species covered as threatened or endangered under
    the program. The potential for conflict with the Federal ESA is great
    in Kern County because of the extensive oil and gas production
    activities, water conveyance and management efforts and other economic
    pursuits that are occurring. Since Kern County is the top oil producing
    county in the Nation and experiencing continued growth, potential
    conflicts with the ESA and their resolution through a proactive
    conservation program has significant national importance.
        In recognition of the conflicts posed to economic growth by Federal
    and State endangered species laws, a joint agency Memorandum of
    Understanding was entered into by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    Bureau of Land Management, California Energy Commission, California
    Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources, California Department
    of Fish and Game and Kern County. The participating agencies agreed to
    develop a unified conservation strategy with the goal of providing a
    streamlined and consistent process of complying with State and Federal
    endangered species laws, yet at the same time allow important industry
    activities such as oil and gas, water conveyance and other economic
    pursuits to continue.
        Preparation of the KCVFHCP began in 1989 and involved a number of
    Federal, State and local government agencies, as well as the oil and
    gas industry, water interests, utilities, and environmental groups.
        Kern County's Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan is one of the
    largest and most diverse endangered species conservation programs under
    development in the Nation encompassing more than 3,110 square miles.
    The program represents a departure from traditional endangered species
    conservation programs which utilize prohibitory controls to assure
    conservation of species habitat. Instead, it will utilize an incentive-
    based system of selling or trading habitat credits in an open market.
    This innovative approach, for the first time, provides landowners with
    real incentives and more importantly, the ability to choose how best to
    manage their own private property. The KCVFHCP is in the final stages
    of preparation. The HCP document is completed. An environmental impact
    statement is being prepared for public review in the near future. Final
    approval will occur in 2013.
        Numerous agencies, in concert with the State of California and
    local government entities, as well as the private oil and gas industry
    have contributed funding, time and other resources toward developing
    the KCVFHCP. This program will be completed in 2013, provided there is
    the necessary Federal funding for the acquisition of habitat to
    mitigate for oil and gas operations and development. Additional funding
    is critical to completing the HCP. This is one of the final steps
    necessary to implement the conservation strategy. Because of the
    extensive private, local and State government financial support that
    went into the development of this program, Federal participation in
    program implementation will demonstrate that the burden of ESA
    compliance is not being placed exclusively on private property owners.
    Program funding will also contribute to eventual species recovery.

                             PROGRAM FUNDING NEEDS

        In order for the KCVFHCP to be implemented, the program requires
    funding in the amount of $1.5 million (augments the $1.5 million in
    State and Federal funding received in 1997) that could be funded in
    increments over the first 2 years of the program. The purpose of this
    funding is described as follows:
    Oil Development Issue
        A mitigation strategy has been devised that is intended to
    acknowledge existing oil field activities within Kern County. The
    strategy proposes to acquire 3,000 acres of endangered species habitat
    to mitigate for species loss resulting from oil field development
    outside of established oil field production areas, but within proximity
    of those areas. This is to allow for reasonable expansion of oil field
    activities over the life of the HCP program. The program strategy
    allocates $3 million for acquisition and perpetual maintenance of
    species reserve areas. With this type of strategy, oil field expansion
    activities would be provided for in the program. This strategy would be
    of great benefit to the small independent oil and gas companies within
    the program area.
    Urban Development/County Infrastructure Issue
        The conservation program includes an Urban Development/County
    Infrastructure mitigation strategy that mitigates for species habitat
    loss through the use of an incentive-based system of selling or trading
    habitat credits in an open market. This innovative program will add
    market value to land that is needed by project proponents to comply
    with endangered species laws which, in turn, will encourage the owners
    of such properties to offer lands for the benefit of species
    conservation. Protected species of plants and animals will benefit from
    a program that promotes private property owners to conserve permanent
    habitat preserves consistent with the objectives of the ESA.
    Water District Activity Issue
        A Water District Strategy is included in the program to address
    Covered Species protection due to the construction of new facilities
    and the operation and maintenance of existing water management and
    conveyance facilities. The Covered Species will benefit from reduced
    and less intrusive operation and maintenance measures than have been
    conducted historically due to concerns for conflicts with endangered
    species laws.
    Federal Funding Support Will Augment Local Government and Private
            Industry Efforts To Comply With the Endangered Species Act
        The $1.5 million required for the oil field strategy would help
    contribute to satisfying the program's endangered species conservation
    goals, while also providing for continued economic growth of Kern
    County's oil and other development activities. Protected species would
    benefit from a comprehensive long-term program that promotes the
    creation of permanent habitat preserves.
        Numerous private businesses, in concert with the State of
    California and local government entities, are attempting to do their
    part, and we come to the appropriations process to request assistance
    in obtaining a fair Federal share of financial support for this
    important effort. This unique cooperative partnership involving State
    and local government, as well as private industry, has contributed
    substantial funds to date, to assist in the development of this
    program.
        The California Industry and Government Coalition appreciates the
    subcommittee's consideration of this request for a fiscal year 2013
    appropriation to support implementation of this significant program.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Kodiak Area Native Association

        My name is Andy Teuber and I am the President and CEO of the Kodiak
    Area Native Association (KANA) in Kodiak, Alaska. KANA is a 501(c)(3)
    nonprofit tribal organization formed in 1966 to provide health and
    social services for Alaska Natives of the Koniag region. KANA provides
    these services on behalf of the United States Government through
    contracts with the Indian Health Service (IHS) and with the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA). I am submitting this testimony on behalf of the
    Kodiak Area Native Association, which experienced contract support cost
    shortfalls but has been denied its day in court, due to no fault of its
    own. On behalf of this tribal organization, I request that the
    Committee include language which would deem its claims to have been
    timely filed so that it can finally have its day in court. The language
    would not guarantee any outcome on the claims, and would only assure
    that the tribal organization is permitted to bring them.
        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 reimburse our fixed costs 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 reimbursements are
    underfunded we have to use other program funds to make up the
    shortfall, which means fewer providers that we can hire and fewer
    health services that we can provide to our patients.
        We are very thankful for the increases in CSC that this Committee
    has been able to provide, beginning with fiscal year 2010, particularly
    the large increase that tribes and tribal organizations received last
    year thanks to the efforts of this subcommittee. Although these
    increases have gone a long way toward helping to diminish the CSC
    shortfall, a significant CSC shortfall remains.
        The best projections available show that the CSC shortfall for
    fiscal year 2012 will be approximately $60 million, and that the
    shortfall in fiscal year 2013 will be nearly $99 million. Given these
    significant shortfalls, IHS's request for only a $5 million increase in
    CSC for fiscal year 2013 is extremely disappointing. Our disappointment
    is particularly acute when we consider that the BIA has requested full
    CSC for its programs.
        The inadequate IHS request could return us to a situation similar
    to the one we endured from 2002 to 2009, when there were virtually no
    increases for IHS CSC appropriations and the CSC shortfall 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 lay off staff due to lack of funds.
        KANA respectfully requests that the Federal Government honor its
    legal obligations to tribes and tribal organizations and fully fund CSC
    reimbursements by providing $571 million for IHS CSC reimbursements in
    fiscal year 2013.
        I appreciate your consideration of our recommendation for
    additional CSC 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.
                                     ______

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

        My name is Tom Maulson, I am President of the Lac du Flambeau Band
    of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, located in Wisconsin. I am pleased
    to submit this testimony, which reflects the needs and concerns of our
    tribal members for the upcoming fiscal year 2013. I would especially
    like to thank the subcommittee for its leadership and commitment to
    tribes and the programs that are critical to our operations.
        This subcommittee's support of tribal programs demonstrates the
    very best of the Congress and our Nation's leaders. Today, I am going
    to discuss the funding needs of several programs vital to tribes,
    including tribal EPA funding, the BIA Natural Resource Programs and
    Indian Health Service funding.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PROGRAMS

        Tribal General Assistance Program.--The tribe strongly supports the
    proposed $28 million increase for the Tribal General Assistance Program
    (Tribal GAP). The Tribal GAP program provides base environmental
    funding to assist tribes in the building of their environmental
    capacity to assess environmental conditions, utilize available data and
    build their environmental programs to meet their needs. According to
    the EPA's budget justification, this level of funding would increase
    the funding amounts available to eligible tribes by 40 percent, which
    is the first base increase these programs have received since 1999.
    This increased funding will help reduce staff turnover rates and
    enhance long-term sustainability of tribal environmental programs. This
    funding is critical for tribes in the Great Lakes as our region begins
    to examine resource extraction issues, in particular mining. While we
    understand the need for job creation, we believe any action must be
    done in a way that does not destroy our natural resources, which are
    the basic foundation of our way of life and economies today.
        Great Lakes National Program Office.--We want to express our
    continuing support for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)
    and in particular, the $3 million tribal set-aside. As the subcommittee
    knows, the Great Lakes represent three-quarters of the world's supply
    of fresh water. But for us, the indigenous people of Wisconsin, the
    Great Lakes represent the life blood of our economies and our culture.
    The protection and preservation of the Great Lakes is necessary to the
    protection and preservation of the tribal communities that have made
    the Great Lakes their home since time immemorial.
        The Tribal GLRI funding has allowed the Lac du Flambeau Tribal
    Natural Resource Program to conduct a comprehensive bird survey and
    establish an inventory of current and past wild rice beds. This data
    will be used to draft restoration plans. The tribe also purchased a
    Marsh Master. This all-terrain vehicle allows us to implement our Fire
    Management Plan on the 8,000-acre Powell Marsh, a critical Reservation
    wetland habitat area for wildlife and waterfowl, and to establish and
    restore other important wildlife areas.
        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
    monitors, maintains and improves water quality for the tremendous
    amount of surface and ground water within the exterior boundaries of
    our Reservation. According to the 2010 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 GIS
    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.
    We ask the subcommittee to protect funding for this program that is so
    important to the health of our communities.

                            BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

        While the tribe is disappointed that the BIA's proposed budget for
    fiscal year 2013 is essentially level funding for most programs, the
    tribe recognizes the difficult fiscal times the Nation is in and thus,
    the tribe is pleased that the BIA did not propose decreases to many of
    the BIA's programs. In particular, we are pleased that the BIA
    maintained funding for critical welfare and education programs. The
    tribe is concerned that the BIA has proposed an administrative
    streamlining initiative (including offering incentives for early
    retirements) to achieve cost savings. We are fearful that if these cost
    savings are not achieved that there will be a reduction across the
    board in program funding. Thus, we urge the subcommittee to be mindful
    of this and require the BIA to regularly report its progress in
    achieving this initiative's goals.
        Today, we want to particularly focus on the funding needs for the
    BIA Education and Natural Resource Programs.
        Tribal Education Programs.--Education is a top priority for the Lac
    du Flambeau Band. We believe that it is through investment in education
    that we will be able to restore stability to our Nation's economy. In
    particular, to continue the progress Indian Country has made in
    participation and control of education programs and schools, it is
    imperative that funding for tribal higher education programs be
    increased.
        Thus, we support the budget's proposed small increases for the BIA
    scholarship and adult education program and for the BIA Special Higher
    Education Scholarships (SHEP) program. This funding supports Indian
    students working for higher education and advanced degrees. 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 post-secondary institutions.
    However, tribal communities must continue to evolve with other
    communities. The national and global economy has changed--students must
    earn college and 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.
        Tribal Natural Resource Departments.--Tribes are leaders in natural
    resource protection and BIA natural resource funding is essential to
    maintain our programs. Lac du Flambeau has a comprehensive Natural
    Resources Department and dedicated staff with considerable expertise in
    natural resource and land management. Our activities include raising
    fish for stocking, conservation law enforcement, collecting data on
    water and air quality, developing well head protection plans, wildlife
    habitat protection and enhancement, conducting wildlife surveys and
    administering timber stand improvement projects on our 86,000-acre
    reservation.
        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 subsistence fisheries, these resources often
    provide much needed hunting and fishing resources for families and
    tribes. As you all know, each and every economic and subsistence
    opportunity today is invaluable, and should not be taken lightly. To
    ensure that these opportunities continue, these resources must be
    protected.
        It is with this understanding of the importance of our natural
    resources, that the tribe strongly supports proposed increases for the
    Tribal Natural Management Development Programs, which would allow for a
    $60,000 increase to the Lac du Flambeau Program alone. This increased
    funding is the first significant increase these programs have received
    in more than a decade. This funding will allow us to improve our
    efforts to conserve and enhance the natural resources that are the very
    foundation of our way of life.
        Conservation Law Enforcement Officers.--One of the critical
    elements of our Natural Resource program is our Conservation Law
    Enforcement Officers. These officers are primarily responsible for
    enforcing hunting and fishing regulations related to the exercise of
    treaty rights, but they also have a much larger role in law
    enforcement. They are often the first to respond to emergency
    situations. 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.
        Thus, we urge the subcommittee to support the BIA's proposed
    $500,000 increase for Conservation Law Enforcement in the fiscal year
    2013 budget. While this funding will be divided among tribes nationwide
    and not sufficient to meet the overall need, it does represent an
    acknowledgement of the importance of tribal conservation law
    enforcement officers to the Federal law enforcement family.
        Circle of Flight: Wetlands Waterfowl Program.--We urge the
    subcommittee to support the $800,000 for the BIA Circle of Flight
    Program. This program supports tribal efforts throughout the Great
    Lakes Region to restore and preserve wetlands and waterfowl habitat
    within tribal territories. This program also gives the Great Lakes
    Region Tribes, States, USFWS, USDA, Ducks Unlimited and other private
    sector groups an opportunity to work cooperatively in projects that
    provide wetland protection, flood control, clean water, and recreation
    in the Great Lakes Region. The subcommittee's strong support of this
    program for the last two decades has resulted in tremendous successes
    in restoring wetlands and waterfowl habitat throughout the Mississippi
    Flyway.
        Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.--Related to the
    tribe's natural resource needs, we would like to voice our continuing
    support for the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
    (GLIFWC). The tribe is a member of the Commission, which assists the
    tribe in protecting and implementing its treaty-guaranteed hunting,
    fishing and gathering rights. We urge the subcommittee to fully support
    the increased programmatic funding for GLIFWC. GLIFWC has played an
    invaluable role in providing science and sound management practices for
    our off-reservation resources. This role could not be filled by any
    other agency.
        Cooperative Landscape Conservation.--The tribe strongly supports
    the $1 million for the BIA's Cooperative Landscape Conservation
    initiative. This funding will allow tribal participation in activities
    intended to address climate change throughout the country, as well
    develop and implement adaption/mitigation projects. Only through
    collaborative initiatives will we address the challenges that climate
    change presents for all of us.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

        The tribe strongly supports the testimony of both the National
    Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Health Board
    regarding the Indian Health Service's fiscal year 2013 funding needs.
    We join with them in expressing great appreciation to this subcommittee
    for your efforts to increase the funding for tribal programs in the
    face of very difficult fiscal times. Nevertheless, the level of funding
    has not kept pace with the rising cost of healthcare or with the
    population growth of our communities. Thus, we urge this subcommittee
    to continue your efforts.
        Contract Health.--We want to call particular attention to the need
    for contract healthcare funding, which is a need that is expressed to
    the subcommittee every year. 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 the
    subcommittee for providing increases to contract healthcare funding
    over the past couple of years. In this regard, we strongly support the
    $20 million programmatic increase for contract healthcare services
    proposed for the fiscal year 2013 budget.

                             CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

        We cannot commend the subcommittee enough for your efforts to fully
    fund Tribal Contract Support Costs. The last 2 years of increases have
    been unprecedented and vital to the continued success of the Indian
    self-determination policy. While we appreciate the BIA's $8.9 million
    increase for Contract Support Costs, which the Agency reports should
    fully fund this account, we are disappointed in the Indian Health
    Service's request of only $5 million. We understand that this will
    result in a $100 million shortfall for fiscal year 2013. 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 Interior have
    historically failed to fulfill their obligation to ensure that tribes
    have the same resources to carry out these functions.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition

        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and honorable members of
    the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in
    support of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal
    year 2013 Interior, Environment, and related Agencies appropriations
    bill. My name is Kevin Boling, I am a resident of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
    and owner of The Boling Company, a forestland investment company. I am
    pleased to be appearing today on behalf of the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) Coalition. The Coalition represents a broad
    array of groups and individuals across the country who value land
    conservation and outdoor recreation with members from ranging from
    business leaders to sportsmen to conservation organizations.
        In a career spanning thirty years, I have had the great good
    fortune to combine a personal passion for the outdoors with a career in
    forest management, planning and investment. During the two decades that
    I managed Potlatch Corporation's logging and forestry operations, I
    became aware of the challenges for private landowners in the face of
    changing land-use patterns and development pressures. Beginning in
    2002, I managed extensive timberland investments for Forest Capital
    Partners and, later, oversaw the successful closing of land and
    conservation easements sales valued at $87 million. I worked on several
    transactions funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund and
    experienced firsthand its importance in helping communities and
    landowners work together to maintain privately owned working forests
    while protecting public values.
        I appreciate this opportunity to advocate for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF), America's premier Federal program to ensure
    that we all have access to the outdoors. Whether it is a local
    community park or playground, or the vast expanses of our Federal
    public lands, the Congress created the LWCF in 1964 to guarantee
    America's natural, historical and outdoor recreation heritage. In 1968,
    Congress had the wisdom to authorize an income stream of $900 million
    annually for LWCF from offshore oil and gas leasing revenues--not
    taxpayers' dollars. With an average of more than $6 billion coming in
    from offshore leasing royalties annually (and significantly more
    expected in future years), $900 million for the LWCF account is a
    reasonable conservation offset to offshore energy development. It only
    makes sense as we draw down some natural resources, that we reinvest a
    portion of the proceeds to conserve other natural resources.
        LWCF is a time-tested program with remarkable range, reaching all
    Americans. Each of us has likely visited a local or State park, trail
    or fishing access site that has benefitted from it. In total, more than
    40,000 LWCF State assistance grants have added value to every State and
    98 percent of the counties across the country. Each year, millions of
    Americans as well as international tourists visit our national parks
    and forests, hunt, fish or bird watch at our national wildlife refuges,
    or hike along our national trails. Yet, few are aware of the added
    protection that the LWCF program provides to our public lands. From
    Gettysburg to Yosemite, and countless places in between, LWCF funding
    has protected our natural, cultural, historical and recreation legacy,
    preserving our uniquely American landscapes, stories and traditions.
        Continued strategic LWCF investments in inholdings and conservation
    easements protects the asset that is our public lands, preventing
    incompatible development, creating management efficiencies, and
    enhancing access to outdoor recreation opportunities. During my tenure
    at Forest Capital, with the help of a conservation partner, we worked
    on the conveyance of 6,600 acres of Forest Capital timber holdings to
    the Siskiyou National Monument south of Medford, Oregon. This
    represented the best possible outcome to meet the management needs of
    the public agency, the financial considerations of Forest Capital, and
    the interests of the local community. From the vantage point of the
    private landowner, having a reasonable expectation that LWCF funding
    would be made available for the purchase was critical in our decision
    to invest time and manpower towards this conservation outcome at the
    Siskiyou.
        Increasingly, LWCF funding is playing an important role in
    landscape-scale protection. This doesn't involve extensive Federal
    purchases of land. Rather, open space, clean water, and wildlife
    habitat can often be preserved by partnering with private landowners to
    sustain working landscapes and keep land on the tax rolls. Conservation
    easements purchases allow ranchers and farmers to remain responsible
    land stewards, as they have for generations. Today, LWCF funding is
    needed to protect working lands from the Everglades Headwaters to the
    Dakota Grasslands to the Rocky Mountain Front. These projects--stunning
    in scale and impact to local communities and traditional landscapes--
    are relatively small and strategic in terms of Federal investment.
        In my home State of Idaho, LWCF funding has contributed
    substantially to the conservation of working farms and ranches along
    the South Fork of the Snake River. Over the last decade and a half, a
    unique partnership of landowners, local communities, conservation
    partners, and Federal agencies has resulted in the permanent protection
    of what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has dubbed one of our
    country's most sensitive and unique natural areas. Today, this
    continuous corridor of conservation easement-protected lands is keeping
    the ranching traditional alive. With 350 recreational visitor days per
    year along the South Fork Snake, it is also providing a major economic
    driver in East Idaho.
        The Forest Legacy Program, funded under LWCF since 2004, has
    partnered with States and private landowners to protect more than 2
    million acres of working forests in 42 States and the Commonwealth of
    Puerto Rico. Even during tough economic times, with presumably fewer
    private buyers out there, the reality is that these properties are
    still worth more to a second-home or subdivision developer than today's
    forest investor is willing or able to invest in them on a long-term
    basis. Through the purchase of development rights today, the timberland
    owner is no longer held hostage to future development considerations.
    They can focus on the full measure of long-term forest management
    opportunities and protect conservation values, while continuing to pay
    property taxes, produce logs for local mills and, importantly, preserve
    private sector jobs for rural communities.
        One such example is the McArthur Lake Corridor in northern Idaho.
    Several years ago, while a manager at Forest Capital, I oversaw the
    conveyance of development rights for 3,943 acres utilizing Forest
    Legacy funding. An important wildlife travel corridor between the
    Bitterroot and Selkirk ranges, this ownership was already surrounded by
    considerable rural residential development, so preventing further
    development was critical. This year, the State of Idaho has requested a
    Forest Legacy Program grant of $4 million to protect an additional
    6,000 acres of working forests lands across the McArthur Lake Wildlife
    Corridor. Stimson Lumber Company, the landowner, is contributing more
    than $1 million in donated land value. Stimson will continue
    sustainable timber harvest operations of approximately 2.5 million
    board feet annually supporting about 33 full-time forest products jobs
    plus another 69 full-time in other related sectors of the economy. By
    guaranteeing public access to these lands in perpetuity, the easement
    will also help to support numerous local businesses that are part of
    Idaho's outdoor recreation economy--which statewide supports 37,000
    jobs and accounts for more than $2 billion annually in retail sales and
    services This is a win-win that maintains vital timber industry jobs
    and production while supporting the local tourism and recreation
    economy.
        If we are serious about creating jobs and getting the economy back
    on track, conservation spending on LWCF is not only a wise, but an
    essential investment. Today, outdoor recreation and tourism represent a
    major part of the U.S. economy, one that America still dominates
    globally, and one that represents opportunities for sustained economic
    growth in rural and urban communities across America. A recent report
    from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation tells us that, together,
    outdoor recreation, natural resource preservation and historic
    preservation activities support 9.4 million jobs (1 out of every 15
    jobs in the United States) and contributes $1.06 trillion annually to
    our economy. The popularity and demand for opportunities to recreate on
    public lands will only increase as our population grows and these
    natural places increase in aesthetic and economic value.
        I am an avid outdoorsman and my most treasured memories are of time
    spent in Idaho with family and friends, hunting and fishing, skiing and
    camping, and rafting our magnificent rivers. Across the country, LWCF
    purchases within federally designated areas, as well as conservation
    easements across private lands, are protecting our most threatened
    waterfowl, trout and big-game habitat. These Federal dollars often
    provide leverage for significant State, local, and private investments
    in land protection as well. Furthermore, LWCF funding can play an
    increasingly important role in making public lands public by ensuring
    that sportsmen and other outdoor enthusiasts have access to favorite
    hunting grounds, trout streams, and trails. With changing land use and
    ownership patterns, historic recreational access is being cut off or
    blocked in many areas. Strategic LWCF purchases can defuse conflicts
    with private landowners by securing permanent access. Additionally,
    they serve to connect existing public lands and create expanded parking
    and trailhead access for the public. Conservation easement acquisitions
    through the Forest Legacy Program compensate private landowners who
    have often provided voluntary public access to lands, thereby ensuring
    permanent public access to prime hunting and fishing lands.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I join with the LWCF
    Coalition and many others across the Nation in urging you to support
    funding for LWCF . This year, the administration's budget request
    includes high-priority, now-or-never, willing seller projects across
    our national parks, wildlife refuges, forests and other public land. It
    makes investments in stateside LWCF grants including local parks and
    trails, and in non-Federal protection of working forests, key wildlife
    habitat, and other irreplaceable outdoor resources. It also expands
    LWCF investments in landscape conservation, hunting and fishing access,
    civil war heritage sites, and national trails. These are priorities I
    think we can all agree upon.
        We understand the severe financial constraints under which you and
    this Congress are operating. At the same time, we recognize that
    America simply cannot afford to lose the public opportunities that LWCF
    provides, or the activity it injects into the economy. It is a program
    that enables local communities and private landowners to make
    economically sound choices to protect the natural, cultural and
    recreation resources we all commonly share. I therefore respectfully
    ask that you support the administration's fiscal year 2013
    recommendation of $450 million for LWCF program. At one-half the
    authorized funding level for the program, this represents a measured
    proposal that spreads limited resources wisely across urgent and
    diverse LWCF priorities and programmatic goals.
        In closing, I thank you for your dedication and service. I can
    think of no greater legacy for my three lovely granddaughters than the
    conservation of our traditional working landscapes, and the protection
    of our recreation lands, clean waters, and wildlife heritage.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the League of American Orchestras

        The League of American Orchestras urges the subcommittee to approve
    fiscal year 2013 funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
    at a level of $155 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 approximately 850 orchestras across North America
    runs the gamut from world-renowned symphonies to community groups, from
    summer festivals to student and youth ensembles.
        With communities throughout the Nation continuing to weather
    difficult economic conditions, the award of an intensely competitive
    NEA grant is a compelling boost to an orchestra's pursuit of funding
    from other sources. A grant from the NEA is seen as a mark of public
    value and national artistic significance, and the distinction of
    presenting these nationally recognized programs is enjoyed by
    communities large and small. In fiscal year 2011, the NEA's Grants to
    Organizations included 88 grants to orchestras, and continued funding
    for the agency will support orchestras' ability to serve the public.
    The NEA promotes creation, engagement, and learning in the arts through
    Art Works, the major support category for organizations, and the
    Challenge America: Reaching Every Community grant program--as well as
    through vital Federal/State partnerships.
        In addition to educating and engaging people of all ages, fueling
    local economies, and attracting new business development, orchestras
    unite people and cultures in a uniquely powerful way. The League is
    committed to helping our members engage with their communities, and the
    NEA plays an invaluable leadership role through its direct grants,
    strategic initiatives, and research on trends in public participation
    and workforce development.
         nea grants help orchestras educate and engage america's youth
        The Boston Youth Symphony Orchestras (BSYO), comprising 9 full-time
    administrative staff and 68 part-time artistic staff serves
    approximately 450 students every year. With an fiscal year 2012 NEA Art
    Works grant, BYSO initiated and continues to develop the Intensive
    Community Program (ICP), a nationally recognized string training
    program for underrepresented youth from Boston's inner city. BYSO
    provides ICP students with financial assistance for weekly music
    lessons, ensemble classes, instrument rental and tuition subsidy in
    BYSO orchestras. Additionally, BYSO makes more than 6,000 free tickets
    available each year to the community through partnerships and offers
    free outreach concerts directly in inner-city Boston neighborhoods,
    bringing classical music to traditionally underserved populations.
        Thanks to an NEA Art Works grant, the Eugene Symphony Orchestra,
    with 7 full-time employees and 84 part-time musicians, will be able to
    continue the Laura Avery Visiting Masters Program, an artistic
    development program for student musicians. This program is an annual
    series of artistic development activities for student musicians in
    Eugene, Springfield, and Roseburg, Oregon, which offers master classes,
    coaching sessions, lectures, and workshops by guest artists from the
    Eugene Symphony's season, which in 2012 include violinist Midori and
    pianist Adam Golka. All program activities are free and open to the
    public.
        The San Francisco Symphony Youth Orchestra (SFSYO) also received an
    NEA Art Works grant, which it will use in its Artistic Development
    Program to provide specialized training to prepare students for careers
    in music through intensive coaching, collaboration with guest artists,
    internships, mentoring, and training in chamber music, instrument care,
    and audition techniques. An annual concert series and community
    appearances reach more than 20,000 attendees each year, serving a broad
    and diverse population through free tuition for its members; free open
    rehearsals for seniors, students, and community groups; free concert
    tickets for public school instrumental music students; and ensemble
    performances at community events. The youth orchestra provides paid
    part-time apprenticeships to 4-5 students each year.
     nea funding increases public access to culturally diverse experiences
        The NEA, together with the organizations it helps support, is
    dedicated to improving public access to the arts. The experience of
    live music can serve as a conduit for disparate communities to connect
    with each other, and the Pacific Symphony, which employs 88 part-time
    musicians and 44 full-time staff, is utilizing an NEA Art Works grant
    to produce a celebration of the Persian New Year. The centerpiece is
    the world premiere of Toward a Season of Peace, a work for chorus,
    orchestra and solo soprano by the Iranian American composer Richard
    Danielpour. The Symphony is committed to building unity in the
    community through music, exploring a different facet of American music
    each year. The Nowruz celebration has sparked considerable interest
    nationally and spurred cross-cultural discourse among the orchestra's
    culturally diverse surrounding community.
        An fiscal year 2012 Challenge America grant will enable the
    Billings Symphony Orchestra and Chorale, with 4 full-time employees,
    500 volunteers, and 160 musicians, to present Classical Music/World
    Class Artists, a three-concert series that will engage Montana
    audiences in symphonic music presented by internationally acclaimed
    guest artists who have roots in Ireland, Serbia, and Mexico. Challenge
    America grants are specifically intended to support projects from
    primarily small and mid-sized arts organizations that extend the reach
    of the arts to underserved audiences. Accordingly, in addition to
    making international artistry available to the regional population of
    250,000, the Billings Symphony Orchestra and Chorale will offer master
    classes, a community concert in rural Red Lodge, and three school
    showcases in conjunction with this concert series.
        With an NEA Art Works grant, the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra (BSO)
    will establish the Orchestra Fellows Program for post-conservatory
    musicians of color. Fellows will rehearse and perform in the main BSO
    season and receive private coaching and preparation for auditions.
    Beyond the concert stage, Fellows will engage in the orchestra's after-
    school and community programs, including OrchKids, the BSO Academy, and
    Rusty Musicians. The Orchestra Fellowship Program is part of the BSO's
    broader vision of inclusivity and relevance within the community that
    has marked the tenure of Music Director Marin Alsop. Among its goals,
    the Fellows Program seeks to create a welcoming destination for
    musicians of color and to increase the number of African-American
    musicians in the BSO, thus better reflecting the diversity of
    Baltimore. The BSO has 138 full-time and 318 part-time/freelance
    employees, and a volunteer force of 438.
        This May, an NEA Art Works grant will support the Milwaukee
    Symphony Orchestra's (MSO) participation in the second annual Spring
    for Music Festival at Carnegie Hall in New York. The Festival is a
    series of concerts by North American symphony and chamber orchestras
    with artistic profiles built around innovative, creative programming.
    The MSO, which employs 35 full-time staff, was selected for
    participation based on the submission of a program including works by
    Olivier Messiaen, Claude Debussy and Qigang Chen. The program's
    inspiration comes from the influence of world cultures and the
    generational teacher-student dynamic that enhances the creation and
    performance of the music.
        While many orchestras draw inspiration from the various ethnic
    cultures that make up our country, others celebrate distinctly local
    traditions and landscapes, such as the Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra
    (LPO), which received funding from the NEA to support the concert
    Becoming American: The Musical Journey. Presented in collaboration with
    The Historic New Orleans Collection, the concert celebrated the 200th
    anniversary of Louisiana statehood by exploring the diverse classical
    music traditions of New Orleans influencing the development of jazz
    into the American tradition it has become today. The LPO, with 16 full-
    time employees and 67 full-time musicians, was able to leverage its NEA
    grant to secure funding from a national foundation to webcast the
    performance to Internet audiences, resulting in more than 1,000 views
    by audience members from 41 States and 17 countries.
        Meanwhile, the Arkansas Symphony Orchestra, which employs 10 full-
    time musicians, approximately 50 contracted musicians, 13 full-time
    staff and 2,436 volunteers in three community guilds across the State,
    will utilize its NEA grant for the American premiere of Michael Torke's
    Mojave Concerto for Marimba. The Mojave Desert directly inspired the
    composition, with the pulse of the marimba and accompaniment
    representing the moving panorama as one drives the interstate between
    Las Vegas and Los Angeles. In addition to the premiere, the composer
    and percussionist will spend 1 week leading education workshops and
    lectures for student musicians and community members.

              NEA FUNDING ENCOURAGES NEW WORKS AND LOCAL ARTISTRY

        NEA grants to orchestras help support the creative initiatives of
    American composers and musicians. The Bismarck-Mandan Symphony
    Orchestra, with a staff of 3 full-time employees, received its first-
    ever NEA Challenge America grant for A Place in Heaven, a series of
    activities culminating in a full orchestra concert featuring
    Metropolitan Opera star and North Dakota native soprano Korliss Uecker.
    Area students will be offered a college-level master class and there
    will be an open rehearsal and presentation for students with
    disabilities in partnership with VSA North Dakota.
        A grant from the NEA will support the City of Fountains
    Celebration, presented by the Kansas City Symphony, whose 80 musicians
    and 30 full-time staff are dedicated to sharing music with audiences.
    The Celebration includes world premiere performances of Daniel
    Kellogg's Water Music, Steven Hartke's Muse of the Missouri, and Chen
    Yi's Fountains of KC, all inspired by the fountains of Kansas City. The
    project includes discussions with the composers, master classes, open
    rehearsals for students, visual media postings, and a special
    presentation about the fountains co-sponsored by the Kansas City Public
    Library.
        The Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra (RPO) also received NEA
    support to commission and premiere a new work, which will include a
    composer residency, by American composer Margaret Brouwer. The project
    includes workshops with high school and college-level composers and
    coaching at the International Viola Congress in Rochester with an
    Eastman School of Music student performing Brouwer's Viola Concerto.
    The RPO employs 58 full-time core musicians and 21 full-time
    administrative employees. In addition, nearly 900 volunteers assist the
    RPO, giving more than 22,000 hours of their time.
        NEA grants encourage orchestras to commission innovative
    compositions, bring music to underserved regions, and help educate and
    engage citizens young and old. Thank you for this opportunity to convey
    the tremendous 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 $155
    million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians

        Aaniin! (greetings) My name is Jimmie Mitchell, Director of Natural
    Resources for the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, located in
    Manistee, Michigan. First of all, allow me to thank you for the past
    support that you have respectfully provided and also for this
    opportunity to present our testimony in support of the President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget.
        I represent the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority, herein referred
    to as CORA, a natural resource management coalition comprised of 5
    federally recognized Indian tribes:
      --the Bay Mills Indian Community;
      --the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians;
      --the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians;
      --the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians; and
      --the Sault Ste Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
        The CORA Tribes currently manage federally protected Treaty-
    reserved Rights under the BIA Rights Protection Implementation Program
    (RPI). These program funds are crucial as they greatly assist CORA and
    its member tribes with the ability effectively and responsibly uphold
    management obligations found under two separate decrees in United
    States v. Michigan:
      --the 2000 Great Lakes Consent Decree; and
      --the 2007 Inland Consent Decree.
    United States v. Michigan
        The five CORA tribes are parties to the historic United States v.
    Michigan court case concerning the exercise of treaty-reserved fishing,
    hunting, trapping and gathering rights under Article 13 of the 1836
    Treaty of Washington of March 31, 1836. In Article 13 the tribes
    ``stipulate[d] for the right of hunting on the lands ceded, with the
    other usual privileges of occupancy, until the land is required for
    settlement.'' The 1836 Ceded Territory covers a significant portion of
    the Northern Great Lakes surrounding Michigan and also 13.7 million
    acres of land found in the Northern Lower and Western Upper Peninsula
    of Michigan. The 1836 Ceded Territory is quite arguably the oldest
    expanse of its type remaining where Treaty Reserved Rights have been
    reserved and exercised upon, prior to its inception through to current
    times.
        In the early 1970's, tribal members sought to further expand their
    Article 13 rights by engaging in commercial fishing activities on the
    Great Lakes. The State of Michigan did not recognize the tribes'
    Article 13 rights and responded by citing, arresting and prosecuting
    tribal members. The dispute led the United States to file United States
    v. Michigan in the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Michigan, to seek an adjudication of the tribes' Article 13
    rights. Eventually, all five CORA tribes intervened in the case.
    2000 Great Lakes Consent Decree
        United States v. Michigan focused initially on the tribes' fishing
    rights in the treaty-ceded waters of the Great Lakes. In a landmark
    decision in 1979, the court held that the tribes retained their
    aboriginal fishing rights in the Great Lakes. The court found
    specifically that the ``usual privileges of occupancy'' reserved in
    Article 13 included the right to fish and that the Great Lakes had not
    been required for settlement. The court has since entered two decrees
    governing the allocation and management of the Great Lakes fishery:
      --a 15-year decree entered in 1985 that expired in 2000; and
      --a subsequent 20-year decree entered in 2000 that remains in force
            today.
        The 2000 Great Lakes consent decree was negotiated by all parties
    to the case, including the United States, the tribes and the State, and
    contains extensive provisions for the restoration, preservation and
    enhancement of Great Lakes fishery resources. In accordance with these
    provisions (and their predecessors in the 1985 decree), the tribes have
    developed programs that are necessary to protect and manage the Great
    Lakes fishery resource while continuing to exercise the tribes'
    commercial and subsistence fishing rights. These programs include the
    following elements:
      --Enactment of conservation-based regulations governing the manner
            and means by which tribal members may exercise the right to
            harvest resources;
      --Staffing of conservation enforcement departments;
      --Establishment of adjudicatory bodies to determine the existence of
            violations of regulations;
      --Biological assessment of the fishery resource and conduct of
            resource protection and enhancement programs;
      --Development of access sites for use by tribal fishermen; and
      --Development of an inter-tribal management organization to provide
            coordination and cooperation among the tribes and with the
            State, the United States and international organizations.
    2007 Inland Consent Decree
        It was not until after the entry of the 2000 Great Lakes Consent
    Decree that the parties to United States v. Michigan addressed the
    tribes' inland hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering rights under
    Article 13 of the 1836 Treaty. After several years of litigation,
    followed by several years of negotiations, the court entered a
    permanent consent decree on November 2, 2007, that recognizes the
    continued existence of the tribes' inland Article 13 rights and defines
    the nature and extent of those rights.
        The 2007 Inland Consent Decree contains allocation and management
    provisions governing treaty-reserved hunting, fishing, trapping, and
    gathering rights throughout the expanse of the 1836 Ceded Territory. It
    is a comprehensive and complex document that resolves the final phase
    of United States v. Michigan.
        The 2007 Inland Consent Decree establishes many new obligations and
    responsibilities for the tribes. These responsibilities are heavily
    weighted toward:
      --Biological programs to protect and enhance inland natural
            resources;
      --Establishment of appropriate regulations of member harvesting
            activities;
      --Provision of adequate law enforcement personnel to ensure that such
            harvesting is conducted in compliance with applicable law;
      --Provision of judicial forums for the adjudication of any alleged
            violations; and
      --Establishment, implementation, and maintenance of joint information
            sharing and management activities through CORA to assist in
            inter-tribal coordination and co-management with State and
            Federal resource managers.
        All of these obligations impose a substantial and permanent
    financial burden for the tribes to realize the full potential the
    Consent Decree is designed to provide.
        In order to meet the obligations mandated by the 2007 Inland
    Consent Decree, while providing for long-term sustainable use of the
    resources for the next seven generations, each of the tribes are
    required to establish a management capability in several core areas,
    including conservation enforcement, biological monitoring and
    assessment, tribal court, and administration. Initiation of these
    management programs necessitates adequate funding to ensure that the
    tribes can meet their obligations, which is critical to ensure the
    future viability of both the treaty right and the newly established
    2007 Inland Consent Decree.
    Support for Bureau of Indian Affairs Rights Protection Implementation
            Program in the President's Budget
        After making such landmark, long-term commitments, it is imperative
    that the tribes not be placed in a position where inadequate funding
    prohibits them from meeting their obligations, responsibilities, and
    opportunities under either the Great Lakes or Inland consent decrees.
    Adequate funding is absolutely critical to achieving the objectives and
    responsibilities described in both consent decrees.
        CORA's base funding for implementation of the Great Lakes consent
    decree has suffered congressional funding reductions in recent years,
    threatening the tribes' ability to meet consent decree obligations and
    effectively manage and self-regulate their treaty fishery. However,
    most of the proposed increase in funding for CORA is for implementation
    of the newly enacted 2007 Inland consent decree, which has not been
    provided with recurring base funding. Very little funding to implement
    the Inland consent decree has been provided since it was entered into 5
    years ago.
        CORA heralds the BIA Rights Protection Implementation Program in
    the President's budget, which provides an increase of $1.6 million in
    CORA's funding. A small portion of the requested increase will be
    provided through CORA to return the CORA tribes' funding base for the
    Great Lakes treaty fishery to fiscal year 2010 levels. The vast
    majority of the increase will provide $1.5 million to allow the
    beneficiary tribes and their members to meet their obligations under
    the 2007 Inland consent decree and to implement their treaty-reserved
    inland hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering rights. The BIA Rights
    Protection Implementation Program in the President's budget provides
    base funding for the very first time for affected tribes to meet
    Federal-court mandated responsibilities in the conservation and
    management of fish and wildlife resources.
        The CORA Tribes stand united in reminding the Congress of the
    Federal Government's trust obligations to sustain funding for tribal
    natural resource management programs. This obligation is the result of
    treaties negotiated by tribes and Federal Government, which must be
    honored and protected within the limits of available funding, including
    current limits on discretionary funding. The President's budget
    demonstrates that this can be achieved.
        CORA hopes that you will recognize the fact that the tribes, State
    of Michigan, and the United States have successfully resolved many
    difficult legal, biological, social and political problems confronting
    the Great Lakes fishery and inland resources in the 1836 ceded
    territory. With your assistance, the tribes can continue to enhance
    cooperative inter-governmental programs, build upon past collaborative
    successes and to secure and promote our shared natural resources with
    sound management structures for both tribal and nontribal users now and
    forward into future generations.
        I thank you again for providing this opportunity to convey with
    you, both the challenges we face and the opportunities the RPI funds
    assist us to accomplish as managing co-sovereigns'.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of the Lummi Nation

        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 2013 budgets of the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs and the Indian Health Service.

                             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--Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
        The Role of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in
    Preserving Ancestral Knowledge.--We would first like to acknowledge the
    most recent revisions to section 106 that emphasize landscapes when
    dealing with locations of cultural and historical significance.
    However, we need to bring to your attention the marginalization and de-
    legitimization of Native American ancestral knowledge. The question is
    not whether ancestral knowledge is meaningful to Native Americans when
    we speak of the significance of sacred landscapes. Instead, the
    question is how, for what reason, to whose benefit, at what cost, and
    by what authority Native American ways of knowing knowledge have been
    marginalized as less than true knowledge. Our ancestral knowledge must
    contend with the influences of Christian belief and its moral order as
    well as conventional education, anatomo-economic regulations of the
    capitalized workplace, bureaucratized and jural-legal as opposed to
    ancestral systems of governance, and the imperium of science that
    marginalizes through the re-representation of Native American
    traditional knowledge and ways of knowing our world. The Advisory
    Council on Historic Preservation is one of the few entities in a
    position to acknowledge our forms and frameworks of knowledge as coeval
    with those of modern science and bring a degree of justice to our
    efforts to protect not only our sacred landscapes, but also our ways of
    understanding and experiencing them.
    Lummi Specific Requests--Bureau of Indian Affairs
        +$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. +$300,000 funding for the Conservation Law Enforcement
    Officer Program to insure that Lummi Nation need for Natural Resources
    Enforcement Officers will be funded.
                Committee Directive Requests
        Bureau of Reclamation.--The Lummi Nation requests that the
    Committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to fund Lummi Nation work
    to develop comprehensive water resources conservation and utilization
    plans that accommodates the water needs of its residents, its extensive
    fisheries resources.
        Bureau of Indian Affairs Natural Resources Branch.--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
    compensated through increased hatchery construction, operations and
    maintenance funding.
        Direct the DOI Office of Indian Energy, Economic and Workforce
    Development to work with the Lummi Nation in support of its
    comprehensive Fisherman's Cove Harbor and Working Water Front Project
    which addresses Indian Energy, Economic and Workforce Development needs
    of the Lummi Nation membership.
    Lummi Specific Requests--Indian Health Service
        Implement ACA & IHCIA.--Direct the Department and the U.S. Indian
    Health Services to fully and completely implement the Indian Specific
    provision of the Affordable care Act and the newly re-authorized Indian
    Health Care Improvement Act.
        Wellness is the #1 Priority of the Council in 2012-13.--Lummi
    Nation requests the committee support the SAMHSA Proposed Tribal Block
    Grant to combat Drug Epidemic among the Lummi Nation membership.
        Head Start for Tribal Development.--The Lummi Nation requests the
    Committee directs BIE and DHHS, Children's Bureau support the
    construction of a new Lummi Nation head start/day care facility with
    technical and financial assistance.
        Serve Native American Veterans.--Direct the Indian Health Services
    to immediately develop and provide formal consultation between Indian
    Health Services, U.S. Veteran's Affairs and tribes on the formal
    Memorandum of Understanding for the provision of VA medical services to
    tribal veterans and their families.
    Lummi Specific Requests--Bureau of Indian Affairs
        +$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. Understandably most of original
    infrastructure needs to be repaired, replaced and/or modernized. Lummi
    Nation Fish Biologists estimate that these facilities are currently
    operating at 30 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 must
    pursue a ``phased approach'' that addresses our water supply system
    first. The existing system only provides 850 GPM 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 Conservation Officer
    Program to support Natural Resources Law Enforcement.--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. 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 Natural Resource Officers patrol a vast area, with a large amount
    of Natural Resources to protect, including:
      --shellfish;
      --salmon;
      --halibut;
      --deer;
      --elk; and
      --other protected species.
        Although Lummi Code of Laws Title 10 (Natural Resources Code)
    prohibits timber harvests without a permit, members and nonmembers
    periodically conduct timber harvests without necessary permits.
    Tideland Trespass on the Lummi tidelands is a major enforcement
    challenge. The fact that all of the Reservation tidelands are held in
    trust by the United States for the exclusive use of the Lummi Nation
    was most recently re-affirmed in United States and Lummi Nation v.
    Milner, et al. No. CV-01-00809-RBL (9th Cir. 2009). Although all of the
    Reservation tidelands are closed to persons, who are not members of the
    Lummi Nation in the absence of a lease permitting nonmember use of the
    tidelands, or use permits issued pursuant to LCL Title 13 (Tidelands
    Code), and this closure is posted at several places around the
    Reservation, nonmembers continue to regularly trespass on these
    tidelands. Although LCL Title 17 (Water Resources Protection Code)
    prohibits the withdrawal of Reservation Waters without a permit,
    nonmembers continue to drill ground water wells on the Reservation.
    Illegal dumping is a major challenge on the Reservation. Although LCL
    Title 18 (Solid Waste Control and Disposal Code) prohibits solid waste
    dumping, like many places throughout rural America, illegal dumping
    continues to occur. Currently, the Lummi NREOs are only able to
    concentrate their patrol to the major Treaty concerns of fishing,
    crabbing, and shellfish harvesting. Additional funding is necessary for
    to prosecute actual incidents.
        Direct the Bureau's Office of Indian Energy, Economic and Workforce
    Development Division to work with the Lummi Nation in support of its
    comprehensive Fisherman's Cove Harbor and Working Waterfront Project.--
    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. This is the objective of
    the Lummi Nation Fisherman's Cove Harbor and Working Waterfront
    Project. We need financial assistance to enable our membership to get
    the job skills the local (Reservation and Non-Reservation) labor market
    demands. We ask the Committee to direct the Bureau to work with the
    Lummi Nation to fully develop the Working Waterfront Project for the
    benefit of the Lummi Nation fishers, members, and others invested in
    the marine economy of the extreme northwest corner of the United
    States.
    Lummi Specific Requests--Indian Health Service
          Support for full and complete implementation of the Indian
            Specific provision of the Affordable care Act and newly re-
            authorized Indian Health Care Improvement Act.--Tribes are
            dismayed by the lack of support they have received in the
            development and implementation of the following:
          Long-Term and Community-Based Care.--The authorization of long-
            term and community-based care tribal communities are among the
            last to receive access to this all important health care
            option.
          Tribal Medicaid Program Demonstration Project.--The act
            authorizes a demonstration project to enable tribes to
            demonstrate their ability to successfully plan, develop,
            implement and operate Medicaid Programs for the benefit of
            their membership.
          Healthcare Insurance Exchanges.--To support the planning
            development, implementation, and operation of tribes as
            providers of healthcare insurance on the same basis as State
            are receiving this technical and financial assistance from the
            Department.
        Lummi Nation requests the subcommittee support the SAMHSA Proposed
    Tribal Block Grant to combat Drug Epidemic among the Lummi Nation
    membership.--Wellness is the #1 Priority of the Council in 2012-13.
    Drug abuse is at epidemic proportions on the Lummi Reservation. The
    proximity of the Lummi Reservation to the U.S. 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 . . . this is our reality where my people are
    becoming prisoners in our own homes.
          What We Have Done.--Our people are seeking a return to health
            through massive consumption of Lummi Nation Health Care
            resources. We have increased the number of tribal members
            receiving substance abuse treatment and mental health
            counseling.
          What We Still Need.--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. Lummi Nation and other tribes cannot successfully
            compete with politically connected communities and interest
            groups which receive the majority of the funding that is
            available through the State block grant system. We need
            assistance to secure funding to plan develop, construct and
            implement, programs services and facilities needed to improve
            health and safety in our communities.
        Head Start for Tribal Development--New Head Start Facility.--The
    Lummi Nation Requests that the Committee directs BIE and DHHS,
    Children's Bureau support the construction of a new head start/day care
    facility for the Lummi Nation membership with technical and financial
    assistance. Lummi has operated a Head Start program since 1966 in the
    same facility. Successive Head Start Performance reviews have
    consistently identified the building as not meeting Head Start
    Performance standards. The tribe is seeking gap financing in the amount
    of $1.2 million to complete the proposed new facility. These additional
    costs are generated by Head Start Performance and tribal Child Care
    Facility Standards.
        Support Formal Consultation Between Indian Health Services, U.S.
    Veteran's Affairs and Tribes on the Formal Memorandum of Understanding
    for the Provision of VA Medical Services to Tribal Veterans and Their
    Families.--Tribes have been seeking the development of relationship
    between the Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Services
    which results in simple parity of services between Indian and non-
    Indian Veterans for more than a century. There is a need to insure that
    the provisions of the final agreement between the Veterans
    Administration and the Indian Health Services are consistent with
    Indian Veterans needs.
        National and Self-Governance Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Priorities.--
    In general, all Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health
    Services (IHS) line items should be exempt from any budget recessions
    and discretionary funding budget reductions.
        Bureau of Indian Affairs.--Fully Fund Contract Support Costs--
    Support $8.8 million increase included in fiscal year 2013 President's
    request. Tribal Priority Allocations--Provide $89 million increase. Law
    Enforcement--Full Fund all Provisions of the Tribal Law & Order Act of
    2010 that affect Indian Tribes & Increase funding for Bureau of Indian
    Affairs Law Enforcement by $30 million. Office of Self-Governance
    (OSG)--Provide increase funding to the OSG.
        Indian Health Services.--Contract Support Costs (CSC)--Provide
    increase of $99.4 million more than President's fiscal year 2013
    request to fund the CSC shortfall. Mandatory Costs--Provide $304
    million increase to for Mandatory costs to address these ongoing fiscal
    responsibilities to maintain current services. Contract Health Services
    (CHS)--Provide a $200 million increase to provide CHS. Adequate Funding
    for Implementation of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA).
    Office of Tribal Self-Governance--Increase $5 million to the HIS Office
    of Tribal Self-Governance.
        Hy'shqe (thank you) for the opportunity to provide these
    appropriations priorities of the Lummi Nation.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of Malheur Wildlife Associates

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of Malheur
    Wildlife Associates, the friends group for Malheur National Wildlife
    Refuge and its 110 members, we would like to thank the committee for
    their strong support of the National Wildlife Refuge System and for
    giving us the opportunity to submit testimony. We are a volunteer
    nonprofit organization whose purpose is to promote conservation,
    awareness, and appreciation of the wildlife and habitats of the Malheur
    National Wildlife Refuge and to provide assistance to Refuge
    operations. We urge you to show your continued support of the National
    Wildlife Refuge System by approving the President's fiscal year 2013
    budget request of $495 million for the operations and maintenance of
    the world's premier system of public lands and water set aside to
    conserve America's fish, wildlife, and plants. This level of funding
    will barely maintain current management capabilities. The National
    Wildlife Refuge Association estimates that refuges would need at least
    $527 million in fiscal year 2013 to maintain management capabilities
    from fiscal year 2010, and the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
    Enhancement (CARE) estimates that the Refuge System needs at least $900
    million in annual funding to properly administer its 150 million acres
    and remains committed to aiming for this goal.
        Refuges are vital places for the American people to connect with
    nature and get involved. Currently, refuge Friends and volunteers do
    approximately 20 percent of all work on refuges. In 2011, these 1.5
    million hours equated to roughly 8 volunteers for every 1 Refuge System
    employee. Without staff to oversee volunteers, their commitment and
    passion is lost, as is their desperately needed contribution to the
    System. We request $80 million for Visitors Services for the NWRS.
        We ask you to support $3.8 million in fiscal year 2013 for
    Challenge Cost Share (CCS). Partners are the key to successful
    conservation; no Federal or State agency can do it alone. Because of
    this, we support programs that leverage Federal dollars such as the CCS
    program. Partner organizations such as local volunteer ``Friends''
    groups leverage these funds to give American taxpayers more bangs for
    their buck for projects like trails, education, boardwalks and habitat
    restoration. Malheur Wildlife Associates is helping Malheur NWR with
    such projects by providing matching grant funds and volunteer work
    crews.
        We also request that you fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) at $700 million. 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 and easement acquisition tool. With more than 8
    million acres still unprotected within existing refuge boundaries, and
    the need to establish key wildlife corridors and connections between
    protected areas, the LWCF is more important than ever. Also please
    support the new Collaborative Conservation requests of the Departments
    of the Interior and Agriculture, which brings together several Federal
    agencies around a common goal.
    Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
        Malheur NWR is one of the largest freshwater wetland refuges in the
    Refuge System. It is considered one of the jewels of the Refuge System
    and despite its remote location, receives very high visitor use, which
    is very beneficial to both the local Harney County and Oregon economy.
    It is the most popular birding destination in the State of Oregon. A
    2004 study reported that Malheur NWR visitors spent $2.2 million. The
    net economic benefit showed an economic value of $1.62 for every $1 of
    the refuge budget. Such funding is a worthy investment in our Nation's
    economy.
        The refuge encompasses more than 187,000 acres and is critical to
    migrating and nesting waterfowl and waterbirds in the Pacific Flyway.
    It supports one of the largest nesting sandhill crane populations in
    North America and is home to many other important bird species such as
    the Greater Sage Grouse, Trumpeter Swan and American White Pelican and
    also a wide variety of other native plants and animals.
    Current Challenges and Needs
        Malheur NWR wetlands have been seriously degraded by an introduced
    population of invasive common carp. Carp have destroyed much of the
    critical habitat on the Refuge, and are also affecting wetlands on
    private lands in all the tributaries to Malheur and Harney Lakes. These
    adjacent private lands have very high values for waterfowl and
    waterbirds and along with the Refuge, make up one of the most important
    wetlands complexes in North America. The refuge staff is embarking on a
    monumental effort to reduce carp impacts on wetland habitats and
    improve conditions for birds to further the Refuge's Mission. This
    effort has also resulted in a strong local partnership between Malheur
    NWR, private landowners, the Burns Paiute Tribe and State and Federal
    agencies to focus on restoring wetlands and enhancing conditions for
    wildlife on a landscape scale in Harney County.
        There is also huge maintenance backlog at Malheur NWR and much work
    is needed to properly manage the refuge. Malheur has one of the largest
    infrastructures in the National Wildlife Refuge System, with
    approximately 200 miles of public roads; 2,000 miles of waterways/
    dikes; 5 dams; 1,000 water control structures; 6 automated fish
    screens; 27 administrative, 7 quarters, and 25 visitor services
    facilities; 4 historic building sites; and a large fleet of heavy/light
    vehicles and equipment. This extensive infrastructure requires a high
    degree of routine maintenance/repair to efficiently and effectively
    support the various Refuge programs and maintain tens of thousands of
    acres of wetlands, 30 miles of rivers/creeks, and 16,000 acres of
    irrigated meadow. At the current staffing level, a vast majority of
    routine maintenance and repair needs are addressed reactively.
    Additional funding is needed to proactively address the maintenance and
    repair backlog and move this Refuge forward to its full ecological
    potential and ensure biological integrity. In 2011, the deferred
    maintenance backlog for the Refuge was approximately $48 million.
                Sequestration
        Malheur Wildlife Associates is very concerned about the devastating
    impact across-the-board sequestration cuts of 9-10 percent in fiscal
    year 2013 will have on our refuges and the entire Refuge System. If
    sequestration occurs refuge management estimates there will just enough
    funds to pay salaries and utilities. The impacts will affect wildlife,
    visitors and the local Harney County economy.
        Impacts on Wildlife.--Managing the habitat will be staff's first
    goal; however management will not be as effective. Invasive carp will
    further degrade Refuge wetlands, reducing the value to waterfowl and
    other wildlife that depend on them. Important populations of waterfowl
    and waterbirds will suffer from this neglect. Refuge efforts to control
    invasive weeds will be curtailed, causing further loss of wildlife
    habitat and natural diversity, resulting in more costly control needs
    in the future. Reduced law enforcement efforts will likely lead to
    increased poaching of big game, livestock trespass, and looting of
    Refuge archeological sites.
        Impact on Visitors.--If sequestration goes into effect, refuge led
    visitor service programs will be severely reduced. Staff time for
    assisting visitors will be very restricted and access to the refuge
    will be reduced. Trails and roads that are obstructed by storm events
    will be closed. There will be no extended hours during the summer or
    weekends. Regular trail and road maintenance will be deferred. Vaulted
    toilets will be cleaned every few weeks instead of weekly and portable
    toilets will be closed.
        Friends and other volunteers will not be able to compensate for all
    of these loses. To assist with managing the habitat, volunteers need
    oversight and training, but there will be no funds to pay for the
    training. The Friends organization is willing to expand our
    interpretive programs; the challenge will be access, safety, and the
    quality of wildlife viewing.
                Opportunities To Embrace
        Malheur NWR staff has been presented a great opportunity for
    forming a ``Beyond the Boundaries'' partnership, the Harney Basin
    Wetlands Initiative. This is a collaborative partnership which includes
    the Refuge, local landowners, State and Federal agencies and the Burns
    Paiute Tribe. The goal of this initiative is to improve aquatic health
    and restore wetlands on a large scale (more than 300,000 acres of
    lands) in the Basin. Malheur Wildlife Associates is assisting with
    these efforts.
        In 2011, the National Wildlife Refuge System created a vision to
    guide the management of the System during the next decade and beyond.
    The new vision seeks to make wildlife conservation more relevant to the
    public and engage them in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Because
    of its high visitation, Malheur NWR has the opportunity to help the
    public understand the values of the National Wildlife Refuge System and
    the benefits of our wildlife heritage.
    In Summary
        Wildlife Refuges matter to your constituents. In spite of its
    remote location, Malheur NWR is by far the most popular destination for
    birders in Oregon and has many fans who visit annually.
        Our members realize that our country is facing difficult economic
    times and we must all share in the challenges of the recovery. We thank
    you for the meaningful funding increases allowed the System in fiscal
    year 2008-2010 that provided stability to our refuges. We respectfully
    ask you to support the following funding allocations for the National
    Wildlife Refuge System that will allow the System to maintain existing
    management capabilities:
      --$495 million for the operations and maintenance accounts of the
            National Wildlife Refuge System including:
        --$39 million for Refuge Law Enforcement;
        --$80 million for Visitor's Services;
        --$3.8 million for Challenge Cost Share; and
        --$37 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service construction
                account.
        The Malheur Wildlife Associates invite all the members of this
    Subcommittee, your family, and staff to visit Malheur NWR, to see what
    a treasure the place is, watch the wildlife, enjoy the scenery and
    relax.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Maine's Department of Inland Fisheries and
                                    Wildlife

        The Congress created the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program in 2001
    to help State and tribal fish and wildlife agencies address the unmet
    needs of fish and wildlife and associated habitats, especially species
    of greatest conservation need (SGCN). Funds appropriated under the
    State Wildlife Grants program are allocated to States according to a
    formula that takes into account each State's size and population. To
    date, Maine has received more than $6.5 million in SWG funds. Projects
    funded to date are diverse, covering many species groups, all
    geographic areas of the State, and ranging in scale from ecosystems to
    subspecies. They vary in length from 1 to 5 years, and include baseline
    surveys and inventories, research, and habitat conservation. State
    Wildlife Grant funds support 10 full-time positions within the Maine
    Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and have funded
    many projects that support conservation actions identified in Maine's
    Wildlife Action Plan (WAP). Here are a few examples of projects that
    State Wildlife Grant funds have supported. Other SWG-supported
    activities not described here include:
      --organizing a network of citizen-volunteers to locate and monitor
            colony-nesting wading birds such as herons; and
      --population monitoring and public outreach for species such as
            falcons, bats, New England cottontail rabbit, rare butterflies,
            dragonflies, and freshwater mussels, and significant wildlife
            habitats.
    Beginning With Habitat
        Beginning with Habitat is a cooperative effort of agencies and
    organizations working together to secure Maine's outdoor legacy. The
    goal of the program is to maintain sufficient amounts of habitats to
    support all native plant and animal species currently breeding in Maine
    100 years from now. We aim to provide each Maine town with a collection
    of maps and accompanying information depicting and describing various
    habitats of statewide and national significance in the town. Beginning
    with Habitat partners then work with communities to design a landscape
    that accommodates the growth they need with the highest resource
    conservation. Beginning with Habitat is the foundation of Maine's
    Wildlife Action Plan and is a nonregulatory collaborative and
    information-based habitat conservation tool.
    Seabird Outreach
        The principal objective of this project was to inform Maine
    students and the general public about seabird biology and marine
    conservation by providing insight into the lives of Maine seabirds
    (e.g., puffins and terns) through a web-based school curriculum and
    Internet access that features live-streaming video from Eastern Egg
    Rock, a State-owned 7-acre sanctuary managed by National Audubon
    Society.
    Distribution and Ecology of Purple Sandpipers Wintering in Maine
        The northeast Atlantic Coast is recognized by the U.S. Shorebird
    Conservation Council as an area that is extremely important to the
    survival of wintering purple sandpipers in the Western Hemisphere. In
    fact, there is strong evidence that Maine supports a large percentage
    of the wintering population. With threats from catastrophic oil spills
    and consequent damage to shorebird habitats or shorebirds themselves,
    the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife identified the
    need to locate and map important purple sandpiper habitats and
    determine population abundance, distribution, and limiting factors.
    This project enabled the Department to:
      --estimate abundance and distribution of purple sandpipers in Maine;
      --assess movements and site fidelity of individuals at particular
            sites; and
      --develop a protocol for monitoring purple sandpiper populations in
            Maine.
    Enhance Management of Piping Plovers and Least Terns
        Piping plovers and least terns are designated as endangered species
    in Maine and are known to nest on a handful of beaches in the State. To
    successfully raise young, these birds need sand beaches free from human
    disturbance and predators. This project enabled MDIFW, working in
    cooperation with Maine Audubon and local towns, to conduct the planning
    and data gathering necessary to enhance the management of piping
    plovers and least terns, including the development of cooperative beach
    management agreements with Maine municipalities.
    Bald Eagle Survey and Essential Habitat
        Bald eagles continue their dramatic comeback in Maine. Presently,
    the State is home to at least 500 nesting pairs, a remarkable increase
    from the 30 nesting pairs reported in the late-1970s. Despite this
    accomplishment, our ultimate challenge is to provide suitable habitat
    for eagles in the future. Nesting eagles need mature trees and wooded
    buffers in shorelands, a niche that will always be at risk to land
    development and recreational pressures. This project devised statewide
    strategies and identified optimal sites for long-term conservation of
    bald eagle nesting habitat as the fundamental safeguard for a lasting
    recovery of the species in Maine. The delisting of the bald eagle is a
    great example of what SWG is all about. This is a tremendous story of
    conservation successful through Federal and State partnership, and we
    are striving for many more to come.
    Ecoregional Surveys
        Since 1997, MDIFW and the Maine Natural Areas Program have been
    working on a systematic, statewide, 10-year survey of rare and
    endangered wildlife, plants, and natural communities. Surveys are
    designed to document new locations of rare species to better assess
    their status and distribution and design conservation strategies to
    predict potential new occurrences and promote their recovery. SWG funds
    helped support surveys in the Aroostook Hills and Lowlands (2.5 million
    acres), Eastern Lowlands (2.2 million acres), and Central and Western
    Mountains ecoregions (5 million acres). Inventories focused on high
    value habitats supporting rare, threatened, and endangered animals.
    Data gathered support voluntary land protection by large and small
    private landowners.
    Canada Lynx Ecology
        The Canada lynx has long been a rare carnivore in northern and
    western Maine. Ten years ago, its status was largely unknown and was
    based on anecdotal reports or a track in the snow. SWG funds helped
    support an ongoing study of Canada lynx in Maine to:
      --determine that there is in fact a viable, self-supporting
            population of lynx in the State;
      --document mortality factors affecting lynx;
      --identify habitats used by lynx and how they relate to distribution
            and abundance of prey;
      --investigate how lynx distribution in Maine is affected by
            populations of bobcats, coyotes, fishers, and fox; and
      --test the efficacy of various survey methods used to determine
            status of lynx.
    Stream Survey Databasing of Restored Aquatic Habitats
        The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is enhancing
    its efforts toward managing and conserving flowing water habitats and
    their respective animal communities. Although the Department currently
    holds extensive survey information regarding these ecosystems, most
    data exist in a multitude of formats and physical locations. This
    project will compile existing stream habitat and fish community data
    into a computerized Geographic Information System (GIS) database for
    easier use, analysis, and visualization within landscapes.
    Lake Habitat Inventories
        One of the primary responsibilities of the Maine Department of
    Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is to conduct habitat surveys of the
    aquatic resources in the State. These surveys include gathering data
    related to water quality, fish species composition and relative
    abundance, bathymetry, aquatic habitat types, and macroinvertebrate
    species composition. Surveys are important to present and future
    management of Maine's lakes and ponds. To date, there are roughly 3,800
    ponds that have never been inventoried by MDIFW staff and many that
    have been completed need to be updated. The purpose of this project is
    to use various fisheries techniques to collect data to properly plan
    for the future management of lacustrine habitat in Maine.
    Aquatic Biodiversity Project
        Effective resource management depends on ready access to existing
    data resources and on the ability to design and implement future data
    collection efforts in a rational and cost-effective manner. This
    project enabled the Department to ensure that all priority freshwater
    fisheries data were in a format that permitted electronic mapping and
    analyses of this information.
    Unique Aquatic Ecosystems
        Fishless ponds are believed to be rare in the Maine landscape. Many
    of these ponds occur in mountainous terrain where fish access is
    limited because of local topography. These sites have sometimes been
    targeted for introductions of sport fish, but they may have unique
    ecological attributes, especially for invertebrates and amphibians.
    Introduction of predatory fish could permanently alter the ecology of
    fishless ponds. This study documented the ecology of fishless ponds in
    Maine and conducted a landscape analysis to predict and evaluate the
    presence of these potentially unique natural communities.
    Wildlife Park Displays
        The Maine Wildlife Park receives more than 80,000 visitors
    annually, including a large number of school children on field trips.
    These visitors come to the park to learn more about Maine's fish and
    wildlife resources and management. This project enabled the Department
    to construct a new fisheries display and to complete educational
    exhibits for moose, deer, coyote, turkeys, and turtles.
    Fish and Wildlife Education
        This project provided educational materials to every fourth grade
    classroom in the State to increase students' awareness and
    understanding of fish and wildlife resources. The materials consisted
    of posters, activity guides for teachers, animal and fish guides, and
    management reports.
    Wildlife Management Areas: Planning and Habitat Management for the
            Future
        Two-thirds of MDIFW's 52 Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) contain
    special habitats or communities that support Federal or State-listed
    threatened or endangered wildlife, species of special concern, and
    species identified of greatest conservation need. SWG funds supported
    development of a statewide WMA database, update of WMA management
    plans, development of a WMA schedule of development and maintenance
    treatments, and implementation of a schedule of habitat treatments
    across all WMAs to benefit a diversity of featured wildlife species and
    species of greatest conservation need.
    An Investigation of Blanding's Turtle Road Mortality
        There is increasing emphasis on the part of Federal and State
    transportation authorities to minimize and mitigate impacts to wildlife
    passage and mortality from road construction projects. This project
    helped the Maine Departments of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and
    Transportation identify the location and extent of road impacts on
    endangered turtles in Maine as a precursor toward designing strategic
    mitigation measures.
    Status and Monitoring of Maine Owls
        MDIFW worked with Maine Audubon to evaluate the abundance and
    distribution of owls in Maine and to develop a volunteer-based
    monitoring system. Both Partners in Flight and recent initiatives
    directed at integrated bird conservation have identified monitoring of
    nocturnal birds as a high-priority research and management need in the
    northeast.
    Species of Greatest Conservation Need Research and Status
            Investigations
        Maine has identified 213 species of greatest conservation need
    (SGCN) in its Wildlife Action Plan:
      --103 birds;
      --7 herpetofauna (1 amphibian and 6 reptiles);
      --72 invertebrates;
      --12 inland fish;
      --6 nonmarine mammals; and
      --13 marine species (5 diadromous fish, 5 whales, and 3 turtles).
        For many SGCN, there is a need for financial resources to evaluate
    population dynamics and habitat relationships and use information
    gathered to support listing and de-listing proposals (State endangered,
    threatened, or special concern) and aid in conservation and management
    of these species, so that they may ultimately be de-listed.
        For more information on Maine's Wildlife Action Plan please visit
    www.mefishwildlife.com.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Marine Conservation
    Institute, based in Bellevue, Washington, is a nonprofit conservation
    organization that uses the latest science to identify important marine
    ecosystems around the world, and then advocate for their protection. As
    a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), we
    support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wildlife
    Refuge System (NWRS), 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 to support the President's
    request of $494.8 million in fiscal year 2013 for the NWRS. This is an
    $8.8 million increase more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    Marine Conservation Institute recommends $3.5 million of that increase
    be allocated for the management of our Nation's unique marine
    monuments.
        President George W. Bush established four marine national monuments
    in the Pacific Ocean:
      --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, and constitute about one-third of the entire
    Refuge System. The four monuments include 12 marine refuges and more
    than 20 islands, atolls and reefs spread across the Pacific Ocean. Each
    monument was designated because of its individual ecological and
    cultural uniqueness.
    Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument
        Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, also referred to as the
    Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, is home to millions of seabirds, an
    incredible diversity of coral reef 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 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 one of the seven coral islands
    within the monument contains nearly four times more shallow water,
    reef-building coral species than 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 the seven islands. Seamounts
    are important biodiversity hotspots because they provide habitat and
    localized nutrients for many species 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 many 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. The monument also
    encompasses the Mariana Trench, the deepest ocean area on Earth, which
    is deeper than Mount Everest is tall.
    Marine National Monument Management Implementation
        President Bush gave the Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service) management responsibility over the three newest
    monuments, while the Department of Commerce has primary responsibility
    for managing fishing in the outer waters of each monument. Although it
    has been more than 3 years since their designation, very little funding
    (<$200,000 annually) has been added specifically for managing the Rose
    Atoll, Marianas Trench, and Pacific Remote Islands Marine National
    Monuments. As a result, monument plans and fishing regulations have not
    been completed and most islands remain essentially unmanaged and
    unmonitored.
        It is imperative that USFWS establish appropriate management
    measures to adequately protect the land, waters and seafloor of all
    four marine monuments. In particular, the USFWS must have adequate
    funds to finalize management plans for the three newest monuments, hire
    adequate personnel, provide transportation to visit the islands on a
    regular basis, develop plans to restore damaged reefs and lands, and
    consult with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and
    the U.S. Coast Guard to provide proper surveillance and enforcement of
    illegal activities such as trespassing and illegal fishing.
        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 introduced many
    invasive species to the islands which should be removed.
        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 some of the most pristine coral reefs 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 a recent report by the U.S. Geological Service, more than 740 acres
    of the coral habitat has been smothered and destroyed so far by the
    corallimorph whose growth continues to be promoted by the wreck's
    presence.
        A recent study by L. Wegley, et al. on nearby Kingman Reef,
    indicates that the live coral cover surrounding the wreck has decreased
    to less than 10 percent of its original size due to accelerated algae
    growth and corallimorph infestation. The reef destruction extends 1.5
    kilometers along the reef horizontally, and was observed spreading down
    the reef slope to approximately 35 meters. As this growth continues
    unabated, it is expected to spread toward the north facing shoreline
    where fragile coral gardens are located.
    Appropriations Needs
        Marine Conservation Institute requests that the subcommittee
    increase funding for NWRS operations by $8.8 million to a level of
    $494.8 million in fiscal year 2013 to better manage our Nation's
    refuges. We recommend that $3.5 million of that amount be allocated to
    the marine monuments, which now receive approximately $200,000
    annually. USFWS responsibilities in the Pacific Islands have increased
    substantially since the designation of the monuments in 2009, but
    funding has not followed suit.
        Additional monument funding would allow USFWS to properly manage
    Midway Atoll Airfield, and more adequately protect and restore the
    Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. Furthermore, the additional
    funding would allow USFWS to provide adequate management of the three
    newest monuments. Funding is needed to hire managers for Marianas and
    Pacific Remote Islands (a Rose Atoll Manager has been funded over the
    last several years); hire one public planner position to aid in
    management responsibilities; and pay for associated administrative
    costs such as office space costs and travel expenses. Additional funds
    would also continue to address nuisance and invasive species that are
    hurting native wildlife populations, and hire additional law
    enforcement officers to combat illegal entry and fishing. The remaining
    funds would pay for an initial cost assessment for removal of the two
    shipwrecks mentioned above that are damaging coral reef habitats.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share our views.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Merritt Island Wildlife Association

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    nearly 1,300 members of the Merritt Island Wildlife Association (MIWA),
    thank you for this opportunity to submit comments on the proposed
    fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill. MIWA is a nonprofit volunteer organization formed
    in 1994. Our mission is ``to promote conservation, awareness,
    appreciation, and use of the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
    (MINWR) and to support Refuge programs.''
        We appreciate your prior support of the National Wildlife Refuge
    System (NWRS), and specifically request that you continue that
    commitment to sustaining the world's foremost wildlife conservation
    system with approval of the President's budget request of $495 million
    for NWRS operation and maintenance. In the broader context of the
    overall Fish and Wildlife Service budget request, we also urge your
    support of the $51 million appropriation proposed for the Migratory
    Bird Management program. Further, we believe funding of the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund at $700 million is vitally important to
    acquisition and preservation of critical habitat throughout the United
    States.
    Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
        MINWR was established in 1963, the 286th refuge in the system which
    now numbers 556. It serves as the headquarters for a complex of seven
    refuges which comprise a total of 172,000 acres located in five
    counties in east-central Florida. The complex includes Pelican Island
    NWR, the Nation's first Refuge, as well as the system's most recent
    addition--the Everglades Headwaters NWR. MINWR itself is an overlay of
    NASA's Kennedy Space Center and extends more than 140,000 acres of
    northern Brevard and southern Volusia counties. More than 2 million
    people live within an hour's drive of the Refuge.
        The initial primary purpose of MINWR was ``. . . for use as an
    inviolate sanctuary . . . for migratory birds.'' (Migratory Bird
    Conservation Act); later expanded under the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Act to include ``. . . to protect, enhance, restore, and
    manage an appropriate distribution and diversity of wetland ecosystems
    and other habitats for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife . .
    .'' and ``. . . to sustain an abundance of waterfowl and other
    migratory birds consistent with the goals of the North American
    Waterfowl Management Plan . . .''
        The Refuge has been designated by the State of Florida as an
    ``Outstanding Florida Water'' in recognition of the exceptional
    ecological value and water quality of the Indian River Lagoon within
    MINWR; and is also identified as ``Essential Fish Habitat'' under the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        These mandates and accolades speak to the quality of the biological
    and physical resources within MINWR and the necessity to preserve and
    protect them. Implicit in the mission of the NWRS, however, is the firm
    commitment to also serve the interests of the people who pay the bills.
    MINWR has done an excellent job of this. The Refuge receives more than
    750,000 visitors each year and another 250,000 visit the rest of the
    complex's lands and facilities. The spectrum of interests is broad--
    many come for wildlife observation, photography, or simply to enjoy
    some quiet time in a natural setting; but there are also waterfowl
    hunters, anglers, boaters, and hundreds of school children drawn by the
    environmental education programs. MINWR is a highly favored stop on the
    Great Florida Birding Trail managed by the Florida Fish & Wildlife
    Conservation Commission.
        They come from near and far--more than 60 percent from outside the
    local area (50-mile radius) according to an extensive 2010-2011 visitor
    survey. For most, visiting the Refuge was either the primary purpose of
    their trip or one of a few equally important purposes. And they spend
    money locally; an average of $52 per day for local visitors, and $91
    for those from farther away (who typically stayed in the area for a few
    days). Nearly 80 percent of the respondents stopped at the Visitor
    Center for information, services, and gift shopping; more than 95
    percent said they were very satisfied with all aspects of their visit;
    and 92 percent believed that National Wildlife Refuges provide a unique
    recreational experience in comparison to other public lands. The
    survey, one of several done at refuges across the country, achieved a
    remarkable 79-percent response rate.
    The National Wildlife Reserve System Operations and Maintenance Budget
            Request
        It has been estimated that ``full funding'' of the NWRS would
    require a $900 million annual appropriation. We are all aware of the
    realities of our current economy, however, and request your approval of
    the fiscal year 2013 request of $495 million. We note that while this
    amount will avoid further sharp cuts in system staff and programs, it
    falls short of holding the line in terms of constant dollars. The
    Refuge staff has done an admirable job with the available resources,
    but they face a number of current and impending budget-related issues:
      --The current MINWR staff is 29 people, which provides less than one-
            half man-hour per acre per year of available labor for all
            operation and maintenance requirements. (The staff of the other
            six refuges in the complex is only 11.) One Refuge Manager
            position was eliminated in 2011, and the Supervisory Refuge
            Ranger position remains vacant for lack of available funding.
            That position is responsible for managing the Refuge's public
            services program . . . for those 750,000 people who visit each
            year. The vacancy will force the reduction of Visitor Center
            hours to 5 days per week from its current level of 7 days
            during the winter ``high season'' and 6 days through the
            summer.
      --Some of the Refuge's roads that historically have been open to the
            public have been closed this year due to lack of maintenance
            funds. Lack of adequate staffing also has caused planned
            expansions of the hunting program (to include upland game at
            MINWR and the satellite St. Johns NWR) to be postponed until
            2015 or later. Inadequate funding also will reduce maintenance
            of the levees and control structures used to manage water
            levels in the impoundments critical for waterfowl habitat.
            Without proper and timely water control, wintering waterfowl
            numbers can decline precipitously.
      --There are only about 250 law enforcement personnel within the
            entire NWRS; the MINWR 7-refuge complex has but 2. A 2005
            assessment by the International Association of Chiefs of Police
            recommended a NWRS force of 845 full-time officers. While crime
            within our refuge complex has not yet become a major problem,
            it is increasing. The law enforcement budget request for the
            entire NWRS is less than $40 million . . . for 150 million
            acres in more than 500 locations spread throughout 50 States.
            That is about a one-third of the annual budget for either the
            Brevard County Sheriff's Office or the Orlando Police
            Department.
      --Nationally, the 230 ``Friends'' groups such as MIWA and individual
            volunteers provide 1.4 million hours for NWRS programs and
            facilities--the equivalent of 665 full-time positions. But
            volunteers must be trained and managed to be effective, and
            that requires F&WS staff.
      --MINWR is responsible for wildfire protection throughout the Refuge,
            including Kennedy Space Center. Prescribed burning is the
            primary management tool for both fire risk reduction and for
            maintenance of scrub habitat for one of Florida's largest
            populations of the endangered Florida Scrub Jay. Staff has
            projected that prescribed burns may have to be reduced by up to
            25 percent in the coming year if sufficient staff and funds are
            not available.
        The impact of these issues on visitor orientation, assistance, and
    satisfaction is obvious, and quite likely to result in reduced
    visitation. And that problem extends well beyond MINWR.
        The Refuge is a linchpin in the local economy, and its senior staff
    have been closely and cooperatively involved in the efforts of
    Titusville and northern Brevard County--indeed, all of east central
    Florida--to deal with the repercussions of the ending of the NASA Space
    Shuttle program. The area has lost thousands of jobs in the past year
    and suffers from a painfully high unemployment rate.
        Local leaders have united to address this immediate and pressing
    problem . . . to turn an extraordinarily sour lemon into lemonade, to
    fall back on an old cliche. A notable example is the Greater Titusville
    Renaissance whose mission is to ``embark on an exciting path of
    revitalization by celebrating our natural and historic resources,
    cultivating arts and culture, and energizing our economy.'' Promoting
    and sustaining our nature-based tourism is an integral part of that
    concept.
        Using the survey data presented above, we estimate that our 750,000
    annual visitors are the source of more than $50 million in local gas,
    food, lodging, and other spending. MINWR is clearly a significant
    element in local economic recovery planning. Our community will be even
    more severely damaged if the Refuge's funding is eroded. We are a
    reflection of the entire NWRS in this regard. Nationwide, 45 million
    annual refuge visitors contribute nearly $1.7 billion to local
    economies and support tens of thousands of local jobs.
    Migratory Bird Management Program Budget
        Given the fundamental importance of migratory bird habitat
    preservation and enhancement to the purpose of MINWR, MIWA strongly
    supports the $51 million budget request for these programs. While
    originally focussed on our wintering waterfowl populations, the Refuge
    also includes some of the last intact coastal hammock and upland scrub
    along the Florida coast. These areas are heavily used by migrating
    neotropical land birds--passerines and other woodland species--moving
    along the Atlantic Flyway. MINWR also has many large expanses of mud
    flats and salt marsh used by migrating shorebirds, many of which are
    species of concern, and several miles of undisturbed beach and dunes.
        Coupled with our excellent waterfowl areas, these additional
    components of the Refuge underlie its 2001 designation by the American
    Bird Conservancy as a Globally Important Bird Area. There are only 500
    such areas worldwide--including 183 of our National Wildlife Refuges.
        This also underscores the global nature of the need for migratory
    bird protection. Many of the species passing through MINWR winter in
    Central and South America where habitat degradation is an increasingly
    serious problem. We also support the proposed $3.8 million
    appropriation request for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
    Fund.
        A significant percentage of the visitors to MINWR are birders.
    Without large numbers of wintering species and the recurring passage of
    the migrants, our birders will go elsewhere.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was created in 1965
    with the intention, never fulfilled, of annual funding of $900 million.
    These funds are derived primarily from offshore oil and gas drilling
    fees, not from general tax revenue. The administration's request this
    year is $104.7 million for the NWRS, but the Senate Transportation
    bill, as amended, would provide $700 million for national, State, and
    local efforts to conserve irreplaceable lands. We ask for your support
    of the increased amount. The LWCF can be an unequalled mechanism for
    the acquisition and preservation of critical habitats at the landscape
    scale. These would include the 8 million acres still unprotected within
    our National Wildlife Refuges and wildlife corridors between existing
    sanctuaries, preserves, and refuges.
    Summary
        We believe our National Wildlife Refuges are viewed as great
    national assets by the American people, and we know that Merritt Island
    National Wildlife Refuge enjoys that support in Florida. These are
    places where we go for the enjoyment of things not built by man, for
    reconnection with our natural heritage, and sometimes simply for stress
    relief. Our members know they provide all of that. We hope you will
    find the time to experience these things personally and often, and that
    you will support the National Wildlife Refuge System to--and perhaps
    beyond--the extent we have requested.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on this proposed
    appropriation.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
                                   California

        The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
    (Metropolitan) encourages the subcommittee's support for the U.S.
    Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water, and Air Program. This
    includes for fiscal year 2013, Federal funding of $5.2 million for
    general water quality improvement efforts within the Colorado River
    Basin and, of that amount, specifically $1.5 million for salinity
    specific projects to prevent further degradation of Colorado River
    water quality and increased downstream economic damages.
        The concentrations of salts in the Colorado River cause
    approximately $300 million in quantified damages in the lower Colorado
    River Basin States each year and significantly more in unquantified
    damages. Salinity concentrations of Colorado River water are lower than
    at the beginning of Program activities by more than 100 milligrams per
    liter (mg/L). Modeling by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)
    indicates that the quantifiable damages would rise to more than $500
    million by the year 2030 without continuation of the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Program (Program).
        Water imported via the Colorado River Aqueduct has the highest
    level of salinity of all of Metropolitan's sources of supply, averaging
    around 630 mg/L since 1976, which leads to economic damages. For
    example, damages occur from:
      --A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
            water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
      --A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
            water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
            dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
            softeners in the household sector;
      --An increase in the cost of cooling operations, and the cost of
            water softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in
            the commercial sector;
      --An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
            and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
      --A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
            utility sector;
      --Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
            terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
            disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
            basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to
            groundwater quality deterioration; and
      --Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
            desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
        Concern over salinity levels in the Colorado River has existed for
    many years. To deal with the concern, the International Boundary and
    Water Commission approved Minute No. 242, Permanent and Definitive
    Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado
    River in 1973, and the President signed into law the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974 (Act). High total dissolved solids
    in the Colorado River as it enters Mexico and the concerns of the seven
    Colorado River Basin States regarding the quality of Colorado River
    water in the United States drove these initial actions. To foster
    interstate cooperation and coordinate the Colorado River Basin States'
    efforts on salinity control, the seven Basin States formed the Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Forum.
        The Program reduces salinity by preventing salts from dissolving
    and mixing with the River's flow. Irrigation improvements (sprinklers,
    gated pipe, lined ditches) and vegetation management reduce the amount
    of salt transported to the Colorado River. Point sources such as saline
    springs are also controlled. The Federal Government, Basin States, and
    contract participants spend more than $40 million annually on salinity
    control programs.
        The Program, as set forth in the Act, benefits both the Upper
    Colorado River Basin water users through more efficient water
    management and the Lower Basin water users, hundreds of miles
    downstream from salt sources in the Upper Basin, through reduced
    salinity concentration of Colorado River water. California's Colorado
    River water users are presently suffering economic damages in the
    hundreds of millions of dollars per year due to the River's salinity.
        The Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall ``develop
    a comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to the
    Colorado River from lands administered by the Bureau of Land
    Management.'' BLM is the largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin.
    Due to geological conditions, much of the lands that are controlled and
    managed by the BLM are heavily laden with salt. Past management
    practices have led to human-induced and accelerated erosion processes
    from which soil and rocks, heavily laden with salt have been deposited
    in various stream beds or flood plains. As a result, salts are
    dissolved into the Colorado River system causing water quality problems
    downstream.
        The Congress has charged Federal agencies, including the BLM, to
    proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
    BLM's rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
    effective salinity control measures available. These measures
    significantly complement programs and activities being considered for
    implementation by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation through its Basin-wide
    Program and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through its on-farm
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
        Over the past years, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Program has proven to be a very cost-effective approach to help
    mitigate the impacts of increased salinity in the Colorado River.
    Continued Federal funding of this important Basin-wide program is
    essential.
        Metropolitan urges the subcommittee to fund BLM's Soil, Water, and
    Air Program for fiscal year 2013 at $5.2 million for general water
    quality improvement efforts in the Colorado River Basin. Metropolitan
    additionally urges you to specifically designate $1.5 million of that
    amount for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource
                                  Association

    Background
        One of the most significant threats to biodiversity in the Nation's
    coastal and estuarine habitats as well as inland navigable waters is
    the introduction of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species (ANS) into
    the ecosystem. The introduction of ANS through intentional or
    accidental means establishes a stress on ecosystems that can result in
    the decline of native species population, serve as an impediment to
    species recovery and pose a long-term economic and ecological threat to
    the health of the area. The control and management of these ANS in such
    areas as the Mississippi River Basin Drainage, Great Lakes, Everglades,
    and San Francisco Bay/Inland Delta costs the economy and taxpayers
    billions of dollars annually.
        MICRA commends the Congress and the Federal Government's
    recognition of this problem and efforts to address it through enactment
    of the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
    (NANPCA) of 1990 (Public Law 101-646) and the National Invasive Species
    Act (NISA) of 1996 (Public Law 104-332). The establishment of the
    Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) makes use of a coordinating
    body to improve efforts to administer the Government's responsibilities
    as carried out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); U.S. Coast Guard; U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
    other Federal agencies.
        As a part of their authority and responsibility for water resources
    management, individual States have moved forward with State based
    programs to combat aquatic nuisance species and to prevent their
    introduction into State waters. These programs supplement the national
    activity and are indicative of an ongoing need for resources and action
    to reduce the threat and minimize the impacts of ANS on U.S. waters.
    State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan
        The NANPCA (as amended by NISA) recognized that States are integral
    partners in the battle against ANS by authorizing the State/Interstate
    Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan (SIANSMP) grant program.
    Managed by the Service, the program provides annual funding to States,
    tribes, and Regional organizations to support the implementation of
    State and interstate ANS management plans that have been approved by
    the ANSTF. The SIANSMPs identify feasible, cost-effective measures to
    be undertaken by the States and cooperating entities to manage ANS
    infestations in an environmentally sound manner. This funding has
    helped many States initiate an ANS program and has enabled them to
    establish mechanisms for prevention, early detection and rapid
    response, containment, and control. Through their SIANSMPs, State
    efforts link together to form an effective national ANS program that
    combines strong Federal and State partnerships to eliminate or reduce
    the environmental, economic, public health and human safety risks
    associated with ANS.
        Section 1301(c) of NANPCA authorized a total of $4 million for the
    SIANSMP grant program; however, that amount has never been fully
    appropriated. Funding was gradually increased from $68,000 for the
    first approved State Management Plan in 1994, to its current level of
    $1,075,000 beginning in 2004. Over the years, the number of plans
    approved far outpaced the capacity of the SIANSMP funding. In 2011, the
    number of approved plans had reached 39, and the amount of support
    requested by the States was more than $9 million. The number of plans
    has increased almost 2.5 times since 2004, causing the amount of annual
    funding per plan to decrease over the same time period. In 2000, the
    Service provided approximately $100,000 per State for plan
    implementation; in 2004, it was approximately $71,000 per plan. In
    fiscal year 2011, the Service provided $29,800 to support each of the
    36 approved SIANSMPs that requested funding.
        More than 75 percent of the States have approved SIANSMPs. All but
    one Mississippi River Basin State are implementing an ANSTF approved
    plan or are at various stages of developing their State ANS plan. Each
    State has invested significant resources to develop a plan that meets
    its needs and addresses its priority ANS issues, and each has been able
    to significantly leverage available Federal funds. In 2010, the States
    combined the Federal contribution of $1.075 million with more than $6.6
    million in State and partner funds to complete a wide array of
    accomplishments toward the goals and objectives of their SIANSMPs.
        In some cases the funding from the FWS for SIANMPs represents the
    only funding the States spend on AIS, while in other cases, the annual
    allocation from the Service represents only a small portion of their
    total Invasive Species Management budgets. In either case, however,
    these funds are vital to supporting State AIS Coordinator positions or
    are pooled with other funds, and with other partners, to allow for
    effective and efficient collaborative projects to address plan
    priorities. For many States, a lack of dedicated State funding for the
    ANS Plans is an ongoing problem. Many elements of the SIANSMP have not
    been successfully implemented due to a lack of sufficient resources,
    and demands placed on the capacity of States to address these issues
    continue to outpace the availability of resources.
    President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget
        The States have developed ANSTF approved management plans and ANS
    programs in accordance with congressional authorizations in NANPCA and
    NISA. The SIANSMP grant program remains a high priority to States and
    is critical to their ability to implement successful ANS prevention and
    control programs. Funding for the SIANSMPs has remained stable since
    2004 at only 25 percent of the authorized level, however total requests
    to support the 36 approved State/Interstate ANS Management Plans that
    applied for funding in fiscal year 2011 exceeded $9 million. The States
    have consistently demonstrated a need for increased appropriations to
    implement ANS prevention and control priorities, yet the President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget eliminates the SIANSMP grant program for
    implementation of ANSTF-approved plans.
        MICRA urges the Congress to restore fiscal year 2013 appropriations
    of $1,075,000, and to provide additional fiscal year 2013
    appropriations to fully fund that SIANSMP grant program at $4 million
    as authorized by NANPCA and NISA.
        Note.--Information provided in this document was pulled from
    existing documents including:
      --2011-2012 Policy Positions for the Jurisdiction of the Environment
            Committee, National Conference of State Legislatures, http://
            www.ncsl.org/state-Federal-committees.aspx?tabs=855,23,667.
      --State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans 2010
            (1st in a Series of 3). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April
            2012.
      --Accomplishments of the State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species
            Management Plans A Summary of State Efforts in the Battle
            Against ANS (2nd in a Series of 3). U.S. Fish and Wildlife
            Service. February 2012.
      --The Evolution of the State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species
            Management Plan Grant Program (3rd in a Series of 3). U.S. Fish
            and Wildlife Service. April 2012.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Moat Creek Managing Agency

        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 2013
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
    President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF. As
    part of this LWCF request, the Bureau of Land Management included $4.5
    million for the acquisition of land at the California Coastal National
    Monument in Mendocino County. I respectfully urge you to support robust
    funding for the LWCF to ensure that this critical California
    conservation priority will receive the necessary funds.
        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 public benefits
    including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
    drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
    assisting wildlife and fisheries. LWCF investments also support jobs,
    tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
        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, historical, and recreation 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 a conservation
    offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
        For more than 100 years the small incorporated City of Point Arena
    and the Point Arena Lighthouse have clung to the rugged and remote
    coastline of Mendocino County in California. Surrounding the point and
    lying north of the town of Point Arena are the Stornetta Public Lands
    and Manchester Beach State Park, a complex of Federal and State
    conserved lands totaling approximately 3,350 acres.
        A unique designation, the national monument was proclaimed in 2000
    by President Bill Clinton to protect the coastline; offshore rocks,
    reefs, and islands; and marine habitats along the 1,100-mile Pacific
    Coast of California. The monument is part of the BLM's National
    Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), first created in 2000 and later
    authorized by the Congress in 2009. The State of California protects
    1,500 acres at Manchester Beach State Park. A privately held
    conservation easement inland along the Garcia River protects another
    589 acres. In total the public lands complex protects 6 miles of
    coastline.
        The jagged coastline of northern California is a major draw for
    tourists to Mendocino County. Most visitors access the area via
    California Route 1. Attracted by the scenery of the coast and
    recreational opportunities including hiking, biking, camping, wildlife
    viewing, ocean sports, and horseback riding, tourists also enjoy the
    hospitality of small communities like Point Arena. Tourism depends not
    only on the multiple small businesses along the Route 1 corridor,
    ranging from inns, shops, restaurants, and historic sites like the
    lighthouse, but also from the ecological and visual integrity of the
    high quality surrounding landscape.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2013 is the 409-acre
    second phase of the Cypress Abbey property. This property has BLM lands
    on three of its borders including California Coastal National Monument
    to its west, Stornetta Public Lands to its north, and the tract
    recently acquired in the first phase of the project to its south. The
    property boasts miles of gentle coastal bluff, rich riparian corridors,
    and approximately 2 miles of terraces and wild beach with natural
    bridges, tide pools, waterfalls, sinkholes and blowholes. The coastal
    bluffs and terraces include open meadows and forests of Shore Pine. The
    property and surrounding area supports habitat for the Behren's
    Silverspot Butterfly, Point Arena Mountain Beaver, and California Red-
    legged Frog, all federally listed endangered or threatened species.
        The acquisition will allow for a variety of onsite recreational
    uses, including interpretive hikes and studies; walking, and bicycling
    along multi-modal trails; and wildlife viewing. Visitors will be able
    to observe an array of seabirds along with wintering and migrating
    shorebirds such as black turnstones, surfbirds, and rock sandpipers.
    The exposed and vegetated offshore rocks support nesting sites for
    pelagic cormorants, pigeon guillemots, and black oystercatchers.
        Coastal trail access resulting from the proposed acquisition would
    create a gateway to the national monument and the scenic coastline,
    making this extraordinary resource accessible for public enjoyment.
    Acquisition of phase II lands will also provide the opportunity to
    create more than 8 miles of California Coastal Trail originating in the
    heart of the City of Point Arena and connecting to the protected open
    space. The protection of the property will also enhance the viewshed
    along California Route 1, the main access road for visitors to the
    coastline. The route is designated by Caltrans as an eligible State
    scenic highway.
        The project has the support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    the California State Coastal Conservancy, the California Department of
    Fish and Game, Mendocino County, the City of Point Arena, and other
    interested groups and organizations. The first phase of the project,
    comprising 123 acres, was completed in January 2012 using funds from
    the BLM and the California State Coastal Conservancy. A total of $5.3
    million is needed for the acquisition of the second phase.
        In its budget request for fiscal year 2013, the BLM included $4.5
    million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for California
    Coastal National Monument. Additional funds are being sought from State
    sources, the Federal Public Lands Highways Discretionary program, and
    private donors.
        In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund of $450 million, as proposed in the President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget, including critical funding for California
    Coastal National Monument. 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 Association of Abandoned Mine Land
                                    Programs

        My name is Madeline Roanhorse and I serve as the Manager of the AML
    Reclamation/UMTRA Department with the Navajo Nation. I am appearing
    today on behalf of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
    Programs (NAAMLP) The 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 and tribal AML grants are funded. These 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 and tribes should receive $488
    million in fiscal year 2013. In its fiscal year 2013 budget, the Office
    of Surface Mining (OSM) is requesting $307 million for State and tribal
    AML grants, a reduction of $180 million. OSM's budget also includes a
    legislative proposal for the establishment of a competitive grant
    process that would allegedly improve AML program efficiency. The
    legislative proposal would also eliminate funding to States and tribes
    that have ``certified'' completion of their highest-priority abandoned
    coal reclamation sites.
        Over the past 30 years, the accomplishments of the States and
    tribes under the AML program has resulted in tens of thousands of acres
    of abandoned mine lands having been reclaimed, thousands of mine
    openings having been closed, and safeguards for people, property and
    the environment having been put in place. Be assured that States and
    tribes continue to be committed to address the unabated hazards at both
    coal and noncoal abandoned mines. We are all united to play an
    important role in achieving the goals and objectives as set forth by
    the Congress when SMCRA was first enacted--including protecting public
    health and safety, enhancing the environment, providing employment, and
    adding to the economies of communities impacted by past coal and
    noncoal mining.
        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 the 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's or tribe's
    approved Abandoned Mine Reclamation Plan. These Abandoned Mine
    Reclamation Plans are approved by the Office of Surface Mining and they
    ensure 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.
        The elimination of funding for 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 by 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 respectively ask the subcommittee to support
    continued funding for certified States and tribes at the statutorily
    authorized levels, and turn back any efforts to amend SMCRA in this
    regard.
        In addition to the $180 million reduction for certified States and
    tribes, the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget perpetuates the
    termination of Federal funding for the 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.
        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 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 continues to allow the elimination of emergency
    program funding, 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 (AMLIS). 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.
        Based on our understanding of OSM's legislative proposal, there are
    a myriad of potential problems and implications for the entire AML
    program. A listing of our questions and concerns regarding the
    legislative proposal is attached to this statement and we urge the
    subcommittee to press OSM for answers. Given the 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 NAAMLP last year is
    attached.
        On a somewhat related matter, there appears to be increasing
    concern by some in Washington that the States and tribes are not
    spending the increased AML grant moneys that they have received under
    the 2006 Amendments in a more expeditious manner, thus resulting in
    what the administration has characterized as unacceptable levels of
    ``undelivered orders''. What these figures and statements fail to
    reflect is the degree to which AML grant moneys are obligated or
    otherwise committed for AML reclamation work as part of the normal
    grant process. Most AML grants are either 3 or 5 years in length and
    over that course of time, the States and tribes are in a continual
    process of planning, bidding and contracting for specific AML projects.
    Some projects are multi-layered and require extended periods of time to
    complete this process before a shovel is turned at the AML site. And
    where Federal funding is concerned, additional time is necessary to
    complete the myriad statutory approvals for AML work to begin,
    including compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the
    National Historic Preservation Act.
        In almost every case, however, based on the extensive planning that
    the States and tribes undertake, AML grant funds are committed to
    specific projects even while clearances and bidding are underway. While
    funds may not technically be ``obligated'' because they are not yet
    ``drawn down'', these funds are committed for specific purposes. Once
    committed, States and tribes consider this grant money to be obligated
    to the respective project, even though the ``order'' has not been
    ``delivered'' and the funds actually ``drawn down''. The latter can
    only occur once the project is completed, which will often be several
    years later, depending on the size and complexity of the project. We
    would be happy to provide the subcommittee with more detailed
    information about our grant expenditures and project planning in order
    to answer any questions you may have about how we account for and spend
    our AML grant moneys. Given the confusion that often attends the
    various terms used to describe the grant expenditure process, we
    believe it is critical that the Congress hear directly from the States
    and tribes on this matter and not rely solely on the administration's
    statements and analyses. We welcome the opportunity to brief your
    subcommittee in more detail regarding this issue should you so desire.
        One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML
    restoration work is through leveraging or matching other grant
    programs, such as EPA's 319 program. Until fiscal year 2009, language
    was always included in OSM's appropriation that encouraged the use of
    these types of matching funds, particularly for the purpose of
    environmental restoration related to treatment or abatement of acid
    mind drainage (AMD) from abandoned mines. This is an ongoing, and often
    expensive, problem, especially in Appalachia. NAAMLP therefore requests
    the subcommittee to support the inclusion of language in the fiscal
    year 2013 appropriations bill that would allow the use of AML funds for
    any 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 $1.2 million because it
    facilitates and enhances State and local partnerships by providing
    direct financial assistance to watershed organizations for acid mine
    drainage remediation.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement regarding
    OSM's proposed budget for fiscal year 2013. We would be happy to answer
    any questions you may have or provide additional information.

                                   ATTACHMENT
    QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS RE THE ABANDONED MINE LAND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
                        IN OSM'S FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET

    The Proposed Competitive Allocation Process
        What is the potential for this new review and ranking process to
    reduce expenditures and increase efficiency without being counter-
    productive? Will it introduce an additional level of bureaucracy and
    result in more time being spent formulating proposals and less on
    actual AML reclamation? The present funding formula, while not perfect,
    at least provides some direction on which to base long-term strategic
    planning and efficient use of available funds. The closest analogy to
    what OSM is proposing by way of its competitive allocation process is
    the way BLM and the Forest Service currently allocate their AML funds
    through competitive proposals to various State offices and regions.
    Because of the uncertainties of funding, neither agency has been able
    to develop significant in-house expertise, but instead often rely on
    SMCRA-funded States like Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado to do a
    good portion of their AML work. Why would OSM want to duplicate a
    system that has proven problematic for other agencies?
        Who would be the ``other parties'' potentially bidding on AML grant
    funds? Would this include Federal agencies such as BLM, USFS, NPS, etc?
    If so, in many cases, those agencies already rely on the States to
    conduct their reclamation work and also determine priorities based on
    State input or guidance.
        What do the State project managers and inspectors do if a State
    does not win a competitive bid for AML funds? How does a State gear up
    if it receives funding for more projects than it can handle with
    present staffing? Each State and tribe has different grant cycles.
    Unless all are brought into one uniform cycle, how will everyone
    compete for the same dollars? In this regard, how can the competitive
    allocation process and the use of the Advisory Council be more
    efficient and simple than what we already have in place?
        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 on AMLIS? 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 do the States and tribes 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?
        What ranking criteria will be used to determine the priority of
    submitted AML project grant requests? The number of people potentially
    affected? The current priority ranking on AMLIS? How would the Council
    determine whether a burning gob pile near a city presents a greater
    hazard than a surface mine near a highway or an underground mine
    beneath a residential area? Would the winning bid be the ``most
    convincing'' proposal? The one with the most signatures on a petition?
    The one with the most influential legislative delegation? Will AMLIS
    continue to serve as the primary mechanism for identifying sites and
    their priority status?
        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?
    What about the amounts due and owing to certified States and tribes
    that were phased in during fiscal year 2009-2011?
        Has anyone alleged or confirmed that the States/tribes are NOT
    already addressing the highest-priority sites for reclamation within
    the context of the current AML program structure under the 2006
    Amendments? 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?
    The Nature and Purpose of the Advisory Council
        Who would be on the AML Advisory Council and how could they
    collectively have better decisionmaking knowledge about hazardous AML
    sites than the State and tribal project managers and administrators who
    work with these sites on a daily basis?
        What will be the criteria to serve on the Advisory Council? Will
    the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements apply to the
    formation and deliberations of the Council? How long does OSM envision
    it will take to establish the Council and when will it become
    operational?
        Will the Advisory Council be providing recommendations to OSM or
    will OSM make all final decisions? Will these decisions by appealable?
    If so, to who? Does OSM envision needing to develop internal guidance
    for its own review process? If so, how long will it potentially take
    from Advisory Council review and recommendation to final OSM decision
    in order to complete the grant process so a State can begin a project?
        What degree of detail will be required in order to review and
    approve competitive grant applications? Will the Council review each
    project? What type of time constraints will be placed on their review?
        Will the Advisory Council consider partial grants for projects that
    may exceed the allocation for a single year? Would minimum program
    States be authorized to apply for a grant that would exceed $3 million?
        Will grant applications be based on an individual project or will
    the grant be based on a project year? How will cost overruns be
    handled?
    Planning for Abandoned Mine Land Work
        One of the greatest benefits of reauthorization under the 2006
    Amendments to SMCRA was the predictability of funding 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 more accurately and efficiently. How can States/tribes
    plan for future projects given the uncertainty associated with having
    to annually bid for AML funds? NEPA compliance issues alone can take
    years of planning. One State recently asked its State Historic
    Preservation Office for initial consultation regarding project sites
    that may be reclaimed over the next 5 years. This process will also
    have significant impacts on those States that utilize multi-year
    construction contracts that are paid for with annual AML grants.
        State and tribal AML projects are often planned 18 months to 2
    years in advance of actually receiving construction funds, based on
    anticipated funding under the 2006 Amendments. During that time, States
    and tribes are performing environmental assessments, conducting
    archeology reviews, completing real estate work and doing NEPA
    analyses. There could be considerable effort and money wasted if a
    project does not get approved during the competitive allocation
    process.
        At what point does a State or tribe seek approval from the advisory
    council? Considerable investigation must take place prior to developing
    most projects, whether they be acid mine drainage projects or health
    and safety projects. How much time should be spent in design prior to
    proceeding to the Council? How accurate must a cost estimate be prior
    to taking a project before the Council? The greater the accuracy, the
    greater the design time expended, possibly for a project that will be
    rejected.
        State and tribes often seek and obtain valuable matching funds from
    watershed groups, which take considerable lead time to acquire. It will
    be difficult to commit to partners if we don't know what level of
    funding, if any, will be made available from OSM.
        Several States have committed significant amounts of money to
    waterline projects across the coalfields. Local governmental entities
    have started designs and applied for additional funds from other
    agencies to match AML funds in order to make these projects a reality.
    Ending all AML funding for these projects (assuming they are not
    considered ``high priority'') could have significant consequences for
    local communities. Our understanding is that these projects were
    excluded under the 2006 Amendments from the priority scheme contained
    in section 403(a) of SMCRA.
        Does OSM's proposal allow acid mine drainage (AMD) projects to be
    undertaken? Can these be designated as high priority? (Our
    understanding is that those AMD projects undertaken pursuant to the
    ``AMD set-aside program'' are not subject to the priority scheme under
    section 403(a) and that those AMD projects done ``in conjunction with''
    a priority 1 or 2 project are considered ``high priority''.) How do
    States handle ongoing engineering, operating and maintenance costs for
    existing AMD treatment systems? As the administration works diligently
    to develop a new rule to protect streams nationwide, why would it
    advance a proposal to essentially halt the cleanup of streams funded by
    the AML program?
    Overarching Concerns
        Given the original design of SMCRA by its framers that AML funds
    will only be allocated to those States who agree to implement title V
    regulatory programs for active mining operations, to what extent can we
    expect that States will continue to implement and fund their title V
    programs if Title IV funding is drastically cut or eliminated under the
    proposal? Furthermore, since States and tribes will not know what level
    of AML program staffing to maintain from year to year under the
    proposal, who would desire to work for a program that is in a constant
    state of flux?
        The SMCRA 2006 Amendments were the result of roughly 10 years of
    negotiations, discussions, and debates in the Congress. Since the
    legislative process to enact these new proposed changes could take
    years, why didn't OSM begin with the legislation and then follow up
    with an appropriate budget proposal? Why weren't the States/tribes or
    the NAAMLP included in discussions that led to this legislative
    proposal?
        As OSM develops the legislative proposal for a competitive bidding
    process, the agency should consider the impacts on minimum programs and
    consider maintaining the minimum allocation of $3 million for minimum
    program States.
        What type of State AML plan amendments does OSM foresee as a result
    of this new process?
    Proposed Elimination of Funding for Abandoned Mine Land Emergencies
        While amendments to title IV of SMCRA in 2006 (Public Law 109-432)
    adjusted several provisions of the act, no changes were made to OSM's
    emergency powers in section 410. Quite to the contrary, section
    402(g)(1)(D)(2) states that the Secretary shall ensure ``strict
    compliance'' with regard to the States' and tribes' use of nonemergency
    grant funds for the priorities listed in section 403(a), none of which
    include emergencies. The funding for the emergency program comes from
    the Secretary's discretionary share, pursuant to section 402(g)(3) of
    the act. This share currently stands at $416 million. OSM's elimination
    of funding for the emergency program will result in the shift of
    approximately $20 million annually that will have to be absorbed by the
    States. This is money that cannot be spent on high priority AML work
    (as required by SMCRA) and will require the realignment of State AML
    program operations in terms of personnel, project design and
    development, and construction capabilities. In most cases, depending on
    the nature and extent of an emergency project, it could preclude a
    State's ability to undertake any other AML work during the grant year
    (and even following years), especially for minimum program States. How
    does OSM envision States and tribes being able to meet their statutory
    responsibility to address high-priority AML sites in light of the
    elimination of Federal funding for AML emergencies? How does OSM
    reconcile this proposal with the intentions of the Congress expressed
    in the 2006 amendments to move more money out of the AML Fund sooner to
    address the backlog of AML problems that continue to linger?
    Proposed Elimination of Funding to Certified States and Tribes
        From what we can ascertain, OSM proposes to eliminate all payments
    to certified States and tribes--in lieu of funds; prior balance
    replacement funds; and monies that are due and owing in fiscal year
    2018 and 2019 from the phase-in during fiscal years 2008 and 2009. Is
    this accurate? OSM says nothing of what the impact will be on
    noncertified States as a result of eliminating these payments to
    certified States and tribes--especially the equivalent payments that
    would otherwise be made to the historic production share that directly
    relate to ``in lieu of'' payments to certified States and tribes under
    section 411(h)(4). Previously, OSM has stated that ``the amounts that
    would have been allocated to certified States and tribes under section
    402(g)(1) of SMCRA will be transferred to the historical production
    allocation on an annual basis to the extent that those States and
    tribes receive in lieu payments from the Treasury (through the
    Secretary of the Interior) under section 402(i) and 411(h)(2) of
    SMCRA.'' By OSM's own admission in its fiscal year 2013 proposed
    budget, this will amount to $1.2 billion over 10 years. If the in lieu
    payments are not made (as proposed), how can the transfer to historic
    production occur? The result, of course, would be a drastic impact on
    the historic production allocation otherwise available to uncertified
    States. Will OSM address this matter in its proposed legislation? If
    so, how?
        Has OSM considered the fiscal and programmatic impacts that could
    result if the certified States and tribes, who no longer receive AML
    monies, choose to return their title V regulatory programs to OSM
    (especially given the severe reductions being proposed for fiscal year
    2013 in title V grants)?
        Finally, how do the cuts in the Title IV program line up with the
    administration's other economic, fiscal and environmental objectives as
    articulated in the deficit reduction and jobs bills that have been
    considered by the Congress? These objectives include environmental
    stewardship, cleaning up abandoned mines (coal and noncoal) nationwide,
    creating green jobs, pumping dollars into local communities, putting
    money to work on the ground in an expeditious manner, sustainable
    development, infrastructure improvements, alternative energy projects,
    protecting public health and safety, and improving the environment. It
    seems to us that there is a serious disconnect here and we remain
    mystified as to how these laudable objectives and OSM's budget proposal
    can be reconciled.
                                     ______

     RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ABANDONED MINE LAND PROGRAMS

    WHEREAS, Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
            1977 (SMCRA) established the Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
            reclamation program; and
    WHEREAS, the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs
            (NAAMLP) was established as a nonprofit corporation to
            accomplish the objectives of its 30 member tribes and States to
            eliminate health and safety hazards and reclaim land and water
            resources adversely affected by past mining and left in an
            abandoned or inadequately restored condition; and
    WHEREAS, NAAMLP members administer AML programs funded and overseen by
            the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
            U.S. Department of the Interior; and
    WHEREAS, pursuant to the cooperative Federalism approach contained in
            SMCRA, all tribes and States who are members of NAAMLP have
            federally approved abandoned mine reclamation plans; and
    WHEREAS, SMCRA, Title IV, establishes a reclamation fee on each ton of
            coal mined in the United States to pay for abandoned mine land
            reclamation; and
    WHEREAS, SMCRA, Title IV, mandates that 50 percent of the reclamation
            fees collected annually are designated as State/tribal share
            funds to be returned to the States and tribes from which coal
            was mined to pay for reclamation programs administered by the
            States and tribes; and
    WHEREAS, SMCRA Title IV also mandates that a minimum level of funding
            should be provided to ensure effective State program
            implementation; and
    WHEREAS, Congress enacted amendments to SMCRA in 2006 to address, among
            other things, funding for State and tribal programs and fee
            collection to address existing and future AML reclamation; and
    WHEREAS, the 2006 Amendments established new, strict criteria that
            ensures States and tribes expend funds on high priority AML
            sites; and
    WHEREAS, the proposed 2012 budget for the Office of Surface Mining
            Reclamation and Enforcement within the U.S. Department of the
            Interior would abandon the 50/50 State-Federal partnership
            established under SMCRA and renege on the funding formula under
            the 2006 amendments by, among other things, eliminating
            mandatory funding for those States and tribes who have
            certified the completion of their coal reclamation work and
            adjusting the mechanism by which noncertified States receive
            their mandatory funding through a competitive bidding process;
            and
    WHEREAS, if statutory changes are approved by Congress as suggested by
            the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget for OSMRE, reclamation of
            abandoned mine lands within certified States and tribes would
            halt; reclamation of abandoned mine lands in all States would
            be jeopardized; employment of contractors, suppliers,
            technicians and others currently engaged in the reclamation of
            abandoned mine lands would be endangered; the cleanup of
            polluted lands and waters across the United States would be
            threatened by failing to fund reclamation of abandoned mine
            lands in some States; minimum program State funding would be
            usurped; the AML water supply replacement program would be
            terminated, leaving coalfield citizens without potable water;
            and the intent of Congress as contained in the 2006 amendments
            to SMCRA and its 2006 Amendments would be undermined

    NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ABANDONED
    MINE LAND PROGRAMS THAT ITS MEMBER TRIBES AND STATES:

    Opposes the legislative proposal terminating funding for certified
    States and tribes and altering the receipt of mandatory AML funding for
    noncertified States contained in the fiscal year 2012 budget proposal
    for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement and
    instead supports the AML funding mechanism contained in current law.

                                       Issued this 22nd day of February,
                                           2011

                                       ATTEST:

                                       Michael P. Garner,
                                       President, NAAMLP.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies

        The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) appreciates
    this opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year 2013 proposed
    budget for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    NACAA is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit association of air
    pollution control agencies in 45 States, the District of Columbia, 4
    territories and more than 165 metropolitan areas. The members of NACAA
    have the primary responsibility under the Clean Air Act for
    implementing our Nation's clean air program. The air quality
    professionals in our member agencies have vast experience dedicated to
    improving air quality in the United States. The comments we offer are
    based upon that experience. The views expressed in these comments do
    not necessarily represent the positions of every State and local air
    pollution control agency in the country. NACAA supports the President's
    request for a $65.8 million increase in Federal grants for State and
    local air pollution control agencies under sections 103 and 105 of the
    Clean Air Act--part of the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG)
    program (for a total of $301.5 million).
    Air Pollution is a Significant Public Health Problem
        With all the competing requests the Congress must address, one may
    ask why air quality programs should receive additional funding. The
    answer is that dirty air poses a significant risk; tens of thousands of
    people die prematurely every year. In fact, it would be fair to say
    that more people die from air pollution than from almost any other
    problem under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. Many more people suffer
    serious health problems as a result of air pollution, including
    aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease; damage
    to lung tissue; impaired breathing; irregular heart beat; heart
    attacks; adverse effects on learning, memory, IQ, and behavior; and
    cancer.
        While Federal, State and local clean air programs have made
    tremendous progress, millions of people in this country continue to
    breathe unhealthful air. EPA estimated that about 124 million people
    lived in areas that violated at least one of the health-based National
    Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 2010.\1\ EPA's data on toxic
    air pollution showed that everyone in the United States had an
    increased cancer risk of more than 10 in 1 million (1 in 1 million is
    generally considered ``acceptable'') in 2005.\2\ Finally, air pollution
    also harms vegetation and land and water systems, impairs visibility
    and causes other adverse impacts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Our Nation's Air: Status and Trends Through 2010 (February
    2012), EPA, www.epa.gov/airtrends/2011/.
        \2\ National Air Toxics Assessment for 2005--Fact Sheet,
    www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Current State of Funding for Air Quality Programs
        Funding for State and local air pollution control programs comes
    from several sources, including State and local appropriations; the
    Federal permit fee program under title V of the Clean Air Act; State
    and local permit and emissions fee programs and Federal grants under
    sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act. Section 103 has usually
    funded specific monitoring efforts (e.g., particulate matter
    monitoring), while section 105 supports the foundation of State and
    local air quality programs, including, but not limited to, personnel.
        The Clean Air Act authorizes the Federal Government to provide
    grants up to 60 percent of the cost of State and local air quality
    programs, while State and local agencies must provide a 40-percent
    match (as per section 105). In reality, however, the Federal Government
    provides less than one-quarter of the total State/local air budget,
    while State and local governments supply more than three-quarters (not
    including income from title V permit fees). Furthermore, numerous air
    quality agencies receive no section 105 grants and must supply all of
    the funds to implement federally mandated programs to attain and
    maintain the national air quality standards.
        Not only do Federal funds provide a small share of the cost of
    Clean Air Act programs, those grants have actually decreased in
    purchasing power over the years due to inflation. As the following
    chart shows, this decline between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2011
    has equaled 9 percent.

        Because of current economic conditions, many State and local air
    agencies are finding it difficult to keep essential programs operating.
    Many have had to reduce or eliminate programs that protect public
    health and have had to reduce their staffs. As a result, States and
    localities are more dependent than ever on their Federal grants.
        In this time of limited State and local resources, where State and
    local governments are straining to maintain existing programs,
    additional Federal funding is needed to meet the ongoing and ever-
    increasing responsibilities and challenges of air quality programs. A
    2009 NACAA funding study documented an annual shortfall of $550 million
    in Federal grants for State and local air programs.\3\ While the
    proposed increase would not solve all our funding problems, it is
    critically needed to help fill the gap in our efforts to attain and
    maintain healthful air quality.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ 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/Reportneedssurvey042709.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        An EPA study from March 2011 highlighted the cost effectiveness of
    air quality programs, showing that the benefits from the Clean Air Act
    have outweighed the costs by more than 30 to 1.\4\ Moreover, an EPA
    White Paper from last year reported that environmental protection,
    including air quality, has had a significant positive effect on our
    economy in general and job creation in particular.\5\ Certainly
    additional jobs, a healthier and more productive workforce and fewer
    healthcare expenditures are all beneficial to our economy and should be
    encouraged through congressional appropriations, such as grants to
    State and local agencies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 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.
        \5\ Empirical Evidence Regarding the Effects of the Clean Air Act
    on Jobs and Economic Growth, EPA White Paper (February 9, 2011), http:/
    /www.epa.gov/ocir/pdf/hottopics/2011_0208_white_paper.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Permit Fees Cannot Fill the Gap
        Some believe that the permit and emission fee program under title V
    of the Clean Air Act is the answer to the State and local air agencies'
    financial problems. Unfortunately, this is not so for several reasons.
    First, the fees must support only the operating permit program (and
    associated program support) and must not be used for other activities.
    Second, fees only apply to major sources and do not cover the
    significant costs related to nonmajor sources, which include minor
    source permits, monitoring, enforcement, compliance assistance, etc.
    Third, fee revenue is decreasing due to reductions in the emissions on
    which they are based.
        Increases in costs for air quality programs (except for permit
    programs themselves) are not addressed by title V permit fee programs.
    The Clean Air Act's fee program, while essential to State and local
    efforts, is not the solution to the funding problem. Federal grants
    must be expanded to meet the significant resource requirements.
    The Increases Will Support Essential Programs
        The President's proposed budget calls for a much-needed increase of
    $65.8 million more than fiscal year 2012 levels for several very
    important activities. We urge the Congress to provide the amount of
    increased grants the administration is recommending, but to allow State
    and local air agencies the flexibility to determine which activities
    are most in need of additional funds in their areas. While there is a
    need for additional funds for a myriad of programs and activities at
    the State and local levels, most agencies find that they will require
    additional grants primarily for two major categories:
      --core programs; and
      --monitoring.
        Core Activities.--We are gratified that the President's request
    calls for additional grants to support State and local air agencies'
    core programs. These activities are the very foundation of our programs
    and include current day-to-day activities, as well as new and
    innovative efforts to address additional requirements. As EPA issues
    updated health-based NAAQS, State and local air agencies must prepare
    or update State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Specifically in fiscal
    year 2013, State and local air agencies must implement the revised
    lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide
    (SO2) NAAQS, and the current particulate matter (PM), and
    ozone NAAQS. This includes the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006
    24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (through anti-
    backsliding requirements), the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the 2008 8-
    hour ozone NAAQS. To develop these SIPs, State and local air agencies
    must compile emission inventories, carry out sophisticated modeling,
    significantly expand and operate monitoring networks, adopt and enforce
    regulations and address complex multi-pollutant and multi-state
    transport issues, among others. Additionally, agencies must
    continuously reassess and change SIPs as they are implemented. All of
    these important activities require significant resources.
        Monitoring.--State and local air agencies are facing a host of
    ongoing and additional monitoring requirements to address standards for
    ozone, lead, NO2 and SO2 that are either new or
    have been revised. In addition to monitoring for the health-based
    criteria pollutants, additional monitoring of toxic air pollutants is
    necessary. These monitoring activities provide information about the
    amount of pollution in the air and, later, about how successful our
    control strategies have been. In order to accomplish this monitoring,
    these agencies must purchase and operate additional ambient air
    monitoring equipment. While the budget request for air quality
    monitoring in fiscal year 2013 would not address all our additional
    monitoring needs, it would certainly help clean air agencies to expand
    their monitoring programs.
        EPA is proposing to begin the process of shifting funds for fine
    particulate matter (PM2.5) monitoring from section 103
    authority, where no match is needed, to section 105, which would
    require additional matching funds. We strongly urge that these funds
    remain under section 103 authority, as they have in the past. For
    individual agencies that have concerns about the matching requirements,
    this will ensure that they can continue receiving these monitoring
    funds. Additionally, we are concerned that EPA is proposing to reduce
    the total amount specifically set aside for fine particulate matter
    monitoring, based on the theory that State and local air agencies will
    fill in the reduced amount as part of their matching funds. However, as
    many agencies are already overmatched and would not be adding to the
    funds set aside for PM2.5 monitoring, this important
    monitoring program could suffer. We recommend that EPA allot the same
    amount for PM2.5 monitoring as it did last year and leave
    the entire amount under section 103 authority.
    Conclusion
        The President's budget request calls for a much-needed increase in
    grants to State and local air quality agencies at a time when they are
    required to take on significant new responsibilities and continue their
    current efforts. While these increases would not completely address the
    enormous funding deficit that these programs face, they would be very
    helpful to State and local air quality programs.
        NACAA recommends, therefore, that the Congress appropriate an
    amount consistent with the President's fiscal year 2013 request for
    Federal grants to State and local air quality agencies under sections
    103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, which is $305.1 million. This
    represents an increase of $65.8 million more than the fiscal year 2012
    appropriated amount.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important issue
    and for your consideration of the funding needs of State and local air
    quality programs as they work to improve and protect public health.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Association of Forest Service
                                    Retirees

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the National
    Association of Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR) respectfully submits the
    following statement for the record to the Subcommittee on the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies regarding the fiscal year 2013 budget
    for the United States Forest Service (USFS). I am Hank Kashdan,
    Legislative Director for NAFSR. I retired from USFS in December 2010
    having served as Associate Chief immediately prior to retirement. Let
    me first express NAFSR's gratitude for this opportunity to provide
    recommendations on the proposed budget for USFS. The NAFSR organization
    is a national, nonprofit organization of former USFS employees and
    associates. Members of the Association possess a unique body of
    knowledge, expertise and experience in the management of the National
    Forests, other public lands, forestry research, State and private
    forestry assistance, agency history, laws and regulations, and
    international forestry. Members of NAFSR are devoted to contributing to
    understanding and resolving natural resource issues through education,
    independent and cooperative analysis, and periodic review and critiques
    of agency policies and programs.
        This statement will address four areas of the administration's
    proposed budget and programs for the USFS:
      --the Wildland Fire Management Program;
      --the Agency's Focus on Restoration;
      --State and Private Forestry and Redesign; and
      --Potential Administrative Reforms to be Implemented by the
            Department of Agriculture.
        Before addressing the specific areas noted above, NAFSR would first
    like to express its appreciation to the subcommittee for its clear
    commitment to preserving the core programs of USFS during some
    difficult budgetary times. In our opinion, the final enacted budget for
    fiscal year 2012 clearly indicates the Congress's appreciation of the
    importance of the USFS mission in managing the America's precious
    natural resources. As the budgetary pressure continues to affect the
    discretionary funding in the Federal budget, we are confident that with
    your support, the USFS will continue its ability to effectively steward
    the Nation's forests and grasslands and maintain a Forest and Rangeland
    Research program that is among the best in the world.

                            WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

        The administration proposes to fund wildfire suppression costs at
    the 10-year average and proposes a slight decrease in fire preparedness
    while targeting $24 million for ``modernizing the firefighting large
    airtanker fleet.'' NAFSR feels it important to raise several concerns
    regarding this budget proposal. First pertaining to wildfire
    suppression; while we concur that it is appropriate to fund wildfire
    suppression at the 10-year average, it is important to note the strong
    potential to exceed this amount during the fire season. The last three
    wildfire seasons have involved lower than normal large fires and
    significantly reduced expenditures. As a result under provisions of the
    FLAME Act, unexpended funds would normally have remained available for
    use in a season where expenditures exceeded available funds. However
    due to significant budgetary pressure, the Congress elected to use
    these unobligated funds for other purposes, thus resulting in funds
    only being available to the level of the 10-year average. While USFS's
    attention to appropriate wildfire suppression response can credited
    with some of the reduced wildfire suppression costs, it is clear that
    Mother Nature has been the primary contributor. These lower than normal
    wildfire seasons should not be expected to continue. The prospect of
    suppression costs exceeding available funding raises the very
    significant concern about a return to the ``wildfire suppression
    transfers'' that so detrimentally affected the agency's mission during
    wildfire seasons in the fiscal years of 2000 through 2005. As USFS
    ramps up its effort to restore unhealthy and wildfire prone ecosystems,
    a return to fire transfers of the past is a serious issue that can be
    disruptive to the critical work of the agency. This was pointed out by
    the Government Accountability Office in its report entitled ``Funding
    Transfers Cause Project Cancellations and Delays, Strained
    Relationships, and Management Disruptions, GAO-04-612, June 2, 2004.''
    In these challenging budgetary times, NAFSR can only assume that should
    fire transfers occur, the prospect of immediate action to provide
    supplemental funding will be unlikely. This eventuality is one of the
    primary reasons FLAME was enacted, and which would not be redeemed if
    the coming season, or that of fiscal year 2013 is severe. NAFSR urges
    the subcommittee to prepare for a bad season through some form of
    advance emergency suppression provision in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
        The President's budget for wildfire preparedness reflects a $2.9
    million decrease and specifically targets $24 million for modernizing
    the large airtanker fleet. The agency's budget overview indicates there
    will be a decreased preparedness staffing level of 438 full-time
    equivalents based on this budget request. NAFSR urges the subcommittee
    to provide funding to retain a level wildfire preparedness staffing
    level. It has been continually demonstrated that the most effective way
    to control suppression costs is to be successful upon initial attack.
    Any decrease in staffing levels jeopardizes such ability to
    successfully suppress a wildfire at the time of initial attack. A
    single wildfire could cost as much as $100 million to suppress. Thus
    the agency needs to be aggressive in suppressing all wildfires at the
    point of initial attack as this will help contain costs; costs that can
    be turned into landscape restoration actions which are investments that
    will cut the costs to the Federal budget and impacted communities.
        In regards to the targeted funding for large airtankers, NAFSR
    concurs that any viable option for providing new airframes will cost
    more. However, NAFSR strongly discourages the subcommittee from
    authorizing any USFS purchase of C-130 aircraft (an option in the
    recently released airtanker strategy) at a cost of close to $80 million
    each. With the airtanker industry clearly able to provide suitable
    airframes if USFS can expand its contracting authorities, there is no
    reasonable rationale to use large sums of taxpayer money to purchase
    aircraft. This situation has become critical. The continuing loss of
    airtankers and medium retardant helicopters is making more perilous the
    ability with cooperators to effectively achieve initial wildfire attack
    response requirements. In fiscal year 2000 there were 43 available
    airtankers. Only 11 are available for the 2012 fire season. Adequate
    Federal airtanker capability is essential to keep a balance of local,
    State and Federal airtankers available to meet fire response time
    standards that are critical to protecting natural resources, watershed
    values, communities, public safety, and infrastructure. We encourage
    the subcommittee to continue to explore enhanced contracting
    authorities that will enable private industry to meet the large
    airtanker needs.

                 UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE RESTORATION FOCUS

        The President's budget reflects a strong focus on restoration
    programs to restore ecosystems to healthy and resilient conditions.
    NAFSR concurs with this focus and recognizes that such efforts will
    improve the economy of local communities and over the long term reduce
    the vulnerability to catastrophic wildfire events. Key components of
    the restoration focus involve community collaboration, full funding of
    the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP), and
    achieving permanent authority for Stewardship Contracting. In this
    regard NAFSR is fully supportive of the President's budget. However, we
    note that the President's budget again reflects a request to
    consolidate restoration activities under an Integrated Resource
    Restoration (IRR) budget line item. While NAFSR agrees this line item
    has potential to improve overall agency performance, and reflects a
    better integration of the broad range of agency programs, from the an
    accountability standpoint, ``the jury is still out.'' NAFSR is very
    appreciative that the Congress authorized a pilot program to test the
    IRR concept in three regions, and recommends that further
    consolidations of budget line items not be enacted until the agency can
    demonstrate improved efficiency and performance over the life of the
    pilot. Although the budget reflects a reduction of $12.1 million in
    restoration related programs, NAFSR does support the budget overall in
    light of the challenging budgetary outlook in fiscal year 2013. In
    order to offset this reduction NAFSR recommends full funding of the
    CFLRP as requested in the budget. NAFSR further recommends continued
    support for implementing permanent authority for Stewardship
    Contracting. This contracting authority is a core element of community
    collaboration and is quickly becoming the tool of choice for USFS land
    managers in achieving desired restoration objectives.

                    STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY AND REDESIGN

        Efforts to significantly improve forest and grassland restoration
    objectives must be accomplished in concert with USFS State and Private
    Forestry Program. NAFSR notes an overall decrease in State and private
    funding of $2.1 million, and recommends that such a reduction not occur
    at the expense of International Forestry and Forest Inventory and
    Analysis. Rather, NAFSR recommends that the proposed funding level for
    the Forest Legacy Program be reduced to levels that will restore Forest
    Inventory and Analysis and International Forestry to the fiscal year
    2012 level.
        The President's budget for the State and Private Program includes a
    proposal to combine several budget line items for Federal Lands Forest
    Health and Cooperative Lands Forest Health, as well as the
    establishment of a Landscape Scale Restoration budget line item which
    consolidates six previously separate programs funded under Wildland
    Fire and State and Private. NAFSR supports these consolidations.
    Although NAFSR expressed concern for a similar consolidation under the
    National Forest System account, in the case of State and Private, we
    are supportive. This budget proposal is a result of extensive
    collaboration with partners over several years which has led to the
    ``State and Private Redesign.'' The reality of the State and Private
    Program's budget is that the individual programs have small amount of
    funds (compared to other agency line items) that achieve efficiency
    through leveraging with partners. NAFSR supports the consolidated line
    item as a way of stretching these funds over the widest possible
    restoration focus in cooperation with State and local partners.

    POTENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
                                  AGRICULTURE

        The NAFSR organization consists of retired employees who reside
    across the Nation and who maintain extensive contact with the
    organization and partners at all levels. Many of our members are
    raising concerns about the prospect of future administrative
    consolidations that might be implemented by the Department of
    Agriculture (USDA). While the agency has recovered for the most part
    from the impacts of major efficiency efforts that resulted in
    consolidated services for information technology, human resources, and
    financial management, it appears USFS is likely to be forced through
    another set of reforms as USDA undertakes significant efforts to
    improve efficiency. While NAFSR is supportive of any effort to enhance
    efficiency and stretch funding to accomplish the agency's mission, we
    do have concerns that the USDA efforts, if not done incrementally and
    with full recognition of prior consolidation missteps, will once again
    result in chaotic impacts and expense. NAFSR notes that the President's
    budget for USFS involves an increased assessment of approximately $7.6
    million in ``Central Cost'' and ``Green Book'' programs which currently
    total more than $200 million in assessments. While NAFSR understands
    that USFS must pay its ``fair share'' of total USDA operating costs,
    these increased assessments do not tend to imply that efficiencies will
    readily occur and that despite efforts to implement reforms, costs over
    the long term will continue to rise. NAFSR strongly encourages the
    subcommittee to work with its Agriculture Appropriations counterparts
    to assure that future USDA efficiency reforms have a strong potential
    to result in improved service to the Nation, and that such reforms are
    implemented incrementally based on well established benchmarks for
    accountability.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes
    NAFSR's statement for the record. We close by once again expressing our
    sincere appreciation for your commitment to supporting the mission of
    USFS and for your support of a program of work that assures quality
    natural resource stewardship will continue into the future. We are
    ready to assist the subcommittee at any time.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
                                   Officials

        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the subcommittee, I am
    David Terry, Executive Director of the National Association of State
    Energy Officials (NASEO). NASEO represents the energy offices in the
    States, territories and the District of Columbia. NASEO is submitting
    this testimony in support of funding for the ENERGY STAR program
    (within the Climate Protection Division of the Office of Air and
    Radiation) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NASEO
    supports funding of at least $55 million, including specific report
    language directing that the funds be utilized only for the ENERGY STAR
    program. The ENERGY STAR program is successful, voluntary 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. NASEO has worked very closely with EPA
    and more than 40 States are ENERGY STAR Partners. In 2005, EPA and
    NASEO announced a State Partnership program, which has many State
    members. With very limited funding, EPA's ENERGY STAR program works
    closely with the State energy offices to give consumers and businesses
    the opportunity to make better energy decisions, without regulation or
    mandates.
        ENERGY STAR focuses on energy efficient products as well as
    buildings. For example, 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 and working closely with State and local
    governments, to purchase these products and services. Marketplace
    barriers are also eradicated through education. State energy offices
    are working with EPA to promote ENERGY STAR products, ENERGY STAR for
    new construction, 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 EPA in the implementation of the ENERGY STAR
    Challenge, which is encouraging businesses and institutions to reduce
    energy use by 10 percent or more, usually through very simple actions.
    We are working with the building owners to identify the level of energy
    use and compare that to a national metric, establish goals and work
    with them to make the specified improvements. Again, this is being done
    without mandates.
        The State energy offices are very encouraged with progress made at
    EPA and in our States to promote programs to make schools more energy
    efficient, in addition to an expanding ENERGY STAR business partners
    program. We hope this expansion will continue. EPA has been expanding
    the technical assistance work with the State energy offices in such
    areas as benchmark training (how to rate the performance of buildings),
    setting an energy target and training in such areas as financing
    options for building improvements and building upgrade strategies.
        The State energy offices are working cooperatively with our peers
    in the State environmental agencies and State public utilities
    commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies
    are developed recognizing both energy and environmental concerns. We
    have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues.
    The level of cooperation from the agency has been extraordinary and we
    encourage these continued efforts.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The ENERGY STAR program saves consumers billions of dollars every
    year. The payback is enormous. NASEO supports robust program funding in
    fiscal year 2013. Funding for the ENERGY STAR program is justified.
    NASEO endorses these activities and the State energy offices are
    working very closely with EPA to cooperatively implement a variety of
    critical national programs without mandates.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Foresters

        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 2013 appropriations recommendations.
    Our priorities center on appropriations for the USDA Forest Service
    (USFS) State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs. State Foresters
    fully appreciate the difficult choices that come with spending
    decisions. However, the commitment to the American people must also
    include making smart investments in programs that provide significant
    benefits to the health of our economy and our environment. We therefore
    recommend that fiscal year 2013 appropriations for S&PF be held at $262
    million, representing similar funding levels enacted in fiscal year
    2012.
        State Foresters deliver technical and financial assistance, along
    with forest health, water and wildfire protection for more than two-
    thirds of the Nation'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 comprehensive process for delivering such services is
    articulated in each of the State Forest Action Plans as authorized in
    the 2008 farm bill. 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 State and Federal governments face extremely
    tight fiscal conditions, State Foresters, in partnership with the S&PF
    mission area of 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

        Management activities are underway to implement the State 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 pest is introduced every 2 to 3 years. These
    pests have the potential to displace native trees, shrubs and other
    vegetation types in forests. USFS estimates that hundreds of native and
    nonnative insects and diseases damage the Nation's forests each year.
    In 2009, approximately 12 million acres suffered mortality from insects
    and diseases.\1\ These losses impact the availability 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. Further, extensive areas of high insect or disease
    mortality can set the stage for large-scale, catastrophic wildfire.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Man, Gary. 2010. Major Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in
    the United States: 2009 Update. Last accessed on March, 7, 2012 at:
    http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/
    ConditionsReport_09_final.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In response, the Cooperative Forest Health Management program
    provides technical and financial assistance to States and territories
    to maintain healthy, productive forest ecosystems on non-Federal forest
    lands. Funding for the Program supports activities related to
    prevention, suppression, and eradication of insects, diseases, and
    plants as well as conducting forest health monitoring through pest
    surveys. The Program helped combat native and invasive pests on more
    than 766,000 acres of Cooperative lands in fiscal year 2011.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ USDA Forest Service Fiscal Year 2013 President's Budget
    Justification. Last accessed February 21, 2012 at http://www.fs.fed.us/
    aboutus/budget/2013/fy2013-justification.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NASF supports the proposed consolidation of the Forest Health
    Program under State and Private Forestry and urges funding the Forest
    Health--Cooperative Lands Program at the current fiscal year 2012
    enacted level of $49 million. Any further cuts to this program beyond
    those made in fiscal year 2012 will necessitate deeper reductions in
    support for communities already facing outbreaks and expose more of the
    Nation's forests and trees to the devastating and costly effects of
    exotic and invasive pests and pathogens. This request is supported by a
    strong diversity of organizations in the forestry, conservation, and
    environmental community.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Letter of support posted 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 State
    Foresters to identify wildland fire as a significant priority issue in
    their 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. In 2011, more than
    74,000 wildland fires burned more than 8.7 million acres.\4\ In the
    wake of these larger fires, the number of structures destroyed also
    surpassed the annual average with more than 5,200 structures, including
    nearly 3,500 residences.\1\ Of the 66,700 communities across the
    country currently at risk of wildland fire, only 21 percent are
    prepared for wildland fire.\5\ NASF and many other organizations in the
    forestry, conservation and environmental community agrees that the
    Forest Service State Fire Assistance (SFA) Program is essential in
    addressing the threat of wildland fire on non-Federal lands.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ National Interagency Fire Center, Historical Wildland Fire
    Summaries, pg. 9. Last accessed February 1, 2012 at http://
    www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2011_statssumm/
    intro_summary.pdf.
        \5\ National Association of State Foresters, Communities at Risk
    Report FY2011. Last accessed February 1, 2012 at http://
    www.stateforesters.org/files/2011-NASF-finalCAR-report-FY11.pdf.
        \6\ Letter of support posted at www.stateforesters.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        SFA is the fundamental Federal mechanism that assists States and
    local fire departments in developing preparedness and response
    capabilities for wildland fire management on non-Federal lands. This
    program helps train and equip first responders who can quickly and
    efficiently respond to wildland fires. By directing resources to
    actions that help reduce the number of large wildland fires--including
    prevention education, preparedness activities and fuels mitigation--the
    SFA program directly addresses concerns over rising wildland fire
    suppression costs, while also reducing wildland fire risks. In fiscal
    year 2011, SFA directly funded hazardous fuel treatments on nearly
    202,000 acres and provided assistance to 14,724 communities as they
    prepare for (and mitigate the risk of) wildland fire.\2\ NASF supports
    funding for the program at no less current enacted levels of $86
    million and endorses the proposal to consolidate SFA into one line
    item.
    Working Forest Landscapes
        Working forest landscapes are a key part of the rural landscape and
    provide an estimated 900,000 jobs, in addition to 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.\7\
    Working forests are necessary to help the forest products industry
    recover and (re)employ nearly 300,000 full-time jobs that have been
    lost over the past 5 years as a result of the economic downturn.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Society of American Foresters. The State of America's Forests.
    2007.
        \8\ Guldin, R.W. and W. B. Smith. Forest Sector Reeling During
    Economic Downturn. 2012. Last accessed online at: http://
    www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/saf/forestrysource_201201/index.php?startid=1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Private forests make up two-thirds of all the forestland in the
    United States and support an average of eight jobs per 1,000 acres.\9\
    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 Forest Service
    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 and
    other programs within USDA are key tools identified in the Forest
    Action Plans to keep working forests intact.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ 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 Forest Stewardship 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 USDA programs including the Forest
    Legacy Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program. NASF
    recommends maintaining current funding at $29 million for the Forest
    Stewardship Program in fiscal year 2013. This program (and funding
    recommendation) enjoys support from landowners in every corner of the
    country.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Letter of support posted at www.stateforesters.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Urban and Community Forest Management Challenges
        Urban forests provide environmental, social and economic benefits
    to the more than 84 percent of Americans who live in metropolitan
    areas. 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 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), USFS's Urban & Community Forestry (U&CF) program has
    provided technical and financial assistance to promote stewardship of
    urban forests in communities of all sizes across the country. The
    program is delivered in close partnership with State Foresters and
    leverages existing local efforts that have helped thousands of
    communities and towns manage, maintain, and improve their tree cover
    and green spaces. In fiscal year 2011, the U&CF program delivered
    technical, financial, educational, and research assistance to 7,172
    communities in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, U.S.
    territories and affiliated Pacific Island nations.\11\ The program
    reached nearly 195 million Americans (i.e., more than 60 percent of the
    U.S. population) and leveraged an additional $30 million in State and
    local support. NASF and the broad urban forestry community support an
    appropriation of $31 million in fiscal year 2013 for the Urban and
    Community Forestry Program.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ USDA Forest Service Fiscal Year 2013 President's Budget
    Justification. Last accessed February 21, 2012 at http://www.fs.fed.us/
    aboutus/budget/2013/fy2013-justification.pdf.
        \12\ Letter of support posted at www.stateforesters.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    LANDSCAPE-SCALE RESTORATION AND RESPONSE TO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MANAGER'S
                                   STATEMENT

        Members of NASF recognize the value of competitively allocating a
    percentage of CFAA funds to encourage innovative approaches to
    addressing national, regional and State-specific priorities consistent
    with each State's Forest Action Plan. NASF also recognizes that the
    ability to provide State Foresters flexibility, with appropriate
    accountability, to reapply a portion of their allocations is necessary
    to address changing forest conditions and priorities. To that end, NASF
    supports the proposed Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) line item with
    the understanding expressed in the fiscal year 2013 budget
    Justification that the current competitive process would be
    ``formalized'' and that options for potentially establishing ``funding
    flexibility'' (per the fiscal year 2012 Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Managers Statement) would not be
    eliminated.
        NASF greatly appreciates (and requests) the continued support from
    the subcommittee to further explore options for providing State
    Foresters the ability to apply Federal funds in the highest-priority
    areas including, but not limited to, through the new LSR line item. Our
    recommended funding level for the LSR line item is contingent upon
    further discussions with the subcommittee and with the administration
    to better understand the budget relationships between the new line
    item, other CFAA programs and funding flexibility. NASF remains
    committed to working with the administration, including the USDA Forest
    Service, the Congress and other non-Federal partners to further define
    how Forest Action Plans can best inform and enhance Federal budget
    formulation and funding allocation decisions for CFAA programs.
        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. FIA provides essential data related to
    forest species composition, forest growth rates, and forest health data
    and delivers 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.
        We urge the Congress to support the FIA program in fiscal year 2013
    at no less than current funding levels of $69 million and provide
    direction to the Forest Service to look for the most efficient way(s)
    to deliver the program including contracting with partners, most
    notably State forestry agencies, who can accomplish necessary field
    work at lower cost. With efficient delivery, current funding levels can
    contribute towards the original goals of providing a fully annualized
    inventory in all States and provide policy makers, forest managers,
    private investors, and others with the information they need to make
    sound decisions regarding the Nation's forests.
                                     ______

        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 2013 budget under the Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies appropriations bill. This testimony will address programs in
    the Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, and
    Indian Health Service. Full funding of the Federal Government's trust,
    treaty and statutory obligations to tribes remains a bipartisan goal
    for Indian Country.
        In preparation for the President's budget, some agencies have
    consulted with tribes about programs in the budget. Recommendations
    from Indian Country that were included in the President's fiscal year
    2013 proposal include increases for contract support costs, some
    natural resource and environmental protection programs, public safety
    initiatives, and contract health services. While the administration's
    budget proposal maintains support for many critical programs, some cuts
    proposed represent significant setbacks to progress in Indian Country,
    such as for education construction. NCAI looks forward to working with
    this subcommittee to ensure that the Federal programs that fulfill the
    trust responsibilities to tribes receive bipartisan support in the
    appropriations process.
        Indian Country recognizes the state of the economy, the pressures
    on Government at all levels, and the related challenges for job
    seekers. Tribes take the responsibility to manage Federal funds as
    seriously as we do the Federal trust responsibility to provide them,
    and we propose the following general recommendations for the fiscal
    year 2013 budget.
      --Continue to promote the successful and efficient initiatives in
            Indian Country that work, such as Self-Determination programs.
            Critical to implementing these policies are the Bureau of
            Indian Affairs (BIA) funding streams for Tribal Priority
            Allocations, Contract Support Costs at BIA and the Indian
            Health Service (IHS), and Tribal Grant Support Costs for tribal
            schools.
      --Tribes urge the Congress to support legislation that will fully
            restore the Secretary of the Interior's authority to take land
            into trust for tribes (Carcieri).
        NCAI has compiled recommendations on many specific programs and
    agencies that affect Indian Country, but, in general, NCAI urges the
    Congress to at least hold Indian programs harmless in the fiscal year
    2013 appropriations process and exempted from across-the-board
    rescissions.
    Public Safety and Justice
        Although they have taken various forms, the public safety problems
    that plague tribal communities are not new. They are the result of
    decades of gross underfunding for tribal criminal justice systems, a
    painfully complex jurisdictional scheme, and a centuries-old failure by
    the Federal Government to fulfill its public safety obligations on
    American Indian and Alaska Native lands.
        NCAI supports the Department of the Interior's Protecting Indian
    Country Initiative and the Priority Goal to reduce violent crime in
    Indian communities. Last year, the Department of the Interior launched
    the Safe Indian Communities Initiative, a 2-year program that included
    targeted community policing on four reservations, and the program has
    achieved successful and encouraging results. Since its inception, there
    has been a 35-percent overall decrease in violent crime across the four
    tribal communities. With an initial target of reducing violent crime by
    at least 5 percent, the initiative far exceeded this goal, achieving a
    68-percent decrease in violent crime at the Mescalero Reservation in
    New Mexico, a 40-percent reduction at Rocky Boy in Montana, and a 27-
    percent reduction in violent crime at Standing Rock in North and South
    Dakota. The successful program is now being expanded to two additional
    reservations:
      --the Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota; and
      --the San Carlos Apache Reservation in Arizona.
        Indian Country would like to see it expanded even further--to reach
    even more tribes--and we would like to see the Congress appropriate
    adequate funding to ensure the Initiative's continued success. This
    Initiative has been a proven success, and these are the types of
    efforts that can make a real difference on the ground level, provided
    there is funding available to pursue them.
    Indian Health Service
        The President's budget request demonstrates the administration's
    ongoing commitment to Indian Country and the recognition of the trust
    responsibility for providing healthcare in perpetuity to all American
    Indian and Alaska Native people. The increase of $116 million in the
    Indian Health Service (IHS) budget request was a confirmation of that
    commitment. Tribal leaders annually, through the National IHS Tribal
    Budget Formulation Workgroup, provide IHS with tribal leader priorities
    for the upcoming fiscal year. We applaud the administration for
    including targeted funding increases that have long been a priority for
    the Workgroup, such as for Contract Health Services, staffing, and
    contract support costs.
        While these increases are much needed, we must be clear that the
    IHS budget remains woefully short of providing full funding to the IHS
    system; and only full funding will ensure that parity is achieved in
    our healthcare system. Providing funding increases that addresses
    population growth and inflation so that current services can still be
    provided is vitally important.
        Tribal leaders provided the Congress and the administration a
    blueprint to bring parity to Indian people. The Indian Health Care
    Improvement Act (IHCIA) includes programs and services designed to
    bring the IHS into the 21st century. However, authorization only
    creates the program, appropriations are needed to fulfill its promise.
    Currently, there are 23 unfunded provisions in the IHCIA.
    Education
        The fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Construction program is
    a reduction of $17.7 million less than fiscal year 2012. The request
    cuts $17.8 million, eliminating new school construction funding. Indian
    Affairs will focus on improving existing school facilities as part of
    the Department's strategic approach to not fund new construction in
    fiscal year 2013. The total fiscal year 2013 request for Education
    Construction is $52.9 million. NCAI urges funding for new school
    construction to be restored. All students in America deserve a safe,
    secure, and culturally appropriate environment in which to attend
    school. As cited in the draft No Child Left Behind School Facilities
    and Construction Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Report, numerous
    research studies have noted the link between inadequate facility
    conditions and poor performance by students and teachers. The report
    also underscored the fact that the quality of the school environment
    impacts student behavior, test scores, and teacher retention, among
    other issues. As of December 31, 2009, an estimated $1.34 billion was
    needed to bring 64 schools ranked in ``poor'' condition, meaning in
    significant need of repair, up to ``fair'' condition. Continued
    inadequate support for school facilities will cause the unmet need for
    construction and repair funds to balloon. Equally disconcerting is that
    the fiscal year 2013 budget directives could result in the continued
    elimination of funding for replacement school and replacement
    facilities. Delaying the replacement and repair of existing facilities
    not only jeopardizes student and staff safety, but also increases the
    amount of school funds that must be diverted to emergency repairs and
    other facilities maintenance--accounts which are also extremely
    underfunded.
    Natural Resources
        The vitality and sustainability of natural resources is integral to
    the health of American Indian and Alaska Native peoples, communities,
    cultures, and economies. It also has demonstrable positive impacts on
    surrounding communities. The ecological practices tribal peoples have
    cultivated for millennia are inherently sustainable and practical.
                Environmental Protection Agency
        Although the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) fiscal year
    2013 budget decreased approximately $105 million overall from fiscal
    year 2012, much of the tribal set asides received increased funding.
    Recognizing tribes and States as the primary implementers of
    environmental programs the EPA continued funding its State and Tribal
    Assistance Grants program, which accounts for 40 percent of the EPA's
    budget request and is the largest percentage of the EPA's budget
    request. Tribes received an increase of approximately $29 million more
    than fiscal year 2012 appropriations to the Tribal General Assistance
    Program. These additional funds will assist tribes in capacity building
    and promote protections for the environment and human health. NCAI
    strongly supports the increased proposed for the Tribal General
    Assistance Program.
                Bureau of Indian Affairs, Natural Resources
        Tribes have voiced support for increased funding for natural
    resources programs in the Bureau of Indians Affairs through the Tribal
    Interior Budget Council, which provides input to the Department of the
    Interior on tribal budget concerns. The President's fiscal year 2013
    budget includes some of the recommendations for natural resources.
    Under trust land management, the fiscal year 2013 budget would provide
    increases in Trust Natural Resources of $3.5 million for the Rights
    Protection Implementation program and $2 million for the Tribal
    Management and Development program to support fishing, hunting, and
    gathering rights on and off reservations. The budget request would
    provide program increases of $1 million for the Forestry program and
    $500,000 for the Invasive Species program. An increase of $800,000
    supports greater BIA and tribal participation in the Landscape
    Conservation Cooperatives, for a total of $1 million. NCAI urges the
    Congress to retain these proposed increases in the final fiscal year
    2013 appropriations bill.
    Supporting Tribal Governments
                Bureau of Indian Affairs
        The fiscal year 2013 President's budget includes $2.5 billion in
    current appropriations for Indian Affairs, which is $4.6 million or 0.2
    percent less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The budget
    proposes a total of $897.4 million in Tribal Priority Allocations.
    Critical to implementing the Indian Self-Determination policy is the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funding streams for Tribal Priority
    Allocations, Contract Support Costs at BIA, and Tribal Grant Support
    Costs for tribal schools. NCAI supports the programmatic increases in
    Indian Affairs, which follow the recommendations from tribes. However,
    NCAI would note that the President's budget includes rather large
    reductions due to streamlining measures in the BIA. These reductions
    include $19.7 million in streamlining measures and $13.8 million in
    administrative savings. Although tribes appreciate that the
    administration is proposing increases to programs, NCAI would urge
    caution when cutting so deeply into BIA functions.
    Economic Development
                Indian Guaranteed Loan Program
        The fiscal year 2013 proposed budget would provide $5 million for
    the Indian Guaranteed Loan program, a reduction of $2.1 million from
    the 2012 enacted level. The Department of the Interior's Office of
    Indian Energy and Economic Development (OIEED) Division of Capital
    Investment oversees the Indian Loan Guarantee Program that is the only
    Federal guarantee program that enables eligible borrowers to obtain
    conventional lender financing to develop Native businesses and eligible
    construction, while also enabling other companies to obtain
    supplemental surety bond guarantees. In the last several years,
    significant tightening of the credit markets made loans more difficult
    to obtain, reducing demand for loan guarantees. The revolving credit
    facility of the OIEED Loan Guarantee Program can greatly assist Native
    borrowers seeking guarantees for lines of credit for:
      --working capital;
      --payrolls for hiring new employees; and
      --assurances sufficient for sureties to provide performance bonds to
            tribal- and other Native-owned contractors.
        The OIEED's Loan Guarantee Program is the most appropriate and
    urgently needed source of financing for business, energy, and other
    economic development in Indian Country. With the promises of a
    broadband-enabled economy in Indian Country looming on the horizon, an
    expanded investment in the OIEED Loan Guarantee Program would enable
    operating businesses to build their technological capacity as well as
    to provide seed financing for new businesses to begin operations. NCAI
    encourages the Congress to provide funding for the Indian Guaranteed
    Loan Program at a level of at least $10 million.
                Transportation
        NCAI urges an increase for the BIA roads maintenance program in
    fiscal year 2013, which services 29,000 miles of Indian Affairs-owned
    roads. As of 2011, the backlog in deferred maintenance was approximated
    to be $285 million, yet the funding level for BIA roads maintenance has
    been at about $25 million for the last 10 years.
    Conclusion
        We look forward to working with Members of Congress to continue to
    build upon our successes. Tribal leaders urge the Congress to uphold
    its solemn promises to tribes, even as policymakers seek to reduce the
    deficit through spending reductions and revenue generation. The
    obligations to tribal citizens funded in the Federal budget are the
    result of treaties negotiated and agreements made between tribes and
    the United States in exchange for land and resources, known as the
    trust responsibility. The fulfillment of this trust responsibility is a
    solemn historic and legal duty.
                                     ______

           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 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.
    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 U.S. Geological Survey, a State natural
    resource agency, a host university, and the Wildlife Management
    Institute. The CFWRUs build on these partner contributions to leverage
    more than $3 for every $1 appropriated to the program by 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 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
    CFWRUs to help resolve natural resources management challenges that
    transcend State boundaries.
        We urge you to make greater use of the Cooperative Fish and
    Wildlife Research Units 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, local agencies, and this
    country's citizens.
        Thank you for consideration of our request.
        The National Cooperators' Coalition 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.

                                    SPONSORS

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

        Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
                             Preservation Officers

    Fiscal Year 2013 Request
      --$46.925 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs);
            and
      --$10 million for a Historic Preservation Grant Program to be run
            though the SHPOs.
        Funded through withdrawals from the Historic Preservation Fund (16
    U.S.C. 470h) U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service
    Historic Preservation Fund (HPF).\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The NCSHPO also supports the Tribal Historic Preservation
    Officer's fiscal year 2013 request of $9.7 million.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Preservation = ROI = Federal-State Partnership
        In 1966, the Congress, recognizing the importance of our heritage,
    enacted 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
    Department of the Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic
    Preservation opted to 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 to the Federal Government half the operating
    cost.
    Preservation = ROI = 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. The following are excellent examples of how historic
    preservation creates jobs and job training:
      --In 2011, while slowly climbing out of a national recession, there
            were nearly 1,000 new historic tax credit projects started,
            averaging 55 jobs per project. The private investment in the
            approved and completed projects in 2011 totaled $4.02
            billion.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic
    Buildings--Statistical Report and Analysis for Fiscal Year 2011''
    National Park Service.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --When compared to new construction, $1 million spent to rehabilitate
            a building will create 5-9 more construction jobs and 4.7 new
            jobs will be created elsewhere in the community.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ The Economics of Rehabilitation, Donovan Rypkema.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --In California $1 million of rehabilitation creates five more jobs
            than manufacturing $1 million worth of electronic equipment. In
            Oklahoma $1 million of rehabilitation creates 29 more jobs than
            pumping $1 million worth of oil.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ The Economics of Historic Preservation, Rypkema 1998:13.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Preservation = ROI = Economic Development
        From Providence, Rhode Island to Anchorage, Alaska historic
    preservation plays a key role in creating, maintaining, and growing
    these communities while preserving their historical significance. The
    Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit program is an important driver in
    economic development. The program benefits communities by:
      --Increasing the value of the rehabilitated property and returning
            vacant or underutilized structures to the tax roles.
      --Encouraging protection of landmarks through the promotion,
            recognition, and designation of historic structures, and acting
            as a catalyst for further community renewal.
      --Upgrading downtowns and neighborhoods and often increasing the
            amount of available housing within the community.
        In 2011, still in the midst of a recession, the Federal
    rehabilitation tax credit spurred $4.02 billion in private investment,
    created more than 55,400 skilled, local jobs and nearly 7,500 moderate-
    and low-income housing units. All of which brings in both short and
    long-term economic opportunities for the community.
        According to the Major of Dubuque, Iowa, Roy D. Buol, ``The City of
    Dubuque views historic preservation as a key component of
    sustainability with its economic, environmental, and social/cultural
    benefits. Preservation enhances the vibrancy of neighborhoods and our
    community, instilling pride and value through increased property
    values, as well as enhanced quality of life, sense of place and
    neighborhood pride. Preservation translates into economic prosperity
    through creation of new jobs, retention of existing jobs especially in
    construction trades, stimulation of private investment, tourism and
    business growth, and financial investment in property improvements.''
        Heritage tourism also creates jobs, new businesses, builds
    community pride and can improve quality of life. SHPOs are essential,
    ground level partners in identifying historic places and providing
    research for tourism interpretation. According to the Department of
    Commerce's ``2010 Cultural Heritage Traveler'' report of activities
    that international visitors participate in, touring America's non-
    National Park historical places ranks third, behind only shopping and
    dining. Visiting America's non-National Park Historical Places,
    Cultural Heritage Sites, and America's Small towns all rank above
    visiting National Parks--where the bulk of Federal money is spent.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           2009            2010         Percentage
            Activity participation while in the United States          (percentage)    (percentage)       change
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Shopping........................................................              90              90             0.3
    Dining in restaurants...........................................              86              86  ..............
    Visit historical places.........................................              68              68             0.2
    Sightseeing in cities...........................................              60              59            -0.9
    Art gallery/museum..............................................              41              41            -0.1
    Cultural heritage sites.........................................              40              41             0.7
    Visit small towns...............................................              36              37             1.5
    Amusement/Theme parks...........................................              32              34             2.1
    Visit National Parks............................................              34              34             0.2
    Concert/Play/Musical............................................              30              29            -0.3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Department of Commerce, Office of Travel and Tourism Industries ``2010 Cultural Heritage Traveler''.

    Preservation = Return on Investment = America's Heritage
        Preservation honors the significant places of American history at
    the local, State and national levels through creating historic
    districts and listing resources in National and State Historic
    Registers. State Historic Preservation Officers, through the authority
    of the National Historic Preservation Act 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 communities such as Deadwood, South
    Dakota and Knoxville, Tennessee. 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.
    Preservation = Return on Investment = 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 Historic Preservation Fund.
        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 the Congress's 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.'' \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ NAPA, ``Back to the Future: A Review of the National Historic
    Preservation Programs'' December 2007, p. 29.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2011 State Historic Preservation Offices' Accomplishments
        SHPOs used their HPF allocations well in 2011. 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 2011 historic preservation
    accomplishments include:
      --Reviewing 140,000 Federal undertakings within 30 days.
      --Leveraging more than $4.02 billion of private investment in the
            rehabilitation of commercial historic properties under the
            Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit (FRTC) program.
      --An estimated 55,458 jobs created by the FRTC program in 2011.
      --7,470 low- and moderate-income housing units created through the
            FRTC.
      --Approximately 20.5 million acres surveyed for the presence and
            absence of cultural resources and more than 610,700 properties
            evaluated for their historical significance.
      --1,061 new listings in the National Register of Historic Places.
      --104,700 National Register eligibility opinions.
      --37 new communities became Certified Local Governments (CLGs).
      --Under local law, CLG's newly designated 57,000 properties, and
            66,300 properties took part in local preservation review,
            programs, and incentives.
    Conclusion
        On behalf of all 57 SHPOs, I'd like to 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 submit testimony.
        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 committee for their commitment to historic
    preservation. The Federal Government plays an invaluable role in
    preserving our Nation's history and through our partnership, SHPOs
    stand committed to identify, protect, and maintain our Nation's
    historic heritage. Thank you.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Federation of Federal Employees
                                   Local 1957

        I am writing on behalf of the National Federation of Federal
    Employees (NFFE) Local 1957, the bargaining unit for the National
    Minerals Information Center (NMIC), USGS, Reston, Virginia. The
    President's proposed fiscal year 2013 budget for the USGS includes a
    $1.2 million cut (8 percent) to the NMIC's current funding level of
    $14.8 million, and $3.96 million (8 percent) cut from $49.2 million for
    the entire Mineral Resource Program (MRP), of which we are a part. This
    is on top of the enacted fiscal year 2012 MRP budget cut of $2.94
    million, of which $588,000 is expected to be allocated to the National
    Minerals Information Center. We have three things to ask of you.
        First: Reject the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget cuts to the USGS
    National Minerals Information Center and, at a minimum, set the fiscal
    year 2013 at the fiscal year 1996 funding level of $16 million.
        The proposed budget cut would render NMIC ineffectual and the USGS
    noncompliant with its congressional mandate by severely limiting NMIC's
    international information function. Without international data, NMIC's
    ability to meet its core mission--to collect, report, and analyze data
    on the supply of nonfuel minerals critical to the Nation's economic and
    defense needs--would be severely and irreparably compromised. This is
    because of the global nature of the minerals industry. The U.S. import
    dependence for most strategic and critical nonfuel minerals and metals
    exceeds 75 percent, which is greater than the country's dependence on
    foreign oil. In 2011, NMIC found that U.S. import reliance was more
    than 50 percent for 43 minerals critical to national security and the
    U.S. economy. Of those, the import reliance was 100 percent for 19
    minerals.
        With limitations to NMIC's international function, the USGS,
    therefore, could not fulfill its congressional mandate to assure there
    is an adequate and dependable supply of mineral materials for national
    defense, as established by The Defense Production Act of 1950, as
    amended (1980 and 1992).
        NMIC would lose an estimated 10 FTEs on top of the 11 incurred in
    fiscal year 2012, which would require a reduction in force. This would
    result in the loss of existing expertise and the inability to attract
    new hires for succession planning. Commodity and country report
    coverage would also be significantly reduced. NMIC is relied upon as an
    objective source of nonfuel minerals information and expertise by
    Federal, State, and local governments, as well as by private, academic,
    and nongovernmental organizations. NMIC produces more than 800 reports
    per year covering nonfuel minerals, including Mineral Commodity
    Summaries for the congressional offices. In 2011, our Web site had
    about 14.5 million hits and more than 9.7 million publication
    downloads.
        Second: Add $7.7 million to NMIC's fiscal year 2012 funding level
    for a total of $22.5 million. We would not ask for added funding in a
    time of such record deficits if we did not sincerely believe it was
    necessary. NMIC is unique to the Federal Government--it is the only
    comprehensive source of nonfuel mineral analysis to the Nation. In
    fiscal year 1996, the Congress recognized this fact when it transferred
    the NMIC function to the USGS from the former U.S. Bureau of Mines with
    specific responsibility for analyses of domestic and foreign mineral
    supplies. Since then, NMIC has endured a continually shrinking budget
    both in current and real terms (1996 dollars). NMIC's budget has
    declined by 36 percent in real dollars to $10.3 million through fiscal
    year 2012. The proposed fiscal year 2013 budget would result in a 41
    percent reduction in NMIC funding from that of fiscal year 1996 to $9.5
    million in real dollars (Figures 1 and 2).

                                   Figure 1.

                                   Figure 2.

        Compounding the problem, NMIC has had to absorb mandated increases
    in salaries and cost of living adjustments. Not surprisingly, filled
    FTE positions have fallen--by 33 percent (55 positions) from fiscal
    year 1996 to fiscal year 2012. Quite frankly, NMIC is now at the point
    that even flat levels of funding will prevent the group from fully
    accomplishing its mission. Additional funding would allow NMIC to make
    much needed improvements, such as increasing the voluntary reporting of
    mineral production and consumption by U.S. companies; upgrading its
    data management system; and expanding data collection and analysis
    further down the supply chain.
        Third: Support Realignment of NMIC within the Federal Government so
    NMIC can be more autonomous, adaptable, and stable. NMIC's budget has
    been arbitrarily maintained at roughly 30 percent of the USGS MRP
    budget since fiscal year 1996. This is despite increasing requests for
    further collaboration by NMIC customers and recommendations by the
    National Research Council in 2008 in the report, ``Minerals, Critical
    Minerals, and the U.S. Economy,'' as well as the 2011 report by the
    American Physical Society and Materials Research Society entitled,
    ``Energy Critical Elements: Securing Materials for Emerging
    Technologies.'' The 2008 report recommended that ``the Federal
    Government should continue to carry out the necessary function of
    collecting, disseminating, and analyzing mineral data and information.
    The USGS Minerals Information Team [now National Minerals Information
    Center] . . . should have greater authority and autonomy than at
    present. It also should have sufficient resources to carry out its
    mandate . . .''
        NMIC has never been well supported by the USGS. In addition to the
    proposed fiscal year 2013 budget cuts, NMIC and MRP budgets were
    proposed to be reduced in fiscal year 2004-2009. Prior Congresses
    strongly rejected those attempts. For example, the 2006 congressional
    joint committee managers wrote, ``[we] strongly disagree with the
    administration's proposed reductions to the mineral assessment program
    and believe it irresponsible for the Administration to decrease or
    eliminate funding for what is inherently a Federal responsibility.''
    (See Box 1 for our rebuttal to several of the principles used to
    prioritize the fiscal year 2013 budget.)
        NMIC realignment would greatly enhance its position as the leading
    Government source of nonfuel minerals information and analyses. See Box
    2 for additional rationale and options.
        Thank you for your consideration of these issues that affect both
    our Union's and the Nation's interests.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

          Box 1: Rebuttal to Fiscal Year 2013 USGS Budget Formulation
        The USGS budget justification for fiscal year 2013 states that the
    2013 budget ``builds on the core historical mission of the USGS''. NMIC
    and the MRP were one of only several USGS programs slated for reduction
    in fiscal year 2013--this at a time when the USGS would receive greater
    than a 3-percent increase in funding to $1.1 billion.
        Some of the principles used to prioritize the fiscal year 2013 USGS
    budget formulation include:
      --Maintaining programs that are unique to the USGS and conducted on
            behalf of the Nation;
      --Retaining programs that are legislatively mandated; and
      --Aligning targeted increases with emerging science priorities that
            are of national and global significance.
        Principle 1 is met. NMIC is the only group within the Federal
    Government that provides comprehensive nonfuel mineral analyses for the
    Nation.
        Principle 2 is met. The NMIC function is mandated by Defense
    Production Act of 1950, as amended; various sections under title 30 of
    the U.S. Code (U.S.C.)--Mineral Lands and Mining; and section 98 of 50
    U.S.C.--Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act of 1946, as
    amended.
        Principle 3 is met. The increasing need for more and more minerals
    information by NMIC is well documented. This has been recognized by the
    National Research Council in its 2008 report, ``Minerals, Critical
    Minerals, and the U.S. Economy'', and the 2011 report by the American
    Physical Society and Materials Research Society entitled, ``Energy
    Critical Elements: Securing Materials for Emerging Technologies''.
    Further, the Congress introduced seven bills in 2011 alone regarding
    the need for additional studies by the USGS on the availability and use
    of rare earth elements (REE) and other critical mineral materials.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                 Box 2: NMIC Realignment Rationale and Options
        NMIC is artificially located within a sub-regional reporting
    structure within the USGS. Such a reporting structure is contrary to
    NMIC's assessment of mineral materials availability for the United
    States within national and international contexts. This forces some
    NMIC resources to be diverted on unrelated activities that could be put
    to better use for the USGS, such as improving the voluntary reporting
    of mineral production and consumption by U.S. companies; upgrading the
    data management system; and expanding data collection further down the
    supply chain.
        NMIC's research is fundamentally different from other programs
    within the USGS. NMIC's research necessarily requires strong economic
    and social-science expertise that is quite different from traditional
    USGS scientific investigations. The mainstay of NMIC information comes
    from regional, commodity, and minerals industry analysts with
    multidisciplinary backgrounds (chemists, economists, engineers,
    geologists, etc.).
        NMIC's mission is fundamentally different from most other USGS
    programs. NMIC's mission requires quick turnaround, high-volume data
    gathering, analysis, and dissemination, unlike the research and
    assessment component of the MRP and many other USGS programs, which
    engage in long-term, project-oriented, fundamental scientific studies.
        Options for realignment include:
      --Reporting directly to the Office of Director, USGS. NMIC would have
            greater flexibility to enable USGS management to respond to
            mineral issues of national and international significance and
            in seeking cross-disciplinary solutions to these issues.
      --Reporting directly to the Office of Secretary, Department of the
            Interior. This would be similar to how the Energy Information
            Administration is organized under the Department of Energy.
      --Transfer to some other Federal agency.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

        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 2013 funding for
    the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). NFWF's fiscal year
    2013 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 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:
      --$7.525 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 United States Forest Service's (USFS)
            National Forest System appropriation.
        Since its inception, NFWF has leveraged nearly $576 million in
    Federal funds into $2 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.
        NFWF was established by the Congress in 1984 to catalyze private
    investments to conserve fish, wildlife and their habitats. 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.
        The goal of NFWF is to ensure abundant wildlife species in order to
    allow the economic health of our Nation to continue. The key elements
    of our approach include:
      --leverage;
      --efficiency;
      --partnerships;
      --transparency; and
      --measurable outcomes.
        A positive example of this approach is our ongoing response to the
    2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As you know, NFWF took immediate
    action following the oil spill to help protect the species most at
    risk. NFWF's longstanding relationships with Federal and State
    agencies, scientists, and on-the-ground conservation organizations were
    invaluable in assessing local wildlife needs and shaping effective
    responses. In the first phase of its gulf response, NFWF invested in 22
    projects which are now delivering results in Louisiana, Mississippi,
    Alabama, Florida, and Texas. This first phase of projects was financed
    using $8.8 million from the Recovered Oil Fund for Wildlife,
    established by BP with proceeds from the sale of oil recovered from the
    spill site, as well as a $2.25 million commitment from Walmart. Since
    then, NFWF has invested an additional $14.1 million from the Recovered
    Oil Fund for Wildlife and other sources--$22.9 million total--to
    bolster populations of species affected by the spill in advance of
    formal restoration efforts. These investments have helped to pilot
    cost-effective conservation approaches and build capacity in the region
    to sustain conservation outcomes. With our Federal and private
    partners, more than 500,000 acres of coastal of freshwater wetland
    habitat was established to benefit a variety of migratory birds. Other
    investments have increased the number of sea turtle hatchlings by more
    than 100,000 and are ensuring the survival of an additional 800-1,000
    adult and juvenile sea turtles annually.

               NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION PARTNERSHIPS

        With the subcommittee's support, fiscal year 2013 funds will
    support our longstanding partnerships and new initiatives with FWS,
    BLM, and USFS. Some of our priority initiatives for fiscal year 2013
    are described below.
        Longleaf Pine Ecosystem.--Building on nearly a decade of investment
    to protect and restore vanishing longleaf pine forests in the
    southeastern United States, NFWF established the Longleaf Stewardship
    Fund in 2011. This landmark public-private partnership will award
    approximately $3 million in fiscal year 2012 with support through FWS,
    USFS, USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of
    Defense, and Southern Company. With the combined financial and
    technical resources of the public-private partnership, the expanded
    program will support accelerated restoration of the longleaf pine
    ecosystem and implementation of the Range-Wide Conservation Plan for
    Longleaf Pine. NFWF is working with partners to establish specific
    measurable conservation goals that can be tracked over time. These
    goals will support the recovery of important keystone species of the
    longleaf pine ecosystem including red cockaded woodpecker, gopher
    tortoise and Northern bobwhite quail and advance specific habitat
    restoration goals outlined in the Range-Wide Plan.
        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 NFWF's grantmaking since establishing our
    partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1998. In
    the last decade, 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 EPA, Department of the
    Interior agencies, USFS, USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service,
    NOAA, and others. NFWF leverages various Federal funds for these
    partnerships but, more importantly, has attracted private contributions
    from corporations and other private foundations. Through these
    partnerships, Federal agencies are able to leverage resources with
    NFWF's corporate sponsors to increase the impact any one of them could
    have alone. NFWF's watershed grant programs continued positive results
    in 2011 with priority project requests far exceeding available funds.

            JOBS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS

        In 2011, NFWF commissioned a report by Southwick Associates that
    revealed that investments in natural resource conservation have a
    strong positive impact on local jobs and economies. The report examines
    existing data on the economic value of natural resource conservation,
    outdoor recreation and historic preservation. It calculates the total
    U.S. economic impact of these three areas as $1.06 trillion. This
    includes 9.4 million jobs and $107 billion in Federal, State, and local
    tax revenues.

             NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION REAUTHORIZATION

        The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act (S.
    1494) was introduced in August 2011 with strong bipartisan support. S.
    1494 renews NFWF's direct appropriations authorization level of $30
    million for an additional 5 years. The $30 million authorization
    includes $20 million annually through the Department of the Interior;
    $5 million annually through USDA; and $5 million annually through the
    Department of Commerce. S. 1494 affirms the original purposes of NFWF
    and strengthens NFWF's ability to raise private dollars, work with
    Federal agencies more effectively, reduce bureaucratic burdens, and
    maximize conservation outcomes. Importantly, S. 1494 will ensure NFWF's
    ability to save money for the Federal Government through efficient
    grant administration, effective collaboration, and significant leverage
    through private sector contributions.
        S. 1494 is sponsored by Chairwoman Boxer and includes the following
    co-sponsors:
      --Baucus (D-MT);
      --Bingaman (D-NM);
      --Cardin (D-MD);
      --Cochran (R-MS);
      --Collins (R-ME);
      --Murkowski (R-AK);
      --Roberts (R-KS);
      --Snowe (R-ME);
      --Tester (D-MT);
      --Thune (R-SD);
      --Udall (D-NM); and
      --Whitehouse (D-RI).
        A legislative hearing by the Senate Committee on Environment and
    Public Works was held on April, 24 2012. A companion bill in the House
    of Representatives is pending.

                                   CONCLUSION

        For nearly three decades, NFWF has been at the forefront of
    national conservation activity. With our partners, NFWF has contributed
    to some of the Nation's most important conservation programs, invested
    millions in worthy and successful projects, and spearheaded programs to
    conserve our Nation's most treasured natural resources. We have a
    successful model of coordinating and leveraging Federal funds and
    attracting support from the private sector to address the most
    significant threats to fish and wildlife populations and their
    habitats. NFWF currently has partnerships with 14 Federal agencies and
    more than 50 corporations and private foundations.
        Meaningful and measurable outcomes, evaluation, and accountability
    are NFWF's building blocks to ensure maximum conservation impact. We
    are working directly with the Federal agencies and our other partners
    to maximize results and produce sustainable conservation outcomes. To
    that end, the Foundation 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 FWS, BLM, and USFS
    in fiscal year 2013 and appreciate the subcommittee's continued support
    of these collaborative efforts.

            BACKGROUND ON THE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

        As of fiscal year 2011, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
    has awarded more than 11,600 grants to national and community-based
    organizations through successful partnerships with the Department of
    the Interior agencies, USDA's USFS and Natural Resources Conservation
    Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, 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.
        We work directly with Federal and State agencies and our other
    partners to measure progress, promote adaptive management, demonstrate
    results, and continuously learn from project investments. 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 reviewed by the
    NFWF's science and evaluation team before being recommended to the
    Board of Directors for approval. By law, congressional offices are
    notified 30 days in advance of any grant that will be given out in
    their district or State that includes more than $10,000 in Federal
    funds.
        Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciate your continued support and hope
    the subcommittee will approve funding for National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation in fiscal year 2013.
                                     ______

          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. 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
    the critical commodity--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 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, and 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The administration's fiscal year 2013 USGS budget request allocates
    $2.5 million under the heading National Ground Water Monitoring
    Network. But the UGSG budget justification suggests spreading these
    funds over three different programs:
      --the National Ground Water Monitoring Network;
      --a groundwater climate response network; and
      --a brackish aquifer assessment.
        Apart from the other two programs referenced, as part of the fiscal
    year 2013 Ground Water Resources Program, we ask the subcommittee to
    allocate $10 million exclusively for the National Ground Water
    Monitoring Network to do the following:
      --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 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 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.
        The National Ground Water Association is a not-for-profit
    professional society and trade association for the groundwater
    industry. NGWA is the largest organization of groundwater professionals
    in the world. Our members from all 50 States and 72 countries include
    some of the leading public and private sector groundwater scientists,
    engineers, water well contractors, manufacturers, and suppliers of
    groundwater related products and services. NGWA's vision is to be the
    leading community of groundwater professionals that promotes the
    responsible development, use, and management of groundwater resources.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Humanities Alliance

                                FUNDING OVERVIEW

        For fiscal year 2013 the National Humanities Alliance strongly
    urges the subcommittee to provide no less than $154.3 million in
    funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the same
    amount requested by the administration. This represents an $8.2 million
    increase more than the final fiscal year 2012 appropriation ($146
    million). The NEH budget has suffered a significant funding reduction
    over the last 2 years--more than $21 million (13.2 percent) between
    fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2012, almost entirely in program
    funds. In addition, the agency is still trying to recover from cuts
    totaling nearly 40 percent that were made in the mid-1990s.
        At its nominal funding peak in fiscal year 1994, NEH's total budget
    was equivalent to $271.5 million in 2012 inflation-adjusted dollars. At
    its peak in real dollars in fiscal year 1979, the agency's
    appropriation equaled $455.8 million in current dollars--three times
    the fiscal year 2012 level.

                        IMPACT OF THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

        Program Funds.--At the level proposed by the administration, the
    fiscal year 2013 NEH budget would nearly equal its fiscal year 2011
    level ($154.7 million). However, the proposed increase would still
    restore only $5 million in program funds, which are proposed at $124
    million in fiscal year 2013, compared to $118.6 million enacted for
    fiscal year 2012 (still far less than the $140 million enacted for
    fiscal year 2010). The remaining $3 million of the proposed increase
    for fiscal year 2013 would be set aside for administration to help
    cover anticipated relocation costs associated with the pending
    redevelopment of the Old Post Office.
        Competitive Grants.--Within the President's request, funding for
    NEH competitive grants would increase by $2.6 million, from $68.8
    million in fiscal year 2012 to $71.4 million in fiscal year 2013. This
    includes small increments for each of the NEH's core program divisions
    and offices:
      --Research;
      --Education;
      --Preservation and access;
      --Challenge grants;
      --Digital humanities; and
      --Public programs.
        We are pleased to see these increases, as we have been especially
    concerned about the long-term erosion of funding suffered by
    competitive grants programs, which stand at only 40 percent of their
    value (in real dollars) in fiscal year 1994.
        Although modest, the increments proposed by the President would
    have a significant impact. For example, at the proposed fiscal year
    2013 level, the NEH Research Division could make 24 more awards than in
    fiscal year 2012. This means that an additional 22 individual scholars
    could receive fellowships, and two more collaborative research projects
    could receive continuing support. This kind of support is vital for
    humanities faculty. It enables recipients to devote themselves to
    intensive, systematic research--the kind of research needed to produce
    new understandings of American and world history and literature. NEH's
    continuing support can enable a long-term project to continue,
    leveraging additional institutional support, and providing unique
    research opportunities for participating graduate and undergraduate
    students. Similarly, the NEH Education Research Division could enable
    265 additional teachers to revitalize their knowledge of the humanities
    through participation in summer workshops; approximately 33,000 high
    school students would benefit from this valuable professional
    development for teachers.

                                 NATIONAL NEEDS

        The NEH founding legislation articulates the imperative of Federal
    support for the humanities: ``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 when globalization has connected the world's societies and
    economies, and when America plays a central role in political
    developments in every continent, the wisdom of this statement is more
    evident than ever. We cannot afford to abandon the study of America's
    and the world's languages and literatures, religions and governments,
    traditions and innovations. Without the knowledge that the humanities
    provide, we cannot understand our own past or the present condition of
    the world.
        We do our humanities work well in the United States. American
    higher education remains the best in the world--a beacon for students
    across the liberal arts disciplines and an inspiration for the teaching
    and modeling of creative and critical thinking. The research funded by
    the NEH is essential to maintaining that standing, which enables
    American universities to attract students from every continent eager
    for the value of an American liberal education.
        This is not, however, an argument for complacency; it is not a
    defense of the status quo. The same technological forces that are
    transforming the physical, biological, and social sciences are
    transforming the humanities as well. Humanists are using the new
    resources of the digital age to reformulate age-old questions about
    human experience and find new answers for them; to explore new ways of
    making the humanities accessible and relevant. The NEH has played a
    leading role in supporting this work, not only financially but through
    such initiatives as its acclaimed ``EDSITEment'' Web site, which
    effectively spreads the word about the superb digital resources that
    NEH grants have made available to teachers.
        The NEH's impact extends well beyond our classrooms and research
    institutes. The humanities are a lifelong enterprise and a public
    resource. America's museums, libraries, and other cultural institutions
    play a central role in humanities education. Partly thanks to the NEH,
    they now offer a range of digital resources that have already
    transformed the way in which the general public discovers and
    experiences the past and the world of culture. Like universities, these
    institutions can do more--especially if the NEH, which has played a
    vital role in mobilizing new digital techniques and designing more
    creative approaches to the integration of educational and cultural
    institutions, can continue to support these efforts.

                 THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES ROLE

        The NEH is the lead Federal agency with the mission to create,
    preserve, and disseminate knowledge in the humanities--knowledge that
    is essential to healthy public culture in a democratic society. 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 2-
    and 4-year colleges, universities, research institutes, museums,
    historical societies, libraries, archives, scholarly associations, K-12
    schools, television/film/radio producers, and more. These grants help
    support educational advancement; professional development; and
    institutional activities for thousands of students, teachers, faculty,
    and others engaged in the humanities in communities across the United
    States every year. By enhancing the work of our cultural institutions,
    colleges, and universities, they create jobs because such institutions
    attract tourists and students from abroad. The American economy, as
    much as its public culture, benefits from high-quality work in the
    humanities.
        The NEH stands at the center of much of this work. The reputation
    of the NEH's peer review process helps its grantees attract significant
    non-Federal funding for humanities projects nationwide. NEH funded
    projects attract and benefit from further support provided by
    corporations and foundations. These funders view NEH peer review as a
    certification of quality.
        But the support that the NEH can provide for such projects today
    does not meet the needs of our Nation's best work in the humanities.
    The demand for humanities project support far exceeds available
    funding, rendering NEH grants extremely competitive. In fiscal year
    2011, NEH received 5,710 grant proposals representing $552.6 million in
    requested funds, but could fund only 905 (15.8 percent) of these
    applications. This figure is strikingly low when compared to recent
    rates as high as 32 percent reported by grant-making agencies like the
    National Science Foundation.
        Underfunding is pervasive. There is too little money for digital
    humanities projects, which often represent the cutting edge in teaching
    and research, and for the public film, radio, television and digital
    media projects that reach a national public; for professional
    development for teachers who need (and want) to learn how to use new
    media in humanities education; for preserving great collections, many
    of them fragile and in need of conservation, as State support dwindles;
    for challenge grants to help institutions build their own capacities
    and offer the kind of leverage that attracts new donors and builds
    habits of philanthropy; and for the individual fellowships and
    collaborative research projects that promote new understandings of the
    past and the present. Without stronger support, enterprises from
    university research to public education will lose capacity, and as they
    do our ability to deal with the complexities of the world will dwindle.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The National Humanities Alliance is grateful for the opportunity to
    submit testimony on behalf of funding for the National Endowment for
    the Humanities.
        This subcommittee stands as steward to many of our Nation's
    greatest shared cultural and natural resources, and we recognize that
    you face especially difficult and complex choices in crafting the
    fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill. We are also deeply grateful for the strong support
    that the subcommittee has demonstrated for the NEH over the years. We
    hope that you will continue to consider the NEH as a vital investment
    in the Nation's global 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
    the opportunity to be heard.
        The National Humanities Alliance was founded in 1981 to advance
    public support for the humanities. With 104 organizational and
    institutional members, the Alliance encompasses a broad range of
    humanities-related disciplines and institutions, and is the only
    organization that represents the humanities community as a whole. Its
    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.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources

        Mr. Chairman, I am Jeff Allen, Director of the South Carolina Water
    Resources Center at Clemson University's Strom Thurmond Institute. My
    statement is submitted on behalf of the National Institutes for Water
    Resources (NIWR), the organization that collectively represents the
    State water resources research institutes. My statement is in support
    of restoration of funding for the Water Resources Research Act programs
    as part of the fiscal year 2013 U.S. Geological Survey's budget.
        The Water Resources Research Act (42 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.)
    establishes a Federal, State, and university partnership in water
    resources research, education, and information transfer and
    dissemination. There are 54 Water Resources Research Institutes located
    at the land grant universities of the 50 States, as well as in the
    District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The
    Act authorized a State-based network of institutes dedicated to solving
    problems of water supply and water quality in partnership with
    universities, local governments, and the public. It is the only
    federally mandated research network that focuses on applied water
    resources research, education, training and outreach. These institutes
    provide a direct, vital link between Federal water interests and public
    needs with the academic expertise located within the States' research
    universities. It is a mechanism for ensuring State, regional, and
    national coordination of water resources research, the education of
    future water professionals, and the transfer of results and outcomes to
    State and Federal water professionals. The Act's significant matching
    requirements ensure that States invest in water research and training.
        The Water Resources Research Act authorizes the two grant
    components. The first component is the base grant program which is
    allocated among the institutes. Institutes are required to match each
    Federal dollar with two non-Federal dollars. Federal funds cannot be
    used to pay indirect costs at the universities. This is the strictest
    match requirement of any Federal research program. Each Institute uses
    these funds to leverage research and/or student training through a
    statewide competitive grants process. In fiscal year 2012, each
    Institute received $92,335, equaling a total appropriation for the base
    component of $5.2 million. NIWR respectfully requests the subcommittee
    provide $7 million in fiscal year 2013 for competitive water supply
    research seed grants, technology transfer, professional education, and
    outreach to the water-user community by the Institutes, approximately
    $125,000 per institute.
        The second grant component is a national competitive grants program
    that has the objective of supporting research on water resources
    problems that are regional or national in nature. In 2011 this
    competition received 40 applications, which underwent rigorous peer
    review from a national panel. This panel selected five projects from
    Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas and New Jersey for funding. The
    selection is as competitive and as rigorously peer-reviewed as other
    Federal research programs. The NIWR respectfully recommends the
    subcommittee provide $1.5 million in fiscal year 2013 to support the
    national competitive research grants program.
        I would like to share with you some personal stories from the South
    Carolina Water Resources Center. First, let me talk about research
    quality and impact. Our Center awards approximately 2 grants per year,
    generally to researchers in the university community of South Carolina.
    While numerous water institutes across the country provide matching
    funds to investigators through other State appropriations, that is not
    the case in South Carolina. So, researchers who apply to the South
    Carolina research competition must provide their own match at the 2:1
    required rate. It is always refreshing that they value the research so
    much that they find the matching funds. We have funded research
    projects across a range of water issues, from land use change effects
    on streams to assessing stream conditions based upon fish health to the
    development of remote sensing wireless monitoring technologies. In
    fact, one of our projects helped build remote sensors for stream buoys
    that jump-started a multi-million dollar stream-monitoring network on
    the Savannah River. It is a technology, which we think could be used
    around the country and even around the world to monitor stream health
    without requiring extensive fieldwork.
        The South Carolina Water Resources Center also co-sponsors a
    biennial conference for water professionals, managers, educators and
    researchers. Other water institutes hold similar meetings in their
    States. We are proud to say that for our relatively small State, we had
    an attendance of more than 300 water professionals in 2010 and expect
    at least as many this fall in 2012. Conference participants come from
    the State agencies to water organizations to private consultants to
    college and university researchers. This is the one time each year that
    the entire water resources community comes together under one roof. The
    feedback is continually positive with participants telling us it is
    critical to keep these types of meetings ongoing.
        The Water Resources Research Act holds all of this together as a
    network. The Act places the Institutes at land-grant universities,
    where in coordination with their Extension services, they specialize in
    identifying problems within their States, developing solutions to those
    problems, and engaging with the public to implement those solutions.
    One of the Institute program's greatest strengths is that the research
    funded by each Institute is tailored to that State's needs, based on
    priorities set by consultation with an advisory panel. I would like to
    cite several examples of research conducted by institutes across the
    country.
        The Rhode Island Water Resources Center has an outreach program for
    water resource professionals and nonprofessionals targeted equally
    through the combination of an established conference for industry
    professionals and a summer camp for high school students. The primary
    objectives of the conference and the camp are the same; to advance
    awareness and knowledge of the importance of clean water in Rhode
    Island and to discuss and provide insight into the various factors
    affecting the State's ability to obtain clean water for multiple uses.
        The Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities lacks
    sufficient hydrologic information to obtain permits for construction of
    transportation corridors to important resource-rich areas of the State.
    The Alaska Water and Environmental Research Center is conducting a
    series of modeling and measuring projects providing ADOT&PF with the
    data required to design and permit roads and bridges on the North Slope
    and elsewhere.
        The Montana Water Center has developed the Montana Watercourse, a
    statewide program for schools and citizens, providing water
    information, resources, tools and education. Among the projects
    sponsored as part of the Watercourse are:
      --a series of water-rights trainings for conservation district
            supervisors;
      --recruiting and training student interns from Montana's tribal
            colleges for a cutting-edge water-informatics research project
            that assembles streaming sensor data for visualization and
            modeling; and
      --water information sharing with audiences throughout the State,
            including individuals, watershed groups, conservation
            districts, cities, and counties.
        In a study of forest management and water yields, in collaboration
    with several nonprofit agencies, researchers supported by the
    California Institute for Water Resources will undertake a three-part,
    multi-year, multi-disciplinary project to research and assess issues
    related to climate change, vegetation manipulation and the forest water
    cycle in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Sierras harbor globally
    distinctive forest resources that deliver hydropower and water supply
    to downstream users in California and elsewhere.
        Mississippi relies heavily on agricultural commodity production as
    a source of revenue and jobs. And rice, one of Mississippi's top
    commodities and exports, relies heavily on water for germination and
    growth. Demand for water use from irrigated crop production has put
    enormous pressure on Mississippi Delta's groundwater supply. Research
    sponsored by the Mississippi Water Resources Research Institute has
    shown that intermittent irrigation can reduce the amount of water
    needed to grow a successful rice crop by up to 50 percent, compared
    with the conventional method of continuous flooding. Researchers
    designed a rain gauge that helps farmers tell from a distance how wet
    their fields are, and is now developing ways to remotely and
    automatically shut off water pumps to save rice producers time and
    money. The goal is to maximize the use of rainfall, relying on precious
    groundwater reserves only during dry spells. Data generated by this
    research also indicates savings of millions of dollars in production
    fuel costs for Mississippi's farmers.
        The Louisiana Water Resources Research Institute advised the State
    of Louisiana on the environmental impact of the BP oil spill on coastal
    wetlands. The LWRRI is coordinating research and damage assessment for
    the ecologically important coastal headland ``Fourchon Beach'' and
    adjacent marshes that remain heavily impacted by the spill. This
    research has resulted in changes in the response techniques for these
    unique environments and a better understanding of how to respond to
    future spills. In addition, it has helped organize scientific
    conferences and symposia related to the BP spill and researchers have
    presented more than 20 invited presentations on spill response and
    impacts around the United States.
        The University of Wisconsin Institute of Water Resources funded a
    number of projects dealing with groundwater protection. Projects
    include the development of a new remote-sensing method to detect
    infiltration areas for the replenishment of the groundwater that feeds
    aquifers across the State and the development of new management tools
    to help rural water managers implement groundwater protection measures
    more effectively. In addition, the Institute also supported the
    development of new molecular techniques to detect and measure pathogens
    and viruses such as E. coli in groundwater. Currently, the occurrence
    of such pathogens in groundwater are not well documented.
        We often tout the value of the network of institutes supported by
    the Water Resources Research Act program and their ability to work
    together to serve the public on regional water issues.
        In May 2011, the Water Resources Research Institutes in Colorado,
    Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington collaborated on a conference on
    exempt wells. The most common water-use exception is the exemption of
    certain water uses from many States' water rights management processes
    in the West. The goal of the conference was to identify the critical
    issues associated with the management and impacts of exempt domestic
    wells and to stimulate new ideas to solve the conflicts that have
    arisen between traditional water rights holders and water users that
    rely on exempt wells.
        The short supply in the Western States and fears that there will
    not be enough water for all projected future demands, is creating
    strained relationships between those in the agricultural, urban and
    environmental sectors. The Institutes in Arizona and Colorado are
    working together to improve the relationship between these groups by
    facilitating discussions about creative ways they can share water and
    contribute to viable solutions. The institutes' efforts have already
    been successful in generating action at the State level and through
    industry groups that have initiated roundtable discussions, retreats
    and tours among water industry leaders.
        Several Water Resources Research Institutes in the Southeast are
    helping water utilities reduce water usage because of research
    supported by the North Carolina Water Resources Research Institute.
    Researchers collected water data from utilities in Georgia, South
    Carolina and North Carolina and then developed five case studies for
    use in workshops and presentations. Using the results of the research,
    utilities have been able to conserve water without sacrificing revenue
    by adjusting their rate structures, billing, customer communication and
    conservation programming.
        For more than 4 decades the Water Resources Research Institutes
    have provided research results and impacts to our Nation, and proved
    successful at bringing new water professionals into the work force.
    NIWR recommends the subcommittee provide $8.8 million to the USGS for
    the Water Resources Research Institute Program for fiscal year 2013.
    This includes $7 million for institutional grants, $1.5 million for
    national competitive grants, and $300,000 for USGS administration.
        The water institute directors recognize the fiscal challenges
    facing the Nation and the Congress, but NIWR strongly supports the USGS
    Coalition request that the Congress appropriate at least $1.2 billion
    for the USGS in fiscal year 2013, a level that will support critical
    USGS programs that improve the Nation's environment, health, safety,
    quality of life, and future economic growth.
        On behalf of all the Institute directors, I thank you for your
    continuing support of the Water Resources Research Act program.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association

        Mr. Chairman, 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
    testify on behalf of our more than 600,000 members and supporters from
    every State and congressional district to provide our views regarding
    appropriations for the National Park System for the upcoming fiscal
    year. Since 1919, NPCA has been the leading, independent, private voice
    in support of promoting, protecting and enhancing America's national
    parks for people from all walks of life to learn from, be inspired by
    and enjoy--now and on into the future.
        We respect that it will be a challenge again for you to sort out
    and balance competing, often conflicting demands for limited Federal
    resources; we understand the difficult task you face. I commend each of
    you for your commitment and for your fortitude in going forward even
    with the specter of an unprecedented sequestration looming over all our
    heads. I particularly want to compliment the members of this
    subcommittee for working so hard last year to keep out of your bill any
    policy riders that could harm national parks. We were deeply grateful
    that we did not have to fight that battle in this chamber.
        I am here to argue that during these times especially, investing in
    the national parks should be an American priority. Providing adequate
    funding for the national parks is more than simply another expenditure;
    it is an investment in our Nation's future with tangible returns that
    are particularly significant now as we continue to try to recover from
    this long economic downturn.
        We've noted before that for every Federal dollar spent on the
    national parks, at least $4 are generated in economic value to the
    public at large. Adequately funded national parks create jobs,
    sustainable businesses and vibrant communities. The national parks are
    reliable economic engines: visitors to the National Park System
    contributed more than $31 billion to local economies and supported
    258,000 jobs in 2010, an increase of $689 million and 11,500 jobs more
    than 2009, according to recently published data by the park service and
    Michigan State University. The same data showed that visitors to
    Yellowstone spent $334 million, supporting almost 5,000 jobs, and City
    of Rocks supported 85 jobs through $6.3 million in visitor spending.
    These are just two illustrative examples of the economic impact of park
    units on local communities.
        According to a 2011 study from the McKinsey Global Institute
    commissioned by the Interior Department, the national parks make up 60
    percent ($33 billion) of Interior's overall contribution to the economy
    due to outdoor recreation. The study also determined that for every two
    people employed by the national parks, another job was created in local
    economies. In one example, Glacier National Park led to 18,000 local
    jobs, accounting for 25 percent of the jobs in the restaurant sector,
    and 50 percent of jobs in the lodging sector.
        But people won't come to the parks if their experience isn't
    enjoyable or if it's marred by parks in poor condition and lacking
    necessary staff.
        In January, NPCA, the National Park Hospitality Association, and
    the National Parks Foundation, in collaboration with the National Park
    Service, convened an unprecedented event called America's Summit on
    National Parks. The gathering, which included hundreds of diverse
    community, education, economic, business, tourism, healthcare,
    conservation, youth, and political leaders, reinforced the strong
    support for national parks among a wide cross-section of the American
    public. The nonpartisan nature of support for national parks was
    evident there, and at the subsequent White House Conference on
    Conservation. Summit participants agreed on a set of principles to
    guide national park-related policies, opportunities and funding as we
    prepare for the 2016 centennial. The principles--which include a focus
    on funding--quickly garnered endorsements from nearly 100 businesses,
    philanthropic, conservation, tourism and recreation groups, and many
    more continue to sign on. Efforts launched at the summit continue. We
    all look forward to working with you to help ensure the Federal
    Government does its part to perpetuate the American story and values
    through the national parks.
        This February, President Obama signed an Executive order to promote
    tourism in the United States, and at the time Secretary Salazar noted
    that, ``By investing in our parks and promoting them to visitors,
    especially internationally, we can have the dual benefit of an improved
    National Park System and a stronger economy that produces more jobs.''
    Unfortunately, the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request for
    the National Park Service is just not consistent with their lofty and
    ambitious pronouncements. We ask you to find a way to do better.
        With an overall request for the National Park Service that is
    essentially flat, the administration would increase funding for
    specific, targeted activities under park service operations by $13.5
    million. These include some additional money for the administration's
    priorities, but mostly funding for a lot of things that really just
    have to be paid for, such as the Presidential Inauguration. The problem
    is that under the administration's budget, these worthwhile things
    would come at the expense of base park operations--the very account
    that keeps the parks open and functioning and keeps rangers on the job.
    We were disappointed that the administration simultaneously claimed to
    provide funding for fixed costs while cutting budgets at the park level
    by nearly $22 million; we respectfully ask your subcommittee to find
    the funds to prevent this staff cut at a time when we are seeking to
    enhance the tourism economy and keep parks protected. The damage these
    cuts would do to the gains and improvements made as a result of this
    subcommittee's laudable efforts are not theoretical. This cut would
    result in the loss of more than 200 FTE, which depending on how those
    cuts are apportioned, could eliminate as many as 600 seasonal ranger
    positions. It makes no sense to market our national parks to
    international visitors while cutting the funding necessary for the
    parks to serve those very visitors when they arrive.
        National parks are among the most visited locations in America.
    According to Forbes, 8 of the top 25 U.S. travel destinations are
    national parks. If the administration is serious about promoting
    tourism as a boon to the economy, funding for the national parks--and
    especially base park operations--should really be increased rather than
    kept flat or reduced. What kind of impression will it make on visitors
    if the parks are allowed to return to the days of missing rangers,
    shuttered visitor centers, dirty restrooms, deteriorating resources,
    dangerous roads and trails, and reduced interpretive and educational
    programs? Not a very good one, I suspect. At the very least, we are
    hopeful the subcommittee will improve on the administration's request
    and provide more adequate and realistic funding for base park
    operations and fixed costs.
        NPCA fully supports helping the National Park Service understand,
    prepare for, and respond to climate-driven changes unfolding in
    national parks throughout the country. Planning in advance for things
    such as increasing wildfires, invasive species, and coastal flooding is
    needed.
        We're also worried about the continuing trend of reductions in the
    national parks construction account and the impact that will have on
    the continually growing deferred maintenance backlog.
        Last fall, NPCA released a report entitled ``Made in America:
    Investing in National Parks for our Heritage and Our Economy'', which
    highlighted the jeopardy in which continual, incremental cuts place our
    national parks, the heritage they protect, and the experiences they
    provide. Over the last 2 years, NPS discretionary funding has been
    reduced 6 percent; operations funding has been reduced $25 million; and
    construction has been cut by 35 percent, or $84 million, contributing
    to a 66-percent decline in that account since fiscal year 2002 in
    today's dollars. Total discretionary funding for the National Park
    Service is more than $400 million--or 14 percent--less than fiscal year
    2002 in today's dollars.
        The construction cut is proposed despite a maintenance backlog of
    more than $3 billion for the most critical systems, and a total
    deferred maintenance backlog of more than $11 billion. The backlog is
    attributable to chronic funding deficiencies in several categories,
    including operations, transportation, and construction. These
    deficiencies have forced park managers to make choices between what
    needs to be done and what absolutely must be done immediately to keep
    facilities up and running and visitors safe and satisfied for the time
    being. The longer needed repairs and maintenance to facilities is put
    off, the more expensive and difficult they become. The National Park
    Service needs almost $700 million annually just to keep up with the
    backlog, yet receives just half that. We realize deferring projects is
    one mechanism to minimize cuts to other accounts in an austere climate,
    but we fear we are getting to the point where there is nothing left in
    that account, and that is compounding the problem and the long-term
    threat to our national heritage.
        We are pleased that the administration recognizes the need to
    continue to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), so that
    critical lands like the State lands in Grand Teton National Park can be
    protected. It's important to recognize that there are so many LWCF
    needs that continue to go unfunded, with a backlog of more than $2
    billion for NPS acquisitions. There are currently more than 2.6 million
    acres of private inholdings in national parks, and when there are
    willing sellers, there is broad public support for acquisition because
    people want to see public access for recreation and intact parks that
    don't suffer from incompatible development.
        Removing privately owned inholdings and completing parks actually
    makes their administration and resource management more efficient and
    cost effective, thereby freeing up money for other needs. Purchasing
    inholdings from willing sellers can help facilitate better invasive
    species control and water quality, reduce fire risks, remove obstacles
    to recreation and wildlife management, and facilitate conservation of
    historic resources. At the moment, with real estate prices at rock
    bottom, there are many good deals to be had from willing sellers. We
    are hopeful the President's LWCF request will accommodate what is
    necessary to carry out the purchase and exchange of Wyoming State lands
    to benefit Grand Teton National Park and other timely needs. We
    appreciate this subcommittee's bipartisan understanding of the value of
    the program and your effort to modestly restore some funding for the
    program in fiscal year 2012. We hope we can work with you to continue
    support in fiscal year 2013.
        It seems as if there's always a good deal of talk on Capitol Hill
    about what the American people want, expect and deserve. Phrases such
    as those are thrown about fairly readily on both sides of the Capital
    on both sides of the aisle. The views of the American people about
    their national parks are pretty clear. Their love affair with the
    national parks spans time, region, economic status, and political
    persuasion. As reflected in a recent Harris poll, national parks are
    among the most popular roles for the Federal Government. The National
    Park Service is arguably the most popular Federal agency and the park
    ranger may be the most recognizable and appreciated Federal public
    servant. Statistics show that support for national parks has remained
    strong and even increased with the recent downturn in the economy. A
    2010 poll found that 9 out of 10 Americans have visited a national park
    and 6 out of 10 did so within the past 2 years. Despite concerns about
    the economy and the Federal deficit, 88 percent of Americans say it is
    either extremely important or quite important to protect and support
    the national parks. And with the National Park Service centennial in
    mind, 85 percent of voters surveyed favor giving national parks enough
    funding so they are fully restored and ready to serve the public for
    the next 100 years.
        By taking care of our national parks, this subcommittee can show
    that the Congress can still do some things well. Despite a political
    scene that is so divisive and dysfunctional at so many levels,
    Americans from all walks of life and political persuasions cherish our
    national parks and want them protected. This subcommittee can make a
    statement that it understands that, and that the Congress is still
    capable of hearing them. And at the same time, it can make an
    investment in local economies and help recapture the U.S. share of the
    tourism market by ensuring parks are well protected and maintained and
    visitors have a safe and inspiring experience.
        As the milestone 100th anniversary approaches, the parks will be
    more and more at the forefront of people's minds, and more and more
    Americans will be drawn to visit a national park or park unit. We hope
    they will be proud of what they find and take pride in their experience
    and heritage. Whether this happens or not is, in no small measure, a
    function of the actions this subcommittee and your colleagues in the
    Congress undertake.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
                                     ______

       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 2013 Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies appropriations bill and, specifically, the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
        The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) is a nonprofit
    organization working to advance parks, recreation and environmental
    conservation efforts nationwide. Our members touch the lives of every
    American in every community every day. Through our network of
    approximately 20,000 citizen and professional members we represent park
    and recreation departments in cities, counties, townships, special park
    districts, and regional park authorities, along with citizens concerned
    with ensuring close-to-home access to parks and recreation
    opportunities exist in their communities.
        In fiscal year 2012, you provided $322.9 million for LWCF, with $45
    million of that amount allocated to the State Assistance Program. You
    also specified that zero State Assistance dollars were to be used for
    the Department of the Interior's (DOI) proposed competitive grant
    program. We thank you for investing in conservation through the LWCF,
    and especially thank you for investing in States and local communities
    through the State Assistance Program and for protecting the integrity
    of that program.
        As this subcommittee works to craft the fiscal year 2013 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, NRPA makes three
    requests. First, we ask that you provide ample funding for the LWCF;
    second we ask that you choose to invest in local communities by
    allocating 40 percent of total LWCF appropriations to the State
    Assistance Program; and third we ask that you, once again, deny the DOI
    the ability to deprive States and local communities of funding by
    specifying that zero State Assistance dollars are to be used for the
    DOI's proposed competitive grant program.
        We recognize that you face difficult decisions relative to fiscal
    year 2013. However, the LWCF is budget neutral, having been authorized
    with a dedicated funding source of oil and gas leasing revenues. More
    than $6 billion a year is provided through these leases, and the
    funding provided to the LWCF is a minuscule fraction of this amount.
    Zeroing out the LWCF would negatively impact our country, especially at
    the State and local levels. There is a common misconception that LWCF
    is merely a Federal land acquisition program. Nothing could be further
    from the truth, as the LWCF State Assistance Program provides dollar-
    for-dollar matching grants to States and local communities for the
    construction of outdoor recreation projects. The land purchased with
    LWCF State Assistance funding remains the property of the State or
    local government, and the facilities developed through the LWCF remain
    publicly accessible in perpetuity.
        The LWCF State Assistance Program ensures that local communities,
    such as Blackfoot, Idaho, have places where adults and children can go
    to recreate and enjoy the outdoors. It is a means by which this
    committee can provide investment to local communities, and for fiscal
    year 2013, we are asking this committee to make the investment by
    allocating a minimum of 40 percent of total LWCF appropriations to the
    State Assistance Program. Current law requires that a minimum of 40
    percent of LWCF appropriations be provided to the Federal land
    acquisition program, and we are merely asking for you to invest in
    local communities by allocating the same percentage amount to the State
    Assistance Program. Evidence of the impact of such an allocation is
    clear when you consider that in fiscal year 2012 California received
    approximately $3.6 million through the State Assistance Program. Had 40
    percent of LWCF appropriations been allocated to the State Assistance
    Program, the State would have received more than $11 million. Rhode
    Island received $426,000 in fiscal year 2012, but would have received
    more than $1.3 million with a 40-percent allocation.
        There are many viable reasons for such an allocation. One seemingly
    simple reason is access. Not everyone in America has access to our
    amazing National Park System, but everyone does have access to local
    outdoor spaces and recreational facilities provided through their State
    and local community. Additionally, accessibility to physical activity
    through outdoor recreation is crucial to reaping the benefits of
    healthy lifestyles and reducing healthcare epidemics such as childhood
    obesity.
        Close-to-home public parks and recreation are available to every
    age, ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic class in every community,
    both urban and rural, of every State. Is there any other program that
    so effectively treats all individuals so equally? This is made possible
    because LWCF funding has always been allocated by formula through the
    State Assistance Program, whereby a portion of funds are equally
    allocated among all States and territories and the remainder is
    allocated based on population. This ensures that 100 percent of the
    State Assistance funding is equitably distributed throughout the
    Nation. This formula currently does not favor one congressional
    district or party affiliation over the other, or projects that can gain
    the most national visibility. That would radically change under the
    DOI's proposal whereby more than one-third of the State Assistance's
    funding would be used for a DOI-administered competitive grants
    program. The DOI proposal would effectively decrease the amount of
    funding provided to each State as only a small number of projects would
    likely be funded. For example, Ohio would have lost approximately
    $950,000 in fiscal year 2012 LWCF funding under the DOI proposal.
    Additionally, more rural States, such as Alaska or Wyoming, would have
    to expect a loss of funding as only urban projects of national
    significance could compete for the grants. The distribution formula
    used for the past 47 years has yielded equitable results as 98 percent
    of America's counties have received State Assistance funds. In fiscal
    year 2012, this subcommittee ensured equal allocation among the States
    by specifically directing that zero dollars were to be spent on a
    competitive grant program in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill.
    NRPA supports repeating that language in fiscal year 2013 and rejecting
    any ongoing or future efforts by DOI to do otherwise. Absent directive
    language, the DOI has authority to implement its program.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance: Addressing National
            Issues on the Local Level
        Few programs can address so many national priorities as effectively
    as the LWCF State Assistance Program does, with so few dollars and
    without negatively impacting the Federal budget.
        The National Park Service documented in a March 2011 report that
    the $40 million appropriated to LWCF State Assistance in 2010 made a
    direct impact on park and recreation facilities in or near 221 local
    communities, helped communities make 5,905 new acres available for
    outdoor recreation use and enjoyment, 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.'' While
    the LWCF State Assistance program annual benefits hundreds of local
    communities, local communities are in need of more recreational
    resources. As documented by the National Park Service, our country
    faces more than $18 billion in unmet need for outdoor recreational
    resources.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Stimulates Jobs and
            Local Economies
        According to a study by Southwick in October 2011, the economic
    impacts of outdoor recreation, natural resource conservation, and
    historic preservation activities in the United States contributed a
    minimum of $1.06 trillion to the economy, created a $107 billion return
    on investment to Federal, State and local governments through tax
    revenue, and supported 9.4 million jobs. The National Association of
    State Park Directors reports that America's State park system
    contributes $20 billion to local and State economies. Impressively,
    this section of the economy continues to grow even during the ongoing
    economic recession, and thus has enormous potential to immediately
    create new jobs. For example, the Outdoor Industry Association reported
    in October 2011 that the outdoor recreation industry grew at a rate of
    4.1percent in 2010 and 5.9 percent in 2011. As more people are using
    the outdoors, more jobs are being created, and nowhere is outdoor
    recreation more prevalent than State and local outdoor recreation
    areas.
        Virtually every community in New York has acquired and/or developed
    outdoor recreational facilities with the help of the LWCF State
    Assistance Program. As a result, the New York active outdoor recreation
    economy supports 130,000 jobs across New York, generates nearly $800
    million in annual State tax revenue, and produces $11.3 billion
    annually in retail sales and services.
        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 of this subcommittee for the Nation's
    treasured State and local parks and recreation sites, the Congress
    would effectively contribute to State and local unemployment rates and
    deeper budget deficits.
    Public Health
        The LWCF State Assistance Program 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 increased participation in
    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 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 State Assistance Program would provide a significant
    return on investment through the reduction in healthcare costs by
    ensuring access to places for physical activity.
    Environmental Benefits
        The LWCF State Assistance Program not only meets important national
    goals and delivers tangible health and economic benefits to everyone;
    it also significantly contributes to protecting the environment and
    promoting environmental stewardship. LWCF State Assistance projects
    have a historical record of contributing to reduced and delayed
    stormwater runoff volumes, enhanced groundwater recharge, stormwater
    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.
        For example, LWCF State Assistance funding allowed the Rhode Island
    Department of Environmental Management to complete 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.
        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 State Assistance funding was used to
    construct a ski lift, lodge, warming hut, trails, and maintenance
    buildings at the Eaglecrest Recreation Area.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, local parks and
    recreation agencies are not merely community amenities; they are
    essential services necessary for the economic and environmental
    vitality, as well as physical wellness, of communities throughout this
    country. LWCF's State Assistance Program has proven itself invaluable
    to improving State and local economies, while simultaneously reducing
    long-term healthcare costs through increased access to physical
    activity. This subcommittee and the Congress have the rare opportunity
    to achieve national goals without increasing spending or adding to the
    deficit, and can do so by adopting three simple recommendations: do not
    zero out the LWCF; allocate a minimum of 40 percent of LWCF funding to
    the State Assistance Program; and prohibit any diversion of formula
    funds to a DOI competitive grant program.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony.
                                     ______

        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, DC. 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 Service (IHS) and
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) facilities and services on behalf of
    more than 250 Native American tribes.\1\ Thank you for the opportunity
    to appear once again to discuss the legal duty and urgent need to fully
    fund the ``contract support costs'' that are owed these and other
    tribes performing contracts and compacts on behalf of the United States
    pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act--specifically $571
    million for IHS contract support cost requirements and $228 million for
    BIA contract support cost 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 and 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, Oregon, and Washington).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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
    governmental 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 governmental
    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.
        The 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 ``contract support
    costs'' 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 contract support costs 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
    contract support cost shortfall is equivalent to a program cut.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Contract support costs are the necessary costs of operating a
    Federal program under contract. When the BIA and IHS operate these
    programs, the agencies are supported by their own bureaucracies and
    other Federal agencies (i.e., the Department of Justice, the General
    Services Administration, and the Office of Personnel Management ) to
    provide personnel and financial management systems, legal resources,
    procurement systems and the like. Tribal contractors require similar
    resources, as well as resources to meet mandatory Federal requirements
    such as annual audits. They cover those requirements with contract
    support costs. Most fixed contract support costs are set by Government-
    issued indirect cost rates, with the rates issued based upon certified
    independent audits and adjusted based upon post-year audits.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For years the administration failed to request full funding for its
    contract support cost 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 enacted a $116 million
    increase to narrow the IHS contract support cost shortfall by about
    one-half, and a $19 million increase to address BIA contract support
    cost shortfalls. The IHS increase, alone, will eventually restore 2,820
    health sector jobs in Indian country.
        Today IHS refuses to disclose its shortfall projections for fiscal
    year 2012 and fiscal year 2013. Based upon our own projections, we
    believe the shortfall this year will be approximately $60 million, and
    that the shortfall in fiscal year 2013 will approach $99 million. Our
    calculations and assumptions are attached to my testimony.
    (Unfortunately, IHS's failure to disclose data for the past 2 years
    means our projections are subject to change.) Unless remedied, we
    foresee a $99 million cut in tribally contracted programs next year--
    not IHS-administered programs, but tribally administered health
    programs alone--to cover the shortfall that will be left unaddressed.
        In this context, IHS's request for a $5 million increase is
    shocking, all the more so given this subcommittee's instruction to IHS
    last year that the agency must prioritize fully funding these contracts
    before requesting other discretionary increases. In contrast, the BIA
    has responded to Indian Country, and it has heeded this subcommittee's
    instruction, by requesting $228 million--an amount the BIA says will
    fully fund all contract support cost requirements.
        It is not acceptable for the agency to prioritize discretionary
    increases over its contract obligations. It is not acceptable to seek
    deficit reduction by cutting contract payments. It is not acceptable to
    treat tribal contractors differently from other contractors. And it is
    not acceptable to single out tribally administered health programs for
    grave cuts in essential governmental services, while the agency seeks
    enhancements to the rest of its budget. The Congress 24 years ago
    warned 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. Rep. No. 100-
    274, at 9 (1987). At long last this practice must stop.
        Last year we detailed for the subcommittee the extraordinary impact
    that addressing CSC shortfalls has on job creation across Indian
    country. Just as the shortfall costs jobs, eliminating the shortfall
    restores jobs. Addressing the IHS shortfall in contract payments is
    therefore not just a matter of legal obligation and sound policy; it is
    good economics at a time of terrible unemployment.
        The National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition recommends the
    following:
      --The Coalition recommends that in fiscal year 2013:
        --the IHS contract support cost line be increased to $571 million;
                and that
        --the BIA's request to increase its contract support cost line to
                $228 million be accepted.
      --The Coalition recommends that the Committee adopt language
            requiring IHS and BIA to promptly disclose each year all
            available contract support cost data--precisely as both
            agencies have historically done up until the past year.
            Language to address this issue accompanies my testimony. The
            agencies are suddenly claiming that, because CSC data is
            eventually wrapped up inside a formal Report to Congress, the
            otherwise disclosable data cannot be disclosed until the Report
            is fully cleared through each Department and through OMB. That
            is a sure way to keep the data secret and under wraps for
            years--witness the fact that only this month, March 2012, did
            IHS submit its Report detailing 2009 data, 3 years too late.
            Without data there is no way for tribes, or the Congress, to
            see how these tribal funds are being managed.
          Such secrecy does not accompany any other agency funds, and only
            leads one to speculate that the agencies have something to
            hide. Indeed, last year's multiple IHS errors in projections
            that were furnished to the Congress suggest that the agencies
            want to hide both their own errors and the magnitude of the
            shortfalls. This is unacceptable, and it should not require
            costly Freedom of Information Act lawsuits every year for
            tribes and the Congress to learn what is going on inside the
            agencies with appropriated funds.
          This is a major issue. Today tribes have been denied all access
            to 2011 data about how last year's appropriation--all of which
            belongs to the tribes--was spent. They are also being told that
            they will not see how the 2012 funds, which the Congress
            appropriated in December, will be spent this year--not until
            formal reports are sent to the Congress years from now. They
            are being denied access to the critical information that would
            permit them to see if systemic errors are being made--a
            particularly acute problem given the wholesale loss of all CSC
            expertise within the agency. They are even being told that
            tribes, themselves, favor this secrecy--notwithstanding that
            section 106(c) of the Indian Self-Determination Act mandates
            Tribe-by-Tribe disclosure, and notwithstanding that such
            diverse entities as the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Health
            Board, the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, the IHS
            Contract Support Cost Work Group (all attached), as well as
            this 11 State, 20 tribe, coalition, all have demanded
            disclosure.
      --The Coalition recommends that the subcommittee once again 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). The
            IHS did this in its fiscal year 2012 budget, but ceased doing
            it in the fiscal year 2013 budget. This is the first time in
            some 25 years that IHS has not disclosed in its budget
            justification its projection of CSC requirements for the coming
            year. The Congress cannot do its work without this information.
      --Finally, the Coalition recommends that the subcommittee reconcile
            the different language used in the IHS and BIA portions of the
            bill, and that the subcommittee eliminate the old ``section
            314'' language (a useless vestige after the Cherokee v. Leavitt
            case). Variations in language only raise unnecessary questions
            as to the subcommittee's intent. Suggested language accompanied
            our testimony to the subcommittee last year.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to offer these recommendations.

                       INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE CONTRACT SUPPORT COST PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEARS 2011, 2012, 2013, AND 2014--FEBRUARY 15, 2012
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Amount
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                FISCAL YEAR 2011

    Fiscal year 2010 CSC need (from fiscal    \1\ $520,715,1
     year 2010 CSC data collected from                    03
     Tribes).
    Tribal shares available for CSC (from        $32,683,845
     fiscal year 2010 CSC data).
    IDC on unpaid DCSC in fiscal year 2010        $1,756,818             2011 program increases                                 54 percent      25 percent
     (calculated from fiscal year 2010 CSC
     data).
    Base CSC funding (fiscal year 2010          $398,490,000  Services....................................  ...............  ...............  ..............
     appropriation).
    Inflation for fiscal year 2011 at 1.5         $5,977,350  Facilities..................................  ...............  ...............  ..............
     percent.
    Estimated new and expanded programs       ..............  Staffing of new facilities..................  ...............  ...............  ..............
     (ISD) in fiscal year 2011.
                                                                                                           -------------------------------------------------
    CSC for program increases in the fiscal   ..............        TOTAL.................................  ...............  ...............  ..............
     year 2010 omnibus budget.
                                             ----------------                                              =================================================
          Total funding required in fiscal      $495,765,425
           year 2011.
          Base funding (fiscal year 2010        $398,490,478
           omnibus budget).
          Additional CSC needed in fiscal        $97,274,947
           year 2011.
    Projected average CSC level of need                80.38
     funded (percentage).
                                             ================
                FISCAL YEAR 2012                                         2012 program increases                                 60 percent      25 percent

    Total funding required in fiscal year       $495,765,425  Services....................................     $64,361,881      $38,617,129       $9,654,282
     2010.
    Inflation (DCSC at medical inflation          $8,069,432  Facilities..................................       6,712,000        4,027,200        1,006,800
     (3.6 percent)/IDC at regular Inflation
     (1.5 percent)).
    Estimated new and expanded programs          $10,000,000  Staffing of new facilities..................      62,950,119       38,678,119        9,669,530
     (ISD) in fiscal year 2012.
                                                                                                           -------------------------------------------------
    CSC for program increases in the fiscal   \2\ 20,330,612        TOTAL.................................     134,024,000       81,322,448       20,330,612
     year 2012 enacted budget.
                                             ----------------                                              =================================================
          Total CSC funding required in         $534,165,469                    $38,426,396--Increase in CSC need over previous fiscal year
           fiscal year 2012.
          Adjustment for additional tribal           $26,352
           shares and IDC on DCSC shortfall.
          Base funding (fiscal year 2012        $471,437,000             $72,946,522--Increase in CSC funding available over previous fiscal year
           enacted budget).
          Additional CSC needed in fiscal        $62,754,822
           year 2012.
    Projected average CSC level of need                88.25
     funded (percentage).
                                             ================
                FISCAL YEAR 2013                                         2012 program increases                                 60 percent      25 percent

    Total funding required in fiscal year       $534,191,822  Services....................................      62,998,000       37,798,800        9,449,700
     2012.
    Inflation (DCSC at medical inflation          $9,546,599  Facilities..................................       2,259,000        1,355,400          338,850
     (3.6 percent)/IDC at regular Inflation
     (1.5 percent)).
    Estimated new and expanded programs          $10,000,000  Staffing of new facilities..................      49,236,000       49,236,000       12,309,000
     (ISD) in fiscal year 2013.
                                                                                                           -------------------------------------------------
    CSC for program increases in the          \3\ 22,097,550          TOTAL...............................     114,493,000       88,390,200       22,097,550
     proposed fiscal year 2013 budget
     request.
                                             ================                                              =================================================
          Total CSC funding required in         $575,835,971                    $41,670,897--Increase in CSC need over previous fiscal year
           fiscal year 2013.
          Adjustment for additional tribal           $26,748
           shares and IDC on DCSC shortfall.
          Base funding (President's fiscal      $476,446,000              $5,009,000--Increase in CSC funding available over previous fiscal year
           year 2013 budget).
          Additional CSC needed in fiscal        $99,416,719
           year 2013.
    Projected average CSC level of need                82.74
     funded (percent).
                                             ================
                FISCAL YEAR 2014                                         2014 program increases                                    60 percent     25 percent

    Total funding required in fiscal year       $575,862,719  Services....................................  ...............  ...............  ..............
     2013.
    Inflation (DCSC at medical inflation          $9,648,032  Facilities..................................  ...............  ...............  ..............
     (3.6 percent)/IDC at regular Inflation
     (1.5 percent)).
    Estimated new and expanded programs          $10,000,000  Staffing of new facilities..................  ...............  ...............  ..............
     (ISD) in fiscal year 2014.
                                                                                                           -------------------------------------------------
    CSC for program increases in the          \4\ 21,214,081          TOTAL...............................  ...............  ...............  ..............
     proposed fiscal year 2014 budget
     request (average of previous 2 years)..
                                             ================                                              =================================================
          Total CSC funding required in          616,724,831                    $40,889,261--Increase in CSC need over previous fiscal year
           fiscal year 2014.
          Adjustment for additional tribal           $27,149
           shares and IDC on DCSC shortfall.
          Base funding (President's fiscal      $476,446,000                  $0--Increase in CSC funding available over previous fiscal year
           year 2013 budget).
          Additional CSC needed in fiscal        140,305,980
           year 2014.
    Projected average CSC level of need                77.25
     funded (percentage).
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Taken from fiscal year 2010 contract support cost shortfall data collected from tribes.
    \2\ CSC associated with the portion of the fiscal year 2012 appropriation increases that are to be included in Self-Determination awards. (60 percent of
      the increase, times 25 percent for CSC).
    \3\ CSC associated with the fiscal year 2013 proposed budget increases that are anticipated to be included in Self-Determination awards. (60 percent of
      the increase, times 25 percent for CSC).
    \4\ CSC associated with the fiscal year 2014 budget increases that are anticipated to be included in Self-Determination contracts and compacts. (Average
      of previous 2 years).
    \5\ This amount does not include any CSC based on program increases anticipated in the proposed budget.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Amount       Inflation \1\     ISD fund
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total CSC funding required in fiscal year 2015..................  \2\ $634,087,0     $12,335,040      $5,000,000
                                                                                  19
    Total CSC funding required in fiscal year 2016..................  \2\ $651,768,7     $12,681,740      $5,000,000
                                                                                  60
    Total CSC funding required in fiscal year 2017..................  \2\ $669,804,1     $13,035,375      $5,000,000
                                                                                  35
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Inflation is computed at 2 percent of the prior fiscal year's total requirement.
    \2\ This amount does not include any CSC based on program increases anticipated in the proposed budget.

                                         INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE--DETAIL OF CHANGE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                  --------------------------  Difference   Fiscal year   Difference
               Program enacted request                 2011         2012       2012 over       2013       2013 over
                                                     enacted      enacted        2011        request        2012
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Services:
        Hospitals and health clinics.............   $1,762,865   $1,810,966      $48,101    $1,849,310      $38,344
        Dental services..........................      152,634      159,440        6,806       166,297        6,857
        Mental health............................       72,786       75,589        2,803        78,131        2,542
        Alcohol and substance abuse..............      194,409      194,297         (112)      195,378        1,081
        Contract Health Services.................      779,927      843,575       63,648       897,562       53,987
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Clinical Services...............    2,962,621    3,083,867      121,246     3,186,678      102,811
                                                  ==================================================================
        Public health nursing....................       63,943       66,632        2,689        69,868        3,236
        Health education.........................       16,649       17,057          408        17,450          393
        Community Health Representatives.........       61,505       61,407          (98)       61,531          124
        Immunization AK..........................        1,930        1,927  ............        1,927  ............
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Preventive Health...............      144,027      147,023        2,996       150,776        3,753
                                                  ==================================================================
        Urban health.............................       43,053       42,984          (69)       42,988            4
        Indian Health Professions................       40,661       40,596          (65)       40,598            2
        Tribal Management Grants.................        2,581        2,577  ............        2,577  ............
        Direct operations........................       68,583       71,653        3,070        72,867        1,214
        Self-Governance..........................        6,054        6,044          (10)        6,044  ............
        Contract Support Costs...................      397,693      471,437       73,744       476,446        5,009
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Other Services..................      558,625      635,291       76,666       641,520        6,229
                                                  ==================================================================
          TOTAL, SERVICES........................    3,665,273    3,866,181      200,908     3,978,974      112,793
                                                  ==================================================================
    Facilities:
        Maintenance and improvement..............       53,807       53,721          (86)       55,470        1,749
        Sanitation facilities construction.......       95,665       79,582      (16,083)       79,582  ............
        Healthcare facilities construction.......       39,156       85,048       45,892        81,489       (3,559)
        Facilities and environmental health            192,701      199,413        6,712       204,379        4,966
         support.................................
        Equipment................................       22,618       22,582          (36)       22,582            -
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, FACILITIES......................      403,947      440,346       36,399       443,502        3,156
                                                  ==================================================================
          TOTAL, BUDGET AUTHORITY................    4,069,220    4,306,527      237,307     4,422,476      115,949
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From DHHS/IHS Fiscal Year 2013 Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The fiscal year 2012 staffing packages total was
     $62,950,119
        Carl Albert.........................................      $2,487,000
        Lake Co HC..........................................       1,088,000
        Elbowoods...........................................       7,315,000
        Cheyenne River HC...................................      24,272,000
        Absentee Shawnee HC.................................       8,981,000
        Vinita HC...........................................       8,665,000
        Undesignated (place holder two joint venture               9,843,000
         facilities)........................................
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................      62,651,000
                                                             ===============
    The fiscal year 2013 staffing was estimated at
     $49,236,000
        Ardmore, Oklahoma...................................       8,948,000
        Vinita, Oklahoma....................................       2,792,000
        Tishomingo, Oklahoma................................       5,341,000
        Wasilla, Alaska.....................................      13,462,000
        Fairbanks, Alaska...................................       8,074,000
        Nome, Alaska........................................      10,619,000
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................      49,236,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs and the Indian Health Service shall, on or before April 1 of
    each fiscal year, circulate to every tribal and tribal organization
    engaged in contracting or compacting under Public Law 93-638, as
    amended, data from the preceding year showing:
      --for each tribe and tribal organization, nationally, and by area and
            region, the total amounts of funds provided for the direct
            costs of contracted or compacted programs, and the total
            amounts of funds provided for the contract support costs
            associated with such programs;
      --for each tribe and tribal organization, nationally, and by Area and
            Region, any deficiency (or surplus) in funds needed to provide
            required contract support costs;
      --the indirect cost rate and type of rate that has been negotiated
            with the appropriate Secretary for each tribe and tribal
            organization;
      --the direct cost base and type of base from which the indirect cost
            rate is determined for each tribe and tribal organization;
      --the indirect cost pool amounts and the types of costs included in
            the indirect cost pool; and
      --for the current fiscal year, each agency's calculation of the
            estimated national contract support cost requirement for all
            tribes and tribal organizations, based upon the President's
            most recent budget submitted to the Congress.
                                     ______

        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 2013 funding recommendations for the Department of the
    Interior and other agencies under the purview of this subcommittee.
        Founded in 1991, NTEC works with federally recognized tribes to
    protect tribal environments. 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

    Interior Department Cooperative Landscape Conservation Initiative
                Increase the Bureau of Indian Affair's Allocation of the
                        Department of the Interior's Climate Change
                        Adaptation Initiative to $8.75 Million
        DOI began the Cooperative Landscape Conservation Initiative in
    2009, an undertaking that Indian tribes support. The administration's
    fiscal year 2013 budget request for the initiative is $175 million. The
    $136 million for the initiative in fiscal year 2011 did not include any
    funding for tribes.
        In fact, BIA repurposed $419,000 of its own funds for tribal
    participation in the DOI Cooperative Landscape Conservation Initiative.
    Out of the $175 million for the Initiative in fiscal year 2012, BIA was
    only allocated $200,000. As such, tribes were accorded a mere .001
    percent of the funding. Moreover, given the past failures to allocate
    new funding to BIA for this program, it is doubtful this funding will
    appear and likely that BIA will once again be compelled to repurpose
    its own funds. The lack of funding for tribes 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.
        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 NPS, yet the
    administration proposed nearly 50 times more funding for NPS in fiscal
    year 2012.

                                  [In millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Agency                                Acres
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 Cooperative Landscape Conservation
    Initiative, for tribes to address and adapt to the impacts of climate
    change. This funding level was justified in a report submitted to the
    House Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Subcommittee in May 2011.\1\ To achieve this equitable increase for
    tribes, the money provided to the various Interior 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Tribal recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 Department of
    the Interior Climate Change Adaptation Initiative, transmitted on May
    20, 2011, to Mike Simpson, Chairman, House Subcommittee on the Interior
    and Environment, www.ncai.org/fileadmin/appropriations/
    Tribal_Recommendations_for_2012_
    DOI_Climate_Change_Adaptation_Initiative.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trust Natural Resources Program
                Provide $170.521 Million for Bureau of Indian Affairs Trust
                        Natural Resources Program
        The BIA Trust Natural Resources (TNR) Program represents the
    largest amount of base, Federal funding for tribal natural resource
    management. 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 Interior
    agencies. For example, the fiscal year 2013 budget requests increases
    of $34.5 million for USGS and $28 million for BLM, yet the request for
    BIA is a decrease of $110 million. Moreover, in roughly the last decade
    the BIA budget has grown only 8 percent compared to an average of more
    than 23 percent for other Interior agencies (FWS: 30 percent; NPS: 28
    percent; USGS: 19 percent; BLM: 13 percent). Because BIA spending on
    natural resources in the last 11 years has been relatively flat
    compared to inflation and BIA's budget has been historically inadequate
    to meet the natural resource needs of Indian tribes, their needs have
    multiplied. The fiscal year 2013 request is $13.51 million less than
    the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
    Report on Tribal Priority Allocations, July 1999, 52.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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. We request that $170.521 million be provided to the BIA TNR
    Program. We support allocating that amount to various TNR programs per
    the 2013 Indian Country budget request.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Available at: http://www.ncai.org/fileadmin/FY2013/
    FY2013_Indian_Country_
    Budget_Request.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

    Tribal Wildlife Grants Program
                Increase U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tribal Wildlife
                        Grants Funding to $8 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 FWS to provide funding to tribes
    under the Tribal Wildlife Grant (TWG) and Tribal Landowner Incentive
    Programs (TLIP). Tribal proposals for support often total more than $30
    million annually. In fiscal year 2009, FWS only funded 41 TWG proposals
    out of 101 submitted, awarding $7 million to tribes with a meager
    average award of $170,000. With 566 federally recognized tribes,
    competition is severe and tribes rarely receive sufficient funds to
    fully support important conservation efforts.
        In fiscal year 2011, 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.\4\ In fiscal year 2011 and 2012, tribes only received $4.3
    million from TWG in each year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 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. 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. We request that TWG Program funding be increased to $8 million
    for fiscal year 2013.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    General Assistance Program
                Increase Funding to $75 Million for the Environmental
                        Protection Agency General Assistance Program
        Since 1992, the EPA's Indian Environmental General Assistance
    Program (GAP) has served a critical need by providing funding to tribes
    to build capacity for environmental management. Unfortunately, GAP
    funding has not kept pace with the growth of tribal environmental
    programs over the years, forcing tribes to perform the increased duties
    of maturing programs with fewer resources. The average cost for tribes
    to sustain a basic environmental program was set at $110,000 per tribe
    in 1999 and has not been adjusted for inflation since that time. fiscal
    year 2012 funding for GAP was slightly more than $ 67.5 million.
    However, a $175,000 per tribe distribution (totaling almost $99
    million) would be more equitable for tribes. We request that the EPA
    GAP Program be funded at $75 million level to begin incrementally
    meeting the need of $99 million.
    Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants Program
                Authorize and Appropriate $20 Million for the Multimedia
                        Tribal Implementation Grants Program
        The fiscal year 2012 EPA budget included a request for this new
    program to support on-the-ground implementation of environmental
    protection on tribal lands. This program would provide $20 million
    (almost $13 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
    begin implementing tribal environmental priorities. We request that the
    Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants Program be funded at the $20
    million level.
    Tribal Water Pollution Control, Clean Water Act Section 106
                Provide a Tribal Allocation of 20 Percent
        Clean Water Act section 106 grants are critical to tribal efforts
    to control water pollution. Such efforts include water quality planning
    and assessments; developing and implementing water quality standards
    and total maximum daily loads; providing ground water and wetland
    protection; and engaging in nonpoint source control activities. Between
    1998 and 2010, the number of eligible tribes to receive CWA section 106
    funding increased from 141 to 257. The national CWA 106 allocation to
    tribes has remained flat and periodically decreased (e.g., 15.49
    percent in 1998 to as low as 11.55 percent in 2005). Only 40 of 565
    federally recognized tribes have EPA-approved water quality standards
    (WQS), yet the vast majority of States have them. Section 106 grants
    would enable tribes to bridge this gap. We request 20 percent of the
    national CWA section 106 allocation be made specifically available to
    tribes.
    Nonpoint Source Pollutant Control--Clean Water Act 319
                Eliminate Caps on Tribal Funding for Nonpoint Source
                        Pollution Control
        Clean Water Act section 319 provides tribes with grants to develop
    and implement polluted runoff control programs that address critical
    water quality concerns identified in the 106 program and other
    monitoring programs. Tribal needs for this funding exceed availability.
    We request that any caps on tribal funding for Nonpoint Source
    Pollution Control be eliminated to help close the vast inequity in
    funding.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this
    opportunity to present the National Trust for Historic Preservation's
    recommendations for fiscal year 2013 appropriations. My name is Thomas
    J. Cassidy, Jr. and I am the Vice President of Government Relations and
    Policy. The National Trust is a privately funded nonprofit organization
    chartered by the Congress in 1949. We work to save America's historic
    places to enrich our future. With headquarters in Washington, DC, 12
    field offices, 29 historic sites, and partner organizations in 50
    States, territories, and the District of Columbia, the National Trust
    protects significant historic sites and advocates for historic
    preservation as a fundamental value in programs and policies at all
    levels of government.
        The Nation faces a challenging fiscal environment. The National
    Trust recognizes there is a need for fiscal restraint and cost-
    effective Federal investments. However, we do not believe that
    preservation, conservation and recreation programs should suffer from
    disproportionate funding reductions. We look forward to working with
    you, Mr. Chairman, as you address the ongoing needs for investments to
    sustain our Nation's rich heritage of cultural and historic resources
    that also generate the economic vitality of communities throughout the
    Nation.

                           HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND

        The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) is the principal source of
    funding to implement the Nation's historic preservation programs. Like
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund, its dedicated revenues are
    generated from oil and gas development on the Continental Shelf.
        The National Park Service distributes HPF grants that are matched
    by State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic
    Preservation Offices (THPOs). Inadequate HPF funding limits support for
    preservation activities such as survey, inventory, public education,
    and project review for the Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit
    (HTC), State and Tribal Historic Preservation Plans, and the National
    Register of Historic Places. The HTC is the most significant Federal
    investment in historic preservation. It has catalyzed the
    rehabilitation of more than 38,000 buildings throughout the Nation.
    Since its creation 30 years ago, the HTC has created 2 million jobs and
    leveraged nearly $100 billion in private investment.
        The President proposes level funding for the Historic Preservation
    Fund at the fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $55.9 million. While we
    appreciate there is not a cut to this program, we recommend that the
    Committee provide a modest increase for this program reflecting ongoing
    demands for preservation services and the increasing number of tribes
    who qualify for HPF THPO funding.
        We also look forward to working with the Committee to restore a
    program of competitive grant funding, such as formerly provided by Save
    America's Treasures, to provide matching grants to restore and preserve
    significant historic resources such as the Star Spangled Banner; the
    World Trade Center's Vesey Street Stairway; Touro Synagogue in
    Providence, Rhode Island; and the Holy Assumption Orthodox Church in
    Kenai, Alaska.

    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, CULTURAL
                             RESOURCES STEWARDSHIP

        Two-thirds of our National Parks were created to protect our most
    important historic and cultural resources. Over the past two decades,
    the National Park Service (NPS) has added more than 30 new parks, which
    are predominantly cultural and historical in value. However, funding
    for cultural resources stewardship has not receiving support
    commensurate with natural resources stewardship. During the fiscal year
    2010 budget hearings, then Acting National Park Service Director Dan
    Wenk stated that NPS had been neglectful of cultural resources. A
    report of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) found
    that during the fiscal year 1999-2006 period the NPS bolstered
    stewardship of natural resources by an additional $77.5 million.
    However, during this same period, funding for park cultural programs
    decreased by 28 percent. Since the release of the NAPA report we have
    seen no significant effort by NPS to create funding parity between
    natural and cultural resources in the Park Base Operations Funding.
    And, although the fiscal year 2013 budget requests an increase in
    natural resources stewardship, there is a reduction proposed for
    cultural resources. We urge the Committee to at least restore the
    cultural resources stewardship account to its fiscal year 2012 enacted
    levels.

           NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: FACILITY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

        Of the nearly $11 billion deferred maintenance needed for NPS, $3
    billion is for the 27,000 properties in National Park units listed on
    the National Register of Historic Places. According to a report issued
    by the National Academy of Public Administration, Saving Our History: A
    Review of National Park Cultural Resource Program (2008), more than 40
    percent of historic buildings and structures in our national parks are
    in fair or poor condition. Without funding, the condition of these
    properties will continue to deteriorate and become more expensive to
    repair and preserve in the future. Therefore, we recommend that the
    Committee restore the proposed $15 million cut from the repair,
    rehabilitation, and maintenance accounts and provide funding at the
    fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The National Trust is conducting
    fundraising efforts to address the gap--most recently and successfully
    at White Grass Dude Ranch in Grand Teton National Park--but private
    money must be matched by Federal money. Continued loss of Federal
    maintenance money will reduce the opportunity to raise private funds
    for the preservation of these important structures.
        The administration is proposing a significant reduction in the
    line-item Construction account, most of which funds new construction.
    We are concerned, however, that the proposed reduction not adversely
    impact important rehabilitation of historic structures.

      NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: LEASING HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN NATIONAL PARKS

        We appreciate the Committee's inclusion of language in the fiscal
    year 2012 conference report recognizing that historic leases provide a
    cost-effective and innovative solution to mitigate the maintenance
    backlog of historic structures. We are working with the NPS and private
    partners to successfully implement such leases and bring private
    investment to rehabilitation expenses.
        One promising new and cost-effective opportunity for the NPS to
    address the backlog of historic maintenance in the parks is through the
    recently signed MOU establishing ``Historicorps,'' a new cooperative
    among NPS, the other Federal land agencies, and several NGOs, including
    the Student Conservation Association and The Corps Network.

                 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS

        We are disappointed that the administration has proposed a nearly
    50-percent decrease in funding for the National Heritage Areas (NHAs).
    The proposed reduction, justified as ``encouraging self-sufficiency,''
    would severely impair the sustainability of the program and the
    individual NHAs that the Congress has established, including the John
    H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Area. A recent NPS
    study found ``without funding to replace the NPS investment, few NHAs
    are expected to survive longer than a few years.'' NPS Northeast
    Region, Report of Impacts and Operation Strategy for Sunsetting
    National Heritage Areas (2012).
        During these challenging economic times, every program that
    receives Federal funding needs to justify its worth and deliver
    substantial benefits to the American public. NHAs more than meet this
    test. They are congressionally designated places where community driven
    partnerships advance heritage conservation and economic development.
    Heritage areas have a proven record of fostering job creation and
    advancing economic, cultural, historic, environmental, and community
    development through their leverage of each Federal dollar by $5.50 of
    non-Federal investments. We urge the Committee to maintain funding for
    NHAs at the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

       BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT: NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM

        The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) National Landscape
    Conservation System (National Conservation Lands) includes 27 million
    acres of congressionally and presidentially designated lands, including
    National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness, Wilderness
    Study Areas, National Scenic and Historic Trails, and Wild and Scenic
    Rivers.
        The National Conservation Lands protect some of our country's most
    significant historical and cultural resources, yet the BLM's ability to
    steward these resources is undermined by insufficient funding averaging
    $59.6 million, or just $2.20 per acre. The National Conservation Lands
    are just one-tenth of BLM managed lands but they host one-third of all
    BLM's visitors. This high visitation rate has resulted in increased
    needs to protect and steward historic and archaeological sites from
    looting and reckless off-road vehicle use. Without sufficient funding,
    the BLM also struggles to complete essential resource protection, such
    as signing trails, closing illegal and unnecessary routes, and
    inventorying and protecting cultural sites.
        We support the administration's fiscal year 2013 request of $69.549
    million, a proposed increase of $4.58 million more than the fiscal year
    2012 enacted level, to prevent critical damage to the resources found
    in these areas, ensure proper management and provide for a quality
    visitor experience. This funding level would enable BLM to hire
    essential management and law enforcement staff, monitor and protect
    natural and cultural resources, close unauthorized routes that fragment
    fragile ecosystems, and undertake needed ecosystem and species
    restoration projects.

            BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT: CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

        BLM oversees the largest, most diverse, and scientifically most
    important body of cultural resources of any Federal land managing
    agency, including 21 National Historical Landmarks, 5 World Heritage
    Sites, and more than 263,000 documented cultural properties. However,
    yet BLM receives the least amount of cultural resources money per acre
    of any Federal agency. In the 34 years since the enactment of the
    Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) only 8 percent of the
    land managed by the BLM has been surveyed for cultural resources.
    Understanding the location and significance of cultural resources on
    BLM land creates greater certainty in decisionmaking about land uses
    including energy development, recreation, and resource protection.
    Proactive survey for cultural resources is also required under the
    National Historic Preservation Act. A long-term goal of surveying 20
    percent of BLM land would be a significant step toward helping our
    Nation efficiently and cost effectively develop energy resources on our
    public lands. We strongly support the President's fiscal year 2013
    request of $17.325 million for Cultural Resources Management, an
    increase of $1.22 million more than fiscal year 2012 enacted.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        The National Trust supports robust funding for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund. Many of the Nation's most significant historic and
    cultural landscapes have been permanently protected through LWCF
    investments, including the Flight 93 National Memorial, Minidoka
    National Historic Site, Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail,
    Gettysburg National Military Park, Martin Luther King Jr. National
    Historic Site, Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, and Harpers
    Ferry National Historic Park. We strongly support the administration's
    fiscal year 2013 request for NPS Civil War Sesquicentennial Units and
    American Battlefield Protection Program Grants.

                   ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

        We are concerned that the administration proposes a 6.2-percent
    reduction for the operating budget of the Advisory Council on Historic
    Preservation (ACHP). Although the overall request for the ACHP is an
    increase more than fiscal year 2012 enacted, this is solely because of
    an increase of $1.3 million included specifically for the agency's move
    from its headquarters in the Old Post Office.
        The National Trust recommends a continuation of fiscal year 2012
    enacted funding, plus the $1.3 million for the required move requested
    by the President. In addition, we suggest the subcommittee include
    report language recommending the President appoint a full-time
    Chairman. Such a recommendation was made by the ACHP membership at its
    November 2011 meeting, as did a task force of historic preservation
    organizations, including the National Trust. We believe a full-time
    Chairman would enhance the effectiveness of the ACHP.

       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: OFFICE OF SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

        The National Trust supports the President's fiscal year 2013
    request for funding EPA's Office of Sustainable Communities (OSC). OSC
    is helping America's communities become more sustainable by encouraging
    the renovation of historic buildings and the revitalization of older
    neighborhoods. Repurposing older buildings--particularly those that are
    vacant--reduces the need for construction of new buildings and the
    consumption of land, energy, materials, and financial resources that
    they require.
        The fiscal year 2013 funding request would enable OSC to continue
    its technical assistance to tribal, state, regional and local
    governments and to remain a strong partner with the U.S. Department of
    Transportation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
    in the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. It will also support
    such programs as Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities, Greening
    America's Capitals, Smart Growth Implementation Assistance, and Smart
    Growth Implementation Assistance for Coastal Communities. For example,
    in Concord, New Hampshire, OSC helped identify ways to support
    redevelopment of historic properties in the downtown core that comply
    with new energy-efficiency and green building standards while also
    conforming to historic preservation codes.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present the National Trust's
    recommendations for the fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies appropriations bill.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Federation

        On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), the Nation's
    largest conservation advocacy and education organization, and our more
    than 4 million members and supporters, we thank you for the opportunity
    to provide fiscal year 2013 funding recommendations for the Department
    of the Interior and other agencies under the jurisdiction of this
    subcommittee.
        We understand the very difficult budget choices facing the
    subcommittee and the Nation as we move forward under the constraints of
    the Budget Control Act of 2011. That said, it is our belief that
    disproportionate cuts to conservation programs represent policy
    positions not consonant with the priorities and values of most
    Americans. These programs protect cherished lands and waters and
    conserve the natural resources that are vital to the Nation's continued
    economic vitality. Recent studies estimate that outdoor recreation,
    nature conservation, and historic preservation account for $1.06
    trillion in overall economic activity and support 9.4 million jobs each
    year. Outdoor recreation alone generates more than $49 billion in
    annual Federal tax revenue.
        NWF and its members remain concerned about proposed funding
    reductions to many of the Federal Government's core commitments and
    programs for conserving fish and wildlife, sustaining and restoring
    important ecosystems, and maintaining clean air and water. Perhaps of
    even greater concern are efforts to rewrite the Nation's landmark
    environmental laws through the use of policy riders on the
    appropriations bill. National Wildlife Federation urges the
    subcommittee to make the necessary investments in our essential
    conservation and environmental programs and commitments in the fiscal
    year 2013 appropriations bill, and to pass a bill free of such riders.
        National Wildlife Federation is overall supportive of the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget request, which we view as balancing
    fiscal responsibility with continued investments in essential
    conservation and environmental programs. Below, we offer
    recommendations for specific budget items and programs.

                         U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the Nation's core
    program for preventing wildlife from becoming endangered in every
    State. We are extremely concerned about the impact on the Nation's
    wildlife of the nearly 30-percent cut to this program in the fiscal
    year 2012 appropriations bill, which included a significant reduction
    to the tribal component of the program. We urge the Congress to honor
    its commitment to this important effort and strongly recommend funding
    this program at its previous level of $90 million, a $28.7 million
    increase from the President's fiscal year 2013 request of $61.3
    million.
    Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science
        Safeguarding fish and wildlife resources from climate change is a
    major concern for the entire natural resource conservation community,
    and the Fish and Wildlife Service's Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
    represent an important means for leveraging Federal, State, and private
    resources to achieve effective conservation outcomes. We urge the
    Congress to meaningfully address the very real threats of climate
    change to our fish and wildlife and support the administration's
    request of $33 million for cooperative landscape conservation and
    adaptive science.
    Cooperative Endangered Species Fund
        The Cooperative Endangered Species Fund provides essential
    assistance to States for the protection of endangered species on non-
    Federal lands. We strongly support the President's fiscal year 2013
    request of $60 million.
    National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance
        The National Wildlife Refuge System is the largest system in the
    world dedicated to wildlife conservation. Simply maintaining the
    management capability to operate the Refuge System requires a $15
    million increase each year. NWF, in support of the Cooperative Alliance
    for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), strongly endorses the President's fiscal
    year 2013 funding request of $495 million for Operations and
    Maintenance for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Should across-the-
    board sequestration cuts of 9-10 percent take effect in fiscal year
    2013, the impacts to the Refuge System would be devastating and could
    force FWS to close or end major programs at more than 130 refuges.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

    Climate Science Centers
        The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and
    associated regional Climate Science Centers are important for improving
    the scientific support required to successfully cope with the
    challenges of a changing climate. NWF is supportive of the
    administration's proposed $26.2 million in funding for fiscal year
    2013.

                            BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

    Trust Natural Resources Program
        The BIA Trust Natural Resources (TNR) Program represents the
    largest amount of base, Federal funding for tribal natural resource
    management. Funding, however, has not kept pace over the decade with
    inflation or the increasing needs of tribes to manage natural
    resources. We are strongly supportive of the administration's fiscal
    year 2013 request of $162.11 million, which is $4.86 million more than
    in fiscal year 2012. Among these increases, we are particularly
    supportive of the $800,000 in additional funding for tribal
    collaboration with DOI Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Although we
    believe that tribal engagement in climate adaptation is still severely
    underfunded, we are supportive of the administration's fiscal year 2013
    request of $1 million for this activity.

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

    National Landscape Conservation System
        The National Landscape Conservation System contains many of the
    most special places in the American West. Funding the Conservation
    Lands at the President's fiscal year 2013 funding request of $69.5
    million is needed to prevent critical damage to the resources found in
    these areas, ensure proper management, and provide for a quality
    visitor experience.

                              NEW ENERGY FRONTIER

        The New Energy Frontier initiative provides resources for six
    bureaus across DOI for renewable energy planning, leasing, and
    permitting activities. The initiative presents an opportunity for the
    Nation to facilitate large-scale clean energy projects without
    compromising crucial wildlife interests and investments. NWF strongly
    supports the President's request of $86.5 million for fiscal year 2013,
    an increase of $15.2 million from fiscal year 2012 enacted.

                          UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

    Urban and Community Forestry Program
        The Urban and Community Forestry program improves the forests where
    people live, work, and play. With urban tree canopies in decline, the
    program is critical to support carbon sequestration, energy
    conservation, stormwater management, and air quality, while also
    providing cooling benefits in urban areas. We support the President's
    fiscal year 2013 request of $28 million for this program. We also
    support the request of $4 million for the recently established
    Community Forest and Open Space Program.
    Landscape Scale Restoration
        The new Landscape Scale Restoration line item streamlines the
    budget while continuing USFS's landscape-scale restoration efforts to
    sustain and create jobs, restore ecosystem resilience, and enhance
    recreation infrastructure. This new line item formalizes the State and
    Private Forestry Redesign process, funding to State-level projects and
    allowing the engagement of multiple landowners across boundaries. We
    support the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request of $18 million
    for this new line item.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is the primary tool of
    the Federal Government for acquiring land valuable for wildlife habitat
    and open space. LWCF is authorized to receive $900 million in revenue
    from offshore oil and gas drilling annually. Nonetheless, this program
    has been woefully underfunded over the years, with only a fraction of
    the dedicated revenues appropriated and available for use. National
    Wildlife Federation strongly endorses the President's fiscal year 2013
    request of $450 million for LWCF. In addition, we support current
    legislative efforts to provide robust and dedicated funding for LWCF
    outside of the budget process.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Urban Waters Grant Program
        Most Americans now live in urban areas, but our urban waterways are
    imperiled from the effects of human development, including pollution
    from industrial point-source pollution and urban stormwater runoff. The
    Urban Waters Grant Program not only funds innovative approaches for
    water quality improvements that benefit aquatic ecosystems, but also
    revitalizes urban waterfronts, providing economic benefits and
    recreation value for residents. We support the President's fiscal year
    2013 budget request of $4.4 million for this program.
    Geographic Programs--Ecosystem Restoration Initiatives
        America's great waters are the lifeblood of our Nation. Sustained,
    consistent restoration funding is crucial for the successful
    implementation of multi-year, complex ecosystem restoration plans. As
    such, we are concerned that this important funding is reduced for the
    second year in a row. While NWF is fully supportive of the proposed
    increases for EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office ($57.4 million
    requested), we are concerned about significant proposed funding
    decreases for several other regional efforts, and urge the Congress to
    restore funding to fiscal year 2010 levels for:
      --Great Lakes Restoration Initiative ($475 million vs. $300 million);
      --Long Island Sound ($7 million vs. $5.3 million); and
      --Puget Sound Program ($50 million vs. $30 million).
    Environmental Protection Agency National Estuary Program
        The National Estuary Program (NEP) works to restore and protect
    nationally significant estuaries. Unlike traditional regulatory
    approaches to environmental protection, the NEP targets a broad range
    of issues and engages local communities in the process. The program
    focuses not just on improving water quality, but on maintaining the
    integrity of the whole system--its chemical, physical, and biological
    properties, as well as its economic, recreational, and aesthetic
    values. NWF is disappointed in the reduction in funding proposed for
    this program, and recommends $30 million, a $3 million increase from
    the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    Clean Water State Revolving Fund
        Since the 1970's, CWSRF projects have helped improve the quality of
    wastewater treatment in communities throughout the country. Yet the job
    is far from complete and the Nation faces trillions of dollars in
    funding needs to repair aging wastewater treatment systems and keep our
    rivers and streams pollution free. To provide States with needed
    funding to upgrade aging sewer systems and to comply with the Clean
    Water Act, NWF urges the Congress to increase funding from the
    President's fiscal year 2013 request of $1.46 billion to $2 billion.
    Clean Water Act 319 Nonpoint Pollution Reduction Program
        When Congress recognized the need for greater Federal leadership in
    assisting with nonpoint source pollution reduction efforts, The Clean
    Water Act was amended to establish section 319. Continued funding for
    the Nonpoint Source Management Program will provide State and local
    nonpoint source remediation efforts with the funds that are crucial to
    the implementation of these projects. As such we recommend that the
    subcommittee increase program funding from the $164.7 million requested
    by the President to the fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $175 million.
    Air/Climate Programs
        NWF supports EPA's priority goal of improving the country's ability
    to measure and control greenhouse gas emissions, and we support the
    President's request of $825.4 million for this activity, an increase of
    $56.4 million more than fiscal year 2012 enacted. This funding will
    allow the agency to conduct statutorily mandated work on the National
    Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants, including ozone.
    We also support the requested $32.8 million increase more than the
    fiscal year 2012 enacted level for climate protection, allowing the
    Agency to support a full range of approaches for reducing GHGs and the
    risks they pose to human health and the environment.
    National Environmental Education Act Programs
        EPA's Office of Environmental Education implements highly
    successful, nationwide environmental education programs. We are
    grateful for the subcommittee's support of environmental education in
    previous years and recommend fiscal year 2012 baseline funding levels
    for NEEA at $9.7 million in fiscal year 2013.
                                     ______

         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 NWRA
    appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2013
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
        The meaningful funding increases in fiscal years 2008-2010 allowed
    the NWRS to emerge from years of chronic funding shortfalls. But
    unfortunately, those substantial gains are undermined by more than $17
    million in cuts to the NWRS's funding in fiscal years 2011 and 2012
    that equate to a larger loss of more than $41 million when annual
    increases in refuge fixed costs are factored in. Consequently, we
    support the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request of $495 million
    because it will maintain existing management capabilities. Should
    across-the-board sequestration cuts of 9-10 percent take effect in
    fiscal year 2013, the impacts to the NWRS would be devastating and
    could force FWS to close or end major programs at more than 130
    refuges.
        We respectfully request the subcommittee support the following
    funding allocations for programs in the NWRS and the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS):
      --$495 million for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of
            the NWRS including $23 million for Inventory and Monitoring;
            $39 million for Refuge Law Enforcement; $80 million for
            Visitors Services; $3.8 million for Challenge Cost Share; $2.5
            million for Cooperative Recovery; and $5 million for the
            Pacific Marine Monuments;
      --$57 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
            (under DOI);
      --$30 million for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund;
      --$700 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),
            including $150 million for the NWRS;
      --$33 million for Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) in the
            FWS;
      --$37 million for the FWS construction account for large-scale refuge
            restoration projects, visitor facility enhancements, visitors
            centers and energy efficiency projects;
      --$60 million for the FWS's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
      --$61.5 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
      --$39.4 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
      --$7.5 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)
            in the FWS's Resource Management General Administration
            appropriation.
    National Wildlife Refuge Funding--Operation and Maintenance and
            Construction
        The NWRA chairs the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
    (CARE), a diverse coalition of 22 sporting, conservation, and
    scientific organizations representing more than 15 million Americans
    that supports increased funding for the NWRS. After a century of
    chronic underfunding, increases in fiscal years 2008-2010 put the NWRS
    on a path to full funding. But cuts in fiscal years 2011 and 2012
    totaling $16.2 million ($40.5 million decrease in real dollars) is
    reversing the gains made and puts damaging workforce downsizing plans
    on the table should an across-the-board sequestration cut of 10 percent
    occur in fiscal year 2013. Should that happen, CARE estimates that FWS
    will be forced to close or end major programs at more than 130 refuges,
    eliminate more than essential 200 wildlife management jobs, cut more
    than 35 visitor services jobs needed to mobilize the System's 40,000
    volunteers and administer recreational programs, and cut law
    enforcement staff by more than 40 officers leaving a force of only 170
    when 845 are needed.
        These cuts are particularly harmful because the System is already
    having to respond to damages from natural disasters. From fiscal years
    2005-2011, the NWRS sustained $693 million in damages from natural
    disasters such as tornadoes, fires, hurricanes, flooding, a tsunami,
    and an earthquake. The damages in 2011 alone were almost $200 million,
    approaching half of the System's operations and maintenance funds for
    the year. Of the $693 million in damages, the Congress appropriated
    $254 million in emergency supplemental funding and the remaining $439
    million has been added to the Refuge System's $2.5 billion deferred
    maintenance backlog.
        NWRA respectfully requests that the subcommittee provide $495
    million in fiscal year 2013 for Refuge System Operations and
    Maintenance (O&M), essentially level funding from fiscal year 2012. We
    estimate that refuges would need at least $527 million in fiscal year
    2013 to maintain management capabilities from fiscal year 2010; this
    request would only maintain status quo at current funding levels. The
    current Federal salary freeze still leaves Refuges needing at least $8
    million to absorb other fixed costs. CARE estimates that the Refuge
    System needs at least $900 million in annual funding to properly
    administer its 150 million acres and remains committed to aiming for
    this goal.
        Refuges have almost $1 billion worth of construction needs,
    including the replacement of deteriorating structures that are becoming
    more expensive to maintain. We request $37 million for the System's
    construction budget, including funds for large-scale habitat
    restoration and small-scale visitor facility enhancements. 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 Prescribed Fire To Reduce Catastrophic Burns
        Fire as a wildlife habitat management tool is one of the most
    important items in the FWS tool chest but it is also perhaps the least
    understood. Unfortunately, the President has called for a 23-percent
    decrease to DOI's Hazardous Fuel Reduction program, which would have a
    negative impact on the FWS fire program. Prescribed burns reduce the
    occurrence of catastrophic fires and protect our most vulnerable
    communities and habitats. For instance, prescribed burns are used
    extensively in Florida where lightning strikes would normally cause
    fires annually or every couple of years. Consequently, when lightning
    caused a fire in the middle of the night at the Arthur R. Marshall
    Loxahatchee NWR in Palm Beach last year, the wildfire burned only 13
    acres and extinguished itself despite record drought conditions.
    However, at the Alligator River NWR in North Carolina, a lack of
    resources to do the amount of prescribed burning needed led to a
    wildfire that burned more than 45,000 acres on the refuge and adjacent
    lands, burning deep into the soil, and cost almost $15 million to
    contain. A combination of hydrology restoration and prescribed burns
    would have reduced the fire's intensity and containment costs. We urge
    maintaining current capabilities for FWS at $57 million for fiscal year
    2013 for Hazardous Fuel Reduction and Preparedness funding.
    Supporting Jobs, Economic Activity, and Leveraging American
            Volunteerism
        Refuges are economic engines and a good investment. According to a
    recent report by Southwick Associates, refuges generate more than $32.3
    billion in ecosystem services and $4.2 billion in economic activity,
    returning more than $65 and $8, respectively, for every $1 appropriated
    by the Congress.
        Refuges are job creators: more than 32,500 jobs--largely in the
    private sector--are attributed to refuge-related activities. And on a
    national level, each $5 million invested in the NWRS's appropriations
    (salary and nonsalary) impacts an average of 83.2 jobs, $13.6 million
    in total economic activity, $5.4 million in job-related income and
    $500,000 in tax revenue.
        Refuges are vital places for the American people to connect with
    nature and get involved. Currently, refuge Friends and volunteers do
    approximately 20 percent of all work on refuges. In 2011, these 1.5
    million hours equated to roughly 8 volunteers for every 1 Refuge System
    employee. Without staff to oversee volunteers, their commitment and
    passion is lost, as is their desperately needed contribution to the
    System. We request $80 million for visitors services for the NWRS.
    Protecting the Public and Refuge Resources--National Wildlife Reserve
            System Law Enforcement
        In 2005, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
    conducted a first of its kind analysis of law enforcement (LE) needs
    for a land management agency, focusing on the NWRS. They recommended a
    force of 845 full-time LE officers to adequately protect visitors and
    taxpayer resources; but the System has only a little more than one-
    quarter of that amount with 246 officers for the 150 million acre
    System. Further, since the report was completed in 2005, the System has
    grown by 50 million acres with the addition of the Pacific monuments by
    President Bush and visitation has grown by 15 percent from 37 million
    visitors in 2005 to more than 45 million in 2011.
    Using Science To Guide Adaptive Management
        The FWS and the Refuge System 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. We strongly support the FWS initiative to establish
    Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) to bring the best science to
    help local, State and Federal agencies make the most educated
    management decisions. We recommend an allocation of $33 million to fund
    LCCs in fiscal year 2013 and $23 million for the System's Inventory and
    Monitoring program.
    Commitment to Refuge Communities--Refuge Revenue Sharing
        The NWRS uses net income derived from things like use permits and
    timber harvests to make payments to local counties or communities to
    offset lost property 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 $30 million for the Refuge Revenue Sharing
    Program, which, in recognition of the President's proposal to zero out
    funding, is still only about 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 other Federal land management
    agencies and to provide Refuge communities with more equitable
    payments.
    Partnerships and Strategic Growth
        We strongly support $3.8 million in fiscal year 2013 for Challenge
    Cost Share (CCS). Partners are the key to successful conservation; no
    Federal or State agency can do it alone. Because of this, we support
    programs that leverage Federal dollars such as the CCS program. Partner
    organizations such as local volunteer ``Friends'' groups leverage these
    funds to give American taxpayers more bang for their buck for projects
    like trails, education, boardwalks and habitat restoration.
        The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is another powerful tool
    for working with private landowners to collaboratively conserve refuge
    landscapes. The program consistently leverages Federal dollars for
    conservation, generating between $4 and $10 in conservation return for
    every $1 appropriated, and has been key to the success of many iconic
    landscape conservation projects. 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 2013
    appropriation of $60 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    Program, a $5 million increase to maintain current capabilities.
        NWRA also calls upon the Congress to fund the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $700 million. 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 and easement acquisition
    tool. With more than 8 million acres still unprotected within existing
    refuge boundaries, and the need to establish key wildlife corridors and
    connections between protected areas, the LWCF is more important than
    ever. NWRA strongly supports the new Collaborative Conservation
    requests of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, bringing
    together several Federal agencies around a common goal. NWRA supports
    the following projects and those advocated by refuge Friends
    organizations:
      --Everglades Headwaters NWR & Conservation Area (Florida)--$50
            million;
      --Bear Lake NWR (Idaho)--$1.5 million
      --Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (Utah)--$2.5 million;
      --Blackwater NWR (Maryland)--$2.5 million;
      --Cache River NWR and White River NWR (Arkansas)--$8 million;
      --Cokeville Meadows NWR (Wyoming)--$1.5 million
      --Connecticut River--Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont,
            Massachusetts, Connecticut)--$12 million;
      --Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas)--$5 million;
      --Great Bay NWR (New Hampshire) and Rachel Carson NWR (Maine)--$4
            million
      --Middle Rio Grande NWR (New Mexico)--$1.5 million;
      --Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area (Montana)--$19 million;
      --Rhode Island NWR Complex (Rhode Island)--$5 million;
      --Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex (Louisiana)--$3 million;
      --St. Marks NWR/Longleaf Pine (Florida)--33 million; and
      --St. Vincent NWR (Florida)--$1 million
        The NWRA believes the NWRS can meet its responsibilities to the
    American people with collaboration and sufficient funding and we urge
    the Congress to help the FWS meet these obligations.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Natural Science Collections Alliance

        The Natural Science Collections Alliance appreciates the
    opportunity to provide testimony in support of fiscal year 2013
    appropriations for the Department of the Interior (DOI). We encourage
    Congress to provide the DOI Working Capital Fund with at least $70.6
    million in fiscal year 2013.
        The Natural Science Collections Alliance is a nonprofit association
    that supports natural science collections, their human resources, the
    institutions that house them, and their research activities for the
    benefit of science and society. We are comprised of more than 100
    institutions which are part of an international community of museums,
    botanical gardens, herbariums, universities, and other institutions
    that house natural science collections and utilize them in research,
    exhibitions, academic and informal science education, and outreach
    activities.
        Scientific collections are a vital component of our Nation's
    research infrastructure. Whether held at a national museum, government-
    managed laboratory or archive, or in a university science department,
    these scientific resources contain genetic, tissue, organismal, and
    environmental samples that constitute a unique and irreplaceable
    library of the Earth's history. The specimens and their associated data
    drive cutting edge research on significant challenges facing modern
    society, such as improving human health, enhancing food security, and
    understanding and responding to environmental change. Collections also
    inspire novel interdisciplinary research that drives innovation and
    addresses some of the most fundamental questions related to
    biodiversity.
        The institutions that care for scientific collections are important
    research centers that enable scientists to study the basic data of
    life, conduct modern biological, geological, and environmental
    research, and provide undergraduate and graduate students with hands-on
    training opportunities.
        The Federal Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections
    (IWGSC) was established by President Bush to evaluate the status of
    federally owned object-based scientific collections. In 2009, the IWGSC
    reported that, ``scientific collections are essential to supporting
    agency missions and are thus vital to supporting the global research
    enterprise.'' In response, in 2010, the Office of Science and
    Technology Policy directed Federal agencies to budget for the proper
    care of collections. ``Agencies should ensure that their collections'
    necessary costs are properly assessed and realistically projected in
    agency budgets, so that collections are not compromised.''
        We are pleased to see that DOI has included an increase of $3.5
    million in its budget request for the Cultural and Scientific
    Collections program. Interior is an important caretaker of museum
    collections; the Department has an estimated 146 million items, which
    is second in size only to the Smithsonian Institution. Although many of
    the department's collections are located in bureau facilities,
    artifacts and specimens are also housed by nongovernmental facilities,
    such as museums and universities.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget request would implement a multi-year
    action plan to address recommendations made by the DOI Inspector
    General regarding Interior's accountability for its cultural and
    scientific specimens. In a December 2009 report, the Inspector General
    found that DOI has failed to properly accession, catalogue, or
    inventory museum collections, leaving artifacts ``unavailable for
    research, education, or display and . . . subject to theft,
    deterioration, and damage.'' The proposed budget increase would support
    oversight and technical assistance for better care of collections,
    start a pilot project to identify and assess collections at non-Federal
    repositories, and study consolidation of bureau and non-bureau
    facilities housing collections.
        We support the proposed DOI study of bureau and non-bureau
    facilities housing biological collections to determine the potential
    for economies of scale, improvements of oversight and accountability,
    and space reduction. Because excellent public and private facilities
    already exist in every State, we believe the study is likely to
    conclude that contracting with existing bio-repositories that have the
    experience and expertise to house and curate the collections and
    associated data will be the most efficient and cost-effective means by
    which Federal agencies can access the collections data required to
    accomplish agency missions. We applaud the increased recognition by DOI
    and other Federal departments of the immense importance of biological
    collections and the data they provide in support of the Nation's
    research enterprise that ultimately drives economic growth, improves
    human health, addresses energy needs, and enables sustainable
    management of our natural resources.
        The National Park Service is also planning to continue its
    investments in collections. The proposed budget would support the third
    year of an initiative to eliminate the archival backlog at 165 parks
    and to address the recommendations made by the Interior Inspector
    General. In fiscal year 2013, the National Park Service plans to
    catalog an estimated 7.4 million additional museum objects through the
    Flexible Park Program.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Scientific collections are an important part of our Nation's
    research enterprise. Research specimens connect us to the past, are
    used to solve current societal problems, and are helping to predict
    future environmental changes. Continued investments in scientific
    collections are critical for our Nation's continued scientific
    leadership. Please support the budget request for the Department of the
    Interior's Capital Working Fund, which will support Interior's efforts
    to preserve scientific collections--a truly irreplaceable resource.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Nevada Department of Wildlife

        To the Chair and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
    opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Nevada Department of
    Wildlife (NDOW) regarding the importance of restoring and increasing
    appropriations in the fiscal year 2013 for State implementation of
    aquatic nuisance species (ANS) programs.
        Aquatic invasive species are a growing national concern in the
    United States and pose serious economic and ecological threats to our
    national aquatic resources. At the State level, very limited
    opportunities exist for Federal and State partnerships to combat the
    threat associated with the invasion and spread of aquatic nuisance
    species. The invasion and spread of aquatic nuisance species continues
    to escalate at both the national and State level. Many of the newer
    aquatic invaders have the ability to adapt and withstand various
    environmental factors making them more prolific and a larger threat to
    our native aquatic life, ecosystems and water resources. The problem is
    not one that can be adequately managed or solved by individual States
    or agencies but will take the coordinated efforts of private entities
    and various Federal and State agencies.
        Thus, NDOW urges the Congress to restore the fiscal year 2012
    appropriation of $1,075,000 to States with approved ANS plans and the
    additional $3 million appropriation that was originally authorized by
    the National Aquatic Nuisance Plants and Animals Act (NANPCA) of 1990.
    These appropriations would provide grant funds for State fish and
    wildlife agencies with approved aquatic nuisance species plans to
    implement their plans, as authorized by NANPCA, and as amended in the
    National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA). The additional
    appropriations in fiscal year 2013 will provide much needed assistance
    for State fish and wildlife agencies with approved ANS plans to combat
    these invaders. Although NDOW currently does not have an approved ANS
    plan, it is currently under development and is expected to be completed
    in the next several months. Nevada's ANS Plan will be an extremely
    valuable component to NDOW's Aquatic Invasive Species Program; however,
    implementation of the plan, without Federal support, will effectively
    make the plan of little value in preventing the introduction and spread
    of aquatic invaders.
        The threat of invasion and the spread of numerous prolific aquatic
    invasive species are placing our Nation's water resources and aquatic
    ecosystems at risk. The threat is real and States cannot be expected to
    effectively manage and eradicate ANS on their own; it will take the
    coordinated efforts of both State and Federal agencies to combat these
    invaders.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
    subcommittee. As you deliberate appropriate funding levels for ANS
    issues, please consider the important public policy implications that
    could entail.
                                     ______

         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 regarding the Indian Health Service (IHS); Bureau
    of Indian Affairs (BIA); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the
    United States 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.
    Indian Health Services
        The Nez Perce Tribe was pleased to see the President's budget
    provided for increased spending for IHS. The request for $4.422 billion
    is an increase of $115.9 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted
    level but more is needed. The tribe requests that IHS contract support
    costs be funded at $571 million. The tribe's shortfall for fiscal year
    2011 for CSC was $859,860.54. Proper funding for the operations of the
    clinic is imperative. The Nez Perce Tribe currently operates one
    healthcare clinic on the Nez Perce Reservation, Nimiipuu Health, the
    main clinic in Lapwai, Idaho and a satellite facility 65 miles away in
    Kamiah, Idaho. Nimiipuu Health provided service to 3,870 patients in
    fiscal year 2011. These 3,870 patients represented 79,573 visits, which
    included pharmacy and laboratory visits in addition to medical provider
    visits. Our expenditure total for fiscal year 2011 was $12,555,959. Our
    Contract Health Services (CHS) cost for outpatient services for fiscal
    year 2011 was $3,674,368. In this fiscal year for the 4 months ended
    January 31, 2012, our expenditures totaled $4,989,836. Annualized for
    the full 12 months this will result in a cost of $14,969,508. Our CHS
    cost at the end of January was $2,118,537. When annualized, this amount
    will result in a total expenditure of $6,355,611. Our revenue from IHS
    for 2011 was $10,082,221 and is projected for fiscal year 012 at
    $9,873,494.
        In 2011, the tribe expended $2,626,164 of third-party billings
    collected in 2011. If expenditures continue as projected based on the
    first 4 months of fiscal year 2012, the tribe will have to collect in
    third-party billings $5,096,014. This will require approximately 57
    percent more collections in third-party revenue than is currently
    budgeted and anticipated in fiscal year 2012. The tribe has been in
    priority one status for our CHS patients for 9 months of fiscal year
    2011 and for the first 4 months of fiscal year 2012. Even in this
    priority one status we are already 32 percent overexpended in fiscal
    year 2012 with six identified Contract Health Emergency cases being
    processed for reimbursement through the CHEF funds. Priority one cases
    include only those circumstances where loss of life or limb will occur
    without treatment. All other referrals for outside treatments are
    placed on a deferred services list. At the end of fiscal year 2011, our
    deferred list totaled $516,817. At the beginning of fiscal year 2012,
    the patients on this deferred list were re-evaluated by the medical
    providers and either received treatment based on the condition reaching
    priority one status, remained on the deferred services list or denied
    services based on their condition at that time. Currently our deferred
    list totals $209,998 after only 4 months of referrals. Any shortfall in
    funding creates a trickle-down effect in emergency and preventative
    patient care.
    Bureau of Indian Affairs
        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 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 BLM to the
    tribe. The lands were supposed to be surveyed as part of the transfer.
    Full 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 2013 budget that was not funded during the past several budget
    cycles.
        In addition, it is important to note that under the terms of the
    Snake River Basin Act referenced in the previous paragraph, for fiscal
    year 2013, a payment shall be made to the Nez Perce Tribe in the amount
    of $9 million. This is the last payment to the Nez Perce Tribe under
    the terms of the settlement. The waivers and terms of the agreement are
    not considered final and effective until the terms and conditions such
    as this payment are made and it is important that this payment be
    included in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
        The tribe requests more emphasis be placed on funding for contract
    support costs through the BIA and that the BIA's request of $228
    million be funded fully. 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.
        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
    several fiscal years. 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 tribe supports the funding requests for the BIA Wildlife and
    Parks Tribal Priority Allocations. 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.
    Fish and Wildlife Service and United States Forest Service
        The tribe relies heavily on funding sources within 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 4 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
    reduced to $4 million in the fiscal year 2012 budget. The tribe
    strongly urges this subcommittee to increase 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 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. For
    example, the Payette Forest will need increased funding for monitoring
    over the next several years. Increased funding is necessary so that the
    Forest Service can meet these trust obligations and continue to work
    with tribes such as the Nez Perce on a Government-to-government basis.
        The tribe also strongly supports the recommendations of USFS in the
    fiscal year 2013 Presidential budget justification for the United
    States Department of Agriculture to eliminate or delete section 431 of
    the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74) from the
    fiscal year 2013 budget. Section 431 restricts agency flexibility in
    the implementation of decisions and will prove harmful to the Nez Perce
    Tribe as it will limit the ability of USFS to provide protection to
    treaty reserved resources of the Nez Perce Tribe such as big horn
    sheep.
        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 6 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 more than 80 animals. However, disease transmission by the
    bison is a concern 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 USFS, 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.
    Environmental Protection Agency
        The Nez Perce Tribe currently implements, on behalf of 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. 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 most tribal set asides received
    increased funding in fiscal year 2012. Funding for these tribal
    programs is 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 also
    relies heavily on contract support dollars for our water resource
    programs such as the storage tank remediation issues and watershed
    restoration. 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 Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal year 2013
    Interior, Environment and Related agencies appropriations. My name is
    Billy Frank, Jr. and I am the Chairman of the Northwest Indian
    Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). The NWIFC is comprised of the 20 tribes
    that are party to the United States vs. Washington \1\ (U.S. vs.
    Washington). 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).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ United States vs. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed
    Western Washington Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
               SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2013 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

    Bureau of Indian Affairs
                Rights Protection Implementation
        Provide $17.146 million for BIA Western Washington Fisheries
    Management.
        Provide $2.777 million for BIA Washington State Timber, Fish and
    Wildlife (TFW).
        Provide $4.8 million for BIA U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
    (PST) Implementation.
        Provide $2.4 million for BIA Salmon Marking.
                Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
        Provide $5.452 million for BIA Fish Hatchery Maintenance.
                Contract Support
        Provide $228 million for BIA Contract Support.
    Environmental Protection Agency
        Provide $96.375 million for EPA General Assistance Program (GAP).
        Provide $20 million for EPA Multi-media Tribal Implementation
    Grants Program.
        Provide $50 million for EPA Puget Sound.
    National Requests
        We also support the budget priorities and funding requests of the
    National Congress of American Indians.

             TREATY RIGHTS AT RISK AND THE FEDERAL TRUST OBLIGATION

        Before providing justification on our specific funding requests, I
    want to highlight an initiative that we have been pursuing--our Treaty
    Rights at Risk initiative. The treaty rights of the western Washington
    treaty tribes to harvest salmon are in imminent danger. The danger
    exists due to the inability to restore salmon habitat faster than it is
    being destroyed. The Federal Government has an obligation to the tribes
    to protect their constitutionally based treaty rights. By fulfilling
    these Federal obligations and implementing our requested changes to
    protect and restore salmon habitat, I have no doubt that we will
    recover the salmon populations. It is imperative that we are successful
    with this initiative as salmon are critical to the tribal cultures,
    traditions and their economies.
        The tribes have developed sophisticated natural resource programs
    designed to protect and enhance their treaty rights. Tribal programs
    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. It is because of the role that tribes play in
    protecting their rights that they require adequate, long-term, and
    stable funding.
        We are pleased that the fiscal year 2013 President's budget
    continues to be supportive of the northwest tribes' natural resources
    funding requests. On behalf of our 20 member tribes, our specific
    requests to the fiscal year 2013 natural resource management programs
    contained in the BIA and EPA are further described below.

                           JUSTIFICATION OF REQUESTS

    Bureau of Indian Affairs
                Provide $17.146 Million for Bureau of Indian Affairs
                        Western Washington Fisheries Management
        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 (WW). 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 WW Program. This increase was very much appreciated, however, we
    once again ask Congress to address the remaining identified needs of
    the NWIFC and our member tribes. The President's fiscal year 2013
    budget contains $8.66 million. We respectfully request $17.146 million,
    an increase of $8.486 million more than the President's fiscal year
    2013 budget. This request is consistent with our needs assessment
    presented in fiscal year 2010. This will provide new monies for
    shellfish, groundfish, enforcement, habitat, wildlife, and other
    natural resource management needs.
                Provide $2.777 Million for Bureau of Indian Affairs
                        Washington State Timber, Fish and Wildlife
        The Timber-Fish-Wildlife Agreement is one of the most successful
    models of collaboration in natural resource management. This
    coordinated approach of private forest landowners, environmental
    groups, and tribal, State and Federal governments has led to greater
    integration of management responsibilities that ensures protection for
    salmon and wildlife while allowing for a financially viable timber
    industry. Tribes need the ability to participate in this process to
    help develop consensus-based solutions for natural resource management
    and landowner issues. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget contains
    $2.777 million. We support funding this account at $2.777 million as
    requested in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget. This will provide
    the necessary funding to tribal TFW programs to fully participate in
    the TFW process.
                Provide $4.8 Million for Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S./
                        Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty Implementation
        The Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985 charges the U.S. 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. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget
    contains $4.364 million. We support the U.S. Section's recommendation
    to fund the BIA at $4.8 million, an increase of $436,000 more than the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget. This will provide sufficient
    funding to ensure that the tribes can continue to participate
    effectively in the bilateral PST process.
                Provide $2.4 Million for Bureau of Indian Affairs Salmon
                        Marking
        These funds are used to mark salmon at tribal hatcheries, which are
    used to scientifically monitor salmon populations and watersheds in
    western Washington. This is necessary due to the Federal requirement to
    mass mark Pacific salmon reared in facilities funded by Federal
    dollars. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget contains $1.068
    million. We respectfully request an additional $1.332 million to fully
    implement more extensive selective fisheries targeted at these marked
    fish. This is the true need as determined by the tribes to meet the
    request of the Congress.
                Provide $5.452 Million for Bureau of Indian Affairs Fish
                        Hatchery Maintenance
        Tribal fish hatcheries in western Washington are part of the
    largest fish hatchery system in the world. 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.
    This account has been increased over the last few years to better
    reflect the tribal need and the backlog of maintenance projects
    requested for tribal hatcheries. The President's fiscal year 2013
    budget contains $4.838 million. We support funding this account at
    $5.452 million as previously requested in the President's fiscal year
    2012 budget.
                Provide $228 Million for Bureau of Indian Affairs Contract
                        Support Costs
        In fiscal year 2011 these funds received an increase of $53.56
    million more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $166 million.
    The President's fiscal year 2013 budget contains $228 million. We
    support funding this account at $228 million as requested in the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget. By not fully funding Contract
    Support Costs it hampers the tribes' ability to fully exercise their
    right to self-govern and requires tribes to use direct program dollars
    to fund the required contract support functions.
    Environmental Protection Agency
                Provide $96.375 Million for Environmental Protection Agency
                        General Assistance Program
        This funding has built essential tribal capacities and remains
    critical to the tribes' ability to sustain their important water
    quality programs. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget contains
    $96.375 million for the nationwide General Assistance Program (GAP). We
    support funding this account at $96.375 million as requested in the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget.
                Provide $20 Million for Environmental Protection Agency
                        Multi-Media Tribal Implementation Grants Program
        This program was initially included in the President's fiscal year
    2011 budget request but it did not receive an appropriation. These
    funds would 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. The President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget did not include any funding for this new
    initiative. We respectfully request $20 million for this program as
    previously requested in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget. This
    program will provide targeted grants to tribes for implementation of
    Federal environmental programs and would move the EPA/tribal
    partnership from capacity building to implementation of these important
    environmental programs. Identifying western Washington as a pilot for
    designing an EPA Indian program implementation strategy would build on
    the current investment EPA has made in tribal program development.
                Provide $50 Million for Environmental Protection Agency
                        Puget Sound
        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. The
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget contains $19.289 million. We
    respectfully request $50 million, an increase of $30.711 that restores
    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

        We know that it is difficult to allocate scarce Federal funds at
    this time. However, we believe 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 Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board

        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board (NPAIHB)
    is honored to provide this testimony on the Indian Health Service (IHS)
    fiscal year 2013 budget.
        Established in 1972, 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
    Indian Health Service (IHS) budget. Our Annual IHS Budget Analysis and
    Recommendations report has become the authoritative tribal 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 recent reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement
    Act (IHCIA) includes a declaration of national Indian health policy.
    The Congress declares that it is the policy of this Nation, in
    fulfillment of its special trust responsibilities and legal obligations
    to Indians, to ensure the highest possible health status for Indians
    and to provide all resources necessary to effect that policy.\1\ The
    Congress recognizes that it has a duty to elevate the health status of
    American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people to a parity with the
    general U.S. population and to provide the resources necessary to do
    so. Our recommendations are consistent with this policy declaration and
    we respectfully ask the Congress to fulfill this duty.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 25 U.S.C. 1601.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 United States 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 of the general population. Evidence suggests
    that this gap might be widening in recent years. These data document
    the fact that despite the considerable gains that tribes have made at
    addressing health disparities, these gains are reversing themselves and
    the health of Indian people could be getting worse.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Regional Differences Report, Indian
    Health Service, available at: www.ihs.gov.
        \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: 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 fundamental budget
    principle of 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.
        The IHS congressional justification reports that the President's
    budget provides a $115.9 million to support activities identified by
    the tribes as budget priorities including increasing resources for the
    Contract Health Services (CHS) program; funding Contract Support Costs
    (CSC) shortfall; funding for health information technology activities;
    and providing routine facility maintenance. The IHS explains that the
    overall increase is adequate to ``sustain the Indian health system,
    expand access to care, and continue to improve oversight and
    accountability'' despite the insignificant increase. How can you
    sustain the system or expand access to care if you do not fund
    inflation? NPAIHB projections indicate that an additional $287 million
    is needed to maintain the current levels of care.
        Inflation and population growth alone using actual rates of medical
    inflation extrapolated from the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and IHS user
    population growth predict that at least $304 million will be needed to
    maintain current services. Compound this with the fact that nearly half
    of the proposed increase is for staffing and operation of six new
    facilities ($49 million), which will only leave $66 million to cover
    current services. Estimates developed by the IHS during the fiscal year
    2013 budget formulation process and used during tribal consultation to
    develop tribal recommendations on the fiscal year 2013 budget, estimate
    current services at $136.8 million for pay act costs, inflation, and
    population growth. These are IHS estimates and not tribal estimates,
    thus there should be no question about the validity of these
    projections.

                  FISCAL YEAR 2013 CURRENT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Increase
           Mandatory Cost To Maintain Current Services            needed
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Contract Health Services Inflation estimated at 5.5               64,112
     percent; and Population Growth.........................
    Health Services Account (not including Contract Health           167,058
     Services) inflation....................................
    Contract Support Costs (unfunded).......................          99,300
    Population Growth (estimated at 1.6 percent of Health             72,722
     Services accounts).....................................
                                                             ---------------
          Total Mandatory Costs.............................         403,192
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The administration's proposal does not provide any funding
    increases for inflationary costs except for the CHS program. The $54
    million increase for the CHS program is respectable but will fall short
    by $10 million to maintain current services. Aside from this request
    for CHS, there is absolutely no additional funding requested for
    inflation, population growth or civilian and tribal pay cost increases.
    NPAIHB estimates that at least $213.4 million is needed to fund
    inflationary costs and an additional $90.4 million is needed to cover
    population growth. Add to this the accumulated past year's CSC
    shortfall of $99.3 million, means that there are at least $403 million
    in mandatory costs that will have to be absorbed by IHS programs--most
    likely by cutting services to Indian people.
    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. 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\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Fiscal Year 2009 IHS Budget Analysis & Recommendations,
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, March 17, 2008; available:
    www.npaihb.org.
        \5\ Level of Need Workgroup Report, Indian Health Service,
    available: www.ihs.gov.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal Year 2013 Indian Health Services Budget Recommendations
        NPAIHB recognizes that the following recommendations may seem
    unreasonable in the current fiscal environment. However when the
    significant healthcare needs of Indian people are considered, our
    recommendations are realistic. We all recognize that in this difficult
    budget environment, we all must make sacrifices for our country. As the
    historic record on Indians will demonstrate, no one has sacrificed more
    than Native Americans. We hope you will recognize the significant
    healthcare needs of Indian Country by supporting the IHS budget.
      --NPAIHB recommends that the subcommittee restore funding eliminated
            in the President's request for inflation, population growth and
            tribal pay costs. Our estimates are based on budget worksheets
            provided and used by the IHS during fiscal year 2013 National
            Budget Formulation Meetings. We recommend $13.4 million to
            cover tribal pay costs; $60 million for inflation, and; $52.4
            million for population growth.
      --NPAIHB recommends that at least an additional $10 million be
            provided for the IHS Contract Health Service Program (CHS) to
            cover inflation and population growth. The CHS program is
            extremely important for Portland area tribes since we do not
            have any hospitals and 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
            Portland area budget and when less than adequate inflation and
            population growth increases are provided, Portland area tribes
            are forced to cut health services to absorb these mandatory
            costs.
      --We recommend that the subcommittee provide an additional $99.3
            million to fund past years' 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 Self-
            Determination Act in 1988 and 1994.
      --The Portland area has developed a new innovative approach to
            constructing health facilities in order to address the health
            needs of tribes. Portland tribes have conducted a pilot study
            to examine the feasibility of developing regional referral
            specialty care centers to improve healthcare access and quality
            of healthcare. The study concludes that regional referral
            specialty care centers are feasible, and recommended a
            demonstration project to validate the concept's viability
            through the collection of actual data. The pilot study
            recommended that the demonstration project be located in the
            Northwest quadrant of the Portland Area. This would serve
            24,000 users from tribal facilities within 1 hour's drive. We
            recommend that the subcommittee include $10 million for the
            Portland Area to develop this demonstration project.
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide our recommendations on
    the fiscal year 2013 IHS budget. I am happy to respond to any questions
    from the subcommittee.
                                     ______

            Letter From Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
                                       Portland, OR, February 22, 2012.
    Yvette Roubideaux, M.D., M.P.H.,
    Director, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 440,
            Rockville, Maryland 20852.
        Dear Dr. Roubideaux: On behalf of the IHS Contract Support Cost
    (CSC) Work Group, I want to thank you for reconvening the Work Group to
    begin the evaluation process concerning the 2007 CSC Policy contained
    in the IHS Manual. As the Tribal Chair of the CSC Work Group, I write
    to follow up on the Work Group's initial recommendations made during
    our January 31-February 2012 Rockville, Maryland meeting.
        You charged the CSC Workgroup with reviewing and evaluating the
    2007 CSC Policy changes, but to also make recommendations on how to
    improve other aspects of the Policy. You also requested that we
    consider technical revisions to clarify definitions, consider deadlines
    and dates that are referenced in the Policy, and engage in a discussion
    about whether tribes remain open to having their data disclosed for
    purposes of reporting CSC requirements and deficiencies. In order to
    address this ambitious agenda, I believe it is important that we
    identify specific follow-up actions needed for the CSC Workgroup to
    complete its work in an efficient manner and to prepare for our next
    meetings.
        As we explained during our exit meeting, the CSC Work Group cannot
    do an assessment of the 2007 CSC Policy until IHS complies with the
    existing Policy by releasing the data which the Policy currently
    requires be released. In substantial part, reviewing this data will
    permit the Work Group to assess how the 2007 changes which you have
    requested us to examine have worked over time. All of the data the CSC
    Work Group requested for fiscal year 2009, fiscal year 2010, and fiscal
    year 2011 is required to be disclosed under IHS Manual, Chapter 6-
    3.5(8)(4). We expressly did not request the disclosure of congressional
    reports that are not yet cleared for disclosure. Again, absent
    disclosure of this raw data, the Work Group believes it cannot proceed
    with a full assessment of the 2007 Policy, as charged. I respectfully
    renew our request that this data be released.
        The CSC Workgroup also requests additional information concerning
    the following items:
      --When were the Ch. 6-3.5(B) data reports certified by the IHS Chief
            Financial Officer for fiscal year 2009, fiscal year 2010 and
            fiscal year 2011?
      --What specific provisions of the Manual does IHS propose be changed
            and how does IHS propose they be changed? (A redline of IHS's
            suggestions would expedite the Work Group's review and work.)
      --What provision of law or regulation has been relied upon by IHS to
            withhold disclosure of the data reports regarding the
            expenditure of closed appropriations? As we discussed, we
            believe these disclosures are not only necessary to comply with
            the Policy, but necessary to facilitate maximum tribal
            consultation on issues directly impacting federally recognized
            tribes.
      --What is the allocation plan for the $74 million increase in
            contract support cost appropriations enacted for fiscal year
            2012? (The Manual requires the allocation by March 30, 2012,
            and the Work Group believes that disclosure of the allocation
            plan before allocations are made will maximize the President's
            commitment to tribal consultation.)
      --How were the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 CSC
            appropriations allocated?
        The forgoing information is essential for the CSC Work Group to
    fully and properly review the existing CSC Policy, consistent with the
    Government-to-government relationship and the President's commitment to
    maximum tribal consultation.
        With regard to dates and deadlines, I would note that, while some
    of the dates may initially be confusing, I understand that the dates
    and deadlines were specifically adopted to accommodate the declination
    and rejection deadlines that appear in the Indian Self-Determination
    Act. I also understand that other dates and deadlines were adopted by
    IHS to permit an orderly reporting process and a prompt allocation of
    appropriated funds based upon that data. It would be beneficial to the
    CSC Work Group to have IHS staff go through the Policy, to review the
    dates and logic behind them, and to propose other dates that might
    better achieve these goals consistent with the Act. The Work Group
    intends to do the same.
        Similarly with regard to definitions and terms, efficiency in Work
    Group meetings will best be served if IHS would identify the terms or
    definitions that agency staff would like us to consider revising, again
    using a ``redline'' method. CSC Work Group members should also feel
    free to prepare ``redline'' amendments which they would like the full
    Work Group to consider. All such redline documents should be shared
    with one another prior to our next meeting.
        Finally, I would like to accommodate the request of some CSC Work
    Group members for an orientation to CSC policy. Toward this end, I
    believe it would be most beneficial to arrange a joint Federal-Tribal
    panel that would provide a brief history of the CSC changes that have
    taken place over the years, and a discussion of how the key Policy
    provisions are being implemented. This will allow new Work Group
    members and IHS staff, alike, to see the evolution of the Policy to its
    present form. I understand that the goal of each successive change has
    been to improve equity across tribes while maximizing tribal self-
    determination. If so, the more Work Group members and IHS staff
    understand this evolution, the more likely we are to develop new
    recommendations consistent with those goals. I am committed to working
    with you to develop this joint Federal-Tribal presentation for the
    Workgroup.
        I am hopeful that with assistance from IHS staff we can get these
    requests organized and addressed over the next 2 weeks, so that we
    prepare an agenda for our next CSC Work Group meetings. I believe our
    request is consistent with your priorities to strengthen the IHS's
    partnership with tribes and to have the work of IHS be as transparent,
    accountable, fair, and inclusive as possible. Our request is consistent
    with your principles to improve the work of IHS.
        I have directed my technical staff, Jim Roberts, NPAIHB Policy
    Analyst, to work with your office or designee to follow up on the
    details of this letter. You and your staff should feel free to contact
    Mr. Roberts at (503) 228-4185 or by email at jroberts@npaihb.org.
                Respectfully,
                                            Andrew Joseph, Jr.,
        Chairperson, Colville Tribal Council Member, Tribal Chair, CSC
                                                             Workgroup.
    Enclosures:
        ATNI Resolution
        GPTCHB Resolution

                  NORTHWEST PORTLAND AREA INDIAN HEALTH BOARD

    Burns Paiute Tribe
    Chehalis Tribe
    Coeur d' Alene Tribe
    Colville Tribe
    Coos, Suislaw & Lower Umpqua Tribe
    Coquille Tribe
    Cow Creek Tribe
    Cowlitz Tribe
    Grand Ronde Tribe
    Hoh Tribe
    Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
    Kalispel Tribe
    Klamath Tribe
    Kootenai Tribe
    Lower Elwha Tribe
    Lummi Tribe
    Makah Tribe
    Muckleshoot Tribe
    Nez Perce Tribe
    Nisqually Tribe
    Nooksack Tribe
    NW Band of Shoshone Tribe
    Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
    Puyallup Tribe
    Quilecute Tribe
    Quinault Tribe
    Samish Indian Nation
    Sauk-Suiattle Tribe
    Shoalwater Bay Tribe
    Shoshone-Bannock Tribe
    Siletz Tribe
    Skokomish Tribe
    Snoqualmie Tribe
    Spokane Tribe
    Squaxin Island Tribe
    Stillaguamish Tribe
    Suquamish Tribe
    Swinomish Tribe
    Tulalip Tribe
    Umatilla Tribe
    Upper Skagit Tribe
    Warm Springs Tribe
    Yakama Nation

                                     ______

                  2012 WINTER CONVENTION, SHELTON, WASHINGTON
                               RESOLUTION #12-09

        ``REQUESTING THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES (IHS) DIRECTOR TO DIVULGE
    CONTRACT SUPPORT COST (CSC) DATA PURSUANT TO THE IHS CONTRACT SUPPORT
    COST POLICY; AND SUPPORT FOR THE NORTHWEST PORTLAND AREA INDIAN HEALTH
    BOARD (NPAIHB) FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST FOR CSC DATA''

                                    PREAMBLE

        We, the members of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians of
    the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our
    efforts and purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our
    descendants rights secured under Indian Treaties, Executive Orders, and
    benefits to which we are entitled under the laws and constitution of
    the United States and several States, to enlighten the public toward a
    better understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural
    values, and otherwise to promote the welfare of the Indian people, do
    hereby establish and submit the following resolution:
        WHEREAS, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) are
    representatives of and advocates for national, regional, and specific
    tribal concerns; and
        WHEREAS, ATNI is a regional organization comprised of American
    Indians/Alaska Natives and tribes in the States of Washington, Idaho,
    Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Northern California, and Alaska; and
        WHEREAS, the health, safety, welfare, education, economic and
    employment opportunity, and preservation of cultural and natural
    resources are primary goals and objectives of the ATNI; and
        WHEREAS, on October 11, 2011, the Indian Health Service (IHS)
    Director sent a Dear Tribal Leader Letter initiating Tribal
    consultation on the IHS 2007 Contract Support Cost (CSC) Policy, the
    purpose of the consultation is to review and evaluate policy changes
    made in 2007, and to make recommendations on whether to continue or
    change the IHS CSC Policy; and
        WHEREAS, the 2007 CSC Policy revised the methodology associated
    with CSC funding for new or expanded awards under the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638,
    as amended), at section 6-3.3A(3) and Manual Exhibit 6-3-D; this change
    was temporary and implemented only for fiscal years 2007-2010. The CSC
    Policy further states that:

        ``To ensure responsiveness to the needs of Tribes in administering
    their health programs, and continued support of the IHS's commitment to
    the Federal Government's policy of Indian Self-Determination, the
    change will be monitored and fully evaluated during the fiscal year
    2010 funding period to determine if the change should be made
    permanent.''

    All other aspects of the CSC Policy were unchanged; and
        WHEREAS, as part of the Tribal consultation process the IHS
    Director appointed a CSC Workgroup comprised of Tribal leaders or
    designees to act on their behalf who convened their first meeting in
    Rockville, Maryland on January 31-February 1, 2012; and
        WHEREAS, in order for the CSC Workgroup to evaluate the impact of
    the 2007 CSC Policy changes the Workgroup must have CSC data in order
    to assess the impact that the CSC Policy changes have had on the CSC
    shortfall, deficiencies, and to evaluate the impact of the policy
    change on new and expanded programs as well as the impact on current
    self-determination contractors and compactors; and
        WHEREAS, during the CSC Workgroup meeting the IHS Director refused
    to divulge CSC data with the Workgroup, which resulted at an impasse
    between the IHS Director and the Workgroup and resulted in the CSC
    Workgroup not being able to complete its charge to evaluate the 2007
    CSC Policy changes; and
        WHEREAS, the CSC Workgroup acknowledges that prior year's CSC data
    has been regularly disclosed by IHS to Tribal leaders, the public and
    to Indian Tribes at meetings attended by the IHS Director and by
    representatives of the Office and Management and Budget; and
        WHEREAS, the CSC Workgroup contends that there is no basis in law
    for withholding disclosure of the requested CSC data and documents; and
        WHEREAS, absent the CSC data the CSC Workgroup cannot and should
    not evaluate the impact of the 2007 CSC Policy changes, and to do so
    would not be fiscally prudent nor in the best interest of Indian
    Tribes; and
        WHEREAS, if IHS does not complete the evaluation of the 2007 policy
    changes, the Agency will be out of compliance with its CSC Policy; now
        THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that ATNI does hereby request that the
    Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary for the Department of
    Health and Human Services and the IHS Director make available and
    disclose CSC data prepared pursuant to the IHS Contract Support Cost
    Policy at Chapter 6-3.5(B)(4) for fiscal year 2009, fiscal year 2010,
    and fiscal year 2011; and
        BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that ATNI does hereby acknowledge and
    support the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by the
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board for Contract Support Cost
    data for fiscal year 2010, fiscal year 2011, and fiscal year 2012; and
        BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of
    ATNI until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution.

                                 CERTIFICATION

        The foregoing resolution was adopted at the 2012 Winter Convention
    of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, held at Little Creek
    Casino Resort, Shelton, Washington on February 13-16, 2012, with a
    quorum present.

                                                    Fawn Sharp,
                                                             President.
                                              Norma Jean Louie,
                                                             SECRETARY.
                                     ______

                  GREAT PLAINS TRIBAL CHAIRMAN'S HEALTH BOARD
                               RESOLUTION 2012-02

        WHEREAS, the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Health Board (GPTCHB)
    is comprised of the Chairmen/Presidents of seventeen (17) Tribes and
    one (1) Health organization in a four State area including North
    Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa; and
        WHEREAS, federally recognized Indian Tribes have an absolute right
    to healthcare from the United States Federal Government, based on
    treaty rights, on Congressional Acts, on Federal Court decisions, and
    on the Federal Government's trust responsibility to Indian Tribes;
        WHEREAS, the GPTCHB is primarily responsible for addressing the
    health concerns and needs of the American Indian Tribes in the Aberdeen
    Area; and
        WHEREAS, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association recognizes
    that over 20 percent of the Aberdeen Area IHS budget is currently
    operated by Tribes under self-determination contracts; and
        WHEREAS, tribes cannot operate these contracts properly without
    full reimbursement of indirect costs and other contract support costs;
    and
        WHEREAS, despite substantial increases in fiscal year 2010 and
    fiscal year 2012, IHS has historically failed (and continues to fail)
    to request full funding from Congress and failed (and continues to
    fail) to fully reimburse tribal contract support costs; and
        WHEREAS, services to tribal members suffer when Tribes have to use
    program funds to cover the shortfall in IHS contract support cost
    reimbursements; and
        WHEREAS, the law (25 U.S.C. 450j-1(c)) and the IHS Manual (IHS
    Manual Part 6, Chapter 3.5B) requires that IHS annually track and
    publish all indirect, contract support need and contract support
    shortfall data for every Tribe in the country;
        WHEREAS, in violation of the IHS Manual (IHS Manual Part 6, Chapter
    3.5B), HIS has failed and refused to distribute this data to all Tribes
    for fiscal year 2010, fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012, either
    nationally or on an Area basis (showing data for all Tribes within each
    Area); and
        WHEREAS, due to this failure, Tribes cannot tell how IHS is
    handling and managing tribal contract support cost funds, either from
    Tribe to Tribe or from Area to Area, and also cannot tell how IHS is
    allocating its contract support cost appropriation and whether it is
    doing so in conformity with the law and the IHS Manual; and
        WHEREAS, the law mandates the public disclosure of all contract
    support and related data for every tribal contract, and Tribes
    therefore do not object to this disclosure of financial data regarding
    contracted Federal funds; and
        WHEREAS, IHS's failure to share its data on a timely basis, as
    mandated by the IHS Manual, is unprecedented, is particularly
    inappropriate for an Administration committed to transparency, and has
    contributed to a lack of trust in the Indian Health Service;
        NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Great Plains Tribal
    Chairman's Health Board calls upon the Director of IHS to immediately
    release all data specified in IHS Manual Part 6, Chapter 3.5B for
    fiscal year 2010, fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 for every Tribe
    in the United States, including data showing how IRS calculated the
    distribution of contract support cost funds in fiscal year 2010 and
    fiscal year 2011, and data showing how IHS has calculated the
    distribution of contract support cost funds for fiscal year 2012.
                                 certification
        This is to certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the
    GPTCHB Board/Executive Committee by Meeting/Conference Call/Special
    session, February 6, 2012 by a vote of _11_ FOR _0_ OPPOSED _7_ NOT
    VOTING.
        MOTION CARRIED/DENIED.
                                                Rodger Trudell,
                        GPTCHB Chairmen, Chairmen, Santee Sioux Nation.
                                                John Blackhawk,
           GPTCHB Vice-Chairmen, Chairmen, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Norton Sound Health Corporation

        The request of the Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC) for the
    fiscal year 2013 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget is $21.6 million
    for the staffing of our new hospital and ambulatory care center which
    will open this fall. This is $10.9 million in addition to the
    administration's request of only $10.6 million.
        The Norton Sound Health Corporation is the only regional health
    system serving Northwestern Alaska, along the Bering Strait Region. The
    system includes a regional hospital, which we own and operate under an
    Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA)
    agreement, and 15 village-based clinics \1\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ We serve the communities of:
          -- Brevig Mission;
          -- Council;
          -- Diomede;
          -- Elim;
          -- Gambell;
          -- Golovin;
          -- King Island;
          -- Koyuk;
          -- Mary's Igloo;
          -- Nome;
          -- St. Michael;
          -- Savoonga;
          -- Shaktoolik;
          -- Shishmaref;
          -- Solomon;
          -- Stebbins;
          -- Teller;
          -- Unalakleet;
          -- Wales; and
          -- White Mountain.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NSHC is in the final stages of completing the construction of a
    replacement hospital and ambulatory care center facility in Nome. The
    construction was funded by the Recovery Act. NSHC worked its way over
    many years to the top of the IHS health facility construction priority
    system and when the Recovery Act was enacted we were in a position to
    be awarded $160 million in construction funds. The IHS and Norton Sound
    Health Corporation have been working together as Government-to-
    government partners to construct and furnish the new facility, in part
    under a title V Construction Project Agreement under ISDEAA.
    Construction has proceeded on course and NSHC will open its new
    facility early this fall. Now, IHS has only to fund the expanded
    staffing needs for operation of the replacement hospital.
        The replacement facility is almost three times the size of the
    current Norton Sound Regional Hospital and will allow for increased
    patient visits in the primary and acute care areas, including chronic
    disease prevention and management, and allow us to provide enhanced
    trauma and emergency services. And the presence of a significant number
    of new jobs at the replacement hospital will give an economic boost to
    the Nome area.
        The Administration's Staffing Proposal Would Not Allow Optimal Use
    of the Facility.--The administration's request of funding for only 81
    new positions in fiscal year 2013 for the Norton Sound replacement
    hospital would greatly constrain our ability to effectively utilize
    this new facility. We point out to the subcommittee that the IHS Alaska
    Area office recommended to IHS Headquarters that we need 159 new
    positions in fiscal year 2013, based on the IHS Resources Requirements
    Methodology (RRM), and that is what we are requesting. While NSHC will
    still be able to open in the fall if only 81 new positions are funded,
    the result would be that NSHC could not expand healthcare services,
    which is after all the purpose of the new and larger facility. NSHC
    would be limited to funding only the necessary maintenance, facilities,
    technology, and security positions--few if any new needed healthcare
    provider positions could be filled.
        For instance, NSHC currently has two in-house dentists, while our
    new facility has space for a much needed 12-chair dental operation. The
    unmet dental need in our region is staggerinig, but under the
    administration's proposal we perhaps could add only one dentist.
    Failing to provide adequate dental staffing through a new staffing
    package will in essence result in a failure to fully realize the
    Recovery Act funding spent for the new hospital and its intention to be
    used to provide increased and quality healthcare services in Nome.
        Exacerbating the inadequate funding request is that the IHS
    provides funding for only 85 percent of what it identifies as staffing
    need. Further straining the staffing situation is the fact that we
    received no fiscal year 2012 funds for the costly transition to the new
    facility. Transition to a new and much larger facility requires a great
    deal of planning, training, and coordination. Patients must be
    transported, some equipment moved, and staff must master new mechanical
    and electrical systems, medical equipment and work flow systems. Just
    moving into the new facility will require $2-$3 million in operational
    costs that the Norton Sound Health Corporation cannot divert to
    staffing needs.
        Should NSHC receive only enough fiscal year 2013 funding for 81 new
    positions, it will greatly limit our ability to recruit and hire
    medical professionals; much of the hiring in fiscal year 2013 would of
    necessity be core operational staff, as opposed to additional
    healthcare providers. Even if additional funding is provided for
    staffing in fiscal year 2014, it is nearly impossible to successfully
    recruit medical staff--likely some who will need to move to Nome with
    their family--based on an anticipation of the Congress potentially
    making the money available in a future year. Delaying the funding over
    a 2-year fiscal period would thus prevent the Norton Sound Health
    Corporation from recruiting and filling needed healthcare professionals
    until well into 2015--up to 3 years or more after we open the new
    facility.
        Given the realities of the appropriations process, we greatly need
    the full funding in fiscal year 2013 for 159 new positions at a total
    cost of $21.6 million.
        Village Built Clinics Lease Program.--We also remind the
    subcommittee that Norton Sound Health Corporation filed joint testimony
    with Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Bristol Bay Area Health
    Corporation and Maniilaq Association--all co-signers to the Alaska
    Tribal Health Compact--regarding the urgent need for additional fiscal
    year 2013 IHS funding for the Village Built Lease Program. As noted
    above, the Norton Sound Health Corporation healthcare system includes
    15 village-built clinics.
        Thank you for your consideration of our request that adequate
    fiscal year 2013 IHS staffing funding be made available for the Norton
    Sound Health Corporation replacement hospital. We are very excited
    about the possibilities this facility brings for improved healthcare
    for the people of northwestern Alaska. We are happy to provide any
    additional information you may request.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Energy Institute

        The Nuclear Energy Institute \1\ (NEI) appreciates the opportunity
    to express its concern over the revision or enforcement of certain
    regulations promulgated, and actions taken under certain laws, by the
    Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and
    the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Nuclear Energy Institute is the industry's policy
    organization, whose broad mission is to foster the beneficial uses of
    nuclear technology in its many commercial forms. Its membership, more
    than 350 corporate members in 17 countries, includes every U.S. utility
    that operates a nuclear powerplant as well as international utilities,
    plant designers, architect and engineering firms, uranium mining and
    milling companies, nuclear service providers, universities,
    manufacturers of radiopharmaceuticals, universities, labor unions, and
    law firms.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --EPA's infeasible requirements and prohibitively restrictive
            definitions in the proposed rule for existing facilities
            implementing section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act governing
            cooling water intake structures;
      --The Department of the Interior's withdrawal of land in northern
            Arizona from uranium mining activity;
      --BLM's proposal to amend land segregation regulations to allow
            withdrawal of lands from mining activity when they are included
            in a pending or future wind or solar energy generation right-
            of-way application, or identified by BLM for potential
            authorization for that purpose;
      --BLM sage grouse habitat management in 10 Western States, which
            could unduly restrict uranium mining activity; and
      --EPA Region 6's departure from EPA Guidelines for Reviewing Aquifer
            Exemption Requests for mining projects and unilaterally
            establishing its own evaluation standards.
    316(b) Regulations Will Increase Consumer Electricity Prices With no
            Environmental Benefit Unless They Are Made More Flexible To
            Account for Ecological, Geographic and Engineering Diversity of
            Existing Industrial Facilities
        EPA has issued a proposed regulation to reduce aquatic life
    mortality at cooling system intake structures for existing industrial
    facilities, including powerplants. The final rule is scheduled to be
    promulgated in July. The proposed regulation treats entrainment (fish
    drawn through the cooling system) and impingement (fish trapped on
    intake screens of these systems) separately. The proposed impingement
    requirements will result in the installation of costly, ineffective
    technologies with no assurance of compliance or environmental benefit.
    The EPA cost-benefit calculations indicate that the proposed rule will
    cost citizens 21 times the benefit they will derive if these changes at
    facilities are implemented. In addition, the Nation's electricity
    sector could face grid reliability challenges if the rule is
    promulgated recommending excessive mitigation technologies that could
    reduce plant efficiency and electrical output.
        Studies of aquatic life population conducted periodically at
    America's powerplants indicate that once-through cooling systems do not
    harm aquatic life populations. This is because the very small number of
    fish lost to the cooling system, when compared to the overall
    population, is readily replaced by reproduction. Any nationwide numeric
    performance standard ignores ecosystem diversity at the 1,152 affected
    sites. For instance, there are 3,153 species of fish in U.S. waters.
    Every water body has a different mix and population of fish species and
    each species differs in susceptibility to impingement and impingement
    mortality, and in behavioral responses to various technologies
    developed to prevent these occurrences.
        If EPA continues to insist upon a nationwide impingement
    requirement, it should be a technology-based standard that would
    accommodate rather than violate site diversity. The regulation should
    offer a variety of pre-approved technologies from which to choose for
    compliance. Also, there should be the opportunity to propose an
    alternative technology if it can achieve significant impingement
    mortality reduction at that site.
        The electricity industry, including companies who own and operate
    nuclear energy plants, continues to encourage EPA to develop cooling
    water intake structure regulations that strike a reasonable balance
    between electricity production and environmental protection. A
    technology-based standard for a nationwide impingement requirement
    would accommodate site bio-diversity. The proposed rule, in its current
    form, does not achieve these results. We ask the subcommittee to
    encourage EPA to adopt a technology-based standard for impingement.
    The Department of the Interior's Withdrawal of Land From New Uranium
            Mining in Northern Arizona Is Unnecessary for Environmental
            Protection and Removes From Production a Domestic Source of
            High-Grade Uranium for Energy Security
        DOI has withdrawn from new uranium mining activity 1 million acres
    outside the boundaries of the Grand Canyon National Park, which
    encompasses 1.2 million acres and includes a buffer zone to protect the
    Grand Canyon. There is no current or proposed uranium mining inside
    Grand Canyon National Park.
        The proposed land withdrawal is not justified by information
    contained in DOI's Final Environmental Impact Statement. For instance,
    regarding land disturbance, ``impact to overall soil productivity and
    watershed function would be small because the level of disturbance
    represents a very small fraction of the respective parcel areas.'' In
    terms of water resources, ``impacts would be local and temporary.''
    Modern in situ mining practices and standards, unlike the mining of 50
    to 60 years ago, have minimal environmental impact. Contrary to
    Secretary Salazar's statement in announcing the land withdrawal on
    January 9, today's environmental laws ensure that ore extraction and
    production at uranium mines have negligible impact on surrounding land,
    water and wildlife.
        Uranium resources in the Arizona Strip are among the highest-grade
    ores in the United States. These uranium resources are higher grade
    than 85 percent of the world's uranium resources, according to DOI's
    Final Environmental Impact Statement. The area represents as much as
    375 million pounds of uranium--more than seven times U.S. annual
    demand. NEI supports legislation introduced in the Senate and the House
    to overturn the DOI decision. NEI encourages the subcommittee to hold
    an oversight hearing on this very important issue.
    The Bureau of Land Management's Proposal To Amend Land Segregation
            Regulations To Allow Withdrawal of Lands From Mining Activity
            for Wind or Solar Energy Generation Violates the Multiple-Use
            Mandate of Federal Lands, Penalizing Economic Growth and Job
            Creation
        The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 requires BLM to
    manage public lands to accommodate multiple uses and to provide for the
    Nation's mineral needs so that the most benefit will accrue to U.S.
    citizens. Conflicts should be resolved in favor of maximum land use and
    benefit. The BLM proposal violates the multiple-use requirement, being
    overly broad in its outright segregation of lands for renewable energy
    use only. Moreover, the amendment is unnecessary, as conflict
    resolution is possible.
        Mining and all renewable energy projects are not mutually
    exclusive. Wind energy projects and mining operations can be co-located
    and developed simultaneously. Solar projects consisting of fields of
    photovoltaic panels, on the other hand, eliminate all other uses of the
    land, including grazing, recreation, and oil and gas exploration and
    production. Photovoltaic fields also eliminate the mining of minerals,
    many of which are required for renewable energy generation and
    transmission.
        Thus, rather than BLM designating lands solely for solar projects,
    NEI urges the subcommittee to direct BLM to evaluate whether other
    potential uses of Federal land are being prevented and if benefits
    would be lost to the American public during the BLM process of
    determining sole use segregation of land for renewable energy
    production.
    The Bureau of Land Management's Sage Grouse Habitat Management in 10
            Western States May Unduly Restrict Uranium Mining Activity
        BLM has issued two instructional memorandums regarding immediate
    and longer-term conservation actions for sage grouse priority habitat
    (breeding, late brood-rearing, winter concentration areas) and general
    habitat (additional occupied seasonal or year-round areas). Both types
    of habitat are being identified in collaboration with state wildlife
    agencies.
        The affected Western States are California, Colorado, Idaho,
    Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington,
    and Wyoming. With about 47 million acres of sage grouse habitat
    involved, BLM's conservation efforts could have a substantial impact on
    uranium mining activity on public lands. Wyoming's guidance for sage
    grouse preservation has been approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service
    and adopted by BLM. For the other States, the interim management
    memorandum guidance instructs mining operators ``to avoid effects on
    sage grouse and its habitat.''
        According to the long-term planning directive memorandum, BLM will
    establish consistent protection measures for the sage grouse and its
    habitat. BLM will incorporate the protection measures into one or more
    alternatives for analysis in the environmental impact statements that
    BLM will use to amend its resource management plans. These plans are
    scheduled for release in 2014. NEI believes there is the potential that
    these plans will require wholesale withdrawal of lands from mining
    activities with no validity examination allowed for ongoing or future
    mining claims.
        NEI recommends close congressional oversight of the BLM process for
    releasing the Sage Grouse Habitat Management plan. In addition, NEI
    asks that the subcommittee direct BLM to adopt a balanced approach to
    sage grouse conservation that is consistent with BLM's statutory
    mandate for multiple uses of public lands and avoid or minimize adverse
    social and economic impacts.
    EPA Region 6's Departure From EPA Guidelines for Reviewing Aquifer
            Exemption Requests Will Have a Prohibitive Effect on Expanding
            the Domestic Uranium Industry
        EPA guidance is clear regarding evaluation of requests to exempt
    aquifers from drinking water protections so that mining projects can
    proceed:
      --the exempted area does not currently serve as a source of drinking
            water; and
      --it cannot now, and will not in the future, serve as a source of
            drinking water because of the presence of minerals or
            hydrocarbons expected to be commercially producible.
        To demonstrate that a particular area meets these requirements,
    applicants must perform, respectively, a water well survey covering the
    exempted area and a buffer of one-quarter mile from the exempted area's
    boundary, and provide a history of mineral production in the area.
        In the case of the Goliad County, Texas, uranium mining project,
    EPA Region 6 is requiring modeling analysis in addition to a well
    survey and history--a unilateral departure from the established EPA
    guidance. Moreover, the requested modeling is not defined, and Region 6
    says that it will review whatever modeling results are submitted to
    determine if more modeling is needed, creating an open-ended regulatory
    process.
        The new standards unilaterally imposed by Region 6 will jeopardize
    future uranium mining in Texas and limit the potential of one of this
    country's most promising domestic supplies of uranium. Moreover, this
    effect will be compounded if one, or more additional EPA regions,
    unilaterally decides to impose its own evaluation criteria counter to
    established EPA guidance.
        The nuclear industry believes that the result will be a serious
    impediment to expanding the domestic uranium industry and ensuring a
    reliable and secure supply of nuclear powerplant fuel. In addition, the
    EPA Region 6 process introduces uncertainty into well-known guidance.
    The overall result will adversely impact U.S. mining operations and
    unnecessarily restrict domestic job creation.
        NEI urges the subcommittee to direct the agency to review the
    guidelines for reviewing aquifer exemption requests to ensure that
    these guidelines are clear and the EPA regions are not unilaterally
    imposing unfunded mandates on mining companies.
                                     ______

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

        I am requesting your support for fiscal year 2013 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. The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery
    programs are highly successful collaborative conservation partnerships
    involving the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian
    tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
    They are working to recover the four species of endemic Colorado River
    fish such that they can each be removed from the Federal endangered
    species list. Through these efforts, water use and development has
    continued in our growing western communities in full compliance with
    the Endangered Species Act (ESA), State water and wildlife law, and
    interstate compacts. Implementation of the ESA has been greatly
    streamlined for Federal agencies, tribes and water users. Recognizing
    the need for fiscal responsibility, I must also point out the
    participants would all be spending much more in ESA-related costs in
    the absence of these programs.
        The State of New Mexico requests action by the subcommittee to:
      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Recovery'' funds (Resource Management
            Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species
            Subactivity; Recovery of Listed Species Program Element; within
            the $81,709,000 item entitled ``Recovery'') for fiscal year
            2013 to allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 6
            to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado
            River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in ``Recovery'' funds (Resource Management
            Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species
            Subactivity; Recovery of Listed Species Program Element; within
            the $81,709,000 item entitled ``Recovery'') to allow FWS Region
            2 to continue its essential participation in the San Juan River
            Basin Recovery Implementation Program during fiscal year 2013.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $43,189,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS's Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
        On behalf of the State of New Mexico, I thank you for your
    consideration of my request and for the past support and assistance of
    your subcommittee; it has greatly facilitated the ongoing and
    continuing success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs that are
    vital to the recovery of the endangered fish and providing necessary
    water supplies for the growing Intermountain West.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of 1,237 Forest Owners, et al.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: Representing the
    more than 10 million U.S. family forest owners, the 1,237 undersigned
    forest owners would like to show our support and gratitude to all our
    State service foresters. In order to ensure these trusted men and women
    continue to help forest owners across the country, we urge Congress to
    maintain funding for the Forest Stewardship Program--a program that
    provides boots-on-the-ground assistance to ensure the health and
    vitality of America's forests for generations to come.
        Families and individuals steward more of America's forests than the
    Federal Government or big companies. With the largest area of forest
    ownership, families and individuals own 35 percent--or 251 million
    acres--of our Nation's forests. Our forests provide clean air, clean
    water, recreation, renewable resources that build our homes and
    communities, and good-paying rural jobs. But we cannot do it alone.
    Every state has a network of reliable and trusted service foresters
    that help us make good forest management decisions. Boots-on-the-ground
    make all the difference.
        As private forest owners, we rely on the U.S. Forest Service Forest
    Stewardship Program, which provides our State foresters with the
    resources they need for outreach, education, and technical assistance.
    We are grateful for the reliable assistance our service foresters
    provide every day. Without this boots-on-ground assistance, forests
    will fall victim to an ever-increasing list of challenges, such as
    insects and disease, development pressures, and growing ownership
    costs.
        The planning assistance made possible by the Forest Stewardship
    Program helps us realize the full potential of our land and provides us
    the peace-of-mind that our forests will be around for our kids and
    grandkids to enjoy. We hope that you will maintain current funding for
    this important program in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process
    so that families (and our forests) continue to reap these important
    benefits. We are happy to answer any questions you may have or provide
    additional input from the perspective of family forest owners.
        Thank you for your time and consideration of this important
    request.
                                    ALABAMA

    Russell Miller, Cullman, AL
    Don Heath, Birmingham, AL
    Jon H. Gould, Birmingham, AL
    Robert Amason, Tuscaloosa, AL
    Frances Lewis, Aliceville, AL
    Rusty Lewis, Aliceville, AL
    Katherine RouLaine, Coker, AL
    Irvin Eatman, Eutaw, AL
    James P. Jeter, Gordo, AL
    Jimmy Murphree, Spruce Pine, AL
    Daniel Hogue, Sr., Russellville, AL
    Edward Staley, Muscle Shoals, AL
    William Snoddy, Huntsville, AL
    John C. Pirtle, Billingsley, AL
    Derek Bryan, Brantley, AL
    Paul Hudgins, Greenville, AL
    Walter E. Cartwright, Greenville, AL
    Bob Roberts, Pike Road, AL
    Noah Poe, Prattville, AL
    Rrice and Johnnie Nichols, Prattville, AL
    Bill Tomlin, Prattville, AL
    James Hyland, Montgomery, AL
    Don C. East, Lineville, AL
    Lamar Dewberry, Lineville, AL
    Bruce Williams, Piedmont, AL
    Eddye Williams, Piedmont, AL
    Leslie Williams, Piedmont, AL
    Paul Williams, Piedmont, AL
    Roy Reeves, Roanoke, AL
    Ted Vignola, Elba, AL
    Gail Jones, Andalusia, AL
    Joe Bush, Andalusia, AL
    Salem Saloom, Brewton, AL
    Haden Swift Tirey, Monroeville, AL
    Sara N. Bradley, Monroeville, AL
    Jimmy Hutto, Opp, AL
    Neal Dansby, Moundville, AL
    John A. Stephens, Coffeeville, AL
    Ben Holifield, Camden, AL
    Lehman H. Bass, Jr., Opelika, AL
    Sidney D. Beckett, Auburn, AL
    Carolyn Graves Stubbs, Waverly, AL
    Leroy Sellers, Waverly, AL
    Billy Hildreth, Enterprise, AL

                                     ALASKA

    Mark Stahl, Talkeetna, AK
    Carol D'Angelis, Ketchikan, AK
    Lawrence R. Gaffaney, Juneau, AK
    Jason Borer, Cordova, AK

                                    ARKANSAS

    John Sutherland, Pine Bluff, AR
    John McAlpine, Monticello, AR
    Charles Westmoreland, Ivan, AR
    Josh Smith, Magnolia, AR
    Mike Bentley, Magnolia, AR
    John S. Collins, Stephens, AR
    Fred Fallis, De Queen, AR
    Danny A. Wilcox, Lewisville, AR
    Robert Kyle Martin, Texarkana, AR
    Charles Purtle, Prescott, AR
    Lynda and Luther Strother, Mill Creek Ranch, Benton, AR
    Steven Burgess, Perryville, AR
    Laura Shirley, Scotland, AR
    Henry Wells, Sheridan, AR
    Russ Matson, Little Rock, AR
    Audrey Beggs, Little Rock, AR
    Conrad Beggs, Little Rock, AR
    Bobby D. Johnson, Cherry Valley, AR
    Carolyn McBay, Compton, AR
    Jim Woodruff, Rogers, AR
    Tim White, Russellville, AR
    Larry P. Aikman, Bluffton, AR

                                    ARIZONA

    Bruce Bilbrey, Carefree, AZ

                                   CALIFORNIA

    Paul Moore, Los Angeles, CA
    Christopher E. Glancy, Los Angeles, CA
    Tiffany Michelle Horn, Los Angeles, CA
    Mike Bone, Santa Monica, CA
    Eric Grimes, Glendale, CA
    Veronica Raymond, Temple City, CA
    M. Harlan and Regina F. Horner, Del Mar, CA
    Daniel Martin, Lakeside, CA
    Liz Sandler, Oceanside, CA
    Dave Fitz, San Diego, CA
    Margaret D. Potvin, Crestline, CA
    Dan and Geri Begley, Running Springs, CA
    Joan Moseley, Running Springs, CA
    Laura Dyberg, Running Springs, CA
    Michelle French, Running Springs, CA
    Robert P. Moser, Ventura, CA
    Wayne Miller, Orinda, CA
    Catherine Moore, Felton, CA
    Charles A. Oveland, Saratoga, CA
    Jill Butler, Sebastopol, CA
    Alice Webb, Sonoma, CA
    Steve VanderHorst, Ukiah, CA
    Mark D. Collins, Eureka, CA
    Wayne D. Rice, Eureka, CA
    Dawn Pedersen, Fortuna, CA
    Barry Dobosh, Korbel, CA
    John and Linda Gaffin, Myers Flat, CA
    Frances J. Belden, Redding, CA
    James Chapin, Redding, CA
    Ron Berryman, McCloud, CA
    Betsy McNeil, Oak Run, CA
    Dave McNamara, Oak Run, CA
    Gary Hendrix, Oak Run, CA
    Lois Kaufman, Oak Run, CA
    Den Corrin, Shasta, CA
    Dennis Bebensee, Shingletown, CA
    Gene Goodyear, Weaverville, CA

                                    COLORADO

    Meg Halford, Castle Rock, CO
    Howard Smith, Littleton, CO
    Deward Walker, Boulder, CO
    Robert J. Clemans, Golden, CO
    Kathy and Terry Bedbury, Conifer, CO
    Paula Petrites, Conifer, CO
    Carolyn Fordham, Evergreen, CO
    Chris Payne, Evergreen, CO
    Jim and Vicki Norton, Evergreen, CO
    Tom Nelson, Evergreen, CO
    Carolina Manriquez, Steamboat Springs, CO
    Christine and Don Allender, Bellvue, CO
    Nicki Rutt, Bellvue, CO
    Scott B. Hamilton, Bellvue, CO
    Scott Golden, Bellvue, CO
    James G. Williams and Patti L. Williams, Estes Park, CO
    Steve and Katie Soliday, Estes Park, CO
    Rich Harvey, Estes Park, CO
    Thomas H. Ebert, Fort Collins, CO
    J. Rick Scanlan, Fort Collins, CO
    Ray Herrmann, Fort Collins, CO
    Oliver and Donna Moore, Loveland, CO
    Kristie Millsapps, Brighton, CO
    Pat Smith, Greeley, CO
    Jim and Carol Thalman, Pagosa Springs, CO
    John Janowski, Pagosa Springs, CO
    Ron Chacey, Pagosa Springs, CO
    Judy Bolton, Durango, CO
    Illene Pevec, Paonia, CO
    Herman Ball, Lafayette, CO

                                  CONNECTICUT

    John Hoover, Barkhamsted, CT
    Greg Clarke, Coventry, CT
    Sidney Organ, Ashford, CT
    James H. Poole, III, Willington, CT
    Cathie Peitzsch-Gibbs, Oakdale, CT
    Charles Potter, Guilford, CT
    Catherine Worthley, Higganum, CT
    Jack Norris, Milford, CT
    Kathleen Wagner, Stamford, CT

                              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    William H. Phillips, Jr., PD, Washington, DC

                                    FLORIDA

    Karla Gaskins, Fort White, FL
    Charles King, Green Cove Springs, FL
    Ray Weinaug, Jr., Hilliard, FL
    Charles M. Goodowns, Sr., Starke, FL
    Timothy W. Williams, Wellborn, FL
    Stephen Lloyd, Daytona Beach, FL
    Jeff Doran, Tallahassee, FL
    John Alter, Malone, FL
    Linda Basford, Marianna, FL
    Sharon Driscoll, Pensacola, FL
    Paul J. Langford, Pensacola, FL
    Dwight O'Neal, Cantonment, FL
    Jeff Hester, Century, FL
    Russ Weber, Gainesville, FL
    Mike Lackey, Deltona, FL
    Sabato Daniele, Merritt Island, FL
    Barbara C. Glancy, Homestead, FL
    Terry A. Glancy, Homestead, FL
    William J. Richards, Palmetto Bay, FL
    Marcia L. Tedesco Sanborn, Bushnell, FL
    Ms. Audrey Lauer, Kissimmee, FL
    Linda and Alan Weiland, Chipley, FL
    Rebecca Stallard, Boca Raton, FL

                                    GEORGIA

    Alan E. Pigg, Marietta, GA
    Joseph Bryan, Fayetteville, GA
    Lawrence T. Lipford, Franklin, GA
    Frank H. Barron, Newnan, GA
    Margaret D. Pierce, Atlanta, GA
    Andy McNeely, Jr., Louisville, GA
    Bryan Snow, Lyons, GA
    Christy Powell, Statesboro, GA
    David A. Kidd, Comer, GA
    Guy Dabbs, Madison, GA
    Tyler Verdery, Washington, GA
    Buford Sanders, Watkinsville, GA
    Steve L. Welch, Appling, GA
    Tom Mims, Hephzibah, GA
    Wanda T. Barrs, Cochran, GA
    Chuck Leavell, Dry Branch, GA
    Carla Rapp, Forsyth, GA
    Tommy Joines, Helena, GA
    Colin Maldonado, Milledgeville, GA
    Ruth Eilers, Milledgeville, GA
    Warren Faircloth, Warner Robins, GA
    Lynda G. Beam, Savannah, GA
    Lawanna King, Waycross, GA
    Edward I. Herbert, Waycross, GA
    Jorene Turner, Fitzgerald, GA
    Joel Robertson, Lumpkin, GA
    James Kent, Richland, GA
    Allan Tucker, Iron City, GA
    Jan Mazzucco, Winterville, GA

                                      IOWA

    Jim Sheets, Ames, IA
    Paul Tauke, DeSota, IA
    Craig Cable, Indianola, IA
    Marilyn Dorland, Osceola, IA
    Russell Wilkins, Runnells, IA
    Charles E. Semler, MD, Story City, IA
    Denny Michel, Story City, IA
    John Paule, West Des Moines, IA
    Jon Grace, Des Moines, IA
    Carl Varley, Clive, IA
    Rick Adams, Algona, IA
    Wayne Fuhlbrugge, Webster City, IA
    Jon and Ann Schneckloth, Charles City, IA
    Susan West, Fairbank, IA
    Bruce Vosseller, Plainfield, IA
    Richard Kaufman, Dubuque, IA
    Brian Willhite, Colesburg, IA
    Jim and Jody Kerns, Dyersville, IA
    Agnes Kenney, Elkader, IA
    Jerry Muff, Elkader, IA
    Richard B. and Mary E. Hyde, Elkader, IA
    Tom Kenney, Elkader, IA
    Dean Gotto, Farley, IA
    Terry J. Weller, Garnavillo, IA
    James Gamerdinger, Guttenberg, IA
    Harold J. Krambeer, Saint Olaf, IA
    Ace and Judy Hendricks, Decorah, IA
    Lora Friest, Decorah, IA
    Nancy Bolson, Decorah, IA
    Richard Kittelson, Clermont, IA
    Jim Farnsworth, McGregor, IA
    James R. McShane Lcdr (Ret), Waterville, IA
    Shannon Ramsay, Anamosa, IA
    Kevin Kelly, Clarence, IA
    Paul Millice, Iowa City, IA
    Dennis Goemaat, Marion, IA
    Larry Wiley, Palo, IA
    Max D. Grover, Rowley, IA
    Allen J. Wagner, Springville, IA
    Larry Rummells, West Branch, IA
    Tim Dohrmann, Cedar Rapids, IA
    George and Janelle McClain, Cedar Rapids, IA
    Levi Ward, Moravia, IA
    Carl D. Petersen, Mediapolis, IA
    Daryl H. Bohlen, West Burlington, IA
    Bob Brown, Yarmouth, IA
    Robert and Joyce Saacke, Farmersburg, IA

                                     IDAHO

    David B. Reay, Horseshoe Bend, ID
    John and Darlene Lillehaug, McCall, ID
    Frank Fish, Boise, ID
    Erik Sjoquist, Bonners Ferry, ID
    Gordon Sanders, Cataldo, ID
    Paul Buckland, CF 948, Coeur d'Alene, ID
    Steve and Janet Funk, Coeur d'Alene, ID
    Donald N. Heikkila, Harrison, ID
    Thomas Davis, Hayden Lake, ID
    Eric Besaw, Saint Maries, ID
    Marianne Besaw, Saint Maries, ID
    Steve Cuvala, Saint Maries, ID
    Donald Collins, Boise, ID

                                    ILLINOIS

    Marion Mycynek, Des Plaines, IL
    Barbara Gosh, Ingleside, IL
    J.M. Tabor, Mount Prospect, IL
    Brad Koschak, Spring Grove, IL
    George Stone, Wilmette, IL
    John and Joanne Oliver, Lake in the Hills, IL
    Ted Knorring, Wheaton, IL
    John W. Sims, Naperville, IL
    M.J. Remec, Riverside, IL
    Roger Grimes, Chicago, IL
    Paul G. Dennis Jr., Roscoe, IL
    Barrie McVey, Vermont, IL
    David Tebbe, Breese, IL
    Eugene Van Dorn, Carlyle, IL
    Rebecca Brummel, Collinsville, IL
    Michael W. Jobst, Westfield, IL
    Jack Wohlstadter, Havana, IL
    Greg and Pat Zak, Springfield, IL
    Bryan Keller, Anna, IL

                                    INDIANA

    Bob Burke, Martinsville, IN
    David Applegate, Zionsville, IN
    Kurt Pedersen, Indianapolis, IN
    Rex A. Brock, Bourbon, IN
    Garry D. Weybright, Syracuse, IN
    Charles Boebel, North Manchester, IN
    Don Bonsett, Walton, IN
    Ronald Gasaway, Elizabeth, IN
    Fran Squires, New Albany, IN
    Frank W. Gottbrath, Pekin, IN
    John Seifert, North Vernon, IN
    Matthew Sherck, Connersville, IN
    Kerry Winter Haver, Bloomfield, IN
    Phyll Thomas, Nashville, IN
    Robert Woodling, Unionville, IN
    Eva McCullough, West Baden Springs, IN
    Wesley G. Crawford, Lafayette, IN

                                     KANSAS

    Rebecca Shaffer, Louisburg, KS
    Ryan Neises, Ottawa, KS
    Caroline Kern, Denison, KS
    Bob Atchison, Manhattan, KS
    Larry G. Rutter, Meriden, KS
    John Weilert, Fredonia, KS
    Scott A. Sjolander, Scandia, KS

                                    KENTUCKY

    Carolyn M. Puckett, Franklin, KY
    Philip Haag, La Grange, KY
    Barry Joyce, Milton, KY
    Stephen Perry, Pendleton, KY
    Heather B. Singer, Louisville, KY
    Kevin Woods, Morehead, KY
    Jerry L. Adams, Winchester, KY
    Mark Kamber, Lexington, KY
    Ann Bowe, Lexington, KY
    Robert Bauer, Frankfort, KY
    Sarah Douglas Gracey, Frankfort, KY
    Jared Calvert, Miracle, KY
    Kevin Galloway, Maysville, KY
    Roy Boggs, Prestonsburg, KY
    Rick Harrell, Owensboro, KY
    Matthew Adkins, Monticello, KY
    Mark Wiedewitsch, Campbellsville, KY
    Melven D. Hack, Caneyville, KY
    Belinda Wilkins-Smith, Greensburg, KY

                                   LOUISIANA

    Eric Gee, Covington, LA
    Ginny Nipper, Homer, LA
    W. Allen Nipper, Homer, LA
    Albert Smoak, Shreveport, LA
    Edwin Edgerton, West Monroe, LA
    C. McDavid Hughes, West Monroe, LA
    Debbie Dodd, Alexandria, LA
    C.A. ``Buck'' Vandersteen, Alexandria, LA
    Vance and Paula Morris, Pineville, LA

                                 MASSACHUSETTS

    Alden Bacon, Williamsburg, MA
    Justamere Tree Farm, Worthington, MA
    Amy Burdick, Pittsfield, MA
    Wendy Zunitch, Pittsfield, MA
    Sean Connors, Becket, MA
    Bill and Chris Pike, Peru, MA
    Christine Pike, Peru, MA
    Gregory Cox, Charlemont, MA
    Al Futterman, Ashby, MA
    Brian LeBlanc, Lunenburg, MA
    John Robbins, Concord, MA
    Joan Cudhea, Middleton, MA
    Nancy Delano, Duxbury, MA
    Robert Delano, Duxbury, MA

                                    MARYLAND

    Reg. Townsend, Drayden, MD
    William Reed, Drayden, MD
    Dawn Balinski, Lusby, MD
    Bob Weisman, Nanjemoy, MD
    Howard Anderson, Chesapeake Beach, MD
    H.R. Wainwright, Highland, MD
    Henry R. Wainwright, IV, Highland, MD
    Robert H. Lindgren, Gaithersburg, MD
    Toby M. Turpin, Silver Spring, MD
    Bryan Lightner, Bel Air, MD
    Julie Bell Wadsworth, Cockeysville, MD
    Joseph F. Friend, Columbia, MD
    Ronald Hendricksen, Havre de Grace, MD
    Donald C. Outen, Timonium, MD
    John and Rosemary Beever, Monkton, MD
    Jack Walther, Pylesville, MD
    Kimberly A. Lewis, Pylesville, MD
    Kermit and Cindy Crosby, Severn, MD
    Nedda Pray, Sparks, MD
    Connie Hoge, Westminster, MD
    Leonard Wrabel, Westminster, MD
    Andrew A. Holtan, Cardiff, MD
    Steve Parker, Towson, MD
    Sheryl Heydt, Baltimore, MD
    Gary G. Allen, Annapolis, MD
    Juls and Barbara Wood, Cumberland, MD
    Dottie Turner, Frostburg, MD
    Charles N. Hoffeditz, Ph.D., McHenry, MD
    Gregan Crawford, Oakland, MD
    David K. Sharretts, Chestertown, MD
    Nevin Dawson, Chestertown, MD
    Charles R. MacFarland, Adamstown, MD
    Matthew Carroll, Boonsboro, MD
    Don and Linda Grove, Hagerstown, MD
    Judith Niedzielski, Hagerstown, MD
    Chester and Jane Wagstaff, New Market, MD
    Ron Free, Thurmont, MD
    Claude Eans, Walkersville, MD
    Larry Arthur, Walkersville, MD
    Robert Hess, Marion Station, MD
    Dori Murphy, North East, MD
    Gabrielle D. Oldham, North East, MD
    Donald L. Wolle, Elkton, MD
    Margaret Dickerson, Chestertown, MD
    Teri Dickerson Batchelor, Chestertown, MD

                                     MAINE

    Earlene Chadbourne, Cumberland, ME
    John Schwanda, Freeport, ME
    Calvin Hamblen, Gorham, ME
    Fred M. Mitchell, Lovell, ME
    Josiah Pierce, West Baldwin, ME
    Anton G. Wagner, Cape Elizabeth, ME
    Janet E. Stowell, Bethel, ME
    Peter A. Jolicoeur, Greene, ME
    Harold Burnett, Winthrop, ME
    Kevin T. McCarthy, Winthrop, ME
    Carl H. Sanborn, Bangor, ME
    David Wardrop, Bangor, ME
    Andrew Abello, Edgecomb, ME
    Edson R. Small, Jr., Waterville, ME
    Greta M. Essency, Farmington, ME

                                    MICHIGAN

    Dean and Susan Reid, Saint Ignace, MI
    Elizabeth Stone, Ann Arbor, MI
    Jody G. Scott, Ann Arbor, MI
    Alfred R. Glancy, Jr., Grosse Pointe, MI
    Ruth Glancy, Grosse Pointe, MI
    Michael H. Mansour, Lake Orion, MI
    Jim Gregart, Harrisville, MI
    Shawna Meyer, Grand Ledge, MI
    Debra Huff, Laingsburg, MI
    Scott Robbins, Lansing, MI
    Joyce Hare, Portage, MI
    Judith Brook, Three Rivers, MI
    Mary Menold, Arcadia, MI
    Jessica Turino, Manton, MI
    Karen Serfass, Dafter, MI
    Matthew R. Brooks, Sault Sainte Marie, MI
    John Van Dyke, Trout Lake, MI
    Dennis P. Renken, Escanaba, MI
    Gerald Grossman, Newberry, MI
    Bruce Maki, Atlantic Mine, MI
    Byron R. Sailor, Baraga, MI
    James M. Schmierer, Houghton, MI

                                   MINNESOTA

    Jon P. Bergin, Lake City, MN
    Neal W. Chapman, Roseville, MN
    Joanne Englund, Saint Paul, MN
    Robert Helfinstine, Ramsey, MN
    Edward and Janet King, Eden Prairie, MN
    Richard Naaktgeboren, Maple Lake, MN
    Clement Engen, Minneapolis, MN
    Charles R. Hughes, Minneapolis, MN
    Ron Reich, Bloomington, MN
    Paul Omberg, Esko, MN
    Richard Chalupsky, Hibbing, MN
    Bruce Barker, Duluth, MN
    Valiree Green, Brownsville, MN
    Timothy M. Gossman, Chatfield, MN
    LaVerne Hofschulte, Elgin, MN
    Sarah Greenheck, Wabasha, MN
    Natalie Hodapp, Mankato, MN
    Ernest Schmitt, Brandon, MN
    Thomas Kroll, Long Prairie, MN
    Robert Perleberg, Pierz, MN
    Steve Donnay, Sauk Centre, MN
    Tom Witkowski, Brainerd, MN
    Gary Woehler, Crosby, MN
    David H. Larsen, Nevis, MN
    Richard Magaard, Nevis, MN
    John Wallin, Pequot Lakes, MN
    John F. Walte, Georgetown, MN
    Perry Eide, International Falls, MN
    Steve Earley, International Falls, MN

                                    MISSOURI

    David A. Watson, Chesterfield, MO
    Nancy J. Brod, DeSoto, MO
    John Heckmann, Glencoe, MO
    Wonder Koch, Saint Louis, MO
    Steve Lovell, Saint Louis, MO
    Rick Merritt, Eolia, MO
    Daniel L. Moncheski, Saint Peters, MO
    Daniel Joseph Cunningham, La Plata, MO
    Larry Lackamp, Bates City, MO
    Carl Hepting, Kansas City, MO
    Kirk Fine, Gladstone, MO
    Martha E. Clark, Helena, MO
    Nathaniel R. Forbes, Neosho, MO
    Barbara J. Ittner, Noel, MO
    Dwight Ittner, Noel, MO
    Gary Lyndaker, Gravois Mills, MO
    Joe Akers, New Bloomfield, MO
    Bill McGuire, Jefferson City, MO
    John Fleming, Jefferson City, MO
    Shelby G. Jones, Jefferson City, MO
    Matt Arndt, Columbia, MO
    Jerry Van Sambeek, Columbia, MO
    Bo Wendleton, Boonville, MO
    Daniel Hatch, Licking, MO
    Kevin Poe, Roby, MO
    David Emerson, Ava, MO
    Elizabeth Josephson, Oldfield, MO
    Richard F. and Esther L. Myers, Protem, MO
    Jay King, Willard, MO
    R. Scott Brundage, Columbia, MO

                                  MISSISSIPPI

    Justin Dewberry, New Albany, MS
    Mark Smith, Oxford, MS
    Dennis I. Wright, MD, Tupelo, MS
    Chad Robertson, Amory, MS
    Margaret Marlin, Fulton, MS
    Brendix Glasgow, Tishomingo, MS
    Brant Godbold, Grenada, MS
    Bryan McCartney, Grenada, MS
    E.L. Dabbs, Brandon, MS
    Betsy K. Padgett, Lexington, MS
    Freddy Upton, Madison, MS
    Tate Ervin, Madison, MS
    C. Barlow, Raymond, MS
    Margaret Munford, Jackson, MS
    Tony K. Morgan, Meridian, MS
    Harold Anderson, Philadelphia, MS
    John E. Green, Hattiesburg, MS
    John Meador, Hattiesburg, MS
    Daphna Hummer, Columbia, MS
    Carl Blackledge, Jr., Laurel, MS
    Tommy Cotten, Laurel, MS
    Bob Hynson, Laurel, MS
    Ruth Cook, Seminary, MS
    Henry A. Hudson, Jr., Sumrall, MS
    William W. Powell, Gulfport, MS
    Kelly Raulerson, Perkinston, MS
    Mark Bullock, Bogue Chitto, MS
    Travis Stewart, Liberty, MS
    Mary Emma Lansing, Magnolia, MS
    James D. (David) Hancock, Summit, MS
    Patrick Brown, Caledonia, MS
    Charles W. Dismukes, Kilmichael, MS
    Andrew Self, Starkville, MS
    Sarah Self, Starkville, MS
    James Henderson, Mississippi State, MS

                                    MONTANA

    Marion Wambach, Denton, MT
    Gary E. Johnson, Missoula, MT
    Joe Moran, Drummond, MT
    Charles Crouter, Florence, MT
    Jim Christensen, Philipsburg, MT
    Patricia Young, Philipsburg, MT
    Everett J. Young, Plains, MT
    Jim Watson, Kalispell, MT
    Laurence Schroeder, Bigfork, MT
    Paul R. McKenzie, Columbia Falls, MT
    Valerie A. Beebe, Kila, MT
    Jim Kibler, Troy, MT

                                 NORTH CAROLINA

    Patrick Callaghan, Lewisville, NC
    James M. (Jim) Long, Blanch, NC
    Libby Jordan, Candor, NC
    G. Boon Chesson, Troy, NC
    Paul Dean, Cary, NC
    Colby Lambert, Fuquay Varina, NC
    David Halley, Holly Springs, NC
    Ann M. Daniel, Raleigh, NC
    Thomas Keller, Durham, NC
    Laurell Malone, Durham, NC
    Daniel Reynolds, Farmville, NC
    Danny R. Maness, Halifax, NC
    Cyndi Williams, Nashville, NC
    Alice Ricks, Roanoke Rapids, NC
    Benjamin Riddick Ricks, Roanoke Rapids, NC
    Allan L. Weller, Washington, NC
    Meissa Patrick, Washington, NC
    Melissa Berrier, Cherryville, NC
    John C. Miller, Charlotte, NC
    Dwight Andrews, Charlotte, NC
    Tim Jackson, Dunn, NC
    Thaddeus N. Banks, Roseboro, NC
    Scott Smearman, Wagram, NC
    D. Thompson Tew, Wilmington, NC
    Jim Durham, Wilmington, NC
    Phillip Brock, Holden Beach, NC
    Dwight H. Gerding, Hookerton, NC
    Vernon J. Daniels, Jr., Merritt, NC
    Bryan Hulka, New Bern, NC
    Charles and Carole Torpy, Canton, NC
    Katrine Frye, Old Fort, NC
    Albert Shaw, Clarkton, NC
    Albert Coffey, Wake Forest, NC

                                  NORTH DAKOTA

    Pamela Meier, Mott, ND
    Tim Hanson, Fort Ransom, ND
    Anne Hill, Amenia, ND
    Kevin R. Hartl, Enderlin, ND

                                    NEBRASKA

    Steve Karloff, Omaha, NE

                                 NEW HAMPSHIRE

    Mark Pitman, Francestown, NH
    Jean Ragonese, Fremont, NH
    William Downs, Mason, NH
    Douglas Foprd, New Ipswich, NH
    Donald Jackson, Bradford, NH
    John M. Hodsdon, Meredith, NH
    Robert E. Hardy, Tilton, NH
    Paul and Deb Doscher, Weare, NH
    Rita Carroll, Concord, NH
    Robert Bradbury, Concord, NH
    Tom Natale, Penacook, NH
    John Satas, Troy, NH
    Todd Carter, Troy, NH
    Haven Neal, Berlin, NH
    Putnam W. Blodgett, Lyme, NH
    Marilyn Bott, East Kingston, NH
    Steve and Elaine Pike, Strafford, NH

                                   NEW JERSEY

    J. Anderson, Maplewood, NJ
    Tracy R. Cate, Maplewood, NJ
    Joseph M. Lashendock, III, East Rutherford, NJ
    Ron Farr, Newfoundland, NJ
    Greg Daly, Oak Ridge, NJ
    Timothy Slavin, Stockholm, NJ
    Elmer Platz, Vernon, NJ
    Clifford G. Raisch, Red Bank, NJ
    Ken Schrankel, Holmdel, NJ
    Theresa Seibert, Branchville, NJ
    Julia Hartenfels, Montague, NJ
    Phil Taylor, Columbia, NJ
    Brian Cowden, Flanders, NJ
    Daniel E. and J. Carolyn Kent, III, Newton, NJ
    Doug Tavella, Newton, NJ
    Cecelia Illing, Port Murray, NJ
    Fred Haffner, Port Murray, NJ
    Keith Begraft, Sparta, NJ
    Ken Taaffe, Lumberton, NJ
    Sam and Susan Marquez, Williamstown, NJ
    Frank A. Burns, Leeds Point, NJ
    John Benton, Chesterfield, NJ
    Les Alpaugh, Stockton, NJ
    Ronald J. Sheay, Stockton, NJ
    Conrad J. Franz, Trenton, NJ
    Charles J. Newlon, Trenton, NJ
    Scott Hale, Annandale, NJ
    The Powers Family, Asbury, NJ
    Dennis Galway, Bernardsville, NJ
    Jean Blancato, West Milford, NJ
    Maria Gsell, Far Hills, NJ
    Leah Glucroft, Boonton, NJ
    Eric Dornfeld, Long Valley, NJ
    Thomas Walsh, Asbury, NJ
    Marie L. Cirelli, Lafayette, NJ
    Matthew Kathenes, Great Meadows, NJ
    Cheri Kathenes, Great Meadows, NJ
    Kyle Kathenes, Great Meadows, NJ
    Tori Kathenes, Great Meadows, NJ
    Michael Quirk, Rockaway, NJ

                                   NEW MEXICO

    Nina Helms, Cuba, NM
    Robert B. Foster, Tijeras, NM
    Don Berryman, Cebolla, NM
    Joseph Stehling, Ocate, NM

                                     NEVADA

    May M. McInnis, Caliente, NV
    James Lundy, Glenbrook, NV
    Terry Aulston, Sparks, NV
    Maxine Weiss, Washoe Valley, NV

                                    NEW YORK

    Arthur Wagner, Bronx, NY
    Michael Patrick Roach, Cortlandt Manor, NY
    Steven A. Knapp, Putnam Valley, NY
    John Zylstra, Johnson, NY
    Jeanette Vuocolo, Brooklyn, NY
    Matthew Gross, Howard Beach, NY
    Maureen H. Ariola, Holbrook, NY
    Jonathan Sferazo, Huntington Station, NY
    Gary Kalinkewicz, Galway, NY
    Douglas W. Murphy, Stamford, NY
    Kathleen Riehl, Schenectady, NY
    Elizabeth R. Apgar Triano, Patterson, NY
    Barbara Lucas-Wilson, Rhinebeck, NY
    Kathrine Rodriguez, Wappingers Falls, NY
    Richard J. Cipperly, Queensbury, NY
    Russell Lacroix, Greenwich, NY
    Kenneth T. Walder, Hadley, NY
    Robert Manning, Johnsburg, NY
    Raymond M. Scollin, Saranac Lake, NY
    Michael Endress, Cortland, NY
    Richard Pancoe, Earlville, NY
    Don Carbone, Utica, NY
    Andrew Willard, Hermon, NY
    Sally and Don Chirlin, Norwich, NY
    Paul Nowak, Akron, NY
    Robert Gorecki, Hamburg, NY
    Patrick Marren, Buffalo, NY
    Russell L. Gardner, Naples, NY
    Stanley Olshefski, Rochester, NY
    William Hughey, Hinsdale, NY
    Tim Levatich, Brooktondale, NY
    Daniel J. Cleveland, Erin, NY

                                      OHIO

    Danuta Lange, Swanton, OH
    Denise A. Heban, Swanton, OH
    Walt Lange, Swanton, OH
    Clayton Rico, Zanesville, OH
    Ken Scherf, Byesville, OH
    Bob Ball, Caldwell, OH
    Cassandra Ridenour, Gratiot, OH
    Jeff Wilson, McConnelsville, OH
    Jeremy Scherf, New Concord, OH
    Matthew Micozzi, Port Washington, OH
    Tom Cushing, Ohio Tree Farmer, Scio, OH
    Leo Deininger, Cleveland, OH
    Ruth Skuly, Cleveland, OH
    Barry L. Ulrich, Wadsworth, OH
    James T. Elze, Salem, OH
    Rick Miller, Dover, OH
    Robert Hunter, Glenmont, OH
    Gordon W. Zemrock, Shreve, OH
    Kathleen Myers, North Canton, OH
    Don Ruffing, Bellevue, OH
    Clarence Roller, Amelia, OH
    Roger and Diana Benter, Batavia, OH
    Walt Saranen, Hillsboro, OH
    Vincent Urbanek, Cincinnati, OH
    Michael J. Besonen, Chillicothe, OH
    Jerry Grezlik, Beaver, OH
    Ann Hamilton, Athens, OH
    Janet Sweigart, Ada, OH
    Thomas R. Mills, Findlay, OH

                                    OKLAHOMA

    George Geissler, Norman, OK
    Erin Johnson, Oklahoma City, OK
    Kurtis Koll, Lawton, OK
    Patt Nelson, Tulsa, OK
    Page Belcher, Jay, OK
    Christina Stallings Roberson, Pryor, OK
    Steve Couch, Tahlequah, OK
    Jason Whaley, McAlester, OK
    Chris Joslin, Antlers, OK
    Chris Parrington, Wilburton, OK
    Andy James, Broken Bow, OK
    Caleb Fields, Broken Bow, OK

                                     OREGON

    Ingrid Harper, Beaverton, OR
    Margaret Mills, Molalla, OR
    Ivan Allen, Saint Helens, OR
    Ron Preston, Sandy, OR
    Tom Keys, Gresham, OR
    Thomas Scoggins, Astoria, OR
    Bob and Bonnie Shumaker, Banks, OR
    Barbara Brunson, Hillsboro, OR
    Craig Alness, Portland, OR
    Donald Beaman, Portland, OR
    Rainer Hummel, Portland, OR
    Rick Zenn, Portland, OR
    David Ford, Tigard, OR
    Richard W. Courter, ACF, CF, Portland, OR
    Jim James, Salem, OR
    Mickey Bellman, MSB Consulting Inc., Salem, OR
    Dave Schmidt, Albany, OR
    Larry Blair, Dallas, OR
    Joe Holmberg, Lebanon, OR
    Chris Woodward, Lyons, OR
    Julie Woodward, Lyons, OR
    Clint Bentz, Scio, OR
    R. Beers, Eugene, OR
    Michael R. Atkinson, Eugene, OR
    Larry Strickland, Cottage Grove, OR
    Warren and Maureen Weathers, Lowell, OR
    Bruno C. Meyer, Medford, OR
    Michael S. Meredith, Medford, OR
    Donn Comte, Ashland, OR
    John Wilda, Klamath Falls, OR
    James Edwards, The Dalles, OR

                                  PENNSYLVANIA

    Fred and Debbie Kovalchuk, Donora, PA
    David Schreffler, Everett, PA
    John Akers, Everett, PA
    Tresa L. McVicker, Davidsville, PA
    Mark Patterson, Jackson Center, PA
    Georgann Kovacovsky, New Bethlehem, PA
    Liz Krug, Erie, PA
    Harry Pionke, State College, PA
    Susan S. Benedict, State College, PA
    Dave Jackson, Pleasant Gap, PA
    Mike Whitehill, Howard, PA
    Allyson Muth, Pine Grove Mills, PA
    Linda L. Finley, Port Matilda, PA
    David T. Twining, Carlisle, PA
    Bruce W. Kile, Biglerville, PA
    John Van Ness, Brogue, PA
    Gail Landers, Williamsport, PA
    John Kuryloski, Millville, PA
    Bobbie J. Knudson, Allentown, PA
    Nancy G.W. Baker, Sugar Run, PA
    Sean T. Carroll, Bryn Mawr, PA
    Barry Berkowitz, Fort Washington, PA
    Stewart Keener, Philadelphia, PA
    Lloyd R. Casey, West Chester, PA
    Bonnie Seitzinger, Shartlesville, PA

                                  RHODE ISLAND

    Tom Dupree, West Greenwich, RI
    Richard K. St. Aubin, Little Compton, RI
    Milton Schumacher, North Scituate, RI

                                 SOUTH CAROLINA

    Dave Hegler, Kershaw, SC
    Charles M. Hemingway, Jr., Manning, SC
    Thomas W. Sawyer, Monetta, SC
    Harry L. Norton, Summerton, SC
    Maxine LeRoy, Charleston, SC
    Jay Jackson, Moncks Corner, SC
    William Howard, Summerville, SC
    Ken Stuart, Bennettsville, SC
    Leon Grayson, Kingstree, SC
    Jim Bland, Pawleys Island, SC
    Carolyn Grayson, Andrews, SC
    George Kessler, Central, SC
    Eric W. Smith, Greenwood, SC
    Walt McPhail, Mauldin, SC
    Brent Reed, Chester, SC
    Russ Carter, Chesterfield, SC

                                  SOUTH DAKOTA

    Peter Schaefer, Brookings, SD
    David and Karen Papcke, Hot Springs, SD
    Dianne Miller, Spearfish, SD

                                   TENNESSEE

    Robert and Laura Qualmaln, Brentwood, TN
    Kerry Livengood, Chapel Hill, TN
    Linda Hamm, Cunningham, TN
    Herb Paugh, Pleasant View, TN
    Stephen B. Owen, Benton, TN
    Dan Wernick, Kingsport, TN
    Russell J. Scott, Harriman, TN
    Mark Horne, Huntsville, TN
    Steve Roark, Tazewell, TN
    Brenda Heindl, Collierville, TN
    Cyrus Johnson, Memphis, TN
    David Mercker, Jackson, TN
    Jeffrey L. Mace, Michie, TN
    Sharon Keen, Ramer, TN
    John Ross, Savannah, TN
    Jeff Thompson, Hilham, TN
    Charles Daugherty, Crossville, TN
    Stanley B. Leach, Sr., Walling, TN

                                     TEXAS

    Hance Burrow, Dallas, TX
    Howard Moore, Dallas, TX
    James Hugh Jones, Paris, TX
    Bill Russell, Carthage, TX
    Bob Herrin, Marshall, TX
    Jim Thompson, Larue, TX
    Ronald C. Holcomb, Larue, TX
    Donna Freeman, Palestine, TX
    Randolph S. Robinson, Palestine, TX
    Rick Kaminski, Trinity, TX
    Frank B. Shockley, Lufkin, TX
    Dan Spivey, Lufkin, TX
    Dr. Donald M. Grosman, Lufkin, TX
    Carl Taylor, Alto, TX
    Ralph W. Schwausch, Garrison, TX
    Richard Dottellis, Jasper, TX
    Michael M. Pickard, Nacogdoches, TX
    Daisy and Dan Braswell, Colleyville, TX
    Pamela T. De La Cruz, Grapevine, TX
    Judith Franklin, Waco, TX
    Ron Mitchell, Houston, TX
    Robert Hinton, Houston, TX
    Robert E. and Glenda Myers, Houston, TX
    Christine Russler, Houston, TX
    Earl and Meredith Touchstone, Houston, TX
    Jordan Herrin, Huntsville, TX
    Roy L. Brunson, Spring, TX
    Walter Harbuck, Pasadena, TX
    Michael Stryker, San Antonio, TX
    Carl Schattenberg, Austin, TX
    Jane Baxter, Trinity, TX

                                    VIRGINIA

    William Ameen, Manassas, VA
    Natalie Pien, Leesburg, VA
    Tom Martin, Falls Church, VA
    Jennifer Zimmerman, Falls Church, VA
    R. Neil Sampson, Alexandria, VA
    Mary Alexander, Alexandria, VA
    James B. Kuykendall, Spotsylvania, VA
    Ann Herren, Winchester, VA
    George J. and Rhoda W. Kriz, Winchester, VA
    Joseph R. Zimmerman, Winchester, VA
    Greg Richard, Star Tannery, VA
    David Powell, Charlottesville, VA
    John Kauffman, Charlottesville, VA
    Anne and Ted Stelter, Orange, VA
    Robert S. Wait, Ashland, VA
    Paul Howe, Glen Allen, VA
    Norwood and Emily Nuckols, Glen Allen, VA
    Ann Haley Long, Hanover, VA
    Norman L. Long, Hanover, VA
    Jesse T. Crawford, III, ACF, RF, King William, VA
    Tom Harlan, Midlothian, VA
    Edward Sontag, Richmond, VA
    Leslie Magalis, Henrico, VA
    Bruce Powell, Smithfield, VA
    Neil Clark, Suffolk, VA
    Keith Alston, Windsor, VA
    Michelle Alston, Windsor, VA
    Malcolm Convington, Petersburg, VA
    Mike T. Jones, Jarratt, VA
    Denise Wlodyka, Sedley, VA
    Kirby Woolfolk, Crewe, VA
    Tom Newbill, Hardy, VA
    Donald G. Drake, Buena Vista, VA
    Shelby L. Spradlin, Jr., Lynchburg, VA
    Jay Phaup, Amherst, VA
    Ricky Butler, Appomattox, VA

                                    VERMONT

    Peter Silberfarb, Norwich, VT
    Robert J. Pulaski, Post Mills, VT
    Jessica Eaton, Thetford, VT
    Margaret Sherlock, Tunbridge, VT
    Jen Loyd-Pain, Bennington, VT
    John McNerney, New Haven, VT
    David Paganelli, Barre, VT
    Sam Miller, Waterbury Center, VT
    Kathleen Wanner, Chittenden, VT
    Trevor Evans, Newport, VT
    Alan M. Robertson, Sheffield, VT

                                   WASHINGTON

    Michael and Tammie Perreault, Olympia, WA
    David Townsend, Bellevue, WA
    Angela and Jacob Kirkman, Bellevue, WA
    Kimbel Gauthier, Fall City, WA
    David Keller, Issaquah, WA
    Mary Jaeger, Kent, WA
    Donald Hanley, Kirkland, WA
    Kristiann Schoening, Mercer Island, WA
    Jeanne Koruga, Woodinville, WA
    Frederick W. Hayes, Seattle, WA
    Alex and Harvey Greenberg, Seattle, WA
    William Scott, Seattle, WA
    Charles Adams, Seattle, WA
    Bob Viggers, Seattle, WA
    Roger P. Foucher, Seattle, WA
    Nancy Storey, Seattle, WA
    Julie Nyborg, Des Moines, WA
    Ron Nyborg, Des Moines, WA
    Jo Ellen Gillmore, Seattle, WA
    Karl G. Stout, Anacortes, WA
    Shaunna Harris, Arlington, WA
    Diane Garmo, Bellingham, WA
    William Franklin, Bellingham, WA
    Aubrey Stargell, Bellingham, WA
    David Hess, Bow, WA
    Loren Schmidt, Concrete, WA
    Doug McKee, Coupeville, WA
    Katie Collins, Freeland, WA
    Kenneth Cohen, Langley, WA
    Susan Lindsey Cohen, Langley, WA
    Merlene Buller, Marblemount, WA
    Saxton's Timber Farm & Sanctuary, LLC, Monroe, WA
    AL Craney, CF, Mount Vernon, WA
    James V. Owens, Mount Vernon, WA
    Kathryn Kerby, Snohomish, WA
    April Reid, Bremerton, WA
    Ryan Sandstrom, Bremerton, WA
    Eric and Joan Hendricks, Brinnon, WA
    Charles K. McTee, Eatonville, WA
    Paul Alvestad, Gig Harbor, WA
    Chris and Linda Goodman (Back40 Forest), Gig Harbor, WA
    Catherine Wright, Port Angeles, WA
    Robert Kavanaugh, Port Angeles, WA
    Coy Eshom, Port Orchard, WA
    William Wheeler, Quilcene, WA
    Patty Vance, Randle, WA
    Kenneth Lundemo, Seabeck, WA
    Philip and Teri Martin, Sequim, WA
    Helen and Drew Daly, Silverdale, WA
    Deborah A. Sage, South Prairie, WA
    Stephen Ackley, South Prairie, WA
    Matthew Miller, Tacoma, WA
    Fred L. Wagner, University Place, WA
    Scott E. Swanson, Tacoma, WA
    Galen M. Wright, Tumwater, WA
    Kirk Hanson, Tumwater, WA
    Lynette Falkner, Tumwater, WA
    Ron Nelson, Tumwater, WA
    Jeanette L. Friis, Olympia, WA
    John and Sue Yoachim, Olympia, WA
    Roy E. Friis, Olympia, WA
    Denny Adkisson, Lacey, WA
    John B. Sutherland, Lacey, WA
    Nels Hanson, Lacey, WA
    Brian Thompson, Tumwater, WA
    Dan L. and Joanne M. Campbell, Tumwater, WA
    Ken and Bonnie Miller, Tumwater, WA
    Norma Green, Tumwater, WA
    Alab B. Cain, Olympia, WA
    Thomas A. Terry, Olympia, WA
    Scott Berken, Aberdeen, WA
    Bryon Loucks, Centralia, WA
    Charles Codddington, Chehalis, WA
    Jim and Trish Murphy, Chehalis, WA
    Laura Moerke Jones, Chehalis, WA
    Steve Webster, Chehalis, WA
    Tom and Sherry Fox, Ethel, WA
    Sam and Joy Comstock, Grapeview, WA
    Elizabeth Perry, Montesano, WA
    Howard Wilson, Montesano, WA
    John Henrikson, Oakville, WA
    Richard Decker, Onalaska, WA
    Russell Armitage, Onalaska, WA
    Kamiele Anderson, Rochester, WA
    Sylvia Russell and Brian Wester, Roy, WA
    John F. Gorman, Shelton, WA
    Norris A. Petit, South Bend, WA
    Steve Stinson, Toledo, WA
    Lou Jean Clark, Winlock, WA
    Mike Rotschy, Amboy, WA
    Anita Gahimer Crow and Dennis Crow, Bingen, WA
    Brian Beeson, Camas, WA
    John and Judy Straub, Camas, WA
    Kevin Howard, Glenwood, WA
    B.J. Jones, Goldendale, WA
    Dwayne A. Hansen, Goldendale, WA
    Judy and Don Thomas, Goldendale, WA
    Vic Blandine, Goldendale, WA
    Andrew M. Schreiber, Klickitat, WA
    Mary Ann Cincotta, La Center, WA
    Julie Ikenberry, Lyle, WA
    Ted Stubblefield, Ridgefield, WA
    Andrew Jacobson, Trout Lake, WA
    Deo and Karen Fisher, Trout Lake, WA
    Donald Cox, Trout Lake, WA
    Mike Daly, Trout Lake, WA
    Patricia L. Arnold, Trout Lake, WA
    Hank Patton, Underwood, WA
    Irene Jonas, Vancouver, WA
    Milan Kokta, Washougal, WA
    Alec and Judith Maule, White Salmon, WA
    Charles R. Gadway, White Salmon, WA
    Jesse Calkins, White Salmon, WA
    Michael C. Glover, White Salmon, WA
    Whitney Miller, White Salmon, WA
    Annette Cowan, Yacolt, WA
    Douglas P. Bailes, Yacolt, WA
    Gary W Brown, Vancouver, WA
    Cliff Aaby, Vancouver, WA
    Erik Folke, East Wenatchee, WA
    Ross and Marianne Frank, Leavenworth, WA
    Suzanne Saunders, Leavenworth, WA
    Phil and Kris Baker, Tonasket, WA
    John and Yolanda Randlett, Cle Elum, WA
    John P. (Phil) Hess, Cle Elum, WA
    Karen Bailey, Cle Elum, WA
    Ronald Miller, Cle Elum, WA
    Erin Kreutz, Ellensburg, WA
    W.R. ``Bill'' and Marge Fautch, Newman Lake, WA
    Steve Zender, Chewelah, WA
    Alan and Ruby Walker, Lost Creek Tree Farm, Curlew, WA
    Ray and Jo Bunney, Cusick, WA
    Vern Guenther, Hunters, WA
    Susan Dechant, Kettle Falls, WA
    Ed Styskel, Newport, WA
    Mark Simpson, Newport, WA
    Robert Thornton, Springdale, WA
    Neil Felgenhauer, Spokane, WA
    Mike Brewer, Spokane, WA
    Shirley Hesseltine, Spokane, WA
    Guy Gifford, Spokane, WA
    Judy Turner, Dayton, WA
    Sandra Colleen Duncan, Lyle, WA
    Patti Playfair, Chewelah, WA
    Nicole Campbell, Goldendale, WA
    Roberta M. Easter, Amboy, WA

                                   WISCONSIN

    Steven Beck, Eden, WI
    John and Martha Stoltenberg, Elkhart Lake, WI
    John D. Kucksdorf, Random Lake, WI
    Ronald R. Ziegler, Burlington, WI
    Ronald Rohrmayer, Dousman, WI
    Kendra Johncock, Elkhorn, WI
    Art Reimer, New Berlin, WI
    Randy and Karen Cooper, New Berlin, WI
    Richard Thompson, Lake Geneva, WI
    Wil LaJoie Family, Waukesha, WI
    John Ballogh, Wauwatosa, WI
    Timothy Steffen, Wauwatosa, WI
    David DeBarge, Milwaukee, WI
    Greg Jervis, West Allis, WI
    Connie Champnoise, Blue River, WI
    Holly Schnitzler, Cambridge, WI
    Joe Arington, Cambridge, WI
    James Widder, Dodgeville, WI
    Ronald Reynolds, Fort Atkinson, WI
    Lee Fahrney, Hollandale, WI
    Don Gabower, Janesville, WI
    Loren Hanson, Janesville, WI
    Stanley Nichols, McFarland, WI
    Richard Wells, Mazomanie, WI
    David Hatz, Merrimac, WI
    Steve Parks, Middleton, WI
    Penelope Shackelford, Milton, WI
    Ron Martin, Milton, WI
    Bill Cary, Richland Center, WI
    L.E. Stevenson, Richland Center, WI
    Russ Reddemann, Spring Green, WI
    Craig L. Johanesen, Stoughton, WI
    Carol Pollock, Waunakee, WI
    Jeffrey Pollock, Waunakee, WI
    Amy Wencel, Madison, WI
    Tom Donahue, Madison, WI
    Brent McCown, Madison, WI
    Douglas Duren, Madison, WI
    Thomas E. Hamilton, Madison, WI
    Dan Amend, Madison, WI
    Lucy Gibson, Madison, WI
    Michael J. Roy, Madison, WI
    David Niehoff, Madison, WI
    Jerome Harms, Madison, WI
    Craig Hollingsworth, Lancaster, WI
    Marvin Pinkowski, Friendship, WI
    Jean Winther, Marquette, WI
    Gregory Knuteson, Poynette, WI
    James P. Morgan, Reedsburg, WI
    Jack Rasmussen, Baldwin, WI
    Judy Padour, Crivitz, WI
    Thomas A. Jacobs, Crivitz, WI
    Craig Butler, Fence, WI
    Robert Nett, Pulaski, WI
    Debbie Boettcher, Seymour, WI
    Perry D. Pierre, Seymour, WI
    Pam Firgens, Suring, WI
    Kathleen and Jon Marsh, Townsend, WI
    Mike Bohman, Algoma, WI
    Randy Cunningham, Green Bay, WI
    Ron Bahr, Wausau, WI
    Kelly Meronk, Amherst, WI
    Randy Williams, Antigo, WI
    Ron Resch, Birnamwood, WI
    Larry Eggman, Loyal, WI
    Daniel A. Flees, Marshfield, WI
    George Sparks, Marshfield, WI
    Scott G. Tranbarger, Nekoosa, WI
    Charles Pogorelcnik, Ogema, WI
    Joseph B. Holman, Plover, WI
    James H. Jackson, Stevens Point, WI
    Dale Zaug, Tigerton, WI
    Dave Jones, Willard, WI
    Richard P. Teske, Boulder Junction, WI
    Carl Garske, Harshaw, WI
    Gary B. Schlosstein, Alma, WI
    Tom W. Ebert, Black River Falls, WI
    John and Karen Jaeger, Coon Valley, WI
    Paul Richardson, Hillsboro, WI
    Rich Joiner, Hixton, WI
    James Fischer, Taylor, WI
    Lester Hoag, Tomah, WI
    J. Kevin and Janet Johnson, Eau Claire, WI
    Dennis Ferstenou, Chippewa Falls, WI
    Steven and Lois Raether, Chippewa Falls, WI
    Otto Waldbuesser, Menomonie, WI
    Glenn Anderson, New Auburn, WI
    Dennis L. Waterman, Cameron, WI
    Kim and Neal W Chapman, Frederic, WI
    Willard D. Kiefer, Lake Nebagamon, WI
    Kent Makela, Maple, WI
    Cal Boren, Oshkosh, WI
    James Zdanovec, Oshkosh, WI
    Steven Foust, Oshkosh, WI
    Fred Corsmeier, Appleton, WI
    Eugene Berlowski, Berlin, WI
    Steven Edwards, Fremont, WI
    Nancy M. Livingston, Hancock, WI
    Chris Splichal, Hortonville, WI
    Merlin C. Becker, Manawa, WI
    Gary Schneider, New London, WI
    Richard Wickham, Omro, WI
    Cherie Hennes, Plainfield, WI
    David R. Stoiber, Scandinavia, WI
    Donald Mark Lochner, Waupaca, WI
    Wayne L. Ziebell, Waupaca, WI
    Buzz Vahradian, Wautoma, WI
    FieldStone Farms, Ltd., Wautoma, WI
    James A. Rivers, Wild Rose, WI
    Tina Wickham, Omro, WI
    David R. Wilson, Frederic, WI
    Don Grassl, Wausau, WI

                                 WEST VIRGINIA

    Lewis Foe, Arbovale, WV
    J.W. Larew, Greenville, WV
    Chad Moles, Elkview, WV
    Timothy Fink, Tornado, WV
    Russ Richardson, Arnoldsburg, WV
    Robert Marshall, Kenna, WV
    Cinda Francis, Sandyville, WV
    Bill Pepper, Charleston, WV
    Denis Foley, Hedgesville, WV
    Ron Gibson, Ona, WV
    David J. Bennett, Parkersburg, WV
    Gerald William ``Jerry'' Waybright, Washington, WV
    Jim Mitchell, Buckhannon, WV
    Simeon Duke Layfield, Buckhannon, WV
    Barbara Craft Myers, Valley Head, WV
                                    wyoming
    John C. Varner, Encampment, WY
    Lucy Diggins-Wold, Green River, WY

                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of OPERA America

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am
    grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of OPERA
    America, its Board of Directors and its 2,000 organizational and
    individual members. We strongly urge you to support increased
    appropriations of $155 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
    for fiscal year 2013. This testimony and the funding examples described
    below are intended to highlight the importance of Federal investment in
    the arts, so critical to sustaining a vibrant cultural community
    throughout the country.
        Opera is a continuously growing art form that can address the
    diverse needs and backgrounds of our communities. New opera companies
    are being established in communities that have never before had access
    to live performances. Seventy percent of the opera companies in
    existence today have been established since 1960. The growth of the
    field corresponds to the establishment and growth of the NEA. Over the
    last 20 years, a rich repertoire of American operas has been created by
    composers who communicate the American experience in contemporary
    musical and dramatic terms. The growth in number and quality of
    American operas corresponds directly to the investment of the NEA in
    the New American Works program of the former Opera-Music Theater
    Program.
        Beyond the opera house, opera companies are finding new and
    exciting ways to bring the essence of opera to other local theaters and
    community centers, frequently with new and innovative works that
    reflect the diverse cultures of the cities they serve. Strong
    partnerships with local schools, too, extend the civic reach of opera
    companies as they introduce children to another multi-media art form
    and discover promising young talent.
        Past NEA funding has directly supported projects in which arts
    organizations, artists, schools and teachers collaborated to provide
    opportunities for adults and children to create, perform, and respond
    to artistic works. NEA funding has also made the art form more widely
    available in all States, including isolated rural areas and inner
    cities; indeed, NEA funded projects cross all racial, geographic, and
    socioeconomic lines.
        The following are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on
    opera programs from the NEA's 2012 Art Works Program:

    American OPERA Projects, Inc.
    Brooklyn, New York
    $10,000
        To support the development and workshop production of Paul's Case
    by composer Gregory Spears and librettist Kathryn Walat. Based on the
    short story by Willa Cather, the 85 minute score featuring seven
    singers and a six-piece chamber orchestration will see two semi-staged
    workshops in Brooklyn and two in Princeton.

    Anchorage Opera Company
    Anchorage, Alaska
    $11,500
        To support Verdi's Macbeth as part of the company's 50th
    anniversary season. Educational outreach, seminars, and public lectures
    highlighting the achievements of the composer will take place in public
    schools and community centers in metropolitan areas and throughout the
    State's south-central region.

    Beth Morrison Projects
    New York, New York
    $10,000
        To support the world premier of Song From the Uproar: The Lives and
    Deaths of Isabelle Eberhardt by composer Missy Mazzoli in collaboration
    with librettist Royce Vavrek and filmmaker Stephen Taylor. Culled from
    the journals of Swiss explorer, Eberhardt, at the turn of the last
    century, the multimedia work explores Eastern and Western cultures, the
    elation of self-discovery, and the mystery of death.

    Boston Lyric Opera Company, Inc.
    Boston, Massachusetts
    $22,500
        To support the adaptation and remounting of the comic opera The
    Inspector by composer John Musto and librettist Mark Campbell, as well
    as outreach activities. Based on the play The Government Inspector by
    Nikolai Gogol, the production will expand the physical and orchestral
    elements, working with the original creative team to make the work
    accessible for larger opera houses.

    Central City Opera House Association
    Denver, Colorado
    $22,500
        To support a new production of The Turn of the Screw by composer
    Benjamin Britten. Based on the Henry James novella, the 20th-century
    English chamber opera will launch a season celebrating the 100th
    anniversary of the composer's birth.

    Chateauville Foundation
    Great Falls, Virginia
    $17,500
        To support the fourth Castleton Festival, which takes place
    annually on a farm in rural Virginia and includes opera performances
    with orchestral accompaniment. The festival's mission to engage young
    artists will be met by the residency program that will allow 40
    advanced voice students to live, study, and perform onsite during the
    festival.

    Chicago Opera Theater
    Chicago, Illinois
    $25,000
        To support Moscow, Cheryomushki by composer Dmitri Shostakovich.
    The production marks the first time a Shostakovich opera will be
    performed in Chicago in 25 years, and it will feature the U.S. premier
    of the re-orchestrated score arranged by Shostakovich scholar, Gerard
    McBurney.

    Houston Grand Opera Association, Inc.
    Houston, Texas
    $20,000
        To support year two of activities from East + West, a 4-year
    program of chamber opera focused on Houston's Asian populations.
    Dedicated to art as a vehicle for cultural diplomacy and community
    building, the second year of the initiative will focus on Iranian and
    Cambodian communities in Houston, exploring subjects such as the
    relationship between first- and second-generation immigrants,
    displacement of war refugees, storytelling traditions, and cultural
    inheritance.

    Lyric Opera of Kansas City, Inc.
    Kansas City, Missouri
    $16,500
        To support Nixon in China by composer John Adams. Coinciding with
    the 40th anniversary of the historic presidential visit, local
    partnerships with the Kemper Museum of Contemporary Art and the
    University of Kansas will engage new audiences.
    North Carolina Opera
    Raleigh, North Carolina
    $10,000
        To support the production of Philip Glass's Les Enfant Terribles.
    The performance aligns with the company's commitment to present an
    annual mainstage production of a contemporary work.

    Opera Theatre of Saint Louis
    St. Louis, Missouri
    $40,000
        To support the U.S. premier of Alice in Wonderland by composer
    Unsuk Chin and librettist David Henry Hwang.

    Regents of the University of California at Berkeley
    Berkeley, California
    $75,000
        To support performances of Einstein on the Beach by composer Philip
    Glass and librettist Robert Wilson. A 2-week residency with the
    composer and librettist and numerous education and community programs
    will bring this significant work to the stage.

    San Diego Opera Association
    San Diego, California
    $42,500
        To support the new opera Moby Dick by composer Jake Heggie and
    librettist Gene Scheer, based on the novel by Herman Melville.

    Seattle Opera
    Seattle, Washington
    $20,000
        To support the new production of Orphee et Eurydice by composer
    Christoph Willibald Gluck. Education events will include preview
    lectures, post-performance Q and A's, and the company's Experience
    Opera program, which allows student to experience in-class
    presentations and dress rehearsals for free.

    Tulsa Opera, Inc.
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    $16,500
        To support Dead Man Walking by composer Jake Heggie. Due to the
    unique subject matter and its potential appeal to those not familiar
    with the art form, both pre- and post-performance surveys will gauge
    the level of engagement among audience members. Sister Helen Prejean
    will also participate in various lectures and panel discussions prior
    to the production.
        Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending
    Federal tax dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered
    from a 40-percent budget cut in the mid-nineties and found its budget
    further decreased by $22 million in the past 2 years, leaving its
    programs seriously underfunded. We urge you to continue toward
    restoration and increase the NEA funding allocation to $155 million for
    fiscal year 2013.
        On behalf of OPERA America, thank you for considering this request.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress

        The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) was established in 1912
    as a trade association to support member needs to protect water rights
    and encourage conservation and water management Statewide. OWRC
    represents 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 continued reductions to the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Water State Revolving
    Fund Loan Program (CWSRF) and is requesting that appropriations for
    this program be increased to at least $2 billion in fiscal year 2013.
    The CWSRF is an efficient loan program that addresses critical water
    infrastructure needs while benefitting the environment, local
    communities, and the economy.
        OWRC is also concerned about various efforts by EPA to increase
    regulatory authority over water resources planning and urges the Senate
    to take action and prevent further jurisdictional overreach. EPA's
    actions to increase its jurisdiction are counterproductive to
    collaborative planning and detract from the positive solutions achieved
    through the CWSRF program.
                        fiscal year 2013 appropriations
        We are disappointed that the administration's request of $1.175
    billion for the CWSRF program is a sharp reduction from enacted 2011
    funding, and is still far short of what is needed to address critical
    water infrastructure needs in Oregon and across the Nation. As
    acknowledged in EPA's budget materials, this will lead to ``fewer water
    infrastructure projects,'' and therefore a reduction in improvements to
    water quality. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ)
    most recent ``Proposed Intended Use Plan Update #2--State Fiscal Year
    2012'', lists 115 projects in need of a total of $273,263,717 in Oregon
    alone.
        Additionally, EPA budget materials indicate that ``a number of
    systems could have access to capital through the administration's
    proposed Infrastructure Bank,'' but this has not happened yet and there
    are numerous dire water infrastructure needs now. OWRC supports the
    creation of an infrastructure bank, but the needs facing communities
    now cannot wait for a new funding mechanism, particularly when the
    CWSRF has worked very efficiently in Oregon. The CWSRF has been an
    extremely valuable tool in Oregon for improving water quality and
    efficiently addressing infrastructure challenges that are otherwise
    cost-prohibitive.
        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 and support the administration's desire to ``expand
    ``green infrastructure'' options and their multiple benefits'' as part
    of EPA's 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, continually reducing the
    amount of funds available for these worthwhile projects is
    counterproductive and has created increased uncertainty for potential
    borrowers about whether adequate funding will be available in future
    years. 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 recognize that our country is facing difficult economic times
    and that we must make strategic investments with scarce resources.
    However, the CWSRF is a perfect example of the type of program that
    should have funding increased because it creates jobs while benefitting
    the environment, and is an efficient return on taxpayer investment.
    Oregon is facing record levels of unemployment and the CWSRF funded
    projects provide much needed construction and professional services
    jobs. Moreover, as a loan program, it is 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 $2 billion
    for EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund for fiscal year 2013.
              environmental protection agency regulatory overreach
        OWRC is very concerned about EPA's recent efforts to revise Clean
    Water Act Guidance without appropriate public process or legislative
    oversight. The proposed changes would greatly broaden EPA authority and
    illustrates an apparent desire to dictate watershed planning methods
    for the Nation using a top-down regulatory approach from a desk in
    Washington, DC. This regulatory overreach will lead to uncertainty for
    landowners and water users, increased litigation and destroy
    collaborative efforts (including CWSRF projects) already underway in
    Oregon and across the Nation. OWRC concerns are now being reflected in
    new bi-partisan legislation, H.R. 4965, introduced by several
    distinguished Members of Congress. EPA recently also has been pushing
    Oregon's Department of State Lands (DSL) to assume the Army Corps of
    Engineers 404 program. Based on the controversy and EPA's incorrect
    interpretation of the Clean Water Act, OWRC opposes these efforts.
        Oregon is the model for watershed planning and does not need a new
    Federal agency or executive branch office to continue watershed
    planning. Watershed planning in Oregon formally began in 1995 with the
    development of the Oregon Plan for Salmon Recovery and Watershed
    Enhancement, a statewide strategy developed in response to the Federal
    listing of several fish species. This strategy led to the creation of
    the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), a State agency and
    policy oversight board that funds and promotes voluntary and
    collaborative efforts that ``help create and maintain healthy
    watersheds and natural habitats that support thriving communities and
    strong economies'' in 1999.
        Oregon's success in watershed planning illustrates that planning
    efforts work best when diverse interests develop and implement plans at
    the local watershed level with support from State government. Planning
    activities are conducted through local watershed councils, volunteer-
    driven organizations that work with local, State and Federal agencies,
    economic and environmental interests, agricultural, industrial and
    municipal water users, local landowners, tribes, and other members of
    the community. There are more than 60 individual watershed councils in
    Oregon that are already deeply engaged in watershed planning and
    restoration activities.
        OWRC has written and commented on many of the EPA activities. These
    documents can be found on our Web page. Below are links to these
    documents.
      --http://www.owrc.org/useruploads/files/Federal/
            CWAJurWhitePaper_owrc.pdf
      --http://www.owrc.org/useruploads/files/Federal/
            SustainableWatershedPlanningAct_OWRC%20Letter%20to%20OR%20
            Delegation.pdf
      --http://www.owrc.org/useruploads/files/Federal/
            OWRC_comments_EPA_DraftStrategic%20Plan_July2010.pdf
        In conclusion, we applaud the CWSRF program for allowing Oregon's
    DEQ agency to make targeted loans that address CWA issues but also help
    water quantity and quality while addressing ESA in some instances. This
    voluntary approach creates and promotes cooperation and collaborative
    solutions to water resources challenges.
        Conversely, regulatory overreach destroys cooperation, creates
    mistrust and has a very negative affect on jobs and local economies.
    OWRC applauds the Congress's bi-partisan effort in the House to reel in
    EPA overreach. We encourage the Senate to pass H.R. 872, support H.R.
    4965, and increase oversight of EPA.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress

                                    REQUEST

        The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) requests $25 million to
    fully fund the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Fisheries
    Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) program in fiscal year
    2013 as authorized in the Omnibus Public Lands Act Public Law 111-11,
    section 13002. OWRC continues to be deeply disappointed that the
    administration has not requested any funding in the fiscal year 2013
    budget submission for this valuable program. The FRIMA program is an
    important tool for FWS to help achieve its priorities in fish species
    conservation and restoration and fills a void that other FWS programs
    cannot provide.

                                      NEED

        OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support
    member needs to protect water rights and encourage conservation and
    water management statewide. OWRC represents nonpotable agriculture
    water suppliers in Oregon, primarily irrigation districts, as well as
    other special districts and local governments that deliver irrigation
    water. OWRC members operate water management systems, including water
    supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower production.
        There are more than 100 irrigation districts and other special
    districts in Oregon that provide water supplies to more than 1 million
    acres of irrigated cropland in the State. Almost all of these districts
    are affected by either State or Federal Endangered Species Act listings
    of Salmon and Steelhead, Bull Trout or other sensitive, threatened or
    endangered species.
        FRIMA meets a critical need in fishery protection and restoration
    and compliments other FWS programs. Fish passage and fish screens
    installations are a vital component to fishery protection with several
    benefits:
      --Keeps protected fish species out of water canals and delivery
            systems;
      --Allows fish to be safely bypassed around reservoirs and facility
            structures; and
      --Eliminates water quality risks to fish species.
        Oregon irrigation districts anticipate no less than $500 million in
    funding will be required to meet current fish passage and fish screen
    needs. Limited cost-share funds are available from the Oregon Watershed
    Enhanced Board (OWEB) program in Oregon, but the primary cost-share for
    fish screen and fish passage projects has been provided by the
    districts and their water users. Project needs include both
    construction of new fish screens and fish passage facilities as well as
    significant upgrades of existing facilities to meet new requirements of
    the NOAA Fisheries Service and FWS.

     BACKGROUND OF FISHERIES RESTORATION IRRIGATION MITIGATION ACT PROGRAM

        FRIMA, enacted November 2000, created a Federal partnership program
    entailing voluntary cost-share fish screen construction for water
    withdrawal projects in Idaho, Oregon, Washington and western Montana.
    FWS is to implement this program through the four States' fishery
    agencies. The funding goes to local governments for construction of
    fish screens and fish passage facilities. Irrigation districts and
    other local governments that divert water for irrigation can access the
    funding directly; individual irrigators can access funding through
    their local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), which are
    local governments affiliated with the Natural Resources Conservation
    Service (NRCS).
        The original legislation in 2000 (Public Law 106-502) was supported
    and requested by the Pacific Northwest Partnership, a coalition of
    local governmental entities in the four Northwest States. As one of the
    members of that coalition, we appreciate your consideration of this
    request. When the Congress reauthorized the program in 2009 in the
    Omnibus Public Lands Act minor clarifying changes were made to the
    legislation while reauthorizing the program for 5 more years at $25
    million a year.

                                    FUNDING

        The legislation calls for $25 million annually, to be divided
    equally among the four States from 2001 forward. Agency administrative
    costs cannot exceed 6 percent of the funding. FWS has never requested
    funding for FRIMA in its budgets since passage of the legislation. The
    Congress provided the first funding in 2001 through a write-in of $4
    million to be shared among the four States. The agency did not get the
    program up and running until late 2002, at which time the first moneys
    were distributed.
        In 2000, in its report accompanying the initial authorizing
    legislation for FRIMA, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated
    outlays of $70 million between 2001 and 2004. The actual appropriation
    was only $8.8 million during that time period and all of the money was
    a write-in. For fiscal year 2005, the Congress provided $2 million for
    the program in the Consolidated Appropriations Act and, $2 million in
    fiscal year 2006. The fiscal year 2007 funding of $1 million was part
    of an appropriation to FWS but was not a separate, designated
    appropriation. Again, all of those appropriations were the result of
    congressional write-ins, not FWS budget requests.
        As you can see, total amount of money that the Congress has written
    in for the program is woefully inadequate for the accomplishments
    anticipated for the program. The administration did not request funding
    for the program for fiscal year 2013, consistent with its past budget
    submittals, despite widespread benefits from the money that the
    Congress has provided.
        OWRC appreciates the funding the Congress has provided for the
    FRIMA program in the past. That funding has begun to address the need
    for fish screens and fish passages to protect sensitive, threatened,
    and endangered fish species in the States in the Northwest, but there
    still continues to be a significant need.

                                PROJECT BENEFITS

        A report by FWS covering program years fiscal year 2002-2012
    provides State-by-State coverage of how the congressional provided
    funding has been used in the program. Funding funneled through FWS to
    State fishery agencies is distributed using an application and approval
    process that is based on a ranking system implemented uniformly among
    the States, including the following factors:
      --fish restoration benefits;
      --cost effectiveness; and
      --feasibility of planned structure.
        The project must provide improved fish passage or fish protection
    at water diversion structures and must benefit fish species native to
    and present in the area, including those listed on State or Federal
    endangered species or conservation lists. The project must use
    applicable State and Federal requirements for project construction and
    operation.
        FRIMA-funded projects will increase the survival of many native
    fish species in a relatively short period of time. Compared to other
    recovery strategies, the risks posed by these activities are low and
    the assurance of success in increasing numbers of fish is high.
    Dislocation of existing social and economic activities is minor.
    Screening and passage can make a very substantial contribution
    utilizing existing implementation mechanisms and methods well accepted
    by landowners and rural communities.

                                   COST SHARE

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

                           OREGON'S PROJECT BENEFITS

        Twenty-six fish screens or fish passage projects in Oregon have
    been funded using funding from FRIMA for part of the project since the
    start of the FRIMA program. These projects have led to:
      --Installation of screens at 17 diversions or irrigation pumps;
      --Removal or modification of 12 fish passage barriers; and
      --Three-hundred sixty-five miles being re-opened to fish passage.
        In addition, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has
    used some of the FRIMA funding to develop an inventory of need for fish
    screens and passages in the State. Grants have ranged from just under
    $6,000 to $400,000 in size with a local match averaging 64 percent of
    the project costs, well more than the amount required under the Act (35
    percent). In other words, each Federal dollar invested in the FRIMA
    program generates a local investment of just more than $1 for the
    protection of fish species in the Pacific Northwest.
        The following are examples of how Oregon has used some of its FRIMA
    money:
          Santiam Water Control District Project.--Fish screen project on a
            large 1,050 cubic feet per second (cfs) multipurpose water
            diversion project on the Santiam River (Willamette Basin) near
            Stayton, Oregon. Partners are the Santiam Water Control
            District, ODFW, Marion Soil and Water Conservation District,
            and the City of Stayton. Approved FRIMA funding of $400,000
            leverages a $1,200,000 project. Species benefited include
            winter steelhead, spring Chinook, rainbow trout, and cutthroat
            trout.
          South Fork Little Butte Creek.--Fish screen and fish passage
            project on a 65 cfs irrigation water diversion in the Rogue
            River Basin near Medford, Oregon. Partners are the Medford
            Irrigation District and ODFW. Approved FRIMA funding is
            $372,000 and leverages a $580,000 total project cost. Species
            benefited include listed summer and winter steelhead, coho
            salmon, and cutthroat trout.
          Running Y (Geary Diversion) Project.--Fish screen project on a 60
            cfs irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near
            Klamath Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Wocus Drainage
            District, ODFW, and Jeld-Wen Ranches. Approved FRIMA funding of
            $44,727 leveraged a total project cost of $149,000. Species
            benefited included listed red-band trout and short-nosed
            sucker.
          Lakeshore Gardens Project.--Fish screen project on a 2 cfs
            irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near
            Klamath Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Lakeshore Gardens
            Drainage District and ODFW. Approved FRIMA funding is $5,691,
            leveraging a total project cost of $18,970. Species benefited
            include red-band trout, short-nosed sucker and Lost River
            sucker.

                                  WHY FUND NOW

        FRIMA should be a priority program of the U.S. Department of the
    Interior as it prepares to meet the court-ordered January 1, 2014,
    deadline for a new Federal Columbia River Power System Biological
    Opinion that provides reasonable and prudent alternatives to mitigate
    impacts to Columbia-Snake river salmon and steelhead. FRIMA funded
    projects funded will help the Bureau of Reclamation, Bonneville Power
    Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA Fisheries
    meet these requirements.
        Moreover, FRIMA funds projects that are ready to be constructed and
    will provide immediate improved protections for fish and immediate jobs
    for the construction of the projects. Dollar-for-dollar, providing
    screening and fish passage at diversions is one of the most cost-
    effective uses of restoration dollars, creating fishery protection at
    low cost, with low risk and significant benefits. While we acknowledge
    the efforts of the U.S. Department of the Interior and its agencies in
    habitation restoration through the Cooperative Landscape Conservation
    Program, this is a longer range program for fish and habitat
    protection. FRIMA projects provide immediate protection for fish and
    fill a large unmet need in the Pacific Northwest for cost-share
    assistance with fish screening and fish passage installations and
    improvements.
        We urge the full authorization funding of $25 million for FRIMA in
    fiscal year 2013 and urge the Congress's oversight in encouraging FWS
    to budget for this successful program in the future.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the
    hearing record.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Outdoor Alliance

        The Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of Access Fund, American Canoe
    Association, American Hiking Society, American Whitewater,
    International Mountain Bicycling Association and Winter Wildlands
    Alliance, six national, member-based organizations representing
    millions of Americans who paddle, climb, mountain bike, hike, ski and
    snowshoe on our Nation's public lands, waters and snowscapes.
        The Outdoor Alliance has extensive experience working with Federal
    land managers across the country concerning recreation and conservation
    policies. Adequate funding for the National Park Service, U.S. Forest
    Service, and Bureau of Land Management is required to support public
    access and enjoyment of the cherished public lands and rivers they
    manage. Although Federal land managers are integrating recreation,
    conservation, and restoration programs to more effectively manage
    public lands for Americans, budget cuts to these agencies will mean
    less access to and conservation of our public land. Under-funded and
    under-staffed land managers, when forced to make resource protection
    and visitor use decisions, are much more likely to close or highly
    restrict public access.
        The Outdoor Alliance supports a common sense budget approach that
    adequately funds Department of the Interior and Department of
    Agriculture activities essential to conservation and the provision of
    public recreation access to high quality public lands and waters. Human
    powered and active outdoor recreation supports the $730 billion annual
    outdoor recreation economy and is critical in reconnecting our youth
    and our increasingly diverse citizenry with nature. To achieve these
    goals, we offer the following budget recommendations for fiscal year
    2013.

                   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE--FOREST SERVICE

        The Outdoor Alliance supports the President's fiscal year 2013
    budget request of $4.86 billion for USFS, an increase of $15.5 million
    more than the fiscal year 2012 appropriated level.
        Recreation on national forest lands greatly supports local
    economies and employment. The 2010 National Visitor Use Monitoring
    Report found that spending by recreation visitors in areas near
    national forests totals almost $13 billion annually. Protecting these
    economic benefits requires an adequately funded planning process, an
    effective infrastructure of trails and roads, and protected natural
    landscapes and rivers. Forest Service land management plans (with
    appropriate inventory and monitoring efforts) are critical to respond
    to existing and developing management challenges, and to inform
    intelligent and strategic forest management that allows for responsible
    recreational access. Forest plans must be maintained and revised
    repeatedly to maintain relevancy. Updated data and information is
    critical for present-day planning and management efforts, and to ensure
    that forest planning is integrated effectively. In the last 8 years
    funding for Forest Service planning dropped by more than one-third, and
    we see associated unmet issues and obligations that lead directly to
    restrictions of various Outdoor Alliance activities.
        The President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a consolidated
    budget line item to facilitate a consolidated approach to landscape
    management, merging Land Management Planning, and Inventory and
    Monitoring, into a single budget line item called Land Management
    Planning, Assessment, and Monitoring. This proposed consolidated budget
    line item provides the agency flexibility to implement the requirements
    of the new Planning Rule (collaborative science-based approach for
    planning, monitoring, and conducting assessments that considers
    information from and about all lands affected by, or influencing,
    planning unit activities). To maintain a basic planning program that is
    able to respond to today's management challenges, we support the
    President's requested budget of $205 million for Land Management
    Planning, Assessment & Monitoring.
        The Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness program oversees
    all recreation on National Forest lands. This program is chronically
    under-funded and understaffed. Outdoor Alliance supports the
    President's allocation of $267 million that will permit the Forest
    Service to begin to prioritize resources and facilities, maintain
    current on-the-ground staff, and continue basic recreation resource
    analyses and planning. Additionally, this funding level will assist in
    leveraging partnerships with the human-powered recreation community,
    who devote many thousands of volunteer hours to conservation and
    stewardship projects on our national forests. Additional funds will
    allow these critical activities to be accomplished in a timelier
    manner.
        The National Forest System serves more than 50 million visitors
    annually who participate in activities that include cross-country
    skiing, hiking, climbing, boating, and mountain biking on more than
    153,000 miles of trails. Nearly all Forest visitors use the trails to
    some extent and the recreation economy depends on quality trail
    experiences, yet the Forest Service struggles with maintenance backlogs
    in the billions of dollars. We believe that $346 million in fiscal year
    13 for Capital Improvements and Maintenance is the basic support needed
    to avoid adding to the massive deferred maintenance backlog, improve
    human powered trail infrastructure, mitigate resource impacts, and
    provide high-quality recreational experiences on Forest Service lands.
        Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) is a new funding approach
    that merges several different funds into one large restoration funding
    line item. Last year the administration and the Congress agreed on a
    three-region pilot (Regions 1, 3, and 4) to test IRR on the ground.
    However, the President's budget for 2013 proposes skipping the
    assessment phase and adopting IRR wholesale across all Forest Service
    lands in 2013. This would mean no assessment of what worked and what
    did not and is not prudent.
        The Outdoor Alliance does not support the absorption of Legacy
    Roads and Trails funding into IRR in fiscal year 2013. Our national
    forests are interspersed with old roads that receive little or no use
    yet cause serious environmental impacts and pose long-term financial
    threats. Removing old and unused roads and investing in the roads and
    trails used by hikers, climbers, backcountry skiers, mountain
    bicyclists, and boaters is good for recreation, good for the
    environment, creates jobs, and improves water quality benefitting
    downstream users. Since its creation in 2007, the Legacy Roads and
    Trails Remediation Fund has improved more than 12,000 acres of
    watershed, maintained 3,170 miles of trails, improved 10,959 miles of
    authorized roads, and decommissioned 2,970 miles of unauthorized roads.
    The Legacy Roads initiative creates or retains approximately 1,500 jobs
    every year which provide a significant economic stimulus to rural
    America. If the program is merged into the IRR, there is no guarantee
    that any funds would be used for the purposes the Congress intended in
    establishing this program. Outdoor Alliance is concerned that although
    the Congress and the administration agreed to test the concept in a
    three region pilot program last year, there has been no assessment of
    its success and now the program is being rolled out nationwide. We
    believe such an assessment is critical before implementation across the
    board occurs.
        The Outdoor Alliance supports an fiscal year 2013 appropriation of
    $793.1 million for the Integrated Resource Restoration budget line for
    the restoration and management of priority watersheds, with at least
    $75 million of that allocated to continue the important work of the
    Legacy Roads and Trails program.

               DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR--NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

        Our national parks offer opportunities for world-class recreation
    and they serve as iconic locations for Outdoor Alliance activities.
    Enthusiasts travel from all over the world to climb, hike, boat, bike,
    and ski in places like Zion, Rocky Mountain, and the North Cascades
    National Parks. Importantly, our parks also serve as crucial economic
    engines for local economies. While the administration's overall request
    for the Park Service is essentially flat, it proposes cuts to base park
    operations by almost $22 million which will likely eliminate hundreds
    of full-time employees and lead to deteriorating Park resources. If we
    are serious about maintaining our Parks as economic engines for local
    economies it is critical that we maintain funding for base park
    operations. We are hopeful that the Congress will improve on the
    administration's budget request and provide critical funding for base
    park operations.
        The Outdoor Alliance supports the President's proposed fiscal year
    2013 appropriation of $2.3 billion for the Operation of the National
    Park System, including $52 million for National Recreation and
    Preservation. However, the administration's request must be increased
    if $2.3 billion will not at least maintain basic park operations after
    fixed costs have been addressed.
        The Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program helps
    people build parks and trails and preserve open space and river
    corridors in their local communities. The RTCA program produces a
    multiplier effect for local economies. It leverages Federal funding by
    assisting locally-led conservation and outdoor recreation projects
    nationwide to develop important community infrastructure, inspire
    volunteerism and environmental stewardship, and connect Americans to
    close-to-home recreation opportunities. This is especially important
    for kids. Accordingly, the Outdoor Alliance supports an RTCA
    appropriation of at least $10 million for fiscal year 2013 in order for
    this essential capacity-building conservation and recreation program to
    maintain its high level of effectiveness.

             DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR--BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        Many Outdoor Alliance members recreate on BLM lands across the
    country, including those in the National Landscape Conservation System.
    Opportunities to recreate on BLM lands--such as rock climbing at
    Colorado's Shelf Road, mountain biking around Moab, Utah, boating New
    Mexico's Rio Chama, backcountry skiing at Gunnison Gorge NCA in
    Colorado--are some of the most sought-after recreation opportunities in
    America. Outdoor Alliance believe that the BLM is uniquely positioned
    to contribute to the success of the America`s Great Outdoors initiative
    and its goals of reconnecting Americans to our exceptional recreation
    resources. Accordingly, we support the President's inclusion of $70.3
    million fiscal year 2013 budget for Recreation Management that will
    help to begin to enable BLM to strengthen its protection and management
    of popular, high quality recreation areas. We also believe that the
    President's call for funding of $35.1 million for National Landscape
    Conservation System programs is necessary to maintain necessary
    staffing, enable adequate planning and resource monitoring to protect
    natural and recreational resources and allow for a quality visitor
    experience.

            DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        The Land and Water Conservation Fund uses off shore oil and gas
    royalties to address the national need to preserve natural areas and
    provide recreation opportunities. Outdoor Alliance supports the
    President's stated goal of fully funding the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund by 2014 and supports his fiscal year 2013 LWCF
    requests. We also believe that the Congress may have opportunities to
    significantly exceed these figures this year and encourage them to do
    so. In addition, we support the President's suggested funding of the
    Forest Legacy Fund.
        Wild and Scenic Rivers offer Americans some of the best outdoor
    recreation opportunities on Federal lands and is a core component of
    the America's Great Outdoors Initiative. Explicitly funding Wild and
    Scenic River program staff and activities within each agency would
    ensure that agencies have the capacity to protect these rivers and
    provide world-class recreation opportunities.
        We support the administration's proposed $9.3 million for the BLM
    Wild and Scenic River Program, request that a new line item for the
    Forest Service Wild and Scenic Rivers program be funded at $19 million
    out of the Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness budget, and
    that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program line item in the NPS budget be
    funded at no less than $1 million to complement the Park Unit,
    Partnership Rivers, and Special Resource Studies budget lines.
    department of commerce: national oceanic and atmospheric administration
        The President's budget has recommended $10.8 million for the
    Fisheries Habitat Restoration program, which is comprised of the
    Community-based Restoration Program that restores coastal and marine
    habitat and the Open Rivers Initiative that removes obsolete dams and
    other stream barriers in coastal watersheds that currently block salmon
    from their native spawning habitat. While these two programs are
    focused on improving fish habitat, they provide direct benefits to
    recreational users of our waterways by enhancing the riverscape we
    enjoy and reconnecting rivers currently blocked by dams that are
    barriers to navigation. We strongly recommend the program receive $19
    million in fiscal year 2013, and that the President's proposal to merge
    the program with the Estuary Restoration Program and the Marine Debris
    Program be rejected.
        Thank you for considering our perspectives.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Pacific Salmon Commission

        Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the subcommittee, I am W.
    Ron Allen, Chairman of the U.S. Section's Budget Committee on the
    Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC). The U.S. Section prepares an annual
    budget for implementation of the Treaty. The integrated budget details
    program needs and costs for Tribal, Federal, and State agencies
    involved in the Treaty. Under the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, the
    U.S. Section recommends that 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 $500,000
            more than the President's requested level for 2013. 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs, the U.S. Section
    recommends that the Congress:
          Provide base funding of $417,000 for USFWS participation in the
            Treaty process, and provide funding of $315,000 for the Pacific
            States Marine Fisheries Commission's Regional Mark Center. This
            funding level represents an increase 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will pay
    for the critically important ongoing work. The funding for Pacific
    States Marine Fisheries Commission's Regional Mark Center is utilized
    to meet Treaty requirements concerning data exchange with Canada. These
    program recommendations are integrated with those of the State and
    Federal agencies to avoid duplication of effort and provide for the
    most efficient expenditure of scarce funds.
        A copy of the integrated U.S. Section budget justification has been
    made available to the 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 Pacific Salmon Commission 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service so the United States can
    maintain the critical database to implement the Treaty. We also
    strongly recommend funding of $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 Pacific States Marine Fisheries
    Commission. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will contract with the
    PSFMC to provide this service.
        Mr. Chairman, the United States and Canada established the Pacific
    Salmon Commission, under the Pacific Salmon Treaty of 1985, to conserve
    salmon stocks, provide for optimum production of salmon, and to control
    salmon interceptions. After more than 20 years, the work of the Pacific
    Salmon Commission continues to be essential for the wise management of
    salmon in the Northwest, British Columbia, and Alaska. For example,
    upriver Bright fall Chinook salmon from the Hanford Reach of the
    Columbia River are caught in large numbers in Alaskan and Canadian
    waters. Tribal and 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 Pacific Salmon Commission to develop recommendations that
    help to ensure solutions that minimize impacts on listed stocks,
    especially if we are allowed to work toward the true intent of the
    Treaty: mutually beneficial enhancement of the shared resource.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my written testimony submitted for
    consideration by your subcommittee. I want to thank the Committee for
    the support that it has given the U.S. Section in the past. Please feel
    free to contact me, or other members of the U.S. Section, through the
    Office of the U.S. Section Coordinator to answer any questions you or
    Committee members may have regarding the U.S. Section of the Pacific
    Salmon Commission budget.

          SUMMARY OF TRIBAL AND FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PROGRAMS UNDER THE U.S.-CANADA PACIFIC SALMON TREATY
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                                                       2012 enacted        2013          Increase
                                                                       appropriation  recommendation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Department of the Interior:
        Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights              $4,120,000      $4,300,000       +$180,000
         Implementation.............................................
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anadromous Fisheries........         667,000         732,000         +65,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

      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 18
    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 United States Forest Service (USFS) and for the trails in the
    Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) National Landscape Conservation
    System (NLCS). To continue the progress that you have fostered, the
    Partnership requests that you provide annual operations funding for
    each of the 30 national scenic and historic trails for fiscal year 2013
    through these appropriations:
          National Park Service.--$16.21 million for administration of 23
            trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails program
            by the Washington office.
          -- Construction: $380,000 for the Ice Age Trail and $200,000 for
                the Pacific Crest Trail.
          United States Forest Service.--$9.096 million to administer 6
            trails and $1.2 million to manage parts of 16 trails
            administered by the NPS or BLM. $1 million for Iditarod Trail
            construction.
          Bureau of Land Management.--To coordinate its National Trails
            System Program: $250,000;
          -- to administer these trails:
            -- Iditarod Trail: $700,000,
            -- the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Trail: $230,000,
            -- the Old Spanish Trail: $350,000 and
            -- to manage portions of 10 trails administered by NPS or 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 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 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 USFS:
        --$7.25 million for the Pacific Crest Trail;
        --$1.5 million for the Florida Trail;
        --$2.65 million for the Old Spanish Trail;
        --$3.24 million for the Appalachian Trail;
        --$1.5 million for the Nez Perce Trail;
        --$3 million for the Continental Divide Trail;
        --$45,000 for the Pacific Northwest Trail; and
        --$15,000 for the Arizona Trail; and
      --to BLM:
        --$3.5 million for the Oregon Trail in Oregon;
        --$732,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail in Oregon; and
        --$1 million for the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony
                Express Trails in Wyoming; and
      --to NPS:
        --$6.2 million to continue work with the State of Wisconsin for the
                Ice Age Trail;
        --$2 million for the North Country Trail;
        --$2.5 million for the New England Trail;
        --$1.125 million for the Appalachian Trail;
        --$4 million for the Ala Kahakai Trail; and
        --$450,000 for the Overmountain Victory Trail.
    National Park Service
        The $16.21 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 NPS 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 $780,000 for the
    Trail of Tears will enable 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 request an increase of $346,000 to $866,000 for the
    Ala Kahakai Trail to enable 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 request an increase of $193,000 to $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 NPS to provide greater support for the regional GIS mapping,
    trail building, trail management, and training of volunteers led by the
    North Country Trail Association. This funding will also enable 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 $1,389,000 we request for the Ice Age Trail
    includes a $535,000 increase to build partner and citizen capacity for
    protecting the natural, cultural and recreational resources on the Ice
    Age NST and Ice Age Trail lands as well as to provide NPS with a
    property manager for NPS-owned lands.
        Construction.--We request that you appropriate for trail
    construction projects $380,000 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. We request that you fund all of them and
    appropriate $4.5 million in Challenge Cost Share funding to NPS for
    fiscal year 2013 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 $934,000 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.
    United States Department of Agriculture--United States Forest Service
        As you have done for several years, we ask that you provide
    additional operations funding to USFS for administering 5 national
    scenic trails and 1 national historic trail, and managing parts of 16
    other trails. We ask you to appropriate $9.096 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 overall
    appropriation for Capital Improvements and Maintenance for Trails.
    Full-time managers have been assigned for each of these trails by USFS.
    Recognizing the on-the-ground management responsibility 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 2011,
    Florida Trail Association (FTA) volunteers maintained 1,143 miles and
    completed eight major construction and restoration projects along the
    Trail. The Partnership's request of $9.096 million more than includes
    $2.5 million to enable 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 $9.096 million above also includes $2
    million for the Pacific Crest Trail, $2.2 million for the Continental
    Divide Trail, $1 million for the Pacific Northwest Trail, $826,000 for
    the Nez Perce Trail, and $570,000 for the Arizona Trail. Some of the
    additional funds requested will enable USFS to develop Comprehensive
    Management Plans for the latter three trails. We also request $1
    million of additional funding for construction of sections of the
    Iditarod Trail.
    Bureau of Land Management
        While 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 NPS and USFS. BLM recognized the significance of these
    trails by including them in NLCS and since fiscal year 2002 has
    provided funding for each of them. The Partnership applauds these
    decisions of BLM and encourages its staff to budget specific funding
    for each of these trails.
        Although considerably more money is needed to fully administer NLCS
    and protect its resources, we support the administration's request of
    $69.549 million in base funding for the System for fiscal year 2013 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 million for management of the
    portions of the 10 other trails under the care of BLM. For trail
    maintenance we request $300,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail and $50,000
    for the Nez Perce Trail; and request $3,140,000 to operate five
    historic trails interpretive centers.
        We ask you to fund the Bureau'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 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 2012 and to direct BLM to include unit-level allocations by
    major sub-activities for each of the scenic and historic trails, and
    wild and scenic rivers--as BLM has done for the monuments and
    conservation areas--within a new activity account for NLCS in fiscal
    year 2013. Existing accounts for Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study
    Areas should also be included in this new NLCS activity account. 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.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund
        The Partnership applauds and supports the administration's
    intention to provide $449.934 million for LWCF. We request that you
    provide at least this amount 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.
        United States Forest Service.--The $7.25 million we request for the
    Pacific Crest Trail will continue to support the acquisition underway
    by USFS Lands Team and NPS National Trail Land Resources Program
    Center, protecting 3 miles of PCT in Washington, 0.5 mile in Oregon,
    and 8 miles (including taking 3.4 miles off of roads) in California.
    The $1.5 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
    $2.65 million to protect a section of the Old Spanish Trail in the
    Carson National Forest, $3.240 million to protect sections of the
    Appalachian Trail in the Cherokee, Pisgah and George Washington/
    Jefferson National Forests, and $1.5 million to acquire land in Hell's
    Canyon of the Snake River in Oregon to protect sites along the Nez
    Perce Trail.
        Bureau of Land Management.--We request $732,000 for the Cascade
    Siskiyou National Monument that will preserve a section of the Pacific
    Crest Trail in Oregon, $3.5 million to purchase land along the Big
    Sandy River in Oregon for the Oregon Trail, and $1 million to protect
    sections of the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express
    Trails along the Platte River in Wyoming.
        National Park Service.--The National Trails System Act encourages
    States to assist in the conservation of the resources and development
    of the national scenic and historic trails. 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 $6.2
    million will continue this successful Federal/State/local partnership
    for protecting land for the Ice Age Trail. We request $2 million to
    close gaps in the North Country Trail, $4 million to acquire one parcel
    for the Ala Kahakai Trail, $2.5 million to acquire three parcels for
    the New England Trail, and $1.125 million to acquire parcels in
    Pennsylvania and Vermont for the Appalachian Trail.
        The Partnership strongly supports the new ``National Rivers and
    Trails Initiative'' funding line for fiscal year 2013 as a first step
    to providing consistent annual funding to acquire the land needed to
    complete congressionally authorized trails. We urge you to provide
    considerably more than the $4 million requested by the administration
    since the LWCF funding requests a total more than $15 million.
    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, grassroots 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's support for
    the trails has grown. In 2011, the trail organizations fostered
    1,157,493 hours--an increase of 4 percent more than 2010--of documented
    volunteer labor valued at $24,724,054 to help sustain the national
    scenic and historic trails. The organizations also raised private
    sector contributions of $8,740,790 to benefit the trails.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Performing Arts Alliance

        We urge the subcommittee to designate a total of $155 million to
    the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2013. 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 Composers
    Forum, 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, New Music USA, OPERA America,
    and Theatre Communications Group. The PAA is a national network of more
    than 27,000 organizational and individual members comprising the
    professional, nonprofit performing arts and presenting fields.
        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.
        The NEA increases opportunities for the American public to enjoy
    and benefit from the performing arts. Since the establishment of the
    NEA in 1965, access to the performing arts has improved in communities
    large and small across the country. The NEA has helped foster the
    development of the many regional theatres, opera companies, dance
    companies, orchestras, and performing arts centers that Americans now
    enjoy. Despite diminished resources, the NEA awarded more than 2,400
    grants in fiscal year 2011 to nonprofit arts organizations for projects
    that encouraged artistic creativity, provided lifelong learning
    opportunities, and engaged audiences in the finest the arts have to
    offer.
        The 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 composers, presenting, chorus,
    dance, musical theatre, Latino arts and culture, new music, opera,
    orchestras, and theatre fields, exemplify the economic, educational,
    and quality of life benefits that performing arts organizations bring
    to communities across the country.

                            AMERICAN COMPOSERS FORUM

        American Composers Forum (Forum), one of the Nation's premier
    composer services organizations, works to make composers, and the music
    they create, a vibrant and integral part of our culture. Forum programs
    reflect the diversity of our world, and they partner with a variety of
    ensembles and organizations including faith communities, rural and
    urban schools, healthcare facilities, Indian reservations, and civic
    organizations. With more than 2,000 members nationwide, the
    organization serves thousands of artists annually through its online
    networks and social media.

                                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, and local arts agencies. The Association of
    Performing Arts Presenters (APAP) is the national service and advocacy
    organization with more than 1,400 members worldwide, dedicated to
    developing and supporting a robust performing arts presenting field and
    the professionals who work within it. APAP 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 multi-million dollar budgets and individuals who are artists or
    performing arts professionals, representing a diversity of performing
    arts fields.

                                     CHORUS

        Chorus America's mission is to build a dynamic and inclusive choral
    community so that more people are transformed by the beauty and power
    of choral singing. Chorus America strengthens choral organizations and
    provides their leaders with information, research, leadership
    development, professional training, and advocacy to help them deliver
    the best possible contributions to their communities and to the choral
    art. The more than 2,000 choruses, individuals, businesses, and
    organizations that are members of Chorus America speak with a strong
    and unified voice to increase recognition of choral singing as an
    essential part of society.

                                     DANCE

        More than two-thirds of America's professional dance companies are
    less than 45 years old; as an established art form with national
    identity and presence, dance has burst onto the scene almost entirely
    within living memory. And yet, America can boast some of the greatest
    dance companies of the world and can take credit for birthing two
    indigenous dance styles--tap and modern dance. The key to this
    spectacular achievement was the creation of a national marketplace for
    dance, especially in the 1970s and 1980s. When the NEA instituted its
    Dance Touring Program in the 1970s, great dance became accessible to
    every community in the United States. NEA programs have continued to
    ensure that the best of American dance is for all of the United States
    and a showpiece for the rest of the world. Based on data from almost
    300 nonprofit dance companies from across the United States, Dance/USA,
    the national service organization for not-for-profit professional
    dance, estimates that dance companies employed more than 12,800 people
    in a mix of full-time and part-time positions; paid approximately $316
    million in wages and benefits; earned $178.9 million, or 30 percent of
    their income, from performances; received $235.7 million, or 47 percent
    of their income in contributions; and generated more than $585 million
    in economic activity across the United States.

                                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 6 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 140,000 through
    their Open Arts Network.

                                MUSICAL THEATRE

        National Alliance for Musical Theatre (NAMT) is the national
    service organization dedicated exclusively to musical theatre and
    serving some of the leading musical theatre producers in the world.
    Last season, NAMT members collectively staged more than 18,500
    performances attended by more than 11.5 million people, employed more
    than 16,500 people, and provided education programs for more than 1
    million students and teachers. NAMT has presented its Festival of New
    Musicals annually since 1989, bringing together theatre producers and
    writers, with the goal of furthering the development and production of
    new musicals. NAMT's Festival has showcased almost 500 writers and
    almost 300 new musicals.

                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

        The National Performance Network (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. As a
    nationwide network, NPN functions as an applied learning community.
    NPN's resources currently support and connect 50-75 performing arts
    organizations, called NPN Partners. The NPN constituency ranges from
    the most grassroots operations to large regional 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.

                                 NEW MUSIC USA

        New Music USA's mission is to increase opportunities for composers,
    performers and audiences by fostering the creation, dissemination, and
    enjoyment of new American music, both nationally and internationally.
    New Music USA places special emphasis on broadening the public
    community for the music and musicians whom we serve.

                                     OPERA

        OPERA America members are found in communities all across the
    country--a total of 122 companies in 43 States. In the United States,
    more than one-half of these companies were established after 1970, and
    more than 40 percent were established since 1980, indicating the growth
    of opera throughout North America in the last 40 years. More than 6.7
    million people attended a live performance at one of OPERA America's
    Professional Company Members in the 2009-2010 season, including
    education and outreach programs, and festivals. In 2009-2010, OPERA
    America's Professional Company Members in North America presented 1,298
    mainstage, festival, educational, and other programs. Beyond the opera
    house, opera companies are finding new and exciting ways to bring the
    essence of opera to other local theaters and community centers,
    frequently with new and innovative works that reflect the diverse
    cultures of the cities they serve. Strong partnerships with local
    schools, too, extend the civic reach of opera companies as they
    introduce children to another multi-media art form and discover
    promising young talent.

                                   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. NEA grants to orchestras
    and the communities they serve support arts education for children and
    adults, expand public access to performances, preserve great classical
    works, and foster the creative endeavors of contemporary classical
    musicians, composers, and conductors. 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, instrumental instruction, educational
    classes for seniors, and programs in libraries and hospitals.

                                    THEATRE

        In 1961, nonprofit theatre in America consisted of only 16 theatre
    companies. Today, thanks in large measure to the pivotal role played by
    the NEA since 1965, the nonprofit theatre field consists of more than
    an estimated 1,800 theatres located in major metropolitan centers,
    urban neighborhoods, suburbs, and rural communities. Theatre
    Communications Group (TCG), the national organization for the American
    nonprofit theatre, reports that the estimated 1,807 nonprofit
    professional theatres in the United States employ more than 119,800
    theatre workers--actors, directors, playwrights, designers,
    administrators, and technicians--and constitute a nearly $1.9 billion
    industry. Collectively, these theatres are estimated to have offered
    163,000 performances that attracted 31 million patrons. Based on recent
    surveys of 171 nonprofit theatres, TCG reports that more than 1,100
    outreach and educational programs are in existence today, serving more
    than 2.5 million people. The direct impact of a theatre receiving
    funding from the NEA comes not only in the form of project grants, but
    also in the multiplier effect that NEA grants, through its matching
    funds requirement, have on theatres' abilities to leverage and attract
    other private and public funding.

                                   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 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 $155
    million to the NEA. Thank you for your consideration of our request.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission

    Introduction
        The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) is submitting the
    following statement supporting two complementary programs:
      --the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant (SWG); and
      --Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Plan funding.
        The SWG Program is directed at protecting and recovering native
    species of greatest conservation need, whereas the Aquatic Nuisance
    Species (ANS) Plan funding helps to prevent and reduce aquatic nuisance
    species which pose a serious threat to native flora and fauna.
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program
        The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) respectfully urges
    your consideration for continued support of the State and Tribal
    Wildlife Grants (SWG) Program for fiscal year 2013. This appropriation
    to Pennsylvania and other States is crucial for slowing and reversing
    the decline of imperiled species. In the past decade, the SWG Program
    has become an integral component in the Commonwealth's wildlife
    conservation efforts and crucial to implementation of federally
    required State Wildlife Action Plan. State Wildlife Grants are matched
    with non-Federal funds from a variety of State and nongovernmental
    partners, thus allowing even greater work to be conducted. With
    increasing financial stresses on States and their partners, maintaining
    the Federal/non-Federal match rate of 65:35 is an important aspect of
    the program.
        The Congress has had the exceptional foresight to recognize that
    endangered species prevention provides fundamentally efficient use of
    taxpayer dollars, and early intervention is the most-effective
    approach. As a Federal cooperative effort with the States and tribal
    entities, State Wildlife Grants provide preventative care of natural
    resources. This is the core program for preventing the listing of
    endangered species and for the recovery of declining fish and wildlife.
    In Pennsylvania, the Fish and Boat Commission, through SWG-funded
    projects, has gained incredibly valuable information about the
    distribution and abundance of species, for which we previously had
    minimal data. Consequently, we have been able to delist 10 species from
    the State threatened and endangered species list because we found the
    populations of these species to be sufficiently abundant to preclude
    listing as threatened or endangered. These new data have also
    highlighted low abundances of other species toward which we can further
    expect to direct additional efforts to help recover their populations
    to help avoid Federal listing.
        Additionally, the SWG Program has allowed the Commission and our
    partners to implement proactive projects that have benefitted several
    of the Commonwealth's most vulnerable species and habitats. Direct
    habitat restoration, exemplified by the Commission's nationally
    renowned fish passage program, has resulted in the removal of more than
    170 small dams since 2004. This habitat restoration improves water
    quality and opens critical habitat for numerous species of greatest
    conservation need. Further, through our environmental review process,
    funded by SWG, we are able to make prudent and appropriate decisions
    that protect species and their habitats while advancing societal needs.
    Increasing pressures from a variety of stressors and threats make the
    value of this program an essential part of species protection.
        State Wildlife Grants funds are vital for statewide efforts to
    monitor and manage at-risk species populations, manage and restore
    their critical habitats, and prevent further species decline. The
    projects supported by State Wildlife Grants have improved public
    safety, served private landowners, supported small business
    contractors, and provided targeted management attention in every
    congressional district of the Commonwealth. This proactive and
    nonregulatory program, that ensures cost-effective matching funds,
    provides a large return on a relatively small Federal investment.
    Aquatic Nuisance Species Plans
        We also respectfully urge your consideration for continued support
    of funding for implementation of State Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS)
    Plans. ANS in Pennsylvania are of ever-increasing concern to
    Pennsylvania's $3.4 million fishing and boating industry that supports
    nearly 18,000 jobs and generates $120 million in annual State and local
    tax revenues. A few examples with economic and ecological impacts, that
    have either been recorded in Pennsylvania, or are a potential threat
    include; the fish virus viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS), zebra and
    quagga mussels, the algal didymo, and fishes such as the round goby,
    Eurasian ruffe and Asian carp--Pennsylvania Sea Grant Aquatic Invasive
    Species: http://seagrant.psu.edu/publications/ais.htm.
        Yet, despite the negative economic and ecological impacts posed by
    these diverse ANS, State funding is inadequate, and most of
    Pennsylvania's Federal funding to address this problem is received
    through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), which is focused
    on critical needs associated with the Lake Erie area. The ANS Plan
    funding is the primary Federal funding available for use statewide,
    without geographic restriction.
        In Pennsylvania, the ANS Plan funds support Pennsylvania Sea Grant
    initiatives to work with watershed associations, angling groups,
    boating organizations, diving groups, State agencies, and other
    interested parties to conduct programs and develop outreach materials
    to emphasize the steps that can be taken to prevent the spread of ANS.
    This outreach effort is emphasizing both the national Stop Aquatic
    Hitchhikers! campaign message and the Pennsylvania Clean Your Gear
    campaign message. It also supports Pennsylvania's participation in
    regional ANS coordination efforts like the Mid-Atlantic ANS Panel and
    the Great Lakes ANS Panel, because ANS movement is not limited by State
    boundaries.
        ANS Plan funding has been used to support the aquatic nuisance
    (invasive) species workgroup of the Pennsylvania Invasive Species
    Council, help develop a model rapid response plan, conduct early
    detection and monitoring work for certain species, and develop an ANS
    prevention sign for boat ramps that is now used by multiple agencies
    across the Commonwealth.
        Addressing ANS requires a diverse approach with prevention as the
    initial effort. Once established, aquatic nuisance species can wreak
    substantial negative ecological and economic impacts on native flora
    and fauna. Preventative action is crucial to avoiding the cost and
    ecological degradation that accompanies the establishment of these
    aquatic invaders. As part of this prevention effort, education and
    outreach provide the public, and all who may be impacted, with the
    information needed to prevent or slow ANS transmission. Pennsylvania
    Sea Grant has been a vital partner in providing this outreach. Special
    initiatives such as ``clean your gear,'' ANS fact sheets, presentations
    and other outreach efforts provide anglers and boaters with information
    that can help reduce the inadvertent spread of ANS among waterbodies.
    Early Detection and Monitoring can help reduce the establishment and
    spread of ANS by providing an opportunity to control and potentially
    eradicate an ANS before it is firmly established and broadly
    distributed. Research to help repress, and perhaps eliminate, ANS is
    another important facet in this effort to control these undesirable
    species. ANS often demonstrate dramatic growth in abundance and
    distribution after establishment, so measures to control and contain
    the invasion may reduce the resulting outcomes from their occurrence.
        Without the continued State ANS Plan funding, State agencies and
    organizations will not have the necessary tools to leverage other
    monies and resources to continue to implement this important program
    which can have profound ecosystem, public health, and economic impacts.
    In addition to these significant concerns posed by expansion of aquatic
    nuisance species, aquatic nuisance species threaten Pennsylvania's
    diverse native flora and fauna. This ANS plan funding is crucial to
    maintain our natural heritage for future generations.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of PNM Resources, Inc.

        I am requesting your support for fiscal year 2013 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 of Listed Species Program Element within
            the $81,709,000 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 $200,000 in FWS ``Recovery'' funds for the San Juan
            River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses
            incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program's
            diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $43,189,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS's Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2013 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.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of Preservation Action

                                    REQUEST

        $46.925 million in appropriations (level funding) from the Historic
    Preservation Fund for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs).
        $9.7 million in appropriations from the Historic Preservation Fund
    for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs).
        $10 million in appropriations from the Historic Preservation Fund
    for a Historic Preservation Grant Program run through SHPO offices.
        $17.4 million in appropriations (level funding) from the
    Preservation and Recreation Account for National Heritage Areas.

    FUNDING FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND AND FOR THE PRESERVATION AND
     RECREATION ACCOUNT--CORE SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR THE FEDERAL FUNCTIONS
           OUTLINED IN THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966

        Thank you Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of
    the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony. We would like
    to respectfully request $66.2 million in appropriations for the
    Historic Preservation Fund (HPF). Recognizing our Nation's economic
    challenges, this number represents a funding level approximately 17
    percent less than fiscal year 2010, and about 18 percent higher than
    the President's request--but still substantially less than 50 percent
    of the $150 million authorized from the HPF each year. We would also
    like to request level funding for National Heritage Areas of $17.4
    million, paid for out of the Preservation and Recreation account.
        Beginning with the HPF, we ask that this funding be allocated at
    $46.925 million for State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), which
    is level with fiscal year 2012 and equal to the President's request,
    $9.7 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs)--which is
    a slight increase of 10 percent, and $10 million for a fully
    competitive historic preservation grant program administered by the
    SHPOs in consultation with the National Park Service. This would
    restore some degree of programmatic capabilities lost with the
    elimination of funding for Save America's Treasures and Preserve
    America in fiscal year 2011.
        SHPOs carry out a substantial portion of our Federal historic
    preservation program that provides citizens the tools needed to
    revitalize, rehabilitate, and protect the places that give meaning to
    America. They also assure State and local input into the designation of
    the cultural resources that are important to them. Funding for SHPOs,
    leverages investments through local jobs, non-Federal contributions and
    long-term economic development. In 2011, the Rehabilitation Tax Credit,
    administered by SHPOs, leveraged more than $4 billion in private
    investment and created more than 55,000 jobs. SHPOs, as required by the
    National Historic Preservation Act, also review Federal projects for
    their potential impact on historic sites. In 2011, 140,600 projects
    were reviewed. Another vital component administered by the SHPOs, the
    Certified Local Government Grant program, provided small grants and
    assistance to 1,800 communities throughout the Nation.
        THPOs carry out many of the same functions as SHPOs, but on tribal
    lands. While the THPOs are exempt from matching requirements, over the
    life of this program, tribes overmatch the Federal funds by a factor of
    between 5 and 10 to 1. There are currently more than 130 THPOs,
    compared to only 12 in fiscal year 1996 when the program was first
    funded. Unfortunately, the amount of funding annually appropriated to
    the THPO program has not kept pace with this expansion. It is important
    to keep in mind that this expansion is the result of the recognition of
    tribes, not from out of control growth of a program. Thus, the addition
    of new THPOs each year without additional funding actually means
    substantial budget cuts for the tribes recognized by the program. With
    the growing popularity of outdoor recreation, tourism and amateur
    treasure-hunting, under-funding this program jeopardizes the
    irreplaceable cultural artifacts from thousands of years of
    civilization.
        We also respectfully request $10 million for the establishment of a
    fully competitive historic preservation grant program administered by
    SHPOs. Recognizing the difficult economic times we are in, and our
    country's need to better leverage our existing programs, this request
    represents only one-third of the total previously funded through the
    Save America's Treasures and Preserve America programs. In fiscal year
    2011, funding for the Save America's Treasures and Preserve America
    programs--collectively representing slightly more than $30 million was
    completely eliminated, leaving no dedicated Federal funding stream
    solely for the purpose of restoring, rehabilitating and surveying
    historic places of national importance. The justification for this, as
    published in the Interior Budget in Brief document last year, was so
    that the National Park Service could ``focus available resources on
    managing national parks and other primary responsibilities.'' We take
    great exception to this observation.
        The Organic Act of 1916 created the National Park Service in the
    Department of the Interior ``. . . to conserve the scenery and the
    natural and historic objects and the wild life therein . . .'' Since
    1933, the NPS has managed the Historical American Buildings Survey, the
    Federal Government's oldest historic preservation program responsible
    for the creation of more than 556,900 measured drawings, large-format
    photographs, and written histories for more than 38,600 historic
    structures and sites. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
    which forms the basis of our Nation's Federal historic preservation
    program within the Department of the Interior, further expanded the
    role of the NPS in the designation and maintenance of historic
    resources. Coupled with the fact that the NPS is the steward of more
    than 27,000 significant structures, 66,000 archaeological sites and 115
    million objects in museum collections, one could argue that not only is
    historic preservation a core part of the mission of the NPS, it helps
    define it.
        We would be happy to work with a broad group of legislators,
    preservationists, agencies and organizations to define the program to
    meet strict performance metrics--assuring a sensible and balanced
    program for restoring and sustaining our places of national
    significance and a good return on investment.
        We are also seeking level funding ($17.4 million) for National
    Heritage Areas, paid for out of the National Recreation and
    Preservation Account. National Heritage Areas, of which there are 49,
    have been individually designated by the Congress because their
    natural, cultural, historic, and scenic resources are considered
    uniquely representative of the American experience. While the National
    Park Service provides technical assistance and funding, 85 percent of
    the support for National Heritage Areas comes from the impacted regions
    through private, State, and local government sources. The Federal seed
    monies provided have spurred grassroots conservation efforts that are
    self-determining, self-defined and thereby reflective of their
    individual values in a national context.
        Recognizing concern about the sustainability of Heritage Areas,
    recently, legislation has been introduced, which Preservation Action
    supports, that would formally define the program and establish
    performance metrics, and paths to self-sufficiency--so that we can get
    the best return on our national investment. The administration's
    proposed 50-percent reduction in funding for National Heritage Areas,
    so that they can focus resources on park operations and other critical
    partnership programs is disingenuous. In past attempts to cut this
    funding, Interior and the NPS have cited the lack of the program
    legislation that is now on the table--when they know full well of its
    existence--because they helped to draft it. Cutting funding by 50
    percent because the legislation does not exist yet is
    counterproductive--unfairly harming the very program they are
    attempting to better define. Given the economic value of Heritage
    Areas, the number of jobs they produce (estimated at 152,324, paying
    $3.2 billion in wages), and their ability to tie together history,
    place, tourism and environment--we believe they are a good investment
    and support small business.

               THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IS MORE THAN JUST PARKS

        Preservation and conservation are intertwined. In implementing the
    National Historic Preservation Act, there was recognition of this fact
    by placing the primary responsibility for both federally owned and non-
    federally owned resources of national significance within the
    Department of the Interior, who subsequently assigned responsibilities
    to the National Park Service. Yet there seems to be an ongoing tension
    between natural resources or ``parks'' and their broader
    responsibilities for nonpark based ``partnership programs.'' In the
    administration's budget, we see continued level funding for SHPOs and
    THPOs, no funding replacing the $30 million in project grants
    eliminated by not funding Save America's Treasures and Preserve
    America, a 50-percent cut to National Heritage Areas, a $1.4 million
    reduction in cultural resource stewardship, and reduced funding for
    construction and major maintenance (in the face of an enormous
    maintenance backlog and the fact that only 58.5 percent of our historic
    structures are considered to be in good condition). At the same time
    there is $215 million proposed for natural resource stewardship
    programs (twice the amount of cultural), and a proposed increase of
    $104 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund--used primarily
    for land acquisition. We should be prepared to increase our investment
    in preserving the very assets we already own as well as new ones.
        Based upon several years of similar trends, this past year,
    Preservation Action convened a Task Force consisting of eleven national
    historic preservation organizations, examined this problem, and
    published a series of findings and recommendations in a report called
    ``Aligned for Success, Recommendations to Increase the Effectiveness of
    the Federal Historic Preservation Program.'' Among the Task Force's
    findings are that the current structure of the Federal historic
    preservation program does not ``provide for the levels of leadership,
    public and private partnerships, advocacy, innovation and visibility
    required to realize the transformative vision for historic preservation
    set forth in the 1966 Act.'' The Task Force also found that there
    exists a competition for resources between park-based and nonpark-based
    cultural resources--a finding directly related to the funding choices
    made by the National Park Service.
        To correct the problem, the Task Force recognizes that visibility
    for the historic preservation program is key so that it can get the
    resources needed to fully realize the vision of the National Historic
    Preservation Act. These no-nonsense solutions don't require tremendous
    a lot of funding--attempting to maximize return on investment, and
    better positioning existing resources:
      --Realign the responsibilities for Preservation Partnership Programs
            within the National Park Service under a Deputy Director for
            Historic Preservation and Heritage who reports to the Director
            of the National Park Service.
      --Designate a Senior Policy Officer for Historic Preservation and
            Heritage in the Department of Interior as a Special Advisor for
            Heritage to the Secretary of the Interior.
      --Make the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Chairman a full-
            time position.
      --Designate a senior staff position for historic and cultural
            resources on the President's Council on Environmental Quality
            (CEQ).
        We would welcome the opportunity to work with members of this
    Committee to find a way to facilitate these changes, and to provide
    encouragement or instruction to the National Park Service and the
    Department of the Interior to make them happen. The result would be a
    more-effective program, and one better able to sustain itself while at
    the same time focusing on our national heritage.
        Our Nation's cultural resources and natural resources are both
    important. We believe that they should not be an either-or proposition.
    Further, during this time of economic challenge, and widespread
    discussion on investments in infrastructure, we respectfully ask that
    you consider investment in our cultural resources, the preservation of
    our heritage, and the jobs that go along with historic preservation as
    a vital part of the solution.
        Preservation Action is a nonprofit grassroots advocacy organization
    founded in 1974. Our membership is made up organizations and
    individuals throughout the United States who share an ongoing interest
    and concern in our Nation's Federal historic preservation programs.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year 2013 appropriations
    for American Indian and Alaskan Native programs. My name is David Z.
    Bean, Tribal Council Member for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. The
    Puyallup Tribe is an independent sovereign nation having historically
    negotiated with several foreign nations including the United States in
    the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854. This relationship is rooted in
    Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, Federal laws
    and numerous Executive orders. The governing body of the Puyallup Tribe
    of Indians is the Puyallup Tribal Council which upholds the tribe's
    sovereign responsibility of self-determination and self-governance for
    the benefit of the 4,416 Puyallup tribal members and the 25,000 plus
    members from approximately 355 federally recognized tribes who utilize
    our services. The Puyallup Reservation is located in the urbanized
    Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of Washington. The 18,061-acre
    reservation is a ``checkerboard'' of tribal lands, Indian-owned fee
    land and non-Indian owned fee land. Our reservation land includes parts
    of six different municipalities:
      --Edgewood;
      --Federal Way;
      --Fife;
      --Milton;
      --Puyallup; and
      --Tacoma.
        The following written testimony being submitted to the U.S. Senate
    Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee
    documents the Puyallup Tribe's views on the President's fiscal year
    2013 Federal budget. On February 13, 2012, President Obama delivered
    his fiscal year 2013 budget to the Congress. The budget proposal
    focuses on job creation and the beginning steps to reducing the
    Nation's projected deficits. Within the budget, $2.5 billion is
    provided for the Operation of Indian Programs. This represents an
    overall increase of $4.6 million from current levels. For the Indian
    Health Services (IHS), $4.422 billion is provided, an increase of
    $115.9 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. We
    appreciate the increased funding provided for the operation of Indian
    programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and IHS. However,
    the years of inadequate funding and the effects of inflation has
    impacted the tribe's ability to fully exercise self-determination and
    self-governance. As negotiations proceed on the fiscal year 2013 budget
    and future appropriations, efforts to insure adequate funding is
    provided for the operation of Indian programs will be paramount. To
    preserve the increased funding levels realized in recent years and
    contained in the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget for BIA and IHS, the
    increases should be viewed by the Congress and the administration as
    new ``base funding'' amounts with annual increases to meet actual need.
    Specific issues and needs are:
    Department of the Interior--Bureau of Indian Affairs
        Public Safety and Justice.--The fiscal year 2013 budget request
    includes $353.8 million for BIA Public Safety and Justice. This
    represents a $8.4 million increase more than the fiscal year 2012
    enacted level which is fully supported by the Puyallup Tribe. The $88.1
    million for tribal and BIA detention and corrections funding is of
    great importance to the Puyallup Tribe. Within this amount, $6.3
    million increase is directed to fund operations and O&M costs at newly
    constructed facilities. While this increase is supported by the
    Puyallup Tribe, it is of concern that current and ARRA funded
    facilities will remain understaffed. It is estimated that 373 positions
    are needed to fully staff existing direct service facilities and Public
    Law 93-638 contracted facilities. The Department of Justice funded 13
    tribes for the construction and/or expansion of detention facilities.
    According to the BIA Greenbook, five new or expanded facilities will
    become operational by the end of fiscal year 2013. It is estimated that
    186 additional staff will be needed to operate these facilities. In
    fiscal year 2009, the Puyallup Tribe received a Department of Justice
    ARRA grant, in the amount of $7.9 million to construct a 43 bed adult
    corrections facility. The tribe has mobilized the Project Team,
    addressed all Special Conditions of the Grant Award, completed facility
    environmental documentation, design and established a Groundbreaking
    Ceremony for spring/summer 2012. The Project will be completed and be
    coming online by the end of the third quarter of fiscal year 2013. Over
    the past 2 years the Puyallup Tribe has been working closely with the
    BIA-Office of Justice Services National and Regional staff on
    identifying the future operating and staffing costs associated with the
    Puyallup Tribe's new adult corrections facility. The Puyallup Tribe has
    submitted a Public Law 93-638 contract request to the BIA for
    Operations and Maintenance funding for the new facility, including Pre-
    Award, Start-up, Transitional funding, Staffing and O&M funding. We are
    requesting support from the subcommittee on our contract request to the
    BIA for the O&M funding for the Tribe's Adult Corrections facility,
    estimated at $3.1 million annually. Further, the Puyallup Tribe
    requests the subcommittee support to increase funding for BIA
    Detention/Corrections by $32.2 million to reflect actual funding need.
    In addition, we have submitted a Public Law 93-638 contract request to
    the BIA for tribal court funding, including pre-award and start-up
    funding. In fiscal year 2012, the BIA was able to fund only one-third
    of actual need of pre-award and start-up funding requests. We are
    requesting support from the subcommittee on our contract request for
    tribal court funding and to fund pre-award and start-up funding at 100
    percent level of need, approximately an increase of three times the
    fiscal year 2012 base funding.
        Natural Resources Management.--The Puyallup Tribe as stewards for
    land and marine waters in the Usual and Accustomed fish, shellfish and
    wildlife areas has treaty and governmental obligations and
    responsibilities to manage natural resources for uses beneficial to the
    tribal membership and the regional communities. Despite our diligent
    program efforts, the fisheries resource is degrading and economic
    losses are incurred by Native and Non-native fishermen and surrounding
    communities. Our resource management responsibilities cover thousands
    of square miles in the Puget Sound region of the State of Washington
    with an obligation to manage production of anadromous, non-anadromous
    fish, shellfish and wildlife resources. Existing levels of support are
    inadequate to reverse the trend of resource/habitat degradation. For
    fiscal year 2013, $8.660 million is provided for BIA Western Washington
    Fisheries Management, a small increase more than the fiscal year 2012
    enacted level of $8.257. The Puyallup Tribe agrees with the Northwest
    Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) request of $17.146 million for
    Western Washington Fisheries Management. The $8.486 million increase in
    funding would provide new monies for shellfish, groundfish,
    enforcement, habitat, wildlife and other natural resource management
    needs. As the aboriginal owners and guardians of our lands and waters
    it is essential that adequate funding is provided to allow tribes to
    carry out our inherent stewardship of these resources. The Puyallup
    Tribe will continue to secure increased funding for Hatchery Operations
    and Maintenance. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget contains
    $4.838 million for tribal hatcheries, compared to the fiscal year 2012
    budget request of $5.452 million. The Puyallup Tribe supports the NWIFC
    recommendation to fund the Fish Hatchery Maintenance at $5.452 million,
    an increase of $614,000 more than the President's fiscal year 2013
    request. The Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW) Supplemental and U.S./
    Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty programs has allowed for the expansion of
    tribal participation in the State forest practice rules and regulations
    and participation in inter-tribal organizations to address specific
    treaties and legal cases which relate to multi-national fishing rights,
    harvest allocations, and resource management practices. We request
    subcommittee support to provide funding for the TFW at the President's
    request of $2.777 million and U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty program
    at $4.8 million, an increase of $436,000 more than the President's
    request of $4.364 million. The Puyallup Wildlife Management program has
    been the lead agency in management activities to benefit the South
    Rainier elk herd since 2004. The South Rainier elk herd is the primary
    stock of elk harvested by the Puyallup Tribe. The tribe has not only
    established more reliable methods for population monitoring, but has
    also been proactive in initiating habitat enhancement projects,
    research and land acquisition to ensure sustainable populations of elk
    for future generations. Funds that are available to the tribe have been
    on a very competitive basis with a limited amount per program via USFWS
    Tribal Wildlife grants and the BIA Unresolved Hunting and Fishing
    Rights grant program. We request subcommittee support to provide base
    funding to the Tribes Wildlife Management Program in the amount of
    $100,000 through the BIA Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights program
    in fiscal year 2013 appropriations.
        Education.--The fiscal year 2013 budget requests funding of $795
    million for the Education program, a decrease of $3.8 million from
    current levels. We operate the pre-K to 12 Chief Leschi Schools which
    included a verified 2008-2009 School student enrollment of 910 plus
    students, including ECEAP and FACE programs. With an increasing number
    of pre-kindergarten enrollment, Chief Leschi Schools will exceed design
    capacity in the near future. Additional education facility space will
    be required. Additional, the cost of operation and maintenance of the
    Chief Leschi School facilities continues to increase in the areas of
    supplies, energy and student transportation costs. The tribe will work
    with the Congress and the BIE to increase funding in fiscal year 2012,
    including:
      --Tribal Grant Support Cost for Tribally Operated Schools--$72.3
            million; Student Transportation--$73 million;
      --School Facilities Accounts--$109.8 million in facilities operations
            and $76 million in facilities maintenance; and
      --Indian School Equalization Formula--$431 million.
        Operations of Indian Programs and Tribal Priority Allocations.--The
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget is in drastic need for increased
    funding for the BIA Operations of Indian Programs. Within the
    Operations of Indian Programs is the Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA).
    The TPA budget functions include the majority of funding used to
    support ongoing services at the ``local tribal'' level, including;
    natural resources management, child welfare, other education, housing,
    and other tribal government services. These functions have not received
    adequate and consistent funding to allow tribes the resources to fully
    exercise self-determination and self-governance. Further, the small
    increases TPA has received over the past few years has not been
    adequate to keep pace with inflation. The Puyallup Tribe is requesting
    support from the subcommittee to fund the Operation of Indian Programs
    at the fiscal year 2013 request of $2.5 billion and Tribal Priority
    Allocations at a minimum of $897,436 million, an increase of $6,366
    million of the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. We further request
    support from the subcommittee to increase funding for Indian Child
    Welfare (TPA) by $45 million; increase Urban Indian Child Welfare
    programs by $15 million; and increase BIA Child Welfare Assistance by
    $55 million.
    Department of Health and Human Services--Indian Health Service
        The Inadequate funding of IHS is the most substantial impediment to
    the current Indian Health system. The Puyallup Tribe has been operating
    healthcare programs since 1976 through the Indian Self-determination
    Act, Public Law 93-638. The Puyallup Tribal Health Authority (PTHA)
    operates a comprehensive ambulatory care program to the Native American
    population in Pierce County, Washington. The current patient load
    exceeds 9,000, of which approximately 1,700 are tribal members. There
    are no IHS hospitals in the Portland area so all specialties and
    hospital care have been paid for out of our contract care allocation.
    The Contract Care allocation to PTHA has been significantly inadequate
    to meet the actual need since fiscal year 2004 when the Puyallup Tribe
    subsidized Contract Health with a $2.8 million contribution. By fiscal
    year 2012 the tribal subsidy had reached a staggering $6 million. Given
    that the PTHA service population is only comprised of 17 percent
    Puyallup tribal members, tribal budget priorities in fiscal year 2011
    and 2012 has made continued subsidies to the PTHA financially difficult
    for the Puyallup Tribe. The fiscal year 2013 budget requests $5.5
    billion in discretionary budget authority for IHS. This represents a
    $115.9 million increase more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
    For Health Services programs the fiscal year 2013 budget request is
    $3.978 million, an increase of $112 million more than the fiscal year
    2012 enacted level. Included within the increases are funding for
    Contract Support Costs ($476.4 million), Contract Health Services
    ($897.5 million), and Alcohol and Substance Abuse funding ($195
    million). The Puyallup Tribe fully supports funding increases for
    existing IHS programs and will work the Congress to continue efforts to
    increase funding for IHS and the critical programs administered by this
    Agency.
                                     ______

                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 Committee on behalf of the Quinault
    Indian Nation and provide testimony on our priority requests and
    recommendations on the fiscal year 2013 budgets for the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS).
    Tribal Specific Priority Requests
        $8.714 million a Year for Blueback Restoration (for 2013-2020)--
    BIA.
        $4.64 million for Substance Abuse and Comprehensive Drug Strategy
    Plan--BIA and IHS.
        $2.21 million for the McBride Road Maintenance and Emergency
    Reservation Exit--BIA.
    Support Local/Regional Requests and Recommendations
        Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians.
        Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board.
        Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
    Support National and Self-Governance Budget Priorities
                Bureau of Indian Affairs
        Increase of $8.8 million to fully fund Contract Support Costs
    (CSC).
        Increase of $13.7 million to fully fund Fixed Costs/Pay Costs.
        Increase of $89 million for Tribal Priority Allocations.
        Fully fund all provisions of the Tribal Law & Order Act of 2010.
        Office of Self-Governance--Request not to consolidate in other
    division within Indian Affairs.
                Indian Health Service
        Increase of $99.4 million to fully fund Contract Support Costs
    (CSC).
        Increase of $200 million for Contract Health Services (CHS).
        Increase of $40 million for alcohol and substance abuse programs
        Increase of $304 million for Mandatory Costs to maintain current
    services
        Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG)--Increase $5 million to the
    IHS OTSG
                   justification for tribal specific requests
    $8.714 Million Annually for Blueback Restoration (Annually From 2013-
            2020 = $61 Million)
        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 2020.
    Fertilization, data acquisition and monitoring will continue for many
    years.
    $4.64 Million for Substance Abuse and Comprehensive Drug Strategy Plan
        The Quinault Indian Nation Substance Abuse and Comprehensive Drug
    Strategy 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 drug production, sale, and use by
    targeting enforcement, outreach, prevention, stabilization, and harm
    reduction services to high risk-populations.
        The Quinault Indian Nation is located along the southwest coast of
    Washington State. We are facing ever-escalating threats of drug
    trafficking, narcotic distribution, gang activity and weapons
    offenses--leading to devastating social, health and environmental
    consequences including damage to the pristine ecosystems. It is
    documented that for every 1 pound of methamphetamine that is produced,
    there are 6 pounds of hazardous waste materials created.
        The regional topography renders us susceptible to drug smuggling
    and production. The Washington section of the U.S.-Canadian border is
    approximately 430 miles in length, a significant portion of which is
    vast, dense forest. The border has 13 official ports of entry (POEs),
    but the rest of the border is largely unpatrolled. Drug smugglers
    exploit the national parks and forests, as well as other forestlands
    and waterways adjacent to the border, to smuggle drugs into Washington.
    Similarly, the clandestine manufacturing of methamphetamine in this
    region is of epidemic proportions.
        To combat this problem, the Quinault Indian Nation Tribal
    legislative body (the Business Committee) formed and funded the
    Quinault Nation Narcotics Enforcement Team (QNNET) in September, 2011.
    Reporting directly to the Attorney General of the Quinault Indian
    Nation, QNNET works to prevent and suppress narcotic trafficking and
    drug use through intensive investigations. QNNET also collaborates and
    communicates with other local law enforcement agencies, the Department
    of Justice, elected officials and the community at large. During the
    first quarter of fiscal year 2012, we have made 48 arrests with 100
    percent convictions and confiscated heroin, meth, prescription drugs,
    weapons and explosives. Cases have been prosecuted in tribal, State,
    and Federal courts.
        The General Accountability Office (GAO) is currently conducting a
    study that will focus on:
      --the scope of border and security issues facing Indian country;
      --what tribes are doing to combat the problems; and
      --the challenges and successes in working with Federal partners.
        The Quinault Indian Nation will make a perfect case study for the
    GAO undertaking and gain National visibility for the collective and
    multi-jurisdictional efforts of law enforcement and behavioral health
    agencies.
        The Quinault Indian Nation's Substance Abuse component to the
    Comprehensive Drug Strategy Plan is part of a broader more
    comprehensive alcohol and drug strategy that recognizes the need to
    plan for the future. Quinault Indian Nation drug prevention and
    education programs are funded at 72 percent less than the national
    average per capita. To provide equivalent substance abuse prevention,
    treatment, and interdiction funding consistent with national levels,
    the Quinault Indian Nation must generate and budget $4,640,000 annually
    through Federal and State grants combined with tribal investment into
    these critical and vital programs. The estimated distribution of this
    annual budget need is:
          Prevention.--$1.8 million annually;
          Treatment.--$1.54 million annually; and
          Interdiction.--$1.3 million annually.
        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.
    $2.21 Million McBride Road Maintenance and Emergency Reservation Exit
            Route: BIA/Roads Maintenance Program
        The Quinault Reservation is located in Grays Harbor County in the
    village of Taholah, Washington; a rural isolated and economically
    deprived area. The village of Taholah lies in a tsunami danger zone.
    The site of the village is barely above sea level and experts have
    determined that the sea level is rising because of global warming
    patterns. For Taholah, tsunami is a health and safety risk factor that
    we must live with everyday. The Quinault Reservation is interlaced with
    thousands of miles of roads that are left over from large logging
    contracts that ended in about 1980. Most of these roads do not have the
    required right-of-way and do not receive funding for maintenance.
        The village of Taholah is accessible via SR 109 that parallels the
    Pacific Ocean. The McBride Road, a single forest road, is the only
    escapement route available to the 1,000 community members of the
    Quinault Indian Nation living in the village of Taholah. Its state of
    disrepair necessitates that immediate action be taken to bring the road
    up to a Class B gravel road status to be used in cases of emergency.
    The cost for this project is $876,500 to repair 10.75 miles and could
    be accomplished within a 3-month 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 forests roads are not patrolled, well maintained, have
    limited signage and cell reception.
        Thank you for allowing me to provide this testimony on behalf of
    the Quinault Indian Nation.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of Restore America's Estuaries

        Restore America's Estuaries is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
    organization that has been working since 1995 to restore our Nation's
    greatest estuaries. Our mission is to preserve the Nation's network of
    estuaries by protecting and restoring the lands and waters essential to
    the richness and diversity of coastal life. Restore America's Estuaries
    is a national alliance of 11 community-based organizations that protect
    and restore coastal and estuarine habitat. Our 11 member organizations
    include:
      --American Littoral Society;
      --Chesapeake Bay Foundation;
      --Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana;
      --Save the Sound--a program of the Connecticut Fund for the
            Environment;
      --Conservation Law Foundation;
      --Galveston Bay Foundation;
      --North Carolina Coastal Federation;
      --People For Puget Sound;
      --Save The Bay--San Francisco;
      --Save the Bay--Narragansett Bay; and
      --Tampa Bay Watch.
        Collectively, we have more than 250,000 members nationwide.
        For fiscal year 2013, Restore America's Estuaries supports the
    following coastal programs and funding levels within the Department of
    the Interior and Environmental Protection Agency:
          Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program.--$14.87 million; and
          Environmental Protection Agency National Estuary Program.--$35
            million.

                   FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE COASTAL PROGRAM

        The Coastal Program is a voluntary, incentive-based program that
    provides technical and financial assistance to coastal communities and
    landowners to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat on public
    and private lands. The Coastal Program works with other Federal, State,
    local, and nongovernmental partners and private landowners to deliver
    strategic habitat protection and restoration for the benefit of Federal
    trust species.
        Support for the management and stewardship of our coastal
    ecosystems that bridge land and sea has never been more important due
    to the accelerating pace of environmental change now occurring. While
    environmental degradation of estuaries has continued in recent years,
    the Coastal Program has been a key program aimed at on-the-ground
    habitat restoration. Despite the program's relatively small cost--it is
    having a huge impact on-the-ground. A recent estimate by USFWS Coastal
    Program staff show that the program leverages $8 non-Federal dollars
    for every Federal dollar spent--this makes the Coastal Program one of
    the most cost-effective habitat restoration programs within the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Restore America's Estuaries has enjoyed a collaborative
    relationship, with the Coastal Program for many years. The nature and
    scope of our partnership spans the national and local levels as we work
    with CP headquarters on long-term issues, and locally the program works
    with our member groups through Regional CP staff to conduct on-the-
    ground habitat restoration.
        As an example of a true partnership, the Coastal Program recently
    worked with RAE member Save The Bay--San Francisco as well as the San
    Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge to restore salt marsh on Bair
    Island. This project is helping to provide critical habitat for a
    variety of species, including the endangered California clapper rail
    and the salt marsh harvest mouse, and a number of birds that traverse
    the area on their journey across the Pacific.
        On the East Coast, the Coastal Program assisted RAE member
    Chesapeake Bay Foundation to choose and prepare a site to plant redhead
    grass near the Magothy River in Maryland. This is a good example of the
    invaluable technical assistance that the Coastal Program is able to
    provide to a nongovernmental organization, which can then better
    restore habitat for numerous migratory bird and interjurisdictional
    fish species.
        In the Gulf, the Coastal Program worked side-by-side with RAE
    member Galveston Bay Foundation to construct geotextile tube offshore
    breakwaters on Snake Island Cove. This effort has led to the protection
    of 200 acres of estuarine marsh from erosion and the creation of a 65-
    acre calm shallow water area conducive to seagrass restoration.
        The Coastal Program also is essential in efforts to restore fish
    passage of anadromous fish populations and restore riverine habitat.
    RAE member Conservation Law Foundation worked with the Coastal Program
    and other regional partners to support the removal of dams along the
    Penobscot River as well as install fishways to restore native Atlantic
    salmon.
        Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support and
    funding for USFWS Coastal Program. This program delivers habitat
    protection and restoration in priority coastal areas on both public and
    private lands through partnerships with other Service programs, Federal
    agencies, State and local agencies, tribal governments and native
    corporations, nongovernmental organizations, universities,
    corporations, and private landowners.
        Further, we believe that the Coastal Program's ability to work with
    coastal communities and landowners on both public and private lands has
    been key to the program's ability to deliver restoration of priority
    coastal habitats, including coral reefs, shorelines, marshes, wetlands,
    uplands, and rivers and streams.

                         USEPA NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM

        The National Estuary Program is a nonregulatory, network of
    voluntary community-based programs that safeguards the health of
    important coastal ecosystems across the country program. The program
    utilizes a consensus-building process to identify goals, objectives,
    and actions that reflect local environmental and economic priorities.
        Currently there are 28 estuaries located along the Atlantic, Gulf,
    and Pacific coasts and in Puerto Rico that have been designated as
    estuaries of national significance. Each NEP focuses it work within a
    particular place or boundary called a study area which includes the
    estuary, and surrounding watershed.
        Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support of the NEP
    and ask that you continue to invest directly in the stewardship of our
    Nation's coasts by ensuring that the authorized amount of $35 million
    be provided for the NEP for fiscal year 2013, and that of these funds
    each of the 28 NEPs in the field receive $1 million.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Restore America's Estuaries greatly appreciates the support this
    subcommittee has provided for these important programs. These programs
    help to accomplish on-the-ground restoration work which results in
    major benefits:
          Jobs.--Coastal habitat restoration creates more than 30 jobs for
            each $1 million invested. That's more than twice as many jobs
            as the oil and gas sector and road constructions industries
            combined.
          Leverage.--USFWS Coastal Program leverages non-Federal dollars at
            a ratio of 8 to 1. In a time of shrinking resources, these are
            rates of return we cannot afford to ignore and help to
            accomplish more on-the-ground conservation.
          Fish.--Traditional fisheries management tools alone are
            inadequate. Fish need healthy and abundant habitat for
            sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries.
        We appreciate your taking our requests into consideration as you
    move forward in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process and look
    forward to working with you to ensure the health of our Nation's
    estuaries and coasts.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Sac and Fox Nation

        Chairman Simpson and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my
    name is George L. Thurman, and I am the Principal Chief of the Sac and
    Fox Nation. I thank you for the opportunity to present the Sac and Fox
    Nation's testimony before this esteemed subcommittee. We appreciate
    your dedication to righting the wrongs our people suffered in the past
    and suffer in the present. Thank you for supporting the increases for
    Indian programs. We understand the fiscal constraints of the Country
    and together we can provide a future that has many opportunities for
    self-sufficiency through Self-Governance.
        Sac and Fox Nation Tribal Specific Budget Requests:
      --Add $4.8 million to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Detentions/
            Corrections to fully funded the Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile
            Detention Center; and
      --Direct the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs to continue the
            Federal corporate charter for Sac and Fox--support tribal
            economic development.
        National Budget Requests:
          Bureau of Indian Affairs:
            Contract Support Costs.--Fully fund $8.8 million increase
                included in President's request
            Fixed Costs/Pay Costs.--Fully fund--Provide $13.7 million
                increase
            Fully fund all provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act of
                2010
            Do not consolidate the Office of Self-Governance; must remain
                stand-alone
          Indian Health Service:
            Contract Support Costs.--$99.4 million more than President's
                request
            Mandatory Costs.--$304 million increase to maintain current
                services
            Indian Health Care Improvement Fund.--$45 million increase
            Contract Health Costs.--$200 million increase
            Alcohol and Substance Abuse.--$40 million increase
            Office of Tribal Self-Governance.--$5 million increase
          Support the Requests of the National Indian Health Board
          Support the Requests of the National Congress of American Indians
    About the Sac and Fox Nation
        The Sac and Fox Nation is headquartered in Stroud, Oklahoma, and
    our tribal jurisdictional area covers Lincoln, Payne, and Pottawatomie
    Counties. Of the 4,000 enrolled tribal members, 2,600 live in Oklahoma.
    We are proud pay tribute to a Sac and Fox descendent and Great Native
    American, Jim Thorpe. One of the most revered Olympic athletes who have
    ever represented the United States; Mr. Thorpe won the pentathlon and
    decathlon in the 1912 Olympics.
    Tribal Specific Budget Requests--$4.8 Million for Juvenile Detention
            Center
        The passage of the tribal Law and Order Act was applauded by the
    Sac and Fox Nation because we saw this as the opportunity for the
    Federal Government to finally fulfill the commitment to the Nation and
    fully fund our Juvenile Detention Center (JDC). In 1994, the Sac and
    Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) opened its doors after years
    of planning and construction made possible by funding from the
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. The JDC is the
    first juvenile facility designed for American Indians/Alaska Natives as
    well as the first juvenile facility developed under Public Law 100-472,
    the Self-Governance Demonstration Project. The JDC is a full service,
    24-hour juvenile detention facility that provides basic detention
    services to all residents to insure their health, safety, and welfare
    and provides programs tailored to meet the specific needs of our
    clients. These programs include behavioral management, substance abuse,
    spiritual, cultural, self-esteem, arts and crafts, health and fitness,
    horticulture, nutrition, life skills, counseling, and educational
    programs. The 39 tribes included in the Southern Plains Region will
    support the JDC but due to underfunding and staffing shortages, the JDC
    cannot accommodate the detention needs of the regional tribes.
        In recent appropriations testimony provided by Assistant Secretary
    Larry Echo Hawk, he requested $6.5 million for Detention/Correction and
    an additional 18 FTEs. We take great exception to the this request
    inasmuch as the Department of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Affairs has
    never provided the full funding that was committed for the
    appropriation, planning and construction process of the JDC. The Sac
    and Fox Nation, due to the failure of the full funding commitment by
    Federal officials not being honored, has had to utilize funds that
    could have been used for other social services needs. The Sac and Fox
    Nation is committed to working with the Department of the Interior/
    Bureau of Indian Affairs officials in an effort to help them fulfill
    their financial commitment. With the promise of full funding realized,
    the JDC will be ready, willing and able to meet the needs of tribes who
    need our help in guiding their children toward a successful future
    while providing a culturally and spiritually sensitive environment.
        In fiscal year 2004, the Office of the Inspector General issues the
    report, ``Neither Safe nor Secure''--An Assessment of Indian Detention
    Facilities, citing the existence of serious safety, security, and
    maintenance deficiencies at detention centers throughout Indian
    Country. One of the primary recommendations was the need to identify
    and remedy staffing shortages whereby Indian Affairs responded that
    ``current facilities still remain understaffed by a total of 373
    positions (74 positions for Indian Affairs direct service programs and
    299 positions for programs operated by tribes under Public Law 93-638
    and Self-Governance compacts).\1\ The Sac and Fox Nation is requesting
    that the Bureau of Indian Affairs recommits to funding for the JDC.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Fiscal year 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior Budget
    Justifications--Green Book.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tribal Specific Request--Federal Corporate Charter
        Since Federal recognition as an organized tribe, the Sac and Fox
    people have fought to maintain the well-being of our people. The Sac
    and Fox have persevered to maintain our sovereignty through history and
    into the era of Self-Governance despite broken treaties and inadequacy
    of Federal funding.
        Historically the people of the Sac and Fox Nation stood alongside
    many nations to seek and pave paths to new frontiers for all tribes in
    the United States. This is evident in our Supreme Court victory on May
    17, 1993 against the State of Oklahoma with regard to registering
    vehicles and issuing license plates for tribal members.
        Then, once again, the Sac and Fox Nation forged new territory in
    the seeking of Federal Corporate Charter in accordance with the Indian
    Reorganization Act of 1934 and the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936.
    In 1987 the Sac and Fox Nation moved this exercise of Self-Governance
    forward with the signing of a Federal Corporate Charter by, then
    Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Ross Swimmer. The key purposes
    of our Charter are to advance the standard of living of the tribe
    through the development of tribal resources, the acquisition of new
    tribal land, the preservation of existing land holdings, the better
    utilization of lands, the development of a credit program for the
    tribe, and the furtherance of economic industrial development within
    the tribal jurisdiction.
        In October 2007, after decades of attempting to place tracts of
    land into trust through the process administered by the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, the Sac and Fox Nation placed 24 tracts of land into
    trust in accordance with our Federal Corporate Charter. Where trust
    applications had been disapproved in the past by the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs for reasons such as not having an easement despite the fact the
    Sac and Fox Nation owns the adjacent property, the Sac and Fox Nation
    placed these 24 tracts into trust in accordance with the Charter and
    Laws of the Sac and Fox Nation. On November 6, 2007, the Sac and Fox
    Nation issued notice of these actions to the Secretary of the Interior,
    the Southern Plains Regional Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
    Oklahoma State agencies, and each respective County agency. The Sac and
    Fox Nation's peak of accomplishment was hit hard by opposition in a
    letter from the Bureau of Indian Affairs Southern Plains Region dated
    March 7, 2008 stating ``it is a well-established legal precedent, that
    absent the Secretary's approval of such conveyance, trust status is not
    imposed.'' The Sac and Fox Nation holds firm that Secretarial approval
    was granted in the signing of the Federal Corporate Charter. We stand
    strong behind the foresight of the leaders of the Sac and Fox Nation
    that held close the vision of improving the quality of life for our
    people through the economic development provisions of the 1987 Federal
    Corporate Charter.
        The insight of the leaders of the Sac and Fox Nation subsequent to
    those essential to the 1987 Federal Corporate Charter ignited the
    initiative to further extend the resources of the Sac and Fox Nation to
    improve the well-being of its people by the passing of a tribal
    resolution on May 13, 2008 petitioning the Secretary of the Interior to
    approve a second Federal Corporate Charter. Consultation with then
    Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Carl Artman, at the 64th annual
    NCAI Convention and Trade Show held in Denver in November 2007 and in
    an audience granted during a trip to Muskogee, Oklahoma in the spring
    of 2008, led to the signing of a second Federal Corporate Charter on
    May 22, 2008. The significant intentions of the second Federal
    Corporate Charter were to advance the standard of living of the Nation,
    its citizens, other Indians, and other persons associated with the
    Nation, through the acquisition of new Indian land, the preservation
    and expansion of Indian land holdings, the development of natural
    resources, the better utilization of land, the development of credit
    programs for the acquisition, development, and improvement of lands and
    the reduction of fractionated heir ships. In addition the Nation could
    further explore economic and industrial development on Indian lands;
    promote economic self-sufficiency and political self-determination for
    Indian tribes and members of Indian tribes; encourage inter-tribal,
    regional, and international trade and business development in order to
    assist in increasing productivity, improving the standard of living of
    citizens of Indian tribes, and improving the economic self-sufficiency
    of the governing bodies of Indian tribes.
        Although the Sac and Fox Nation has two Federal Corporate Charters
    approved and signed by two former Assistant Secretaries of Indian
    Affairs, opposition has arisen again. The 2008 Federal Corporate
    Charter signed by former Assistant Secretary Carl Artman waits to be
    scrutinized by the Solicitor's office of the Department of the Interior
    in advisement to the National Indian Gaming Commission. A letter
    received from the National Indian Gaming Commission dated February 17,
    2012, states that ``the Office of General Counsel will coordinate with
    the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor on whether the
    Indian lands definition is permissible under IGRA and whether such
    lands are eligible for gaming under IGRA.'' While Interior review was
    neither solicited nor warranted, the historical resistance of the
    Office of the Secretary of the Interior is peaking over the shoulders
    of the National Indian Gaming Commission. The current Assistant
    Secretary of Indian Affairs, Larry Echo Hawk, has diverted questions
    regarding Interior's position with regard to our Federal Corporate
    Charters to standard bureaucratic statements such as ``I cannot answer
    at this time as it is under review by the Office of Solicitor.''
    Attempts to seek an audience with Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk are
    weighed down with a discouraging screening process while the fate of
    the economy of the Sac and Fox Nation gets lost in redtape. Assistant
    Secretary Echo Hawk's written testimony to the Senate Committee on
    Indian Affairs on the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for
    Indian Programs in the Department of the Interior states the Department
    of the Interior is seeking an increase for $43.8 million in funding for
    the Strengthening Tribal Nations initiative yet the Department of the
    Interior does not support the Sac and Fox Nation's Federal Charters
    which require no increase in Federal funding and directly address the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs initiatives.
        The Sac and Fox Nation is proud to say we are a Self-Governance
    Tribe. Thank you.
                                     ______

          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 2013
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
    President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
        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 public benefits
    including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
    drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
    assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
    support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
        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, historical and recreation 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 a conservation
    offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
        As part of the LWCF request in fiscal year 2013, the National Park
    Service included $2.441 million for the acquisition of land at Santa
    Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. I am pleased that this
    funding was included in the request and urge the Congress to provide
    necessary funds for LWCF for this important project.
        Southern California is 1 of only 5 locations in the world that
    feature the Mediterranean biome (a geographically limited ecosystem).
    Characterized by mild, rainy winters and warm, dry summers, these
    ecoregions 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, which 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 National Park Service 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.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2013 is the 6.16-acre
    Ramirez Canyon property, which lies in the Zuma/Trancas Canyons area of
    the park. The Zuma and Trancas 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 National
    Park Service ownership, protecting its multitude of natural and
    historic resources, but a number of inholdings remain unprotected.
        This tract is part of a larger property that benefits from the
    year-round flow of Ramirez Creek, providing important riparian habitat
    shaded by sycamore trees. The tract itself predominantly contains oak
    woodlands habitat, which was identified in the California State
    Wildlife Action Plan as an underprotected ecological community type.
    Oak woodlands within the park support an array of wildlife, including
    native wildflowers, acorn woodpeckers, spotted towhees, valley quail,
    pocket gophers, gray foxes, mule deer, and perhaps even an occasional
    mountain lion. This land has been designated environmentally sensitive
    habitat under the California Coastal Act.
        The property has important linkages with already protected lands,
    including an invaluable trailhead providing access from Kanan Dume Road
    to the National Park Service lands at Zuma/Trancas Canyons. The land
    has been subdivided into developable parcels, and a ready access road
    adds to the development potential of the property. This is a critical
    time for Santa Monica Mountains NRA to acquire the Ramirez Canyon
    property, as delay will only increase the likelihood of residential
    housing adding to habitat fragmentation and environmental degradation.
        The National Park Service at Santa Monica has identified a number
    of additional properties for future acquisition, and it is important
    for the Park Service to continue the acquisition and protection of
    these ecologically, recreationally, and archaeologically important
    scenic lands. The fiscal year 2013 President's budget recommendation of
    $2.441 million through the Land and Water Conservation Fund will permit
    the acquisition of Ramirez Canyon and other important lands in the
    Zuma/Trancas Canyons.
        In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund of $450 million, as proposed in the President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget, including critical funding for the Santa
    Monica Mountains NRA. I want to thank the Chairman and the members of
    the subcommittee for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of
    this nationally important protection effort in California, and I
    appreciate your consideration of this funding request.
                                     ______

                   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 2013
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
    President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
        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 public benefits
    including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
    drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
    assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
    support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
        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, historical and recreation 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 a conservation
    offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
        As part of the LWCF request in fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Forest
    Service (USFS) included an allocation of $500,000 for the Salmon-Selway
    Initiative in Idaho's Sawtooth National Recreation Area. I am pleased
    that this funding was included in the request and urge the Congress to
    provide necessary funds for LWCF to finish this important project.
        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,
    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. An appropriation of $500,000 from the LWCF in fiscal
    year 2013 will complete the work that was initiated in fiscal year 2012
    for the protection of the Rodeo Grounds Ranch. This project is one of
    the largest remaining inholdings in the Sawtooth National Recreation
    Area and helps to conserve the traditional landscape and scenic
    character of the region, protect wildlife habitat, water quality, and
    ensure public access for recreation.
        The 756,000-acre Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA) comprises
    one of the largest and most magnificent national recreation areas in
    the United States. Four mountain ranges:
      --the Sawtooths;
      --Boulders;
      --White Clouds; and
      --Smokies
    provide scenic landscapes in every direction, with more than 50 major
    peaks more than 10,000 feet, 300 lakes, and 250 miles of trails. There
    are more than 1,000 high mountain lakes and glacial tarns here, as well
    as the headwaters of four of Idaho's major rivers:
      --the Salmon;
      --South Fork of the Payette;
      --the Boise; and
      --the Big Wood.
        More than 300 species of wildlife inhabit the forests, valleys, and
    rocky peaks of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area including gray
    wolves, mountain goat, pronghorn antelope, mule deer, elk, coyote, red
    fox, and black bear. Birding enthusiasts can encounter a wide range of
    species from Clark's nutcracker, junco and chickadees to the more
    elusive sandhill crane and bald and golden eagles. Furthermore, the
    SNRA's abundance of lakes and rivers play an important role in the
    protection and re-establishment of salmon populations to Idaho's
    waterways.
        The Sawtooth NRA offers some of the finest and most renowned
    outdoor recreation in the world including fishing, white-water sports,
    hiking, backpacking, snowmobiling, mountain biking, and Nordic skiing.
    With 37 developed campgrounds, family camping attracts more
    recreationists to the Sawtooth National Recreation Area than any other
    single activity. The Sawtooth NRA is heaven for those looking for
    scenic drives with three National Scenic Byways--the Sawtooth, Salmon
    River, and Ponderosa Pine scenic byways--converging in Stanley, Idaho,
    the largest settlement in the Sawtooth NRA.
        With a proud ranching tradition stretching back for over 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, USFS has utilized LWCF
    appropriations dating back to 1972 to acquire conservation easements
    that protect some 17,000 acres of private land within the national
    recreation area.
        Available for acquisition at the Sawtooth NRA in fiscal year 2013
    is a conservation easement on the 157-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. Protection
    of Rodeo Grounds Ranch will advance fisheries recovery efforts,
    protecting a total of 1.8 miles of Valley Creek and its tributaries and
    approximately 96 acres of related riparian areas.
        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.
        In fiscal year 2013, an appropriation of $500,000 from the LWCF
    will augment funding provided in fiscal year 2012 to allow the
    completion of this important conservation easement acquisition valued
    at $3 million. Protection of Rodeo Grounds Ranch, a highly visible
    property and longstanding priority for USFS, will protect the fisheries
    and recreational resources of the ranch and help ensure the scenic
    integrity of the Sawtooth NRA.
        In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the LWCF of $450
    million, as proposed in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget,
    including critical funding for the Salmon-Selway Initiative. 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.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Skokomish Tribe of Washington State

        I am Joseph Pavel, Vice Chairman of the Skokomish Tribe of
    Washington State. I would like to thank the subcommittee for the
    opportunity to present testimony on the fiscal year 2013 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies budget.
        Like all governments, the Skokomish Indian Tribe handles a number
    of everyday operational responsibilities as well as continuing the
    necessity of long-term planning activities. Daily the tribe continues
    to strengthen the institutional and executive capacity to effectively
    manage the expansion of new programs. The Skokomish Indian Reservation
    is a rural community located at the base of the Olympic Peninsula with
    a population of more than 1,000 people. The 5,300-acre reservation is a
    fraction of the 2.2-million-acre of the tribe's Treaty area. The
    Skokomish Tribe operates several departments including administration;
    community development; information services; early childhood education
    (includes the Skokomish Head Start program); education; health clinic;
    housing; legal; natural resources; public safety; public works; and
    Tuwaduq Family Services. These departments provide a broad range of
    governmental services to our citizens.

                       BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS PROGRAMS

        Law Enforcement.--The Skokomish Tribe respectfully requests
    increased funding for our law enforcement programs within the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs.
        The Tribal Council created the Skokomish Department of Public
    Safety in 1995. The department has grown from one untrained officer, to
    six Washington State certified/Washington State equivalency trained or
    BIA certified law enforcement officers. The SPSD provides land and
    water patrol, and emergency services 24/7 in Hood Canal Basin. It
    enforces tribal ordinances, treaty rights, court orders, and State/
    Federal statutes. Our officers provide day-to-day law enforcement
    services on the Reservation. They are also responsible for patrolling
    the 2.2 million acres that make up our treaty protected fishing and
    hunting areas. SPSD not only services the Reservation but also roughly
    10,000 neighboring county residents and 15,000 annual tourists.
        Skokomish dispatch is cross linked with Mason County Dispatch. With
    only one scheduled per shift, Public Safety Officers patrol alone and
    respond alone to both misdemeanor and felony calls. Officers are placed
    in danger because back up from other agencies could be delayed in
    responding, if they are available at all. For natural disasters, SPSD
    officers are recognized as 1st Responders for the area. To be fully
    staffed at a baseline minimum for the area and scope of service that
    the Skokomish Department of Public Safety is tasked with, we need a
    total of 18 officers. Thus, we are almost 80 percent less than what is
    needed to safely serve our community. Currently, the tribe contributes
    approximately $200,000 per year to cover the BIA shortfall in funding
    for the tribe's Public Safety Department. This funding comes from fuel
    taxes levied by the tribe. In an effort to efficiently use our limited
    resources, the tribe entered into a memorandum of understanding with
    the Mason County Sheriff's Office to use a provisional officer on an
    as-needed basis. This occurs when one of the four patrol officers is on
    leave or training.
        The tribe constantly looks for ways to efficiently use the funding
    available while improving services. Recently, the tribe worked with the
    BIA Office of Justice Services (OJS), to receive technical assistance.
    The technical assistance came in the form of a monitoring process
    designed to evaluate the compliance of policy, standards, and
    professional practices of the tribe's law enforcement program. The BIA
    evaluator used a Program Monitoring Instrument (PMI) which consists of
    standards that will be reviewed and evaluated to determine if the
    program is in compliance with each specific standard. The department
    has already used the initial recommendations to begin improving in
    areas of training, re-writing the standard operating procedures; and
    instituting community policing strategies. In the end, the tribe will
    be able to document that we meet and/or exceed the standards of the BIA
    for public safety agencies.
        We strongly support the $500,000 request for Conservation Officers.
    These law enforcement professionals serve a vital role in ensuring that
    our fishermen are able to properly exercise their rights to the treaty-
    protected resources. The tribe has to cover and manage a large area in
    fisheries related activities. Over the past few years we have
    experienced increased tension between treaty fishermen and non-Indian
    fishermen. While these conflicts have not escalated into serious
    physical harm, we fear without proper law enforcement presences that it
    will.
        Tribal Courts.--Having a fair and qualified judiciary is the
    bedrock of any government's justice system. Skokomish has long
    understood this. In 1963, the Skokomish Tribe was the first tribe in
    the Northwest (and one of the first in the country) to institute a
    tribal court.
        Today, tribal courts handle huge criminal, civil and juvenile
    dockets, which could not be handled by the already over burdened State
    and Federal courts. At the close of 2011, Skokomish had 362 open cases
    compared to 447 open cases at the end of fiscal year 2010. These cases
    range from criminal cases to child welfare cases. With the use of the
    one-time funding award from the BIA in fiscal year 2011, we hired a
    Probation Officer. The Probation Officer has helped satisfy and close
    83 cases and continually meets with probationers. This Probation Office
    has resulted in a great deal of success in clearing criminal cases and
    providing support for our tribal members to exit the criminal justice
    system. We fully utilized this funding until it was exhausted. Although
    we have many needs with our limited resources, the Council approved the
    use of tribal funds for the continuation of the probation program. We
    believe it is beneficial to the members of the tribe to have a
    probation program.
        Thus, we urge the Congress to support Tribal Courts and provide at
    least the $1.1 million that the administration has requested and
    encourage the BIA to fund and support tribal probation officers for
    tribal courts.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

        The Skokomish Tribe strongly supports the $4.422 billion budget
    request, an increase of $115.9 million more than the fiscal year 2012
    enacted level. We have a tribally operated Ambulatory Health Center
    located in a geographically challenged area and continue to face
    financial barriers that are not unique to the Skokomish Tribe, but
    unfortunately plague Indian Country as a whole. Our Contract Health
    (CHS) Funds continue to be taxed and we appreciate the proposed
    programmatic increase to CHS of $20 million. We continually ask for CHS
    increases and we do know this need will always be in existence and
    especially with the rising cost of healthcare and the increased serious
    health issues our patients are experiencing such as cancer, diabetes,
    and heart disease. One proposal to address these costs is the NW
    Portland Area Indian Health Board's efforts to develop three regional
    health facilities in the Portland area to send our tribal members to
    for specialty health services not provided in our tribal clinics. This
    would reduce the CHS expenditures currently spent at local specialty
    providers.
        Another way to reduce the burden on CHS is to focus on prevention
    and find innovative ways to make our community healthier. By investing
    in our member's health up front and focusing on prevention up front, we
    hope to offset the rising CHS costs. In this regard, we support adding
    additional funding for the Health Protection and Disease Prevention
    Program. One of the Skokomish Health Center's long-term goals is to
    build a culturally sensitive wellness center to focus on prevention,
    medical and holistic healing programs.
        Due to recent cuts in State Medicaid funding, we have experienced a
    growing strain on our substance abuse treatment resources. We urge
    additional funding to be available for treatment. In this regard, we
    currently do not have a recovery after care facility for our clients
    when they finish treatment. If a client lacks the resources and family
    support, they are left to return to their previous addiction
    environments, which is likely to reduce their chance of success at
    recovery.
        Finally, related to mental health, we have identified a need for a
    youth mental health facility. While there are youth substance abuse
    treatment facilities, there are no facilities available to treat mental
    health issues for youth, who do not have any substance abuse issues.
    This recently hit home as we had a young teenage girl who had no
    substance abuse issues but was in need of in-patient mental health
    services. After exhausting all avenues to find a tribal/IHS mental
    health facility to place this young lady in we were unable to locate
    one. The child is on the east coast and will remain in a non-Tribal/IHS
    institution for lack of a facility available to bring her closer to
    home with her extended family on the Skokomish Reservation. This young
    lady has attempted suicide on several occasions at the facility where
    she is currently located. We urge the Congress to direct the IHS to
    report on its effort to develop a youth behavioral health facility to
    meet the growing mental health needs of our Native youth.

                     TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS

        In 1995, the Congress began encouraging tribes to assume historic
    preservation responsibilities as part of self-determination. These
    programs conserve fragile places, objects and traditions crucial to
    tribal culture, history, and sovereignty. As was envisioned by the
    Congress, more tribes qualify for funding every year. Paradoxically,
    the more successful the program becomes, the less each tribe receives
    to maintain professional services, ultimately crippling the programs.
    In fiscal year 2001, there were 27 THPOs with an average award of
    $154,000. Currently there are 132 tribes operating the program, each
    receiving less $51,000. We join the National Congress of American
    Indians and the National Organization of Tribal Historic Preservation
    Officers in supporting the requested $15 million increase in funding
    for this program.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        The Skokomish Tribe urges the subcommittee to maintain funding for
    key environmental programs, in particular, funding for Puget Sound
    restoration efforts. This funding is critical to the collaborative
    efforts to restore the health of the Puget Sound, and in particular the
    Hood Canal--the Jewel of the Puget Sound. The program is vital to the
    tribe's efforts to manage and protect our treaty protected resources in
    the Hood Canal.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The tribe thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to present
    testimony on these important issues.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Society of American Foresters

        Good morning Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is
    Robert W. Malmsheimer, and I am a professor of forest policy and law at
    the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. I am here today
    to testify on behalf of the Society of American Foresters (SAF).
        The Society of American Foresters (SAF), with more than 12,000
    forestry professionals across the country in all segments of the
    profession, believes in sound management and stewardship of the
    Nation's public and private forests. Funding for the Department of the
    Interior (DOI) and the USDA Forest Service (USFS), both contained in
    the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill,
    are particularly important to maintaining and improving the Nation's
    forests.
        We would like to begin by thanking the administration for
    recognizing the importance of the USFS and forestry components of the
    DOI and maintaining funding at approximately fiscal year 2012 enacted
    levels for USFS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). That said, the
    751 million acres of forests in the United States are subject to
    tremendous pressures from wildfires, insects, disease, invasive
    species, changing climates, and more. At the same time, people are
    relying on forests more and more for clean water and air, recreational
    opportunities, hunting, fishing, forest products, and scenic values.
    These pressures and harsh economic times force Federal agencies to look
    for innovative ways to complete more work with limited resources.
        SAF remains deeply concerned about these issues and the overall
    sustainability of the Nation's forests. To that end, SAF urges a focus
    on several key areas that directly impact the range of programs within
    the DOI and USFS budgets. Key areas include:
      --Forest health on public and private forestlands;
      --addressing barriers to active forest management; and
      --SAF budget recommendations.

                                 FOREST HEALTH

        As the largest professional society for foresters in the world, SAF
    represents the forest managers of both public and private forests in
    the United States. Across the country, our forests are reaching a
    critical threshold that, if passed, could lead to even further negative
    impacts including:
      --continued closures of established infrastructure;
      --job losses to rural communities;
      --pressure of invasive species;
      --expanded areas of insects and disease;
      --overstocked stands; and
      --increased risk of wildfire.
        Since 1910, the U.S.'s forest area has been relatively stable, with
    a slight increase in the last two decades.\1\ The current volume of
    annual timber growth is 32-percent higher than the volume of annual
    removals. This, in part, has led to the need for restoration on 65 to
    82 million acres of the National Forest System (NFS), as Chief Tidwell
    mentioned in his testimony to the subcommittee on February 17, 2012.\2\
    In 2012, the USFS is proposing to complete only 4 million acres of
    restoration on NFS lands, yielding 2.6 BBF in forest products.\3\ This
    is not enough to combat our Nation's declining forest health,
    especially in light of the current bark beetle epidemic in the west
    that has led to unprecedented numbers of dead and dying trees. This low
    production level on public lands pressures private forestlands, which
    already provide 91 percent of wood production, to meet demand.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2007. U.S. Forest Resource Facts
    and Historical Trends. Available online at http://fia.fs.fed.us/
    library/brochures/docs/Forest%20Facts%201952-2007%20English%
    20rev072411.pdf; last accessed March 2012.
        \2\ Tidwell, T. 2012. Statement of Tom Tidwell, Chief, U.S. Forest
    Service before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
    concerning the President's budget request for the U.S. Forest Service
    in fiscal year 2013. March 6, 2010. Available online at http://
    www.energy.
    senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=8f60d724-f8e5-4d57-
    9f01-b8a6837d9f5d; last accessed March 2012.
        \3\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2012. Increasing the Pace of
    Restoration and Job Creation on Our National Forests. Available online
    at http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/restoration/restoration.pdf; last
    accessed March 2012.
        \4\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2010. National Report on
    Sustainable Forests--2010. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/
    research/sustain/2010SustainabilityReport/documents/2010_
    SustainabilityReport.pdf; last accessed March 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Constraints on forests and forest management have led to a steady
    decline in the forestry-related job sector. From 2005 to 2010 primary
    (forestry and logging, paper, wood manufacturing, etc.) and secondary
    (residential construction, furniture, etc.) employment have seen a
    combined reduction of 920,507 total jobs. In fact, total U.S. annual
    timber harvests are at their lowest levels since the 1960s. This lack
    of production led to the closure of more than 1,000 mills from 2005 to
    2009, which decreased overall sawmilling capacity by 15 percent, and
    lowered production levels less than 50 percent of capacity at the
    remaining mills.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Smith, B.W., and Guldin, R.W. 2012. Forest Sector Reeling
    during Economic Downturn. The Forestry Source January, 2012. Available
    online at http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/saf/forestrysource_201201/
    index.php; last accessed March 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      BARRIERS TO ACTIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT

        SAF understands that the economic downturn has impacted forest
    industries. However, in recent decades other factors have developed
    that also negatively affect the forestry profession and create barriers
    to active forest management. One of those barriers is the Equal Access
    to Justice Act (EAJA).
        Last year the House Appropriations Subcommittee included report
    language in its budget recommendation that addressed the complexity and
    conflicts often associated with EAJA. The subcommittee requested
    detailed reports on the disposition of EAJA applications, the amount of
    agency funds paid as the result of the Act, the names of the fee
    recipients and Federal judges involved in EAJA cases, and the hourly
    rates of attorneys and expert witnesses.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ U.S. Congress. 2012. Department of the Interior, Environment,
    and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill 112th Congress First Session
    Report 112-151. Available online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-
    112hrpt151/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt151.pdf; last accessed March 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2011, Dr. Michael J. Mortimer, Director, College of Natural
    Resources at Virginia Tech University, and I completed a study on EAJA
    that examined concerns raised by interest groups, stakeholders, and
    congressional members. The study, published as a peer-reviewed article
    in the Journal of Forestry, examined EAJA fees paid by USFS in
    litigation from 1999 to 2005. Our results, which analyzed data obtained
    through Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) requests and the analysis of
    public records, documented that Federal agency EAJA fee records
    differed considerably. As Table 1 reflects, there was nearly a $1
    million difference between the data provided in 2006 by the Secretary
    of Agriculture to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
    Resources (SCENR) and the records we obtained from the USFS, and the
    Secretary's response was nearly double the total amount Department of
    Justice (DOJ) records indicate were paid.

     TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF U.S. FOREST SERVICE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
                           PAYMENTS, 1999 TO 2005 \1\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    United States Forest Service FOIA Information...........      $6,137,583
    DOJ FOIA Information....................................       3,526,632
    Information provided to SCENR...........................       7,002,530
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Mortimer, M.J., and R.W. Malmsheimer. 2011. The Equal Access to
      Justice Act and U.S. Forest Service Land Management: Incentives to
      Litigate? Journal of Forestry 109(6): 352-358.

        Given these inconsistencies and the controversy surrounding EAJA
    payments, SAF supports the inclusion of EAJA reporting requirements in
    this year's budget. We believe that doing so will greatly improve the
    transparency of EAJA payments and provide policymakers and stakeholders
    with standardized information that they can use to assess the Act's
    performance.

                           SAF BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS

        SAF understands that the subcommittee has to make difficult
    decisions when funding Federal agencies. We would like to commend the
    members of the subcommittee for your continued focused efforts on
    forest sustainability. With this in mind, we will not give
    recommendations for all of the programs we support. Instead, we will
    focus on several of our top priorities and ask that the committee
    recognize that our support is not limited to the recommendations that
    follow.
        SAF supports the fiscal year 2012 budget language to increase the
    NFS timber harvest from 2.4 BBF to 3 BBF this fiscal year. While SAF is
    encouraged by USDA Secretary Vilsack's announcement to increase harvest
    levels to 2.6 BBF in fiscal year 2012,\7\ we support increased
    restoration efforts by the administration to restore priority
    watersheds. We look forward to continuing to work with the Congress and
    the administration to see increased restoration work.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ U.S. Forest Service. 2012. U.S. Forest Service highlights
    expansion of restoration of national forests and funding for
    Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration projects. U.S. Forest
    Service Press Release Feb. 2, 2012. Available online at http://
    www.fs.fed.us/news/2012/releases/02/restoration.shtml; last accessed
    March 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        USFS Research and Development (R&D) provides for essential research
    on priority areas such as disturbances (including wildfire), watershed
    restoration needs, local level emphasis, and strategic programs. R&D's
    Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is the backbone of U.S.
    forestry knowledge, providing the only national census of forests
    across all ownerships. Through FIA, USFS (partnering with State
    forestry agencies and the private sector) collects and analyzes forest
    data to assess trends on issues such as forest health and management,
    fragmentation and parcelization, and forest carbon sequestration. FIA
    data also evaluates forest disturbance risks, such as wildfire, insects
    and disease, and spread of invasive species. SAF requests that the
    Congress support FIA at no less than $69 million in fiscal year 2013.
        More than 50 percent of our Nation's forests are privately owned.
    This makes USFS State and Private Forestry (S&PF) allocations, used in
    part to assist in managing these lands, essential to the health of our
    forests. SAF strongly supports S&PF funding including the Forest Health
    Management (FHM) Budget Line Items (BLI) for both Federal and
    cooperative lands. We recommend funding FHM BLI's at fiscal year 2012
    enacted funding levels of $112 million. These dollars are critical for
    monitoring conditions of forest health on Federal and non-Federal
    lands. Funds provide the assistance to prevent and mitigate insect and
    disease outbreaks as well as the spread of invasive species.
        SAF strongly supports the administration's request to permanently
    reauthorize Stewardship Contracting within the USFS budget. The
    Stewardship Contracting authority is a successful tool used by the USFS
    and BLM to accomplish restoration work on multiple restoration projects
    simultaneously using funds provided by projects' timber revenues. It is
    also an important tool to carry out the administration's priority
    Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Without this
    authority, these programs would be unable to complete the work outlined
    in collaborative proposals. From 2006 to 2011 approximately 900
    Stewardship contracts, which treated 545,625 acres, were awarded,
    including 208 contracts in 2011.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Pinchot Institute for Conservation. 2012. The Role of
    Communities in Stewardship Contracting: Fiscal Year 2011 Programmatic
    Monitoring Report to the USDA Forest Service. Available online at
    http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/stewardship/reports/documents/
    2011/FinalFY11USFSMonEvalReport.pdf; last accessed March 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        SAF also commends the administration for their request to fully
    fund the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLR).
    CFLR encourages collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of
    priority forest landscapes.\9\ In 2 years, the projects selected in
    2010 created 2,100 jobs and supplied approximately 2.3 MMBF.\10\ To
    ensure CFLR's continued success, SAF and five other Steering Committee
    members along with approximately 140 members of other organizations,
    participate in the CFLR Coalition to support continued funding at $40
    million.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ U.S. Forest Service. 2012. Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program. U.S. Forest Service Website. Accessible online at
    http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/index.shtml; last accessed March
    2012.
        \10\ U.S. Forest Service 2012. Fiscal Year 2013 President's Budget
    Justification. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/
    2013/fy2013-justification.pdf; last accessed March 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Hazardous Fuels funding is a critical component to USFS and DOI
    hazardous fuels reduction efforts. Funds are used to restore forest
    health and resilience and reduce the cost of suppressing wildfires. In
    2011, more than 74,000 wildland fires burned more than 8.7 million
    acres.\11\ These funds are also used to assist the 66,700 communities
    across the country currently at risk of wildland fire. SAF recommends
    maintaining the fiscal year 2012 funding levels of $318 million for the
    USDA Forest Service and $184 million for the Department of the
    Interior.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ National Interagency Fire Center, Historical Wildland Fire
    Summaries, p. 9. Accessible online at http://
    www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2011_statssumm/
    intro_summary.pdf; last accessed February 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One of the significant changes to the fiscal year 2013 budget
    proposal includes the merger of seven BLIs into the proposed Integrated
    Resource Restoration (IRR) Line item that was enacted as a pilot
    program in three regions in the fiscal year 2012 budget. SAF recommends
    funding the seven BLIs at fiscal year 2012 levels if the subcommittee
    does not enact IRR nationally.
        I would like to close by discussing the decrease in the BLM's
    Public Domain Program found in the fiscal year 2013 budget
    justification. The proposed $3.5 million is a 41-percent decrease in
    the program. This would reduce the number of employees managing 60
    million acres from 80 employees to approximately 50. SAF recommends
    funding BLM's Public Domain Program at enacted fiscal year 2012 levels.
        On behalf of the Society of American Foresters, I thank you for
    this opportunity.
                                     ______

                 [From the Journal of Forestry, September 2011]

         The Equal Access to Justice Act and U.S. Forest Service Land
                      Management: Incentives to Litigate?
              (Michael J. Mortimer and Robert W. Malmsheimer \1\)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Michael J. Mortimer (mortimer@vt.edu) is director of Graduate
    Programs, Virginia Tech, College of Natural Resources and Environment,
    7054 Haycock Road, Room 411, Falls Church, VA 22043. Robert W.
    Malmsheimer (rwmalmsh@esf.edu) is professor, SUNY College of
    Environmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY
    13210.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) provides for attorneys fees
    and court costs to be awarded to parties prevailing in litigation
    against U.S. federal agencies. We examined EAJA awards paid by the U.S.
    Forest Service from 1999 to 2005, finding more than $6 million awarded
    to various plaintiffs. Awards were most commonly paid to environmental
    litigants, although all categories of litigant stakeholders made use of
    the law. Although it remains uncertain whether EAJA provides an
    incentive to sue the U.S. Forest Service in any specific instance,
    because litigation against the U.S. Forest Service generally has a low
    probability of success, EAJA one-way fee shifting does alter litigation
    risks among potential plaintiffs. Frequent EAJA claimants often possess
    considerable financial resources calling into question how the purposes
    of the law have evolved in the last 20 years.
        Keywords: national forest, litigation, fees, interest groups,
    courts.
        ``Paying litigants to sue certainly encourages legal action''
    (Thomas 2000, p. 9). This quote by former chief of the U.S. Forest
    Service, Jack Ward Thomas, expresses concerns that the Equal Access to
    Justice Act (EAJA; codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412 and 5 U.S.C.
    Sec. 5045) may be an incentive for litigation against the U.S. Forest
    Service and other Federal land-management agencies. The EAJA is a fee-
    shifting statute that allows litigants to recover attorney fees and
    other legal expenses (such as court filing fees) from the Federal
    Government when they successfully sue an administrative agency.
        Numerous scholars have described the increasing use of litigation
    as a tool to influence U.S. Forest Service land-management decisions.
    Jones and Taylor (1995) completed the first study, examining cases
    decided between 1971 and 1993. They found that the frequency of U.S.
    Forest Service lawsuits increased during these 20 years and concluded
    that litigation was used as a tool to effect change within the agency.
    Malmsheimer et al. (2004) examined all published Federal Court of
    Appeals cases from 1970 through 2001 in which the U.S. Forest Service
    was a defendant. They found that the number of lawsuits involving the
    agency had increased since 1970 and that ``judicial review of national
    forest management is intensifying'' (Malmsheimer et al. 2004, p. 20).
    In the most recent and thorough examination of U.S. Forest Service
    litigation, Keele et al. (2006) examined the final outcome of all
    cases, both published and unpublished, initiated from 1989 through 2002
    in which the U.S. Forest Service was a defendant, again finding that
    litigation directed against the agency had generally increased. Others
    have confirmed these observations (Mortimer 2002, Broussard and
    Whitaker 2009). For example, the Council on Environmental Quality's
    (2009) records indicate that the U.S. Forest Service is the most common
    Federal agency defendant in National Environmental Policy Act
    litigation. These studies suggest that litigation has become an
    integral aspect of U.S. Forest Service decisionmaking and land
    management: ``The legal environment is as important to national forest
    . . . management as the ecological and economic environments''
    (Malmsheimer et al. 2004, p. 25). The payment of attorney fees is an
    important component of this legal environment.
        The U.S. legal system operates under what is known as the American
    rule, which provides that each party in a lawsuit must bear its own
    legal expenses (Sisk 1993). This differs from the English rule under
    which the losing party pays the winner's legal costs. Fee-shifting
    statutes in the United States are a relatively rare exception to the
    American rule, providing for the recovery of legal expenses in a manner
    similar to the English rule. Although some criticize the economic
    incentives created by fee-shifting statues and citizen suit provisions
    (Benson 2006, Greve 1990), others believe that subsidizing litigation
    against land-management agencies through the EAJA is a socially
    valuable use of public resources (Nie 2008). In either case, it is
    indisputable that citizen suits are an important aspect of modern
    public natural resource management.
        The EAJA is a one-way fee-shifting statute that specifically allows
    parties who bring successful lawsuits against Federal land-management
    agencies to recover their costs, such as attorney fees and filing
    costs, directly from the agencies' budgets. The EAJA was originally
    intended to:
      --make the Federal justice system more accessible to parties
            defending themselves against what the Congress perceived as
            unreasonable Government action;
      --provide an incentive for citizens to contest excessive Government
            regulation;
      --supply additional compensation for citizens who were injured by
            Government actions; and
      --deter overreaching regulation by Federal agencies (Hogfoss 1985,
            Sullivan 1984, Mezey and Olson 1993, Sisk 1993).
        By providing attorney and other fees, the Act removed some of the
    economic obstacles citizens face when contesting Government regulation.
    Table 1 lists EAJA process and eligibility requirements. Although it
    was recognized, at the dawn of environmental public interest
    litigation, that a bevy of institutional obstacles existed preventing
    access to the Federal court system (Large 1972), the EAJA was not
    established with that particular set of litigants in mind. It has,
    however, over the last 20 years evolved to address a broader class of
    litigant stakeholder.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1.--The Equal Access to Justice Act fee recovery requirements (28
                U.S.C. 2412(d)(2)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 504(b)(1)(B))
    Process requirements (Plaintiff must meet all)
        Plaintiff must have incurred legal expenses.
        Plaintiff must have prevailed in some aspect of the case.
        Plaintiff must submit an application for a fee award to the court
    within 30 days of the final judgment.
        Plaintiff must allege that the Government's position was not
    ``substantially justified.''
    Eligibility requirements (Plaintiff must meet one)
        Individuals with a net worth of $2 million or less.
        Businesses with no more than 500 employees and a net worth of $7
    million or less.
        Charitable or other tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations with no more
    than 500 employees.
        Agricultural cooperative associations with no more than 500
    employees.
        Other partnerships, corporations, associations, units of local
    government, or organizations with a net worth of not more than $7
    million and no more than 500 employees.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        Although little empirical research has been conducted regarding the
    EAJA's impact on land-management agencies, the law's role in
    potentially spurring litigation has been a topic of press and
    congressional investigation and speculation for nearly 10 years.
    Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Knudson's 2001 series in the Sacramento
    Bee entitled ``Environment, Inc.'' presented a high-profile discussion
    of the environmental movement's reliance on litigation and attorney
    fees. In the series, Knudson focused primarily on litigation directed
    against the Fish and Wildlife Service's administration of the
    Endangered Species Act. Knudson (2001) found that during the 1990s, 434
    environmental cases were brought against the Federal Government and the
    Government paid out more than $31.5 million in attorney fees. In 2006,
    Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) requested agency information on the amount
    of EAJA fees paid out by USFS from 1999 through 2005. An editorial on
    USFS litigation in The Missoulian \2\ concluded that the EAJA ``has
    become a self-funding mechanism for environmental groups fundamentally
    opposed to prevailing national forest management direction''
    (Missoulian 2007). Most recently, a Wyoming attorney and former
    Department of the Interior employee claimed that the Government paid
    environmental law firms more than $1.6 million between 2003 and 2005
    for litigation involving national forests in six USFS regions \3\
    (Budd-Falen 2009). Despite persistent interest and allegations
    surrounding the EAJA and USFS litigation, no comprehensive empirical
    study and analysis (with the exception of the response to Senator
    Bingaman's request) has systematically examined the issue.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ A newspaper in one of the most litigious National Forest System
    Regions (see Keele et al. 2006).
        \3\ Regions 1-6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The effects of a particular fee-shifting policy are highly
    dependent on contextual variables. Characteristics of the adversaries,
    the relative value of the fee awards to the parties, and the parties'
    respective views of the strength of their cases make empirical
    examinations inherently challenging (Rowe 1984). This should not be
    surprising, because work to date has noted the complexity and
    uncertainty in predicting the potential effects of fee arrangements on
    litigation behavior as well as the unsettled state of understanding of
    these effects (Kritzer 2002). This study attempts to quantify and
    contribute to an understanding of the role of one-way fee shifting in
    USFS litigation.
    Methods
        Since EAJA payment figures are not generally publicly available, we
    used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) \4\ to compile EAJA payment
    data from the USFS and the Department of Justice (DOJ). We asked DOJ
    for payment information because it defends the USFS in the Federal
    court system and we believed its EAJA payment records would supplement
    USFS records. Written FOIA requests were made to the USFS on October 3,
    2006 and to the DOJ on October 11, 2006. We received responses from the
    USFS on November 27, 2006 and from the DOJ on April 11, 2007. We
    requested a list of all EAJA fees paid by the USFS from 1990 to 2005,
    including the amount of EAJA fees paid, litigants' names, court
    decision dates, and judicial decision citations. We also requested
    copies of all documents containing any information regarding the
    payment of EAJA fees during this time.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 5 U.S.C. 552.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Results
        USFS and DOJ supplied differing information to our FOIA requests.
    USFS provided records from 1999 through 2005. The DOJ provided USFS-
    based EAJA records from 1989 through 2006--including data from 1989 to
    1998 that the USFS was unable to provide. As Table 2 indicates, EAJA
    fee records differ considerably. For example, in 2006 the Secretary of
    Agriculture provided the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
    Resources with information about EAJA fees paid by the USFS (Senate
    Hearing 2006). As Table 2 reflects, there is nearly a $1 million
    difference between the data provided in the 2006 by the Secretary and
    the records we obtained from the USFS, and the Secretary's response is
    nearly double the total amount DOJ records indicate were paid. The EAJA
    has no agency recordkeeping or reporting requirements, and the
    inconsistencies we found in the agency's and DOJ's records substantiate
    ongoing congressional concerns that EAJA payments are being
    inadequately tracked by Federal agencies (Western Congressional Caucus
    2009). These concerns have manifested as proposed bipartisan
    legislation in the prior sessions of Congress.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ H.R. 4717, 111th Congress.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DOJ provided EAJA award records for 17 years (1989 through 2006)--
    10 more years than USFS. These records indicate that during this time
    the USFS paid more than $6 million in EAJA payments. Focusing on the
    overlapping years (1999 through 2006), the USFS data differed
    considerably from the DOJ records--USFS records indicated it paid an
    additional $2.5 million in this 6-year period (see Table 2).

                TABLE 2.--COMPARISON OF THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT FEES, BY YEAR
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           EAJA payments              Secretary of
                                                               ------------------------------------    Agriculture
                                                                                                     response to the
                                                                                                       U.S. Senate
                               Year                                U.S. Forest                        Committee on
                                                                  Service FOIA      DOJ FOIA data      Energy and
                                                                      data                               Natural
                                                                                                       Resources's
                                                                                                         request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1999......................................................          $794,774          $498,406          $814,774
    2000......................................................           232,348           240,710           602,698
    2001......................................................           999,938           457,535           581,567
    2002......................................................           626,741           704,230         1,077,441
    2003......................................................           794,414           586,649         1,236,668
    2004......................................................         1,412,804           571,676         1,557,804
    2005......................................................         1,276,564           467,427         1,131,578
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------
          Total...............................................         6,137,583         3,526,632         7,002,530
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FOIA, Freedom of Information Act.

    Source: Data provided by the U.S. Forest Service, DOJ, and Congressional Research Service.

    Payments
        USFS records indicated that EAJA fees were awarded in 149 instances
    from 1999 to 2005, resulting in the agency paying more than $6 million
    in fees during this 7-year period (Table 3).\6\ To put these numbers in
    context, between 1982 and 1994 all Federal agencies reported court EAJA
    decisions awarding $29.6 million, with an average award size of $5,250
    (U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO] 1998). The number of cases
    per year in which the agency paid fees ranged from 9 cases in 2002 to
    29 cases in both 2001 and 2004, with an average annual number of cases
    of 21. Total fee awards per year ranged from $232,348 in 2000 to
    $1,412,804 in 2004, with annual awards averaging $876,798. The average
    award per case during the 7 years was $41,192, although 18 payments
    exceeded $100,000 (Table 4). It is unclear whether average annual fees
    are increasing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ One case, which resulted in a $75,000 payment, did not list a
    year of payment. We omitted that case from our inventory and subsequent
    analysis.

          TABLE 3.--U.S. FOREST SERVICE'S EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT AWARD PAYMENTS BY YEAR FROM 1999 TO 2005
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Number of        Average
                                  Year                                 EAJA payments  cases/payments      payment
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1999............................................................        $794,774              21         $37,846
    2000............................................................         232,348              12          19,362
    2001............................................................         999,938              29          34,481
    2002............................................................         626,741               9          69,638
    2003............................................................         794,414              23          34,540
    2004............................................................       1,412,804              29          48,717
    2005............................................................       1,276,564              26          49,099
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................................       6,137,583             149          41,192
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Data provided by the U.S. Forest Service.

     TABLE 4.--FREQUENCY OF U.S. FOREST SERVICE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
                          AWARDS FROM 1999 THROUGH 2005
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Frequency
                      Award/payment amount                      (number of
                                                                 payments)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Less than $500..........................................               3
    $501-1,000..............................................  ..............
    $1,001-5,000............................................              28
    $5,001-10,000...........................................              16
    $10,001-20,000..........................................              21
    $20,001-30,000..........................................              20
    $30,001-50,000..........................................              23
    $50,001-75,000..........................................              14
    $75,001-100,000.........................................               6
    $100,001-150,000........................................              12
    $150,001-200,000........................................               3
    $200,001-300,000........................................               3
    Over $300,000...........................................  ..............
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Data provided by the U.S. Forest Service.

    Payment Location and Recipients
        We used the information from the USFS records to understand where
    the cases supporting EAJA payments were located. These records also
    allowed us to learn the types and names of plaintiffs receiving EAJA
    fees.
        We categorized the responses to our FOIA request by USFS region
    (Figure 1). Payments per region ranged from $114,310 in Region 9
    (Eastern Region) to $1,408,140 in Region 1 (Northern Region; Table 5).
    The number of cases ranged from 4 in Region 9 to 30 in Region 1. It is
    important to note that Region 2 did not provide data for 1999 and 2000
    and that Region 8 did not provide data for 2005. This suggests that our
    results underestimate the number of fees paid and their total amount.

       Figure 1.--Boundaries of the U.S. Forest Service regions (map was
    provided courtesy of U.S. Forest Service). Note that there is no Region
                                       7.

       TABLE 5.--U.S. FOREST SERVICE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT AWARDS BY
                          REGION FROM 1999 THROUGH 2005
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Number of
                   Region \1\                  EAJA payments  cases/payments
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1.......................................      $1,408,140              30
    2 \2\...................................         360,776              19
    3.......................................         632,908              21
    4.......................................         698,645              20
    5.......................................         999,239              13
    6.......................................         850,584              22
    8 \3\...................................         347,943               5
    9.......................................         114,310               4
    10......................................         406,350               5
    WO......................................         318,689              10
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................       6,137,584             149
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ There is no Region 7.
    \2\ Region 2 did not provide 1999-2000 data.
    \3\ Region 8 did not provide 2005 data.

    WO, Washington Office.

    Source: Data provided by the U.S. Forest Service.

        USFS records were also used to categorize the litigants receiving
    EAJA fee awards. We organized the fee recipients into five categories:
          Attorney/Law Firm.--Fee recipients who could be easily identified
            as an attorney or a law firm.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ It is important to note that the fee recipients in the attorney
    category represented clients that can be categorized into one of the
    other categories--all attorneys and law firms represented clients in
    these cases.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Commodity Interests.--Fee recipients involved in commodity
            production, such as ranching and grazing operations, timber
            companies, and mining organizations.
          Environmental Organizations.--Fee recipients whose stated
            organizational goal was to protect some aspect of the
            environment.
          Individuals.--Fee recipients who were individuals and not readily
            identifiable as attorneys (but who may include attorneys).
          Other.--Fee recipients, such as Native American tribes, who could
            not be classified into another category.
        USFA records listed a fee recipient for 120 of the 149 EAJA awards
    the agency reported (Table 6). Eighty-three (69.2 percent) of these 120
    recipients were environmental organizations, and more than two-thirds
    ($3.2 million) of EAJA fees were paid to these organizations. The
    agency records did not allow us to determine whom attorneys or law
    firms represented. Thus, the number and percentage of fee recipients in
    the other four categories may vary from the results presented in Table
    6.

     TABLE 6.--NUMBER AND DOLLAR AMOUNT OF U.S. FOREST SERVICE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT AWARD PAYMENTS FROM 1999
                                         THROUGH 2005, BY TYPE OF FEE RECIPIENT
                               [Percentages may not equal 100 percent because of rounding]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Number of     Dollar amount
                                                                       Equal Access      of Equal      Percentage of
                          Type of fee recipient                       to Justice Act     Access to     Equal Access
                                                                          awards        Justice Act   to Justice Act
                                                                         received         awards       award dollars
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Environmental...................................................              83      $3,219,447            69.4
    Commodity.......................................................               6         400,932             8.6
    Attorney/law firm...............................................               9         308,627             6.7
    Individuals (may include attorneys).............................              11         426,124             9.2
    Other...........................................................              11         286,286            6.2
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Data provided by the U.S. Forest Service.

        USFS data allowed us to determine the litigants that repeatedly
    received EAJA awards. All the litigants awarded fees in more than one
    case were environmental groups (Table 7). Nine of these 14 groups are
    listed by Gambino Portuese et al. (2009) in their list of 12 most
    frequent parties opposing USFS in land-management cases from 1989 to
    2005. In fact, The Wilderness Society is the only ``high frequency
    party''--parties Gambino Portuese et al. (2009) found averaged two or
    more cases per year--that was not involved in more than one of the EAJA
    cases. This raises questions, which our data can not conclusively
    answer: do these groups litigate more because their legal costs are
    reimbursed, and/or do they request EAJA fees so often because they
    litigate often? A lack of risk to plaintiffs operating under one-way
    fee shifting, like the EAJA, where the plaintiff bears no possibility
    of having to pay the agency defendant's legal costs can theoretically
    favor litigation, particularly over less expensive conflict settlement
    options (Rowe 1984, Gambino Portuese et al. 2009).

    TABLE 7.--ORGANIZATIONS LISTED AS A PLAINTIFF IN MORE THAN ONE LAWSUIT
      AGAINST THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE THAT RESULTED IN AN EQUAL ACCESS TO
     JUSTICE ACT PAYMENTS FROM 1999 THROUGH 2006, BY NUMBER OF TIMES LISTED

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Number of
                                                               times listed
                        Organization name                      as plaintiff
                                                               in EAJA suit
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    American Wildlands......................................               6
    Center for Biological Diversity.........................               6
    Earthjustice............................................               3
    Forest Guardians........................................               8
    Heartwood (includes Kentucky Heartwood).................               7
    Idaho Sporting Congress.................................               8
    Kettle Range Conservation Group.........................               4
    Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center.......................               2
    League of Wilderness Defenders..........................               4
    Native Ecosystems Council...............................               7
    Oregon Natural Resources Council........................               5
    Sierra Club/Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund..............              12
    Swan View Coalition.....................................               4
    The Ecology Center......................................               9
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................              85
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Data provided by the U.S. Forest Service.

    Discussion
        The challenge in analyzing our results is that we are left with
    perhaps more questions than with which we began. Although we can
    contribute to the empirical understanding of fee shifting and land-
    management litigation, we cannot resolve the entirety of questions
    surrounding EAJA with any degree of certainty.
        In terms of what our study can definitively tell us, we know this
    much. We can establish that USFS faces a formidable litigation
    environment and that the number of lawsuits is increasing. We found
    that lawsuits against the agency are accompanied by requests for legal
    fees under the EAJA and that the agency has paid out approximately $6
    million over a 7-year period--although we acknowledge that this dollar
    total is imprecise. This is a relatively small percentage of USFS's
    annual budget,\8\ and that is not surprising because only a small
    percentage of the thousands of projects proposed by USFS are ultimately
    litigated. We also found that the most common USFS EAJA fee recipients,
    environmental groups, are also the organizations that file the most
    lawsuits against the agency (Gambino Portuese et al. 2009). Finally,
    although not homogenous, most of these frequent environmental litigants
    possess substantial financial resources (Table 8).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ For example, the fiscal year 2009 U.S. Forest Service budget
    for the National Forest System was $1.51 billion (USDA 2009).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        By using the example of national forest litigation and of the
    litigants from our study, we can also establish that current use of
    EAJA by these plaintiffs diverges from the law's initial purpose on its
    passage nearly 30 years ago. As discussed earlier, the congressional
    intent behind the EAJA appears focused. The overarching theme behind
    the statute's passage was the prevention of ``excessive Government''
    regulation. The three goals of the EAJA were to ``(1) encourage parties
    that are the subject of unreasonable Federal Government action to seek
    reimbursement for attorney's fees and other costs, (2) restrain
    overzealous regulators, and (3) ensure that the Government pays for the
    costs of refining and formulating public policy'' (GAO 1998, p. 8).
    Bill sponsor Senator Pete V. Domenici stated that the EAJA's purpose
    was ``to redress the balance between the Government acting in its
    discretionary capacity and the individual'' (House Hearing 1980). The
    EAJA was intended to allow plaintiffs access to the legal system to
    challenge excessive regulation by the Federal Government, particularly
    where such regulations caused economic harm to members of the public.
    Although agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    typically engage in public regulation, land-management agencies, such
    as USFS, do not. Legal actions directed against land-management
    agencies are rarely brought by individuals or small businesses
    contesting excessive Government regulation. Rather, litigation against
    USFS usually challenges discretionary land-management decisions.\9\ The
    Congress was informed that EAJA could be used in lawsuits contesting
    agency decisions. For example, during EAJA's legislative hearings
    Federal agencies, including the EPA, warned the Congress of the bill's
    potential to encourage excessive interference with agency
    decisionmaking (Mezey and Olson 1993). Whether the Congress disregarded
    or underestimated these concerns is difficult to discern; however,
    recent events, such as the Western Congressional Caucus members'
    (Western Congressional Caucus 2009) and Idaho Senate Delegation's
    (2009) letters to DOJ, indicate that some legislators believe EAJA may
    not be addressing its original purposes. The Congress's intention when
    it enacted EAJA was to address the resource disparity between private
    litigants and the Government--the ultimate ``repeat player'' (see
    Galanter 1974). However, our findings suggest EAJA's legal eligibility
    requirements may not be restricting its use to groups with limited
    financial resources. For example, we found the organizations involved
    in more than one EAJA case collectively reported net assets in 2005 of
    more than $88 million and annual revenues of more than $116 million
    (Table 8).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ For example see Figure 5 of Keele et al. (2006), which
    illustrates the types of management activities most often challenged in
    U.S. Forest Service land-management litigation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     TABLE 8.--DESCRIPTION AND 2005 FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS
    LISTED AS A PLAINTIFF IN MORE THAN ONE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE U.S. FOREST
     SERVICE, WHICH RESULTED IN EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT AWARD PAYMENTS
               FROM 1999 THROUGH 2006, BY NUMBER OF TIMES LISTED

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Organization name               Net assets       Revenues
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    American Wildlands......................        $438,600        $521,833
    Center for Biological Diversity.........       2,347,991       3,477,044
    Earthjustice............................      28,261,755      21,086,300
    Forest Guardians........................         511,326         764,626
    Heartwood...............................          86,539         159,435
    Idaho Sporting Congress.................          31,657          60,428
    Kettle Range Conservation Group.........         ( \1\ )         ( \1\ )
    Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center.......          73,199         350,684
    League of Wilderness Defenders..........          16,171          82,996
    Native Ecosystems Council...............         ( \2\ )         ( \2\ )
    Oregon Natural Resources Council (now          1,181,477       1,214,995
     Oregon Wild) \3\.......................
    Sierra Club \4\.........................      54,604,888      85,183,435
    Swan View Coalition.....................          84,040          37,891
    The Ecology Center......................       1,166,694       3,158,765
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................      88,804,337    116,098,442
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Tax extension filed.
    \2\ Information not available on Guidestar.
    \3\ Guidestar data from 2004.
    \4\ Agency records repeatedly list the Sierra Club as an EAJA fee
      recipient. Because the Sierra Club is ineligible to receive fees as a
      501(c)(4) organization, the court awards were most likely awarded to
      the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.

    Source: Guidestar.org., n.d.

        We can also draw some informed conclusions from both the fee-
    shifting literature and from our findings. We recognize immediately
    that the behavior of any particular litigant is highly context specific
    and the effects of fee-shifting legislation such as EAJA are difficult
    to predict. Additionally, the rationale to litigate is multivariate;
    Armstrong (2008), e.g., lists nine plausible reasons why a party would
    choose litigation over alternative dispute resolution. That said, the
    literature is consistent in suggesting that fee shifting reduces the
    risk of choosing litigation for would-be plaintiffs (e.g., Rowe 1984).
    Litigation under the American Rule is an inherently risky conflict
    resolution alternative because failure to prevail can be financially
    costly to the parties. It is even more risky under a fee-shifting
    arrangement, such as the English Rule, wherein the loser pays the
    winners' legal expenses. This risk is shared symmetrically only if both
    parties are potentially liable for prevailing opponent's legal costs--
    known as two-way fee shifting--something EAJA does not require. If USFS
    prevails, the losing plaintiffs are not required to pay the
    Government's legal fees and costs associated with defending the action.
    In turn, this may reduce the perceived risk of commencing litigation
    (Rowe 1984). Kagan (2001) suggests that the number of lawsuits brought
    to trial is a function of how plaintiffs perceive the ``stakes'' in
    those lawsuits. That is to say, the likelihood of success and the
    expected value of winning lawsuits are related directly to the number
    of lawsuits. Exposure to unfavorable rulings, the costs of bringing the
    lawsuit, and the threat of having to pay other party's legal costs all
    contribute to the decision to litigate. However, EAJA influences this
    decision process by providing for partial fee shifting.
        Additionally, because lawsuits against USFS are unlikely to succeed
    in general, these suits could subsequently be classified as low-
    probability litigation.\10\ It has been noted that ``plaintiffs in . .
    . low-probability litigation . . . are likely to be risk seeking''
    (Guthrie 2000 p. 187), and more likely to prefer judicial outcomes to
    negotiated settlement options. Partial fee shifting's distortion of
    lawsuit risk presumably encourages both repeat plaintiffs and an
    increasing number of lawsuits. Our EAJA litigation findings--that
    frequent USFS litigators are also frequent EAJA claimants--provide
    evidence of this, although as we have noted several times this
    relationship is not well defined or understood. The potential to avoid
    paying their own fees (and never having to pay their opponent's fees)
    means that EAJA-eligible plaintiffs do not face the same risks as do
    typical defendants under the American Rule (Rowe 1984). Frequent USFS
    plaintiffs as rational, self-interested litigators would likely have
    some sensitivity to the monetary costs of lawsuits (Fein 1984, Greve
    1990, Adler 1996, Barnett and Terrell 2001). The financial risk
    asymmetry created by EAJA would not be lost on such plaintiffs. Other
    factors must be considered as well: Malmsheimer et al. (2004, p. 24)
    hypothesized that groups secure other benefits from litigation ``. . .
    such as publicity and delay of U.S. Forest Service action . . .'' and
    Juni (2002, p. 93-94) likewise noted that ``environmental groups'
    donations may suffer if [they use a nonlitigation] . . . approach [that
    can be] viewed as less `splashy.' '' Alternatively, it has been
    suggested that litigation is actually an effective means to facilitate
    cooperative bargaining and agreements between plaintiffs and agency
    defendants (Coglianese 1996). Regardless of the specific set of
    motivations facing a particular plaintiff--and on which we can only
    ponder--one-way fee shifting under the EAJA decreases the potential
    financial risk associated with national forest litigation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ During a 20-year period from 1989 to 2009, plaintiffs suing
    the U.S. Forest Service prevailed on the merits in only 19.3 percent of
    the cases (based on an analysis of the database described at Keele et
    al. 2006). Although the effects of any one suit may be extensive, for
    purposes of this article, we generally consider such litigation to have
    a low probability of success.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, there are various questions about which we can only
    speculate. We have previously mentioned the riddle of whether more
    frequent litigants naturally make more frequent EAJA requests for legal
    fees or whether more frequent EAJA awards facilitate more frequent
    litigation. This we cannot answer. Likewise, we cannot address whether
    the EAJA has incentivized any particular lawsuit. Nor can we quantify
    the role that EAJA fees might play in the overall operating budgets of
    potential plaintiffs--thereby framing EAJA's relative potential as an
    incentive--because we do not have access to these organizational
    finances. What little information we do have access to (Internal
    Revenue Service Form 990s) is inconsistent and lacking in detail among
    the various plaintiffs in this study. Likewise, we cannot conclude that
    in the absence of the EAJA the number of lawsuits against the U.S.
    Forest Service would subside. Finally, we cannot make any claims to how
    paying $6 million in legal fees has affected the U.S. Forest Service,
    apart from noting that, generally, the specter of lawsuits does affect
    agency perceptions and behaviors (Mortimer et al. 2011). In keeping
    with what prior scholarship has noted (see Kritzer 2002), there are
    formidable empirical challenges to making concrete claims on the effect
    of fee shifting, and it is no less the case in this instance.
    Conclusion
        The increasing use of litigation as a tool to influence Federal
    public land-management agency decisions remains controversial and
    politically charged. Our investigation of EAJA's interaction with the
    U.S. Forest Service suggests several findings important to future
    policy discussions and to understanding the relationships among the
    litigants:
      --The EAJA creates a litigation risk asymmetry that may cause
            stakeholders dissatisfied with U.S. Forest Service land-
            management decisions to embrace litigation. Enabling this
            behavior through one-way fee shifting is, of course, a public
            policy decision, but statutory reform of any perceived
            inequities or undesirability associated with EAJA and one-way
            fee shifting would necessarily require plaintiffs to face some
            ``. . . real prospect of out-of-pocket loss'' (Guthrie 2000, p.
            211).
      --There remains insufficient evidence to conclude that the EAJA is a
            driver for any particular plaintiff to challenge any particular
            U.S. Forest Service project. Decisions to litigate are likely
            driven by multiple factors and policymakers should realize that
            EAJA reform might not eliminate or reduce U.S. Forest Service
            land-management litigation. For example, some organizations'
            raison d'etre is to initiate ``public interest litigation.''
            Even if EAJA were completely repealed, these organizations
            would likely continue to sue land-management agencies. Also,
            some national forest management decisions are so offensive to
            some stakeholders that litigation is probably inevitable.
            Additionally, as Gambino-Portuese et al. (2009, p. 22, emphasis
            in original) noted, ``the vast majority of parties (74.4
            percent) are only involved in one lawsuit. These are groups and
            individuals whose interest is in a specific U.S. Forest Service
            project or activity and who use litigation to try to change
            that particular . . . land management decision.'' It is
            doubtful that these ``one-timers'' take EAJA's distortion of
            litigation risk into account when they make litigation
            decisions. Most importantly, many organizations have found that
            litigation provides an effective policy forum. It is often a
            more effective and less costly alternative to the resources
            required to effect policy changes in administrative and
            legislative branches or participate in collaborative public
            land-management efforts.
      --The original intent of the EAJA has drifted with its use in
            national forest management litigation. In our study, most EAJA
            payments were made to environmental interest groups with widely
            varying financial capabilities. We note that many are quite
            well financed and therefore not the class of plaintiffs for
            which the law was designed to provide access to the expensive
            federal litigation system. The increasing capabilities and
            sophistication of such public interest litigants, their
            relative financial resources, and the social desirability of an
            evolution in the usage of the EAJA might be related topics of
            inquiry for future policy studies of fee shifting and the EAJA.
    Literature Cited
        Adler, J.H. 1996. Rent seeking behind the green curtain. Regulation
    4:26-34.
        Armstrong, P.M. 2008. Why we still litigate. Pepp. Disp. Resol. Law
    J. 8(3):379-384.
        Barnett, A.H., and T.D. Terrell. 2001. Economic observations on
    citizen-suit provisions of environmental litigation. Duke Environ. Law
    Policy 12(1):1-38.
        Benson, B.L. 2006. Unnatural bounty: Distorting the incentives of
    major environmental groups. PERC Policy Series (PS-37):29.
        Broussard, S.R., and B.D. Whitaker. 2009. The Magna Charta of
    environmental legislation: A historical look at 30 years of NEPA-Forest
    Service litigation. For. Policy Econ. 11: 148-154.
        Budd-Falen, K. 2009. September 15 Memorandum Re: Environmental
    litigation gravy train. Available online at
    www.westernlegacyalliance.org/images/pdfs/September_15.pdf; last
    accessed Sept. 1, 2010.
        Coglianese, C. 1996. Litigating within relationships: Disputes and
    disturbance in the regulatory process. Law Soc. Rev. 30(4):735-765.
        Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2009. NEPAnet. NEPA
    litigation (online). Available online at www.nepa.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm;
    last accessed July 15, 2009.
        Fein, B. 1984. Citizen suit attorney fee shifting awards: A
    critical examination of Government subsidized litigation. Law Contemp.
    Prob. 47(1):211-232.
        Galanter, M. 1974. Why the ``haves'' come out ahead: Speculations
    on the limits of legal change. Law Soc. Rev. 9:95-160.
        Gambino-Portuese, B., R.W. Malmsheimer, A. Anderson, D.W. Floyd,
    and D.M. Keele. 2009. Litigants' characteristics and outcomes in Forest
    Service land management cases 1989 to 2005. J. For. 107(1):16-22.
        Greve, M.S. 1990. The private enforcement of environmental law.
    Tulane Law Rev. 65:339-394.
        Guidestar.Org. n.d. About us. Available online at
    www.guidestar.org/; last accessed June 18, 2007.
        Guthrie, C. 2000. Framing frivolous litigation: A psychological
    theory. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 67(1):163-216.
        Hogfoss, R. 1985. The Equal Access to Justice Act and its effect on
    environmental litigation. Environ. Law 15(3):533-563.
        House Hearing. 1980. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Courts,
    Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House
    Committee on the Judiciary on S. 265. U.S. House of Representatives,
    96th Cong., 2nd Sess.
        Idaho-Senate-Delegation. 2009. Available online at
    www.westernlegacyalliance.org/images/pdfs/november_9.pdf; last accessed
    Sept. 1, 2010.
        Jones, E.S., and C.P. Taylor. 1995. Litigating agency change: The
    impact of the courts and administrative appeals process on the Forest
    Service. Polit. Stud. J. 23(2):310-336.
        Juni, R.L. 2002. Public access to environmental dispute resolution
    processes: U.S. and U.K. trends towards a common approach. P. 87-103 in
    Environmental dispute resolution: An anthology of practical solutions.
    MacNaughton, A.L., and J.G. Martin (eds.). ABA Publishing, Chicago.
        Kagan, R.A. 2001. Adversarial legalism: The American way of law.
    Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 339 p.
        Keele, D.M., R.W. Malmsheimer, D.W. Floyd, and J.E. Perez. 2006.
    Forest Service land management litigation 1989-2002. J. For.
    104(4):196-202.
        Knudson, T. 2001. Litigation central: A flood of costly lawsuits
    raises questions about motive (third of five parts). Sacramento Bee,
    April 24.
        Krent, H.J. 1993. Fee shifting under the Equal Access to Justice
    Act--A qualified success. Yale Law Policy Rev. 11(2):458-508.
        Kritzer, H.M. 2002. Lawyer fees and lawyer behavior in litigation:
    What does the empirical literature really say? Texas Law Rev. 80(7):
    1943-1983.
        Large, D.W. 1972. Is anybody listening? The problem of access in
    environmental litigation. Wisconsin Law Rev. 62(1):62-113.
        Malmsheimer, R.W., D. Keele, and D.W. Floyd. 2004. National forest
    litigation in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. J. For. 102(2): 20-25.
        Mezey, S.G., and S.M. Olson. 1993. Fee shifting and public policy:
    The Equal Access to Justice Act. Judicature 77(131):13-20.
        Mortimer, M.J. 2002. The delegation of lawmaking authority to the
    U.S. Forest Service: Implications in the struggle for national forest
    management. Admin. Law Rev. 54(3):907-982.
        Mortimer, M.J., M.J. Stern, R.W. Malm-Sheimer, D.J. Blahna, L.K.
    Cerveny, and D.N. Seesholtz. 2011. Environmental and social risks:
    Defensive National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Forest Service.
    J. For. 109(1):27-33.
        Nie, M. 2008. The underappreciated role of regulatory enforcement
    in natural resource conservation. Polit. Sci. 41:139-164.
        Rowe, T.D. JR. 1984. Predicting the effect of attorney fee
    shifting. Law Contemp. Probs. 47(1):139-171.
        Senate Hearing. 2006. Hearing before the Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources on Proposed Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request for the
    Forest Service. U.S. Senate, 109th Cong., 2nd Sess.
        Sisk, G.C. 1993. A primer on awards of attorney's fees against the
    Federal Government. Arizona State Law J. 25(4):733-800.
        Sullivan, J.J. 1984. The Equal Access to Justice Act in the Federal
    Courts. Columbia Law Rev. 84(4):1089-1117.
        The Missoulian. 2007. Equal access to injustice, more like it. The
    Missoulian, March 19, Opinion page.
        Thomas, J.W. 2000. What now? From a former Chief of the Forest
    Service. P. 10-43 in A vision for the U.S. Forest Service: Goals for
    its next century. Sedjo, R.A. (ed.). Resources for the Future Press,
    Washington, DC.
        USDA. 2009. Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Summary and Annual Performance
    Plan. Available online www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY11budsum.pdf; last
    accessed Jan. 17, 2011.
        U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 1998. Equal Access to
    Justice Act: Its use in selected agencies. GAO/HEHS-98-58R, Washington,
    DC. 28 p.
        Western Congressional Caucus. 2009. Available online at
    www.westernlegacyalliance.org/images/pdfs/
    doj_eaja_final_letter_11_3_09.pdf; last accessed June 10, 2010.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the South Eastern Wildlife & Environment
                          Education Association, Inc.

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the more
    than 1,100 members of the South Eastern Wildlife & Environment
    Education (SEWEE) Association, Friends Group for Cape Romain, EFH ACE
    Basin and Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuges in South Carolina, I would
    like to thank you for your commitment to 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 Refuges start to
    decline it will cost many times more than these small increases to
    return them to a condition that will fulfill their mandates. We
    respectfully request that you consider the following in your
    appropriations:
      --Fund NWRS $495 million in fiscal year 2013, essentially keeping
            level funding from fiscal year 2012.
      --Fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $700 million
            for fiscal year 2013.
      --Fund Visitor Services for the NWRS at $80 million for fiscal year
            2013.
      --Support $3.8 million in fiscal year 2013 for Challenge Cost Share
            (CCS).
        Our partner refuges are located along coastal South Carolina in
    five counties, from Myrtle Beach through Georgetown and Charleston and
    into the nationally acclaimed ACE Basin area. The budget increases in
    the past few years have helped them to increase management, protection,
    and restoration of the Refuges and given them the ability to better
    meet their Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) goals. For example, in
    2010 the Cape Romain Refuge Manager left for another position in
    Florida and in early 2011 the resident biologist was promoted to this
    position. We were so excited to have this happen, as this person has
    worked on this refuge for several years and had a great perspective of
    the needs and challenges. However, with delays in budget approvals,
    they were not able to fill the now vacant position of the biologist
    that year. This was a major problem as Cape Romain has the most active
    Loggerhead Sea Turtle nest protection program in South Carolina, which
    is a major project for the biologist. Our dedicated refuge manager made
    sure this project was able to continue while more than 1,200 nests were
    laid in the refuge that summer. With your support of continued
    Operations and Maintenance funding for fiscal year 2012, Cape Romain
    will now be able to hire a biologist this year as we prepare for a new
    nesting season. This has become even more critical as Hurricane Irene
    had major impacts on the refuge islands last year and new procedures
    will be needed to monitor and protect all the nests laid in the refuge
    this year. All of our refuges operate with very small staffs, so they
    would not be able to handle any staff reductions. They have already
    participated in staffing reviews and reductions and are at their
    minimum level, so we ask that you allow them to keep their current
    levels.
        Another major need in Operations and Maintenance is for dredging of
    the Cape Romain docks and landing at Garris Landing and on Bulls
    Island. Between natural silting action and extreme high tides, the dock
    basins at these sites are almost unusable at low tide. Their boats
    cannot be subjected to potentially ``bottoming'' overnight as the
    repairs would be very expensive. Also, the boat landing has filled in
    as well and is almost inaccessible at low tide. This not only impacts
    the refuge staff, but all the recreational and commercial boaters who
    use this facility. As no one can control the extremes in tides that we
    are experiencing, the only option is to dredge this area to allow it to
    be used by the public and by refuge staff. We appreciate your support
    of the funding levels for fiscal year 2012 and ask that you support the
    continuation of that level for fiscal year 2013 so that projects like
    this can be done before they become more expensive.
        Our partners are also involved in land acquisitions that are funded
    in part by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. These oil and gas
    revenues have allowed Waccamaw NWR to work with The Nature Conservancy
    to protect valuable lands within their boundaries that were offered for
    sale by International Paper as they scaled back their holdings. These
    floodplain areas are now protected for various species and have water
    and land trails for use by the public to explore. Cape Romain NWR is
    working with Francis Marion National Forest and the National Park
    Service to protect lands along the Gullah Geechee National Historic
    Corridor and to protect long-leaf pine habitat from the coast to the
    midlands as part of the America's Great Outdoors project. Funding of
    LWCF at the requested levels will allow this valuable work to continue.
        SEWEE Association has been the Friends Group for Cape Romain NWR
    since 1996 and in 2002 we added EFH ACE Basin NWR and Waccamaw NWR as
    our partners. We have been able to provide Environmental Education to
    more than 100,000 students and teachers through our staff and
    volunteers on these refuges and gain tremendous support for our
    partners through this work. We also have provided interns and
    technicians to the refuges to help with special projects, such as the
    Loggerhead Sea Turtle nest protection; eradication of invasive species;
    water quality monitoring and shorebird surveys. We also were able to
    supply major funding to help with the exhibits of the new Waccamaw
    Environmental Education Center and with upgrades to audio-visual
    equipment at Cape Romain's Sewee Visitor and Environmental Education
    Center. Our association members are passionate about our refuges and
    want to see them have a chance to meet their mission. Therefore we ask
    you to help us through these requests:
      --The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) estimates
            that the 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. In this time of tightening budgets, we respectfully
            request that you keep the NWRS budget at the same level as
            fiscal year 2012 ($495 million) so that the Refuges do not
            backslide even further in protecting these valuable lands and
            ecosystems.
      --The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created in 1965 and
            authorized at $900 million. We ask that you fund the LWCF at
            $700 million for fiscal year 2013. 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. These landscape level conservation
            efforts through conservation easements and land purchases are
            the best way to protect the diversity of flora and fauna. The
            price of real estate is low at this time and the $700 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 fund the LWCF at $700 million for fiscal
            year 2013. The LWCF is not funded by taxpayer money.
      --The refuges give the American people places to connect with nature
            and get involved. In 2011 refuge Friends and volunteers
            contributed 1.5 million hours of work for the refuge system.
            This is about eight volunteers for every one refuge system
            employee. These Friends and volunteers do approximately 20
            percent of all work on refuges for free. Without a refuge
            system employee to guide them, the volunteers can't perform
            these valuable free services. We request $80 million for
            Visitors Services for the NWRS.
      --Please support the Challenge Cost Share (CCS) with $3.8 million in
            fiscal year 2013. Partners are the key to successful
            conservation. The Federal Government doesn't need to foot the
            bill alone. Through programs that leverage Federal dollars
            (such as the CCS program), partner organizations such as our
            Refuge Friends groups can get matching dollars from other
            entities to give the American taxpayers more for their dollars.
            Projects such as trails, education, boardwalks, and habitat
            restoration give the American public places to connect with
            nature and relax.
        In conclusion, the SEWEE Association believes the National Wildlife
    Refuge System can meet its important conservation objectives only with
    strong and consistent funding leveraged by the valuable work of refuge
    staff and volunteers. We again extend our appreciation to the
    subcommittee for its ongoing commitment to our NWRS. We encourage you
    to approve a $495 million for the fiscal year 2013 NWRS operations and
    maintenance budget managed by FWS and to approve $700 million for
    fiscal year 2013 for the LWCF land acquisition budget as well as
    funding refuge Visitor Services at $80 million and the CCS at $3.8
    million.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium

        My name is Charles Clement and I am the President and CEO of the
    SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium (SEARHC). Chairman Simpson,
    Ranking Member Moran, and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure
    to be here and I thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
    Committee.
        I have been involved in the provision of Alaska Native healthcare
    for 15 years. Prior to my employment at SEARHC I worked for the
    Southcentral Foundation in Anchorage, Alaska, as the vice president/
    chief operating officer; vice president--operations; director of
    information technology/chief information officer; and special assistant
    to the president. As the new president/CEO of SEARHC, I am amazed at
    the positive impact the consortium has on the health spectrum of Alaska
    Natives.
        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 robust health services are
    considerable.
        I am proud to say that SEARHC meets these challenge through a
    network of community clinics and through the Mount Edgecumbe Hospital.
    We provide an array of health services that 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 and have had more than 115,040 encounters in the
    last fiscal year. 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 IHS 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.
        Only a portion of the contract support costs for the above health
    services are covered in the direct service budget which IHS contracts
    to pay for under our funding agreement. This is because IHS either does
    not incur these costs at all (in the case of audit expenses and
    insurance costs), or because 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 every year, and--for SEARHC--these costs are
    negotiated annually by the DHHS Division of Cost Allocation, Western
    Field Office.
        Decades ago SEARHC was required to accept a contract that did not
    provide for the payment of these contract support costs. Over the
    years, through amendments to the Indian Self-Determination Act, the
    Congress changed the law to require that full contract support costs be
    added to the negotiated budget for our direct services. Thus today,
    both the law, as well as our compact and funding agreement, require
    that contract support costs be added in full.
        IHS, however, has not paid the full amount owed under our contract.
    In fact, it is not clear how much IHS will honor under the contract
    until it is fully performed. Even this year--nearly half way through
    the year--we have no idea what IHS will pay us because IHS has not
    announced how it will distribute this year's contract support cost
    funding, which was an increase of $74 million increase.
        As an example of the impact contract support cost underfunding has
    on SEARHC, last fiscal year SEARHC was underpaid approximately $2.8
    million in fixed contract support costs. SEARHC has no tax base and,
    thus, has no way to make up for the difference other than to use
    resources that would otherwise support the delivery of services. This
    shortfall severely impacted on our ability to fully aid the Alaska
    Native community and our ability to provide the maximum level of care
    to our beneficiaries. Interestingly, in other areas of Government
    contracting, the United States does not fail to pay for its contracted
    for services.
        SEARHC is a member of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
    Coalition, and we fully endorse the NTCSCC's testimony. Full funding of
    support costs in fiscal year 2013, at $100 million increase more than
    the President's request would impact SEARHC daily operations by
    allowing for our contract support costs to be fully paid and preventing
    the need to use direct service funds to supplement contract support
    costs normally unpaid by IHS.
        It has been almost 8 years to the day since the Supreme Court
    required that the Government honor its self-determination contracts
    with tribal healthcare providers in the landmark case Cherokee Nation
    of Oklahoma v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631 (2005). Honoring these contract
    support costs obligations is inimical to SEARHC's ability to provide
    robust health services to our community.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee
    and would be happy to answer any questions you have for SEARHC.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Southcentral Foundation

        Southcentral Foundation (SCF) is a tribal organization that
    compacts with the Secretary of Health and Human Services under title V
    of the Indian Self-Determination Act. Under SCF's compact we carry out
    various Indian Health Service programs across our region. In doing so,
    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 Indian Self-Determination Act
    activities. As my testimony reflects, SCF requests that in fiscal year
    2013 the Congress:
      --fully fund our Mat-Su Clinic joint venture staffing requirements,
            as required by our joint venture contract agreement with IHS;
            and
      --fully fund SCF's and all other contract support cost requirements
            at $572 million, as required by more than 330 self-
            determination contracts with IHS.
        SCF has carried out IHS programs under Self-Determination Act
    agreements for more than 25 years. In accordance with its compact with
    the DHHS, 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. SCF also provides services to an additional 13,000
    residents of 55 rural Alaska villages covering an area exceeding
    100,000 square miles and larger than the State of Oregon. To administer
    and deliver these critical healthcare services, SCF employs more than
    1,400 people.
        Today I will focus my remarks on two issues, joint venture funding
    and contract support cost funding.
    Joint Venture Funding
        The first issue I need to address concerns our joint venture (JV)
    contract with IHS. Under section 818(e) of the Indian Health Care
    Improvement Act, IHS is authorized to enter into JV contracts under
    which a tribe borrows funds to build a facility to IHS specifications,
    and IHS agrees ``to provide the equipment, supplies, and staffing for
    the operation and maintenance of such health facility.'' The agreements
    are contracts and they are enforceable as such.
        Two years ago SCF and IHS entered into a binding JV contract. SCF
    agreed to construct a new 88,451 square-foot Primary Care Clinic in the
    Mat-Su Valley of Alaska, using borrowed funds from non-IHS sources. In
    return, IHS agreed that it ``shall provide the supplies and staffing
    for the operation and maintenance of the Facility . . . subject to
    appropriations by the Congress.'' Art. VIII.A. See also Art. VIII.G
    (``IHS will staff, operate and Maintain the Facility in accordance with
    Articles XI through XIV of this Agreement.''); Art. XI (``As authorized
    by Section 818(e)(2) of Public Law 94-437 (`subject to the availability
    of appropriations for this joint venture project, commencing on the
    beneficial occupancy date IHS agrees to provide the supplies, and
    staffing necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Facility.
    IHS will request funding from the Congress on the same basis as IHS
    requests funding for any other new Facility.')''
        Our concern arises out of the fact that, while we will receive our
    certificate of beneficial occupancy on July 15, 2012, and thus be
    operational during all of fiscal year 2013 at an IHS-calculated
    staffing cost of $27 million, IHS's budget only requests 50 percent of
    the staffing requirement for the Clinic (or $13.5 million). We are
    gravely concerned over this gap, all the more because the original $27
    million which IHS committed to pay already reflects a 15-percent
    reduction of our total staffing costs. (This is because, as a matter of
    policy, IHS will not staff any new facility at more than 85 percent of
    the facility's staffing requirement.) If IHS does not receive
    additional funds to fully meet its contract commitment to SCF, IHS
    would be forced to reprogram other funds to make up for the difference.
        We are not alone in this situation, and some of the other staffing
    packages which IHS is committed to provide are similarly underbudgeted.
    We calculate that to fund the staffing packages will require $95.2
    million, not the $49.2 million requested. Before IHS requests, and
    before the Congress funds, discretionary increases in other IHS
    accounts, contractually committed staffing packages should be paid in
    full.
    Contract Support Cost Funding
        The second problem is the budget's inadequate request for contract
    support cost funding--another contractually required payment to Indian
    Self-Determination Act contractors like SCF. The budget requests a mere
    $5 million increase for fiscal year 2013, despite the fact that IHS's
    former contract support cost expert Ron Demaray projects a $99 million
    shortfall in fiscal year 2013 (calculated at the President's proposed
    budget level). Here, we have developed our own projection because, for
    the first time in some 20 years, the IHS budget justification does not
    include a shortfall projection.
        Contract support cost funding reimburses SCF's fixed costs of
    running its contract with IHS. If IHS fails to reimburse these costs,
    SCF has no choice but to cut positions, which in turn cuts services,
    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. When in fiscal year 2010 congressionally appropriated an historic
    increase in contract support cost funding, SCF opened 97 positions to
    fill multiple healthcare provider teams and support staff.
        Our fixed contract support costs are largely ``indirect costs''
    that are set by the HHS Division of Cost Allocation. The remainder of
    our contract support costs (about 20 percent) are set directly by IHS.
    These costs include federally mandated audits, and such items 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 we have to
    track property and equipment. All of our costs are independently
    audited every year by Certified Public Accountants, as required by law.
        Last year this subcommittee reiterated the binding nature of these
    contracts and directed IHS and the BIA to fully fund all contract
    support cost requirements. The BIA has done this, but the IHS budget
    justification defies the Committee's direction and insists that these
    contracts are not binding at all. So far as we can tell, no other
    contractors are treated this way. HHS, including IHS, only treats its
    contracts with Indian tribes this way--as optional, discretionary
    agreements that it can choose not to pay. We provide a contracted
    service for a contracted price, but IHS only pays us what it chooses to
    pay.
        This has to stop. In fiscal year 2013 IHS should finally pay its
    contract obligations in full. The contract support cost line-item
    should be fully funded at a minimum $571 million.
        As SCF said last year before this Committee, underfunding contact
    support costs disproportionately balances budgetary constraints on the
    backs of tribal contractors. Worse yet, it punishes the people being
    served 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 IHS and the tribes and tribal organizations (like the
    contract health services line).
        Again, SCF respectfully calls upon the Congress to provide at least
    $571 million in contract support cost funding for fiscal year 2013, so
    that the Department can finally honor these contracts in full.
    Remember, every tribe has contracts with IHS to carry out some of the
    agency's healthcare services, and most of those tribes are being
    penalized for taking that initiative. Closing the contract support cost
    gap will eliminate that penalty and directly benefit the vast majority
    of Indian and Alaska Native communities served by IHS.
        On a related note, SCF requests that the Congress direct IHS to
    resume promptly disclosing to tribes all IHS data on contract support
    cost requirements and payments. Up until last year, IHS was doing this
    regularly. Then suddenly IHS stopped--we think because IHS may have
    been embarrassed by errors in its data. Now, IHS claims that releasing
    its data may be opposed by some tribes--even though the release of data
    is mandated by section 106 of the ISDA. IHS also claims that because
    the data is also used in a report to the Congress, releasing the data
    violates OMB clearance procedures, and that there is some kind of
    embargo on data regarding the expenditure of Federal funds (similar to
    the embargo applicable to the development of the President's Annual
    Budget). This is simply not so, and in prior years OMB participated in
    the disclosure of IHS data to the tribes. Contract support cost
    appropriations belong to the tribes, and tribes have a right to know
    what is happening to these funds on a timely basis. Waiting for a
    report to the Congress that includes other information is not helpful,
    since most reports never get to the Congress. The few that do are
    interminably delayed. In fact, the CSC Report Congress just received
    from IHS regarding 2009 data was 2 years late. We ask that the
    Committee add appropriate language to the appropriations Act directing
    IHS to disclose its data promptly.
        Thank you for granting me the opportunity to testify on behalf of
    the Southcentral Foundation and the 58,000 Native American people we
    serve.
                                     ______

                 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 2013 budgets for the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). The fiscal
    year 2013 President's proposed budget presents a renewed opportunity
    for the U.S. Government to live up to the promises made to American
    Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) Tribal governments. We want to thank this
    subcommittee for their longstanding support and urge your consideration
    of the following requests:
    Tribal Specific Requests
        $1.2 million increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC)
    residential program in IHS.
        $650,000 for law enforcement and public safety; four full-time
    police officers in BIA.
    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 and National Requests/Recommendations
                Bureau of Indian Affairs
        +$8.8 million to Fully Fund Contract Support Costs.
        +$30 million Law Enforcement.
        Fully Fund All Provisions of Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010.
        +$13.7 million to fully Fund Fixed Costs/Pay Costs.
        +$89 million Tribal Priority Allocations (10 percent increase more
    than fiscal year 2012 enacted).
        Increase funding to the Office of Self-Governance to fully staff
    the office for the increase of tribes entering Self-Governance and do
    not consolidate this office within Indian Affairs
                Indian Health Service
        +$100 million to Fully Fund Contract Support Costs.
        +$200 million for Contract Health Services.
        +$40 million for Alcohol and Substance Abuse Programs.
        +$304 million for Mandatory Costs to Fully Fund Current Services.
        +Fully Fund the Implementation of the Indian Health Care
    Improvement Act.
        +$5 million for the Indian Health Service Office of Tribal Self-
    Governance.
    Squaxin Island Tribe Background
        We are native people of South Puget Sound and descendants of the
    maritime people who lived and prospered along these shores for untold
    centuries. We are known as the People of the Water because of our
    strong cultural connection to the natural beauty and bounty of Puget
    Sound going back hundreds of years. The Squaxin Island Indian
    Reservation is located in southeastern Mason County, Washington and is
    a signatory to the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. We were 1 of the first
    30 federally recognized tribes to enter into a Compact of Self-
    Governance with the United States. We establish our own priorities and
    budgets for funds previously administered by BIA and IHS.
        Our treaty-designated reservation is approximately 2.2 square miles
    of uninhabited forested land. Because the Island lacks fresh water, the
    tribe has built its community on roughly 26 acres at Kamilche,
    Washington purchased and placed into trust. The tribe also owns 6 acres
    across Pickering Passage from Squaxin Island and a plot of 36 acres on
    Harstine Island, across Peale Passage. The total land area including
    off-reservation trust lands is 1,715.46 acres. In addition, the tribe
    manages roughly 500 acres of Puget Sound tidelands.
        The tribal government and our economic enterprises constitute the
    largest employer in the county with more than 1,250 employees. The
    tribe has a current enrollment of 1,017 and an on-reservation
    population of 426 living in 141 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
                $1.2 Million Increase for the Northwest Indian Treatment
                        Center residential program in Indian Health Service
        ``D3WXbi Palil'' meaning ``Returning from the Dark, Deep Waters to
    the Light''--Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC) has not received
    an adequate increase in its base IHS budget since the original
    congressional set-aside in 1993. An increase of $1.2 million would
    restore lost purchasing power and meet the need to add mental health
    and psychiatric components to the treatment program. This increase
    would allow NWITC to continue its effective treatment of Native
    Americans.
        The Squaxin Island Tribe operates the NWITC, which is located in
    Elma, Washington. 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. NWITC is unique in its integration of
    tribal cultural values into a therapeutic environment for co-occurring
    substance abuse and mental health disorders.
        NWITC has nearly 20 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.
        In 2011, NWITC served 212 patients from 28 tribes and added
    intensive case management and crisis support to alumni in order to
    continue to promote positive outcomes for clients. This is a 10-percent
    increase more than 2010 service levels. 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, NWITC has continued to develop and deliver
    innovative, culturally appropriate services to meet increasingly
    complex demands.
        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 increase the annual
    base allocation for the NWITC by an additional $1.2 million 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.
                $650,000 for Law Enforcement and Public Safety; Four Full-
                        Time Police Officers
        The Squaxin Island Tribal Public Safety and Justice Department is
    dedicated to protecting lives, maintaining peace and ensuring that the
    property and resources of the Squaxin Island Tribe are protected. The
    Department includes a 12-member police force, Tribal court, and
    emergency management center.
        For a number of years, the tribe has requested an increase in
    baseline BIA funding to ensure that the public safety and justice needs
    of our community are fully met. In the intervening years, the tribal
    community and the surrounding area has grown considerably, more than
    challenging our public safety and Justice Department's ability to
    ensure public safety and fulfill our responsibility as managers of our
    natural resources. The need for additional funding is greater now than
    ever before.
        We have enhanced the shellfish habitat and production programs
    which increased the demand on water enforcement to address issues of
    illegal harvesting. Growth in the region's commercial and recreational
    fin and shell fisheries present increasing threats and challenges to
    enforcement of our treaty rights and protection of our natural
    resources. It is vitally important to ensure that natural resources are
    protected.

        Currently, the tribe only has funding sufficient for two public
    safety and justice officers to be assigned to natural resources
    protection, although patrols are needed to monitor clam digs, geoduck
    diving and fishing areas during the respective seasons, as well as
    patrol closed areas to prevent poaching or other encroachment.
    Frequently, hunting and fishing seasons overlap, dividing available
    human resources between land and water patrols, though the need for law
    enforcement presence in both habitats are critical to public safety and
    protection of our treaty rights and trust responsibility. Squaxin
    hunters depend on harvesting deer and elk from our hunting areas in the
    foothills of the Cascade Mountains, more than 115 miles southeast of
    the reservation. Our usual and accustomed hunting lands are located
    near Randle and Packwood, Washington, a 2+ hour drive from the
    reservation for both treaty hunters and law enforcement patrols.
        The tribe has been successful in obtaining Department of Justice
    (DOJ) Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant funding for new
    or enhanced programs. However, increased baseline funding is needed to
    meet the ongoing public safety, enforcement and justice needs of the
    tribe. DOJ grant funds can only be used to enhance public safety,
    including domestic violence and crime prevention, not for basic
    operations.
        The Squaxin Island Tribe is seeking long- and short-term
    assistance. In the short term, the tribe needs immediate funding for
    four full-time police officers to achieve full 24/7 water patrol
    coverage. In the long term, BIA funding for law enforcement and public
    safety programs needs to be significantly increased to meet the need
    for expanded protection of our natural resources, particularly water
    patrol. The budget for four officers, equipment, supplies, and training
    is:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Amount
    --------------------------------------------
    Salaries....................        $230,170
    Fringe......................         100,910
    Space costs.................           3,600
    Telephone and cellular......           4,000
    Noncapital equipment........           6,000
    Travel and training.........           4,000
    Supplies....................          12,000
    Vehicle maintenance.........          40,000
    Insurance...................          10,000
                                 -----------------
          Subtotal..............         410,688

    Indirect costs at 44.14.....         179,312
    Equipment > $5,000/month....          60,000
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Total.................         650,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Squaxin Island Tribe's Public Safety department would benefit
    greatly by increased short-term funding as well as long-term base
    funding needed to operate a full-fledged water patrol program to
    provide the 24-hour, 7 days week coverage needed to ensure that the
    community, property and resources are being protected effectively.
        The Squaxin Island Tribe envisions a culturally and economically
    strong community of self-governing, resilient people, united by shared
    values and traditions . . . by protecting life and maintaining the
    peace, protecting tribal property and resources, serving in a
    reasonable and prudent manner, and carrying out these responsibilities
    diligently, courteously, and with pride.
        We support all requests and recommendations of the National
    Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Health Board.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Sustainable Northwest

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
    opportunity to provide testimony before the subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies on the subcommittee's fiscal year
    2013 funding priorities. On behalf of Sustainable Northwest, I would
    like to take this opportunity to highlight programs, funds and tools
    that are important to the people and communities of the rural West and
    that we believe should receive full congressional funding in fiscal
    year 2013.
        My name is Martin Goebel and I am the President of Sustainable
    Northwest. We are a nonprofit organization that promotes collaborative,
    community-based solutions to natural resource management issues. We
    work in rural communities throughout the West, bringing together
    multiple, often opposing, stakeholders to create and promote solutions
    through a collaborative process.
        Today, I am going to address two agency budgets--the United States
    Department of Agriculture (USDA) United States Forest Service (USFS)
    budget and the Department of the Interior (DOI) Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) budget.
          sustainable northwest's recommendations for fiscal year 2013
        Fully fund the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
    at $40 million.
        Enact and fully fund the national Forest Service Integrated
    Resource Restoration line item at $793 million.
        Create permanent authority for the use of stewardship end-result
    contracting to restore our national forests and provide local jobs.
        Invest in programs that support the capacity of community-based
    partners who work directly with the land management agencies, including
    USFS, FWS, and Bureau of Land Management.
        Fully fund the Community Wood to Energy Program at $4.25 million
    and the Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program at $5 million.
        Fully fund the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program at $55
    million.
        Allocate $1.6 million from the FWS Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
    Conservation activity area to conservation and planning within the
    Klamath Basin.

     UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE
                            FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET

    Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
        The bipartisan Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
    (CFLRP) was established in 2009 to encourage the collaborative,
    science-based restoration of priority landscapes. The purposes of this
    program are to:
      --create job stability;
      --achieve a reliable wood supply;
      --restore forest health; and
      --reduce costs of wildfire suppression in overgrown forests.
        CFLRP received $10 million in fiscal year 2010, $25 million in
    fiscal year 2011, and $40 million in fiscal year 2012. The President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget proposal recommends maintaining funding at $40
    million, and Sustainable Northwest respectfully encourages the
    subcommittee to allocate full funding.
        CFLRP has already proven itself to be a highly successful and
    accessible program. Interest in this program is very high, with
    increasing numbers of applicant sites each year. Further, CFLRP
    produces tangible, documented results. In the first year alone, CFLRP
    projects generated and maintained 1,550 jobs; produced 107 million
    board feet of timber; generated $59 million of labor income; removed
    fuel for destructive mega-fires on 90,000 acres near communities;
    reduced mega-fire on an additional 64,000 acres; improved 60,000 acres
    of wildlife habitat; restored 28 miles of fish habitat; and enhanced
    clean water supplies by remediating 163 miles of eroding roads. Since
    then, the program has expanded to include 10 new projects, for a total
    of 20 projects across 13 States, across 7 USFS regions \1\. These
    projects represent an incredible opportunity for advancing public-
    private approaches to landscape and watershed restoration.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ People Restoring American's Forests: A Report on the
    Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, November 2011.
    Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/index.shtml.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Integrated Resource Restoration Budget Line Item
        Sustainable Northwest strongly supports the national Integrated
    Resource Restoration (IRR) budget line item (BLI) included within
    administration's fiscal year 2013 budget recommendations. IRR takes a
    broad, multifaceted funding approach to restoration of our national
    forests. The goal of the IRR line item is to increase funding
    efficiency by combining funding for forest management activities
    previously funded under wildlife & fisheries habitat management; forest
    products; vegetation & watershed management; legacy roads and trails,
    and roads; hazardous fuels non-wildland urban interface; and
    rehabilitation and restoration budget line items.
        This BLI was included in USFS's budget as a pilot program in fiscal
    year 2012. It was limited to USFS Regions 1, 3, and 4. The President's
    budget recommends expanding the IRR to a national program covering all
    USFS regions in fiscal year 2013 and fully funding it at $793 million.
    We support this expansion because we believe IRR is an important tool
    in building a forest restoration economy that will create new jobs in
    rural communities. It will better integrate funding and authorities
    related to forest restoration and water quality, while reducing
    administrative costs. This is a forward-thinking approach to budgeting
    within USFS, and we urge you to support this approach by fully funding
    IRR at $793 million in fiscal year 2013.
    Permanent Stewardship End-Result Contracting Authority
        Stewardship end-result contracting is one of the best tools
    available for funding stewardship and restoration on our national
    forestlands. It increases the ability of districts and field offices to
    carry out high quality restoration projects by lowering project
    administration costs. It helps achieve land management goals and
    improve the collaborative atmosphere on our national forests. With its
    best value contracting authority, stewardship contracting helps improve
    the quality of work on the ground and increases economic opportunities
    and jobs in communities located near public lands.
        Between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2010, USFS awarded 874
    contract and agreements for restoration treatments on more than 558,020
    acres nationwide. Current legislation authorizes USFS and Bureau of
    Land Management to enter into stewardship end result contracts until
    September 30, 2013. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget assumes
    that the agencies are able to secure permanent stewardship contracting
    authority. We believe stewardship end-result contracting is a necessary
    and important tool to the help our forests and our rural communities
    achieve ecological and economic outcomes. We strongly support permanent
    authorization.
    Strengthening Community Capacity for Collaboration and Land Stewardship
        Community capacity is the collective ability and resources rural
    communities have to solve diverse challenges and meet the multiple
    needs of their communities by drawing on human, social, cultural and
    physical capital. By investing in building the collaborative and
    stewardship capacity of rural communities, the Federal Government can
    support collaborative and common ground solutions to improve the
    delivery and effectiveness of Federal budgets; promote small business
    development and job creation; foster ``bottom up'' natural resource
    decisions that include the input of local citizens and governments; and
    save and leverage money by working through local organizations.
    Programs and initiatives of USFS like CFLRP, stewardship contracting,
    the new planning rule and the watershed condition framework all rely on
    effective partnerships between the Federal Government and community
    based locally led organizations. These investments are critical.
        One example of the impact of capacity funds can be seen through the
    work of the Blue Mountain Forest Partners (BMFP), a collaborative
    organization on the Malheur National Forest. With public and private
    grant funds, BMFP is increasing its institutional capacity to become a
    self-governed entity and to serve as a catalyst for forest restoration
    and job creation in Grant County, Oregon. The BMFP has increased
    project size, decreased the amount of time required to reach agreement,
    avoided litigation and appeals over the last 5 years, and have been
    selected to participate in the CFLRP program through a project on the
    Malheur National Forest. For small and emerging organizations such as
    BMFP, capacity programs offer the opportunity to increase skills and
    sophistication necessary to create and maintain capacity for
    collaborative decisionmaking and responsible land stewardship.
    Community Wood to Energy Program and Woody Biomass Utilization Grant
            Program
        The use of woody biomass to generate thermal energy provides a
    tremendous opportunity to reduce our dependency on petroleum, reduce
    carbon emissions by displacing combustion of fossil fuels, support
    ecologically based forest restoration, and promote a distributed energy
    economy which includes rural communities as part of the solution. USFS
    programs such as the Community Wood to Energy Program (CWEP) and Woody
    Biomass Utilization Grant Program (WBUG) provide support for
    development of woody biomass facilities and markets. If funded at the
    President's fiscal year 2013 request of $4.24 million, CWEP will
    provide grant funds to State, tribal, and local governments to develop
    community wood energy plans; acquire community wood energy systems; and
    secure technical assistance for public facilities that use woody
    biomass as the primary fuel. WBUG encourages woody biomass removal
    through restoration activities and use of woody biomass in facilities
    with commercially proven technologies. Sustainable Northwest supports
    the President's request for full funding for CWEP at $4.25 million and
    WBUG at $5 million.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2013
                                     BUDGET

    Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
        The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW) is one of the
    FWS's critical conservation tools for voluntary, citizen and community-
    based fish and wildlife habitat restoration activities on privately
    owned land. PFW serves as a bridge to landowners to develop individual
    partnerships and habitat restoration projects for the benefit of fish
    and wildlife species. In many instances, restoration projects can help
    decrease risks and burdens associated with regulatory activity, as well
    as increase the underlying value of these properties. The approach is
    simple: engage willing partners and landowners, using direct financial
    and technical assistance, to conserve and protect fish and wildlife
    values on their property. Working with more than 44,000 private
    landowners from 1987-2010, PFW has successfully restored and enhanced
    1,026,000 acres of wetlands; 3,235,000 acres of uplands; 9,200 miles of
    stream habitat; and worked with more than 3,000 partnering
    organizations. Sustainable Northwest supports the administration's
    recommendation of $55 million for PFW in fiscal year 2013.
    Funding for Conservation in the Klamath Basin
        The Administration's fiscal year 2013 budget recommendation for the
    Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation activity area within the
    FWS includes $1.6 million for conservation, planning, and restoration
    within the Klamath Basin. This funding is essential, as demand on FWS
    in the Klamath is expected to increase dramatically in 2013 and 2014, a
    direct result of ongoing demand on limited water supplies and potential
    efforts to implement the plans outlined in the Klamath Basin
    Restoration Agreement. Klamath Basin funding is needed to restore high-
    priority stream habitats and recover listed and native fish species in
    the Klamath system and work cooperatively with stakeholders on natural
    resource management issues. Restoration of the Klamath Basin fisheries
    and habitat is a high priority for Sustainable Northwest, and we ask
    that you ensure support for this important work.
        Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Tanana Chiefs Conference

        My name is Jerry Isaac and I am the President of the Tanana Chiefs
    Conference. TCC is a nonprofit inter-tribal consortium of 39 federally
    recognized tribes located in the interior of Alaska. TCC is a Co-Signer
    of the Alaska Tribal Health Compact under title V of the Indian Self
    Determination and Education Assistance Act, Public Law 93-638. TCC
    serves approximately 13,000 Native American people in Fairbanks and our
    rural villages. Our traditional territory and current services area
    occupy a mostly roadless area almost the size of Texas, stretching from
    Fairbanks clear up to the Brooks Range, and over to the Canadian
    border.
        I will be testifying on two matters. First, I will provide an
    overview of the Joint Venture Construction Program and specifically
    address TCC's staffing needs. Second, I will explain the impact
    suffered by TCC and others from the contract support cost shortfall and
    how that shortfall will have the most impact for those entities
    starting to operate replacement or joint venture facilities in fiscal
    year 2013.
        TCC needs the full staffing package amount in fiscal year 2013, as
    agreed to in our Joint Venture Agreement.
        The Joint Venture Construction Program is authorized in section
    818(e) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, Public Law 94-437.
    The authorization directed the Secretary of HHS to make arrangements
    with Indian tribes to establish joint venture projects. The program is
    executed through a JVCP agreement--a contract--in which a tribal entity
    borrows non-IHS funds for the construction of a tribally owned
    healthcare facility, and, in exchange, the IHS promises to lease the
    facility, to equip the facility and to staff the facility.
        In the Conference Report which accompanied the Department of the
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2010,
    the conferees explained the importance of the Joint Venture program.
    That program is a unique way of addressing the persistent backlog in
    IHS health facilities construction projects serving American Indians
    and Alaska Natives. The conferees reported, ``The conferees believe
    that the joint venture program provides a cost-effective means to
    address this backlog and to increase access to healthcare services for
    American Indians and Alaska Natives. The conferees are aware that IHS
    is currently reviewing competitive applications from tribes and tribal
    organizations to participate in the 2010 joint venture program and
    encourage the Service to move forward with the process in an
    expeditious manner.''
        IHS has followed the direction of the Congress and/or the
    conference report. In 2010 IHS signed a legally binding Joint Venture
    Construction Agreement with TCC. In the agreement IHS agreed to
    ``request funding from the Congress for fiscal year on the same basis
    as IHS requests funding for any other facilities.'' Given that IHS has
    requested full-funding for some projects and less than full for others,
    it appears that IHS has not requested funding on the same basis across
    all facilities.
        TCC is concerned to say the least, at the proposed funding for our
    Joint Venture project. IHS requested less than 27 percent of the
    staffing package for TCC (or around $8 million) even though our
    facility will be open for the entire fiscal year. Alaska is a unique
    place in which the additional costs for recruitment, training and
    program creation are far higher than in the lower 48. TCC will need the
    full $30 million staffing package to be successful this opening year.
        TCC has done everything in our power to see a successful opening in
    fiscal year 2013. TCC has remained in close contact with IHS throughout
    the construction of our projects. We are on budget and ahead of
    schedule. Both Secretary Sebelius and Dr. Roubideaux were able to visit
    with TCC last fall. Since that visit, the date of completion for the
    clinic has moved up. IHS's funding requests were based on last year's
    projected opening dates. But TCC's current beneficial occupancy date
    for our JV clinic is September 2012. TCC's clinic will open much
    earlier than what is reported in the IHS budget justification.
        TCC has never before owned its own primary care medical facility.
    This is because the majority of our current clinic space is leased from
    Banner Health at Fairbanks Memorial Hospital (FMH). Additionally, in
    the past TCC has purchased lab, radiology, housekeeping, laundry,
    groundskeeping, and maintenance services from FMH. These are services
    that TCC will begin self performing in less than 5 months when we move
    into the new clinic. Already we have started the planning process for
    the transition and recruitment of the staff we will need.
        Staff within IHS have written that our Joint Venture partnership
    could be characterized as a model for what can be achieved between
    Tribal Health Organizations and IHS to improve access to healthcare for
    American Indian and Alaska Native people. TCC is well on our way to
    upholding our end of the Joint Venture agreements. We need IHS, and the
    Congress, to hold up the Government's side of the bargain.
        TCC will be fully operational for all of fiscal year 2013. Our
    staffing packages should be provided in the full amounts proportionate
    to our operations. Any reduction from the full staffing amount will
    only result in decreasing our ability to provide services to our
    beneficiaries. Worse yet, it could endanger our ability to service the
    debt we have incurred in constructing the new clinic.
        The contract support cost request by IHS will worsen the national
    CSC shortfall and require further program cuts for Self-Determined
    Tribes, and the burden will fall especially hard on those tribes which
    will operate new facilities in fiscal year 2013.
        Related to the Joint Venture Construction Program is our concern
    with IHS's requested funding for contract support costs. These costs
    are owed to tribes and tribal organizations like TCC performing
    contracts on behalf of the United States pursuant to the Indian Self-
    Determination Act. ``Contract support costs'' are the fixed costs which
    we incur and must spend to operate IHS's programs and clinics.
        The Indian Self Determination Act depends upon 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 fully reimburse every tribal contractor for
    the ``contract support costs'' 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 contract support costs 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 contract support cost shortfall is equivalent to
    a program cut.
        Funding contract support costs in full permits the restoration of
    Indian country jobs that are cut when shortfalls occur. The fiscal year
    2010 reduction in the contract support cost shortfall produced a
    stunning increase in Indian country jobs. 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 tribal organizations like our's will provide in our
    communities.
        The problem is that for 2013, IHS has requested only a $5 million
    increase. Yet, the current shortfall is already $50 to $60 million, and
    with several new clinics becoming operational, the fiscal year 2013
    shortfall will likely grow to more than $90 million. Against that
    contract requirement, a $5 million increase is obviously inadequate.
        When contract support costs are not paid, we have no choice but to
    take the shortfall in funding out of the programs themselves. Because
    TCC will be creating and expanding programs to operate our JV project,
    our reliance on CSC will also expand. This is also true for tribes
    initiating other new Federal programs as the initial building of a
    program is heavily reliant on contract support.
        A continued increase in shortfalls for contract support costs, in
    addition to the limited funding requested for TCC will end up punishing
    a majority of the Native beneficiaries in Alaska. The Government has a
    legal duty and trust responsibility to provide for the full staffing
    packages and the full contract support costs it has, by contract,
    agreed to pay. We are not asking for a favor; we are only expecting
    that the government will hold up its end of the bargain.
        Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the honor of presenting
    testimony today.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Taos, New Mexico

        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 2013
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
    President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
        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 public benefits
    including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
    drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
    assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
    support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
        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, historical and recreation 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 a conservation
    offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
        As part of the LWCF request in fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Forest
    Service (USFS) included an allocation of $2.656 million for Carson
    National Forest. I am pleased that this funding was included in the
    request and urge the Congress to provide necessary funds for LWCF for
    this important project.
        Some of the finest mountain scenery in the Southwest is found in
    the 1.5-million-acre Carson National Forest. Elevations rise from 6,000
    to 13,161 feet at Wheeler Peak in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, the
    highest peak in New Mexico. The scenery varies from high desert scrub
    and red soil to spruce and fir-filled mountainsides and wildflower
    meadows. In addition to the various landscapes, there are also many
    recreational opportunities in the forest. The magnificent mountain
    scenery and cool summer temperatures lure visitors to enjoy fishing,
    hunting, camping, and hiking. Winter activities include skiing,
    snowshoeing and snowmobiling. There are 330 miles of trails for hiking,
    horseback riding, mountain biking, and 4-wheel drive exploring. For the
    backcountry enthusiast, there are 86,193 acres of wilderness in the
    forest that have been virtually undisturbed, where travel is restricted
    to foot or horseback.
        There are many species of animals in the Carson National Forest
    including mule deer, elk, antelope, black bear, and bighorn sheep along
    with many species of songbirds and a wonderful display of wildflowers.
    The forest has 400 miles of clean mountain streams and many lakes that
    offer outstanding trout fishing including rainbow, eastern brook,
    German brown and cutthroat trout.
        Available for acquisition as part of the Carson National Forest is
    the 5,087-acre Miranda Canyon property located just 10 miles south of
    Taos. The property is adjacent to the western edge of the national
    forest and ranges in elevation from 7,200 to 10,801 feet. It has
    enormous scenic value, as it forms the southern backdrop to Taos and is
    highly visible as one travels south along Route 68.
        The 5,000-acre Miranda Canyon property contains important watershed
    lands that feed public water supplies for local communities and
    maintain flows of clean, cold water to the nationally significant Rio
    Grande. The highest elevation lands on the property fall within the
    Headwaters Rio Grande de Rancho watershed, which is rated as
    functioning properly under the USFS Watershed Condition Framework.
    Acquisition of this area will prevent conversion for development,
    meeting the Framework goal to protect the best, and will complete the
    agency's ownership of this watershed. The majority of the property at
    lower elevations falls within two other watersheds that are rated as
    functioning at risk. Acquisition will allow the USFS to apply a range
    of restoration actions to move these watersheds up a condition class.
    These watersheds are also significant in that they contain an important
    recharge zone for the underlying aquifer, which provides domestic water
    for the communities of Llano Quemado and Ranchos de Taos.
        The property also has various vegetative types from low elevation
    sagebrush and pinon juniper to high elevation mixed conifer forest
    containing large aspen stands. 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. Picuris Peak is located on the
    property along a popular hiking route. 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. Other geological features on the property include a
    unique small volcano and 1.7-billion-year-old rock outcrops that rival
    the age of rock found at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.
        Due to the strong opposition of the Taos community to a proposal to
    develop the Miranda Canyon property into 150 lots, the landowner has
    agreed to a multi-phase 3-year conservation sale to the Carson NF. If
    Miranda Canyon had been subdivided and developed, tremendous
    recreational, scenic, and ecological resources would have been
    diminished or lost forever. Even without county subdivision approval,
    the Miranda Canyon property could have been developed into 140-acre
    lots, with potentially adverse impact on the drinking water supply of
    nearby communities. Because the landowner's timing did not allow for a
    long-term purchase agreement, The Trust for Public Land stepped in and
    purchased the property in January 2011. The conveyance of this $10.8
    million tract to the USFS is moving ahead in phases, with Phase I
    receiving an allocation of $3.442 million from LWCF in fiscal year
    2012.
        While this arrangement offers a bit of breathing room for the
    agency to secure the necessary acquisition funding, it is critical that
    the purchase continue to move ahead in fiscal year 2013 with another
    allocation of $2.656 million for Phase II. Only when Miranda Canyon is
    fully conveyed to the Carson National Forest will it be permanently
    protected for the public, ensuring protection of this vital watershed
    and the associated local water quality as well as enhancing
    recreational opportunities such as hunting, camping, hiking, mountain
    biking, and horseback riding.
        In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the LWCF of $450
    million, as proposed in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget,
    including critical funding for the Carson National Forest. 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 Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

        Members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies, my name is Bobby Wilson and I am the
    Chief of Fisheries for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. I thank
    you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the State of Tennessee
    in support of the continued funding for the Aquatic Nuisance Species
    Plan grant to the States.
        Aquatic nuisance species pose serious problems to the ecology and
    economy in Tennessee. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
    ``National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
    Recreation'', more than 874,000 citizens participated in fishing,
    332,000 hunted, and 2,385,000 participated in wildlife watching
    activities. Tennessee citizen's spent $592 million on fishing, $476
    million on hunting, and slightly more than $1 billion on wildlife
    watching. In addition, the wholesale value of commercial fishing is
    estimated to be $13 million and the value for commercial musseling is
    $1.5 million. Revenues from these natural resource-related activities
    are important to the economy and well-being of the citizens of
    Tennessee. These economic returns can only continue to occur if these
    resources are protected from the invasion of aquatic nuisance species.
        Tennessee is one of the most aquatically bio-diverse States in the
    Nation. Currently there are at least 315 species of fish, 120 species
    of mussels, and 84 species of crayfish in our waters. The State has
    three major river systems (Mississippi, Tennessee, and Cumberland
    Rivers) which contribute to 700,000 acres of impounded reservoirs and
    19,000 miles of streams.
        Some of the more problematic aquatic non-native species in
    Tennessee include zebra mussels, Eurasian water milfoil, and Asian
    carp. Others include several species of aquatic snakes, turtles, frogs,
    crayfish, snails, and salamanders. Together more than 50 species of
    aquatic animals have been identified as invasive to Tennessee.
        To identify the needs for addressing the problems of aquatic
    nuisance species, Tennessee developed a management plan in 2008. This
    plan focused on the prevention of new introductions but also dealt with
    the management and control of existing species that already exist in
    our waters. There are 26 strategies and 67 actions listed in the plan
    to address the concerns which include the development of educational
    materials such as pamphlets, posters, DVD's, and an Aquatic Nuisance
    Species Web site. It also includes hiring an aquatic nuisance species
    coordinator, improving enforcement and regulations that prohibit the
    possession, purchase, and transport of aquatic nuisance species in
    Tennessee.
        During the 3 years that our State has received the Aquatic Nuisance
    Species Federal grant we have accomplished action items identified in
    our management plan: We have monitored our extensive crayfish
    population for the presences of nuisance crayfish; we partnered with
    the Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga for the development of an aquatic
    nuisance species display at their facility; we implemented a new live
    bait regulation which will help prevent the introduction of various
    invasive species of fish, amphibians, and crayfish; and developed the
    ``Angler's guide to Tennessee Fish'' which includes a section on the
    identification of various aquatic nuisance species of fish and crayfish
    in the guide.
        However we have only touched the surface of a very serious problem.
    Asian carp populations are continuing to expand in the Tennessee and
    Cumberland River systems; zebra mussels have recently been discovered
    in one of our most pristine and heavily visited lakes, Norris
    Reservoir; and various invasive species of aquatic plants are
    constantly showing up in waters where they have not been seen before.
    We must continue to work on these problems as they arise as well as try
    to prevent the introduction of new invasive species before they become
    established and it is too late.
        In speaking on behalf of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency,
    and on behalf of the citizens of Tennessee, I ask that the Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies approve within the budget of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife agency
    the continued funding of Aquatic Nuisance Species State grants.
        The State of Tennessee looks forward to continue working with the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on this important issue. Again, thank
    you for the opportunity to allow me to provide testimony on behalf of
    the State of Tennessee.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of The American Society for the Prevention of
                               Cruelty to Animals

        On behalf of our 2.5 million supporters, The American Society for
    the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) appreciates this
    opportunity to submit testimony to the Senate Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Founded in
    1866, ASPCA is the first humane organization established in the
    Americas and serves as the Nation's leading voice for animal welfare.
    ASPCA's mission is to provide effective means for the prevention of
    cruelty to animals throughout the United States, and for that reason we
    request the subcommittee consider the following concerns regarding the
    Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Wild Horse and Burro Program when
    making fiscal year 2013 appropriations.

                                  WILD HORSES

        In the 40 years since BLM was first charged with protecting our
    country's wild horses and burros, Americans have witnessed BLM's Wild
    Horse and Burro Program deteriorate into a continuous cycle of roundups
    and removals with little regard to the preservation-focused mandate
    dictated by The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (the Act). Our
    wild horses and burros are to be revered as historical icons, treated
    humanely, and managed fairly and respectfully on our public lands. We
    appreciate BLM's recognition that there is a great need for reform in
    the Wild Horse and Burro Program. We applaud its effort to incorporate
    the use of on-the-range management methods such as immunocontraception
    and to find alternatives to long-term holding of wild horses. However,
    further and significant reformations must be swiftly incorporated.
    Prohibit Bureau of Land Management Funding for Euthanasia or Sale of
            Wild Horses as Management Methods
        In December 2004, the Congress passed the Consolidated
    Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 which contained a provision
    that amended the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to allow for
    the sale of certain groups of wild horses and burros. This instant
    transfer of title from the U.S. Government to the individual purchaser
    revokes the animal's status as a protected equine and makes it
    vulnerable to the still-thriving horse slaughter industry.
    Additionally, in 2008 BLM publicly announced that it was considering
    using its statutory authority to destroy old, sick, or unadoptable wild
    horses and burros for the first time by implementing mass euthanasia as
    a population control method. The roar of public opposition that
    followed forced BLM to quickly withdraw the proposal. However, both the
    sale provision and the language allowing for the destruction of wild
    horses and burros remain in the law. ASPCA requests that the
    subcommittee include the following language in the appropriations bill
    that specifically prohibits funding programs or projects that subject
    wild horses and burros to the possibility of slaughter or euthanasia as
    a means of population control: ``Appropriations herein made shall not
    be available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and
    burros in the care of the Bureau or its contractors or for the sale of
    wild horses and burros that results in their destruction for processing
    into commercial products.''
    Ensure That Removals Do Not Exceed Adoption Demand
        The majority of BLM's budget is spent caring for wild horses in
    long-term holding facilities. The budget requested for BLM's Wild Horse
    and Burro Program has necessarily increased each fiscal year, as has
    the portion of the budget that funds the care of wild horses in long-
    term holding facilities. Unfortunately, instead of letting these wild
    horses remain in their natural habitats as part of their established
    herds, their family structures have been disrupted and they have been
    removed to fenced facilities where taxpayer dollars go for their care.
    There are now as many or more wild horses in holding facilities as in
    the wild. Without substantial change in management techniques, the
    number in holding facilities will only increase and taxpayer dollars
    will be further wasted in ever increasing amounts. ASPCA believes wild
    horses belong in their natural habitats and should not be subject to
    the terror of removals nor the confines of holding facilities without
    hope of return to the range or adoption.
        Adoption rates have varied between 3,000 and 4,000 horses since
    2008. During that same time period, BLM has rounded up and removed
    approximately 7,800 annually, several thousand more than the adoption
    demand, thereby guaranteeing most of those wild animals will be kept in
    taxpayer-funded holding facilities for the remainder of their lives.
    Warehousing horses in holding facilities does nothing to manage the on-
    range populations and only delays the inevitable need for more
    preventative management. This cycle must be broken. ASPCA encourages
    BLM to limit the number of horses removed from the range to the number
    matching current adoption demand.
    Prioritize On-the-Range Management Over Roundup and Removal
        The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act makes clear that on-
    the-range management should be preferred over roundup and removal as
    the primary method of wild horse management. There are multiple ways
    BLM can reform its program to favor on-the-range management methods.
        ASPCA realizes that there are situations where population control
    is necessary, and we appreciate BLM's public recognition that fertility
    control methods such as immunocotraception must be a significant part
    of wild horse population management. Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP), the
    contraceptive vaccine that has been used in managing horse and deer
    populations for decades, was recently registered by the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) and is now commercially available. For the past
    2 years, BLM has capped its goal for vaccinating horses at 2,000 horses
    per year. For PZP to become a serious part of the solution, its use
    must be increased to levels that will significantly impact population
    growth. As part of President Obama's proposed fiscal year 2013 budget
    for BLM, the Wild Horse and Burro Program requested a $2 million
    increase specifically for research and development of population-
    control methods. ASPCA recommends that the requested funds go toward
    prioritizing the use of humane, reversible fertility control when it is
    necessary to stem the population growth of wild horse or burro herds.
        In addition to escalating its use of immunocontraception, BLM must
    also reconsider Herd Management Areas (HMAs) that have been zeroed out
    as wild horse and burro habitat and make them available for
    reintroduction. More than 20 million acres of HMAs originally
    designated as wild horse and burro habitat have been zeroed out and
    horses have been removed and placed in holding facilities. This 40-year
    pattern has resulted in American taxpayers paying more each year for
    the cost of privatized care when millions of acres of habitat are
    available. ASPCA recommends that the subcommittee direct BLM to
    reestablish zeroed out HMAs as viable wild horse and burro habitat
    wherever possible.
    Require Humane and Transparent Roundup Operations
        Finally, ASPCA requests that, when roundups are necessary, the
    subcommittee charge BLM with establishing humane and transparent
    standards and procedures for those operations. Observers have witnessed
    horses suffering and dying due to brutal roundup practices. Foals have
    been run over such extreme distances that they literally have lost
    their hooves, mares have been driven to the point of physical
    exhaustion, and a burro was physically assaulted with helicopter skids.
    BLM recognizes a need to reform its roundup protocol. ASPCA applauds
    this acknowledgement and asks that the subcommittee encourage BLM to
    expedite its development of standard operating procedures for roundups
    that incorporate animal welfare standards. No roundups for removal or
    any other purposes should occur without procedures in place that will
    ensure these incidents are never repeated. For the public to continue
    to invest in this management program and to allow this agency to have
    any authority over these animals, it is vital that no horses or burros
    are harmed at the hands of BLM agents or contractors. We also urge the
    subcommittee to designate funds for researching, and developing
    protocols that take into consideration the impact of separating family
    groups of wild horses during removals. To allow for more visibility of
    roundup operations, and thus more accountability, we urge the
    subcommittee to designate funds for the installation of video cameras
    on helicopters and at trap and holding sites.
        Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony. We appreciate
    the steps BLM has already taken to reform the Wild Horse and Burro
    Program, and we look forward to working with the agency on this issue
    in the future. With the help of the subcommittee, the BLM Wild Horse
    and Burro Program can hopefully achieve sustainability and comply with
    the mission of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act: to protect
    and preserve these animals as historic American icons.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of The Conservation Fund

        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies, thank you for this opportunity to submit outside witness
    testimony on behalf of The Conservation Fund. The Conservation Fund
    (TCF) supports full funding of the President's budget request of $450
    million in fiscal year 2013 for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (which includes the Federal land acquisition programs of the Bureau of
    Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (FWS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS), as well as several important
    State grant programs). Additionally, TCF supports full funding of the
    President's request for the FWS's North American Wetlands Conservation
    Fund ($39.425 million) and USFS's Community Forest and Open Space
    Conservation Program ($4 million). In addition, we want to thank the
    subcommittee for reauthorizing the Federal Land Transaction
    Facilitation Act (FLTFA) in 2010, though it is currently expired and we
    support the fiscal year 2013 President's budget request to reauthorize
    this important program.
        The Conservation Fund (TCF) is a national, nonprofit conservation
    organization dedicated to conserving America's land and water legacy
    for future generations. Established in 1985, TCF works with landowners;
    Federal, State, and local agencies; and other partners to conserve our
    Nation's important lands for people, wildlife and communities. To date,
    TCF has helped our partners to conserve more than 7 million acres.
    These accomplishments are due, in large measure, to the leadership of
    this subcommittee over many years to appropriate funds to Federal
    agencies to acquire lands for future generations.
        Below are highlights of some benefits of the LWCF and land
    acquisition programs. While these projects show the tremendous
    diversity of benefits of land acquisition for the public, they have one
    thing in common--landowners drive each of these projects. Many farmers,
    ranchers and forestland owners have significant financial equity in
    their land. By enabling a landowner to sell a conservation easement or
    fee title, the LWCF program provides landowners with funds to stay in
    business, reinvest in businesses, or meet other financial goals.
        Bureau of Land Management--Land Acquisition.--TCF supports the
    fiscal year 2013 President's budget request of $33.575 million for the
    Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Land Acquisition Program for its
    ``core'' and ``collaborative'' lists, and would like to highlight the
    following projects:
        Upper Snake/South Fork Snake River ACEC, Idaho--$1.75 million (#4
            on core list).--Idaho's Upper Snake/South Fork is visited by
            more than 300,000 people each year to enjoy world-class fishing
            and floating, abundant wildlife and one of the most scenic
            rivers in the West, supporting 350 jobs and generating $12
            million in income per year. Working in partnership with
            landowners, this project primarily utilizes conservation
            easements to protect valuable fish and wildlife habitat and
            agricultural lands from fragmentation while simultaneously
            supporting important recreational and tourism opportunities and
            allowing agricultural lands to remain in production/private
            ownership.
        Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon--$2 million (#6 on core
            list).--An ``ecological wonder,'' supporting 3,500 species, the
            54,900-acre CSNM was designated specifically for its
            extraordinary biological diversity. BLM has worked with private
            landowners to acquire inholdings within the national monument,
            but thousands of acres remain in private ownership, closed to
            public use, and unprotected from development. This project will
            allow the BLM to purchase high-priority inholdings from
            timberland owners within Cascade-Siskiyou, complementing BLM's
            work with past LWCF appropriations.
        National Park Service--Land Acquisition.--TCF supports the fiscal
    year 2013 President's budget proposal of $59.421 million for the
    National Park Service's (NPS) Land Acquisition Program. I would like to
    highlight the following from the NPS's ``core'' list:
        National Rivers and Trails Initiative--$4 million (#2 on core
            list).--This new initiative would assist in the acquisition of
            numerous, smaller parcels throughout the National Trails
            System, creating new recreational opportunities and protecting
            important natural and cultural resources. This initiative will
            involve the coordination with other Federal agencies, such as
            the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management that
            manage lands crossed by trails.
        Civil War Sesquicentennial Units--$5 million (#1 on core list).--
            These funds will allow for the acquisition of land within the
            NPS's Civil War battlefield parks. According to the NPS,
            priority needs exist at Fort Donelson National Battlefield,
            Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial
            National Military Park, Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield
            Park, Pecos National Historical Park, Richmond National
            Battlefield Park, and others park units.
      --Petrified Forest National Park--$5 million (#4 on core list).--At
            the request of the National Park Service, TCF is currently
            working with several willing landowners to acquire key
            inholdings within the Park, which feature unique
            paleontological and archeological resources as well as
            outstanding scenery, riparian resources and wildlife habitat.
            The more than 630,000 annual visitors to the Park contribute
            more than $80 million to the local economy and support more
            than 600 local jobs.
        Fish and Wildlife Service--Land Acquisition.--TCF supports the
    fiscal year 2013 President's budget proposal of $106.892 million for
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Land Acquisition Program for
    its ``core'' and ``collaborative'' lists, including:
        Dakota Grasslands, North Dakota and South Dakota--$2.5 Million
            (Number One on Core List).--To address the accelerating loss of
            wetland and grassland habit in the Prairie Pothole region--our
            Nation's ``duck factory''--FWS recently established the Dakota
            Grassland Conservation Area. LWCF funds will allow willing
            private landowners to sell conservation easements to the FWS to
            conserve migratory birds by protecting the region's unique,
            highly diverse, and endangered ecosystem.
        Neches River National Wildlife Refuge, Texas--$1 Million (#6 on
            Core List).--In 2006, FWS established the 25,000-acre Neches
            River NWR to protect habitat for migratory birds of the Central
            Flyway and bottomland hardwood forests, as well as to provide
            for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. At
            the request of the FWS, TCF acquired a 6,715-acre tract that
            features 8 miles of Neches River frontage, dense bottomland
            hardwood forest, and numerous oxbows and ponds. The FWS has an
            approved appraisal of the property and TCF has raised
            significant private funds to provide excellent leverage for the
            requested Federal funds of $1 million in fiscal year 2013.
        Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area, Montana--$19.742 Million
            (Collaborative List).--As part of the Crown of the Continent
            Collaborative Landscape Planning Project, this project will
            allow TCF to continue working in close partnership with the
            FWS, The Nature Conservancy and local ranchers to acquire
            conservation easements along the Rocky Mountain Front, a
            spectacular range that runs from just north of Helena to
            Glacier National Park. This voluntary conservation project will
            allow local ranchers to expand and strengthen their ranching
            operations while conserving vital wildlife habitat for grizzly
            bear and a range of other important species. Tens of millions
            of private philanthropic dollars are helping to further advance
            this effort for ranching families and wildlife and leverage
            Federal funding.
        Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, Georgia--$13.636 Million
            (Collaborative List).--As part of the Longleaf Pine
            Collaborative Landscape Planning Project, the FWS is seeking
            funds to acquire timber and recreation rights from a timberland
            owner on 16,000 acres within the Okefenokee National Wildlife
            Refuge. In addition, these funds, if appropriated, would enable
            FWS to acquire 7,000 acre-fee land from TCF. If approved, FWS
            will be able to restore the site to the native longleaf pine
            system and to increase the population of the endangered red-
            cockaded woodpecker, a bird of older growth pine stands.
            Additionally, the lands will provide a critical fire buffer and
            allow for the long-term adaptive management of the fire-based
            plant community through the use of prescribed fire.
        United States Forest Service--Land Acquisition.--TCF supports the
    fiscal year 2013 President's budget proposal of $57.934 million for
    USFS's Land Acquisition Program for its ``core'' and ``collaborative''
    lists. I particularly want to highlight the following:
        North Carolina Threatened Treasures--$1.25 Million (#13 on Core
            List).--TCF, the Trust for Public Land, Southern Appalachian
            Highlands Conservancy and Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy
            and other groups are working with the USFS to conserve critical
            lands in National Forests in North Carolina. One such project
            is the 753-acre Backbone Ridge project, which is located near
            the Blue Ridge Parkway, Grandfather Mountain State Park and
            surrounded on three sides by the Pisgah National Forest
            adjoining the Forest for almost 10 miles. The property will
            provide a gateway for hiking in a network of protected Federal
            and State lands. USFS is seeking $4.5 million over several
            years to acquire a portion of the property, while the State of
            North Carolina seeks to acquire the balance as a State forest.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund State Grant Programs.--In addition
    to these Federal LWCF projects, we wish to highlight the LWCF State
    grant programs and encourage the subcommittee to give consideration to
    fully funding the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for:
      --FWS's section 6 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund--
            $60 million;
      --USFS's Forest Legacy Program--$60 million; project highlights
            include:
        --South Boulder Creek Watershed/Toll, Colorado (#1)--$5 million;
        --East Grand/Orient, Maine (#5)--$1.8 million;
        --Gilchrist State Forest, Oregon (#6)--$3 million;
        --East Fork of French Broad Headwaters/Taylor, North Carolina
                (#7)--$3 million;
        --Blood Run National Historic Landmark Area, South Dakota (#10)--
                $1.205 million; and
        --Eagle Rock/Michaux State Forest, Pennsylvania (#12)--$1.5
                million.
        Priority Land Acquisition Programs.--Additionally, TCF encourages
    the Committee to fund:
      --FWS's North American Wetlands Conservation Fund--$39.425 million;
            and
      --USFS's Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program--$4
            million.
        Reprogramming Authority.--We support the fiscal year 2013
    President's budget request to allow the BLM, USFWS, NPS and USFS to re-
    allocate past unspent LWCF funds, i.e., ``allocate either greater or
    lesser amounts than those specified under the heading ``Congressionally
    Directed Spending'' accompanying Public Law 111-8 and in the table
    entitled ``Incorporation of Congressionally Requested Projects'' in the
    joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying Public Law 111-88
    within the construction, land acquisition, or capital improvement and
    maintenance accounts when necessary to complete projects based on the
    original project scope or to utilize excess funds available after
    completion of a project on other projects within the same account, in
    consultation with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.''
    The proposed language is necessary to allow the agencies to re-allocate
    funds to needed areas.
        Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Reauthorization (S. 714/
    H.R. 3365).--The FLTFA program is now expired and we support the fiscal
    year 2013 President's budget request to reauthorize this important
    program that provides conservation funding for the West, at no cost to
    the taxpayer. Through FLTFA's ``land for land'' program, BLM sells land
    identified for disposal to ranchers, farmers, businesses and others to
    consolidate land ownership, create jobs, support economic development
    and increase revenues to counties by putting land on the tax rolls.
    These sales generate funding for BLM, USFS, NPS and USFWS to acquire
    critical inholdings from willing sellers in certain designated areas,
    which often complements LWCF, NAWCA, and other public and private
    funding. The sales provide revenue for Federal agencies to acquire
    high-priority lands with important recreational access for hunting,
    fishing, hiking, boating, other activities, as well as properties with
    historic, scenic and cultural resources. More than 100 groups are
    working together to support the Congress's efforts to reauthorize
    FLTFA.
        We are grateful for the subcommittee's leadership in the fiscal
    year 2013 appropriations process to support the LWCF program. Thank you
    for your consideration of this request.
                                     ______

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

        Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on items of importance
    to our organizations with a combined membership of more than 11 million
    supporters nationwide. We urge the subcommittee to address these
    priority issues in the fiscal year 2013 Department of the Interior
    appropriation.
    Rock Creek Park Deer
        The HSUS requests that funds made available in this act give
    preference to nonlethal deer management programs. The National Park
    Service (NPS) recently decided to implement lethal methods for
    controlling the deer population in Rock Creek Park despite the
    availability of nonlethal methods that would have cost significantly
    less taxpayer money and resulted in a more effective long-term solution
    to human-wildlife conflicts in the park and its environs. In future
    decisions regarding deer management we ask that priority be given to
    humane, nonlethal methods.
    Large Constrictor Snakes
        The HSUS commends the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for listing
    four of 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. Large constrictor snakes have been
    released or escaped into the environment and have colonized Everglades
    National Park and other portions of south Florida and scientists warn
    they may become established in other areas of the country. Releasing
    these animals to fend for themselves can also lead to an inhumane death
    from starvation, dehydration, being struck by cars, or exposure to
    bitterly cold temperatures. The Service must have the resources to
    respond quickly to prevent the spread of these species and
    establishment of new ones.
    Environmental Protection Agency
                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 Committee to
    incorporate the following report language:

        ``The Committee recognizes that EPA is continuing to extend
    existing long-term reproduction studies in birds, fish, and other
    species to two- or multi-generation tests for the Endocrine Disruptor
    Screening Program (EDSP). The Committee is also aware that EPA is
    considering replacing the two-generation mammalian study with an
    extended one-generation test on the basis of an international review of
    rat reproduction studies that shows the lack of utility of a second
    generation. The Committee directs EPA to maximize the efficiency of
    each protocol and minimize unnecessary costs and animal use by
    assessing the utility (including sensitivity, specificity and value of
    information added relative to the assessment of endocrine disruption)
    of each endpoint in the study, including specifically the need to
    produce more than one generation of offspring in the bird, fish and
    amphibian EDSP Tier 2 tests and issue a public report on its findings
    for comment. The Committee also directs EPA to determine what
    information the Agency requires to assess and manage potential risks to
    human health and the environment in regards to endocrine disruption, to
    minimize to eliminate unnecessary endocrine screening and testing, and
    to use existing scientific data in lieu of requiring new data, when
    possible. The Committee understands that EPA is currently working with
    OECD to develop and modify EDSP methods. EPA should work within the
    framework and timing of the OECD Test Guideline work plan to minimize
    duplicative efforts.''
                Science and Technology Account--21st Century Toxicology
        In 2007, the National Research Council published its report titled
    ``Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy.'' This
    report catalyzed collaborative efforts across the research community to
    focus on developing new, advanced molecular screening methods for use
    in assessing potential adverse health effects of environmental agents.
    It is widely recognized that the rapid emergence of omics technologies
    and other advanced technologies offers great promise to transform
    toxicology from a discipline largely based on observational outcomes
    from animal tests as the basis for safety determinations to a
    discipline that uses knowledge of biological pathways and molecular
    modes of action to predict hazards and potential risks. We urge the
    subcommittee to incorporate the following language:

        ``The Committee supports EPA's leadership role in the creation of a
    new paradigm for chemical risk assessment based on the incorporation of
    advanced molecular biological and computational methods in lieu of
    animal toxicity tests. The Committee encourages EPA to continue to
    expand its extramural and intramural support for the use of human
    biology-based experimental and computational approaches in health
    research to further define toxicity and disease pathways and develop
    tools for their integration into evaluation strategies. Extramural and
    intramural funding should be made available for the evaluation of the
    relevance and reliability of Tox21 methods and prediction tools to
    assure readiness and utility for regulatory purposes, including pilot
    studies of pathway-based risk assessments. The Committee requests EPA
    provide a report on associated funding in fiscal year 2013 for such
    activity and a progress report of Tox21 activities in the congressional
    justification request, featuring a 5-year plan for projected budgets
    for the development of Tox21 methods, including prediction models, and
    activities specifically focused on establishing scientific confidence
    in them for regulatory. The Committee also requests EPA prioritize an
    additional (1-3 percent) of its Science and Technology budget from
    within existing funds for such activity.''
    Multinational Species Conservation Fund
        The administration's fiscal year 2013 budget requests $9.980 for
    the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) program which funds
    African and Asian elephants, rhinos, tigers, great apes like chimps and
    gorillas, and sea turtles. HSUS joins a broad coalition of
    organizations in support of the administration's request while ensuring
    that the sales from the semi-postal stamps benefiting this program
    remain supplementary to annually appropriated levels. We also request
    $13 million for the Wildlife Without Borders and International Wildlife
    Trade programs within the USFWS Office of International Affairs.
        While we wholeheartedly support continued funding for the MSCF, 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 MSCF must be consistent with the
    spirit of the law.
    Protection for Walruses
        We urge this subcommittee to appropriate the necessary funds in
    fiscal year 2013 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 USFWS 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 USFWS 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 USFWS to prioritize the Pacific walrus
    listing by immediately moving forward with the listing process.
    Bureau of Land Management--Wild Horse and Burro Program
        The Humane Society of the United States (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 Bureau of Land Management (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, 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. Today, there are more than 47,000 wild
    horses and burros in these pens currently. In the most recently
    completed fiscal year (2011), holding costs accounted for $35.7 million
    (or 47 percent) out of a total wild horse and burro budget of $75.8
    million.
        We are encouraged by the BLM's announcement in the spring of 2011
    (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
    (PZP), the BLM could save approximately $204 million over 12 years
    while achieving and maintaining Appropriate Management Levels (AML) on
    wild horse Herd Management Areas (HMA) 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 more than 47,000 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 2013, 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.
    For these reasons, we strongly support the BLM's request for a $2
    million budget increase to fund new research on contraception and
    population growth suppression methods. Developing additional methods to
    reduce wild horse population growth will allow the agency to maintain
    healthy herds while reducing the need for costly removal regimes that
    will further flood Government holding facilities with additional
    animals.
        Again, we commend the Secretary and the BLM for taking critical
    steps toward 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 Nature Conservancy
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to present the Nature Conservancy's recommendations for
    fiscal year 2013 appropriations. My name is Christy Plumer and I am the
    Director of Federal Land Programs for the Conservancy. The Nature
    Conservancy is an international, nonprofit conservation organization
    working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and
    waters for nature and people. Our mission is to conserve the lands and
    waters upon which all life depends.
        As we enter the fiscal year 2013 budget cycle and another year of
    this challenging fiscal environment, the Conservancy continues to
    recognize the need for fiscal austerity. The Conservancy also wishes to
    thank this subcommittee for the final fiscal year 2012 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act funding levels for Department of the Interior and
    U.S. Forest Service conservation programs. As this subcommittee begins
    to tackle another difficult budget cycle, the Conservancy stresses our
    concerns that the wildlife and land conservation programs should not
    shoulder a disproportionate share of cuts in this budget. Our budget
    recommendations this year do not exceed the President's budget request
    except for a few instances in which we recommend fiscal year 2012
    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 economic,
    recreation and societal 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.--The Conservancy supports the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget request of $450 million for the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) with the aim of continuing to
    work toward full funding for the program. The President's America's
    Great Outdoors Initiative is the prominent focus of this annual LWCF
    budget, and includes several top-priority landscape conservation areas
    for the Conservancy including the Rocky Mountain Front/Crown of the
    Continent (Montana/Wyoming/Idaho) and Longleaf Pine Conservation Area
    (Florida/Georgia/South Carolina). This year, the Conservancy is
    specifically supporting 18 biologically rich land acquisition projects
    totaling $94.122 million. Some of our priorities include the continuing
    phased acquisition of the Montana Legacy Project, Florida's northern
    refuges (St. Marks and St. Vincent's), Silvio O. Conte NFWR within a
    four-State integrated landscape, and Francis Marion NF in South
    Carolina. We are also pleased to support the administration's proposals
    for investing in conservation easements on the working ranches of
    Florida's Everglades Headwaters NWR & Conservation Area, Kansas's Flint
    Hills Legacy Conservation Area, North Dakota and South Dakota's Dakota
    Grasslands Conservation Area, and Montana's Rocky Mountain Front
    Conservation Area. All of these projects exemplify landscape-scale
    conservation through the cost effective means of conservation
    easements.
        Forest Legacy.--We support $60 million for this program, and
    specifically three projects--Pascagoula River Conservation Lands,
    Carter Mountain Working Forest Conservation Easement, and Discover
    Woods--totaling $7.41 million. We hope this year to complete the
    acquisition of these important lands that will provide recovery for
    wildlife habitat and rare species, public recreational access for
    hunting and fishing, and outdoor experiences for financially
    disadvantaged children and those with special needs.
        Endangered Species.--The Conservancy enthusiastically supports $60
    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
    conserve key habitat for numerous threatened, endangered and at-risk
    species and, thus, to help avoid conflicts over ESA 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, 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. We also support continued endangered species
    funding for the Table Rocks Area, Oregon, to protect critical habitat
    for the threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp, and 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 Committee'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 Committee's ongoing commitment to both the
    USGS-led Climate Science Centers as well as DOI's Landscape
    Conservation Cooperatives, and efforts to ensure integration and
    coordination of these initiatives with existing efforts such as the
    Joint Ventures and National Fish Habitat Partnerships.
        National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Conservancy supports the
    Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement Coalition's request of $495
    million for Refuge System O&M. This is the President's request and
    represents the funding necessary to maintain management capabilities
    for the Refuge System in fiscal year 2013. It is an $8.3 million
    increase and takes into account the freeze on Federal salaries.
        United States Geological Survey--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.
        Bureau of Land Management: Renewable Energy Development, Rapid
    Ecoregional Assessments & Resource Management.--The Conservancy
    supports the administration's recommended funding for DOI's ``New
    Energy Frontier'' which includes $26.8 million for BLM to support
    environmentally sound development of renewable energy sources on public
    lands and offshore. The request supports evaluation of the impacts of
    renewable energy development on wildlife and habitat and effective
    coordination with affected States and tribes to assess energy resources
    and evaluate project proposals. We also support funding for BLM
    completion of Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REAs), a key information
    tool for the agency to respond to the growing challenges of climate
    change and energy development. We also recommend robust funding for 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 agency cannot make
    informed energy mitigation and siting decisions 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. BLM should also be encouraged to use existing data sets
    when available for REAs and RMPs so that funding can be focused on
    critical data needs instead of creating duplicitous data sets.
        Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration.--We appreciate the
    Committee's support for Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration and
    demonstration of collaboratively developed forest restoration plans at
    a large scale. We recommend fiscal year 2012 funding be sustained for
    Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration with $40 million to restore
    large forest landscapes, provide jobs that sustain rural economies,
    reduce the risk of damaging wildfire, address invasive species, improve
    wildlife habitat and decommission unused, damaging roads. We are
    monitoring many CFLR projects closely and are very encouraged by
    progress to date. We also recommend reauthorization of stewardship
    contracting, a vital tool for forest landscape restoration.
        Wildland Fire Management.--We appreciate the subcommittee's ongoing
    support for the Hazardous Fuels Reduction, that removes overgrown brush
    and trees through a variety of methods, leaving the forest in a more
    natural condition that is resilient to wildfires. It is essential to
    keep at least level funding for this program. Funding reductions will
    result in greater, more damaging wildfires and larger Federal and State
    outlays for emergency wildfire suppression, with more damage to life,
    property, and natural resources. We note that fuels reduction also
    creates jobs: for every $1 million invested, approximately 16 full-time
    equivalent jobs are created or maintained, along with more than
    $500,000 in wages and more than $2 million in overall economic
    activity.
        We urge you to repeat your instructions in the fiscal year 2012
    conference report regarding allocation of hazardous fuels funding.
    Community protection is a vital goal of the hazardous fuels program and
    strategic treatment of natural wildland areas that supply water, wood,
    recreation, and wildlife habitat protects communities and the resources
    citizens are also essential. We note that the President's budget for
    fiscal year 2013 has a disturbing focus on protecting structures at the
    expense of wildland natural areas. Significant progress to protect
    communities and natural areas has been achieved since 2001 with a
    roughly equal allocation of funding between the wildland urban
    interface and wildlands. Shifting too much funding away from wildlands
    will forestall treatments in strategic forest locations where
    treatments may prevent mega-fires, and will allow fuels to regrow on
    acres already treated that need maintenance with controlled burns.
        We recommend $317 million for Hazardous Fuels Reduction in the USFS
    budget, with $76 million for wildland and $241 million for wildland
    urban interface, and $183 million for Hazardous Fuels Reduction in the
    Department of the Interior budget, with at least 25 percent allocated
    for treatment of wildlands necessary to achieve the conservation
    missions of the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and
    Bureau of Land Management.
        Integrated Resource Restoration.--We appreciate the Committee's
    work to create an Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) pilot in the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, allowing Forest Service
    regions (Northern, Intermountain, and Southwestern) to test the
    integrated budget approach. The Nature Conservancy has actively
    followed implementation of the pilot in the three regions and expects
    an increase in restoration outcomes to result. The Conservancy thinks
    it is premature to take this pilot national, so we support continuation
    of the pilot for a second year. Important lessons will be learned from
    the pilot and this information is necessary if full implementation of
    IRR is to succeed.
        Watershed Protection, Cooperative State Fire Assistance and
    Landscape-Scale Restoration.--Forest health problems and fire
    management are most effectively and efficiently addressed at large
    scales. The Nature Conservancy recommends support for watershed
    restoration and leveraging State funding to address wildfire risks and
    begin cooperative Landscape Scale Restoration. Our recommendations
    include funding at the fiscal year 2012 enacted levels for Legacy Road
    and Trail Remediation, with $45 million for the National Forest System,
    $86 million for State Fire Assistance and $18 million for the new
    Landscape Scale Restoration program, to coordinate cost-effective
    investment in fuels treatments.
        Forest Health Management. America's forests are threatened by a
    growing number of non-native pests and diseases. The Conservancy asks
    the subcommittee to maintain funding at the fiscal year 2012 enacted
    level, which totals $112 million. This funding is necessary to address
    effectively the most economically and ecologically damaging pests,
    including the Asian Longhorned Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock
    Woolly Adelgid, Sudden Oak Death, thousand-canker disease of walnut,
    and the goldspotted oak borer.
        United States Forest Service Research Program.--We support the
    President's request for the USFS research program to maintain funding
    of research to improve detection and control methods for the Emerald
    Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, goldspotted oak borer, thousand
    cankers disease, and other non-native forest pests and diseases.
        State Wildlife Grants.--The Conservancy endorses the Teaming with
    Wildlife Coalition's support for robust funding for this important
    program. Strong Federal investments are essential to ensure strategic
    actions are undertaken by State and Federal agencies and the
    conservation community to conserve wildlife populations and their
    habitats. We also support the administration's request to maintain the
    current program match requirement of 65:35 to help fiscally impacted
    States.
        Migratory Bird, Joint Ventures and Fish Habitat 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 NAWCA and the Joint Ventures, and the Migratory Bird
    Management Program. We support the President's request for the FWS
    Coastal Program and Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and request
    strong funding this year for the National Fish Habitat Initiative,
    particularly in light of the recent Memorandum of Understanding
    announced between the Secretaries of the Interior, Commerce and
    Agriculture in support of the Initiative.
        International Programs.--There are large unmet needs for
    international conservation. When well-managed, international
    conservation contributes much to human welfare in the developing
    countries and globally. Recognizing the current fiscal situation
    requires a measure of austerity, we support the President's fiscal year
    2013 request for the FWS's Multinational Species Conservation Funds,
    the international wildlife trade programs, and Wildlife Without
    Borders. These programs have already been cut and are currently less
    than the fiscal year 2010 enacted levels; further cuts would be very
    damaging. We also support a line item and funding for USFS's
    International Programs at its fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $8
    million.
        United States Geological Survey--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.--TNC acknowledges that reductions
    in EPA's budget are necessary to support national deficit reduction. We
    believe that the overall President's budget request of $8.34 billion
    for EPA, which represents a $105 million decrease from the fiscal year
    2012 enacted amount, is appropriate. However, the Congress should
    remain mindful of the relatively small size of EPA's discretionary
    budget as it considers where additional budget cuts should occur
    Governmentwide. The Congress should avoid disproportionate cuts to
    EPA's ecosystem-oriented water programs because those programs have
    such wide-reaching and beneficial impacts throughout the country.
    Unlike established point source pollutant control programs, these
    landscape-scale programs support a more forward-looking conservation
    approach that can enhance ecosystem value (and therefore economic
    value) over time. Examples of such value-adding activities include
    coastal restoration, watershed protection, wetland mitigation, climate
    adaptation, protection from invasive plants and animals, and non-point
    source nutrient management.
        Furthermore, TNC recommends that the Congress require EPA to give
    greater emphasis to innovative approaches that promote ecosystem
    protection and restoration over after-the-fact remediation. We continue
    to support the allocation of sufficient funds for innovative strategic
    planning programs like the Healthy Watersheds Initiative, which
    embraces a whole-system planning approach to water resource management.
    This program should be endorsed as a means to enable Federal and State
    programs to protect and restore freshwater habitats at large scale
    through more bang-for-the-buck actions. The same holds true for major
    grant programs such as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the
    section 319 Non-Point Source grant program. These vital accounts should
    be sufficiently funded to enable cash-strapped States and localities to
    take actions to protect priority aquatic ecosystems. At the same time,
    the Congress should require EPA to promote the allocation of SRF and
    319 funds for projects that support the development of green
    infrastructure and sustainable conservation practices, because of the
    long-term environmental and economic value they provide.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
    recommendations for the fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies appropriations bill.
                                     ______

             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 499 not-for-profit member theatres across the country
    and the 31 million audience members that the theatre community serves.
    We urge you to support funding at $155 million for the National
    Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2013.
        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 National Endowment for the Arts' Access to Artistic Excellence
            Program
        Located in southern Vermont, Weston Playhouse was the recipient of
    an NEA grant in the category of Artistic Excellence in Musical Theatre
    for $45,000. This grant supported the world premiere production of
    Saint-Ex, a new musical by composer Jenny Giering and author Sean
    Barry, directed by Kent Nicholson. Inspired by the life of author and
    aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupery (The Little Prince), Saint-Ex provides
    an impassioned and deeply moving portrait of a man whose work is
    cherished by millions across the globe, but whose astonishing life
    remains little known. Saint-Ex began performances on August 28 at the
    Weston Playhouse. Interrupted just 3 days into the run when Tropical
    Storm Irene ripped through Weston, flooding countless homes and
    businesses, the lower level of the Weston Playhouse sustained extensive
    damage after being submerged in 8 feet of water. Response to these
    devastating events was overwhelming, with company and community members
    coming out to help with the cleanup. Recovering from this natural
    disaster, a restaged version of Saint-Ex opened just 5 days after the
    flood and served as a platform for community catharsis with every
    subsequent performance receiving an emotional standing ovation. Saint-
    Ex ran for 2 weeks with 12 total performances, 2,013 adults and
    students in attendance and 27 artists in addition to 39 Weston
    Playhouse staff members participating in the project.
    From the National Endowment for the Arts' Art Works Program
        CENTERSTAGE in Baltimore, Maryland, received $55,000 to support the
    presentation of Gleam, an adaptation by Bonnie Lee Moss Rattner of Zora
    Neale Hurston's novel Their Eyes Were Watching God directed by Marion
    McClinton. This novel is considered one of the jewels of the Harlem
    Renaissance by one of America's literary giants.
        Milwaukee Repertory Theater received $20,000 to support a musical
    production of Next to Normal, composed by Tom Kitt, with libretto and
    lyrics by Brian Yorkey, and directed by artistic director Mark Clements
    with accompanying community and student educational programming. The
    award-winning contemporary musical portrays a family grappling with
    depression and mental illness.
        Perseverance Theatre, in Douglas, Alaska, received $20,000 to
    support a production of A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry. A
    seminal work in the development of African American theatre, as well as
    a study of the issues of race relations, the play portrays an African
    American family living in Chicago's South Side during the 1940s and
    examines the American dream of children striving to rise above their
    parents' accomplishments.
    From the National Endowment for the Arts' Challenge America Program
        Tennessee Women's Theater Project in Nashville, Tennessee received
    $10,000 to support the creation and tour of a new play by Regina Taylor
    examining the experience of breast cancer from the African American
    perspective. Partners will include the Tennessee Breast Cancer
    Coalition.
        These are only a few examples of the kinds of extraordinary
    programs supported by the National Endowment for the Arts. Indeed, the
    Endowment's Theatre Program is able to fund only 50 percent of the
    applications it receives, so 50 percent of the theatres are turned away
    because there aren't sufficient funds. Theatre Communications Group
    urges you to support a funding level of $155 million for fiscal year
    2013 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 $146 million in the fiscal year 2012 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 fund
    the NEA at a level of $155 million to preserve the important cultural
    programs reaching Americans across the country.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Town of Ophir, Colorado

        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 2013
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
    President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
        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 public benefits
    including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
    drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
    assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
    support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
        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, historical and recreation 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 a conservation
    offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
        As part of the LWCF request in fiscal year 2013, USFS included an
    allocation of $1 million for the Ophir Valley project in the
    Uncompahgre National Forest. I am pleased that this funding was
    included in the request and urge the Congress to provide necessary
    funds for LWCF for this important project.
        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, the Ophir Valley
    offers an abundance of recreational opportunities for residents and
    visitors. Hiking, camping, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, four-
    wheeling, and fishing are all popular pastimes. In addition, the 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 United States Forest service
    (USFS), fragmenting wildlife habitat, and spoiling the scenic splendor
    and recreational opportunities so important to residents and visitors.
        Currently, 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 USFS to begin acquiring these mining
    claims. Funding in fiscal year 2012 will allow the agency to begin the
    purchase of the final 101 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 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 2013, an allocation of
    $2.5 million from LWCF is needed to help the Forest Service to complete
    the protection of these critical inholdings. It is my hope that USFS
    will be able to identify funds in addition to the budgeted amount in
    order to finish the Ophir Valley project this year.
        In closing, I urge you to provide funding for LWCF of $450 million,
    as proposed in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget, including
    critical funding for Ophir Valley. 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 Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska

        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 28,000 tribal citizens. I am honored to provide this testimony
    on the very important matter of the fiscal year 2013 Federal
    appropriations legislation. I commend the Congress, and especially this
    subcommittee, for holding this hearing and giving me, and other tribal
    leaders, an opportunity to provide you our perspective on the fiscal
    year 2013 Federal budgets on Native American programs. One of the most
    important legal principles in defining the relationship between the
    Federal Government and the Indian and Alaska Native Tribes is that of
    the fiduciary responsibility the United States has to tribal
    governments. This hearing is very important in strengthening the
    Federal Government's Trust relationship to tribal governments.

       FUNDING NOT BASED ON NEEDS, WHICH ARE MUCH GREATER IN RURAL AREAS

        I have been involved in managing Federal programs since 1976 and
    find that the method of formulating Federal budgets for the benefit of
    needy Native Americans is deficient and ineffective. Each year Federal
    budgets are put together mostly based upon the previous year's funding;
    totally disregarding the level of unmet needs in Indian Country. This
    becomes a much bigger problem when it becomes necessary to reduce total
    Federal funding.
        Our Nation's poverty level is at the highest level since 1993. 22
    million or 1 in every 6 Americans lives in poverty; 22 percent of all
    American children live in poverty. The poverty levels are much higher
    in rural tribal communities. In rural Alaska, higher energy costs have
    compounded an already depressed economy in rural Alaska. The cost of
    living in certain parts of rural Alaska is nearly twice that of the
    average cost of living elsewhere in the United States. Electricity
    costs are often 4 to 5 times higher. Over the past decade, funding for
    Native American programs has not even kept pace with national inflation
    rates let alone the dramatic inflationary costs in rural Alaska.

    NON-BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AGENCIES HAVE RECEIVED FUNDING PRIORITY IN
                              INTERIOR DEPARTMENT

        Between fiscal year 2004 and 2012, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    (BIA) budget grew 8 percent. Over that same period of time, funding for
    non-BIA programs grew at a much greater rate:
      --Fish and Wildlife by 30 percent;
      --Park Services by 27 percent;
      --Geodetic Surveys by 18 percent; and
      --Bureau of Land Management by 13 percent.
        It makes sense that funding to needy tribal communities could be
    increased if these non-BIA agencies were reduced to the 2004 funding
    levels plus 8 percent.
        The single biggest factor that financially undermines Tribal Self-
    Determination and Self-Governance is the Federal practice of
    underfunding or putting caps on indirect costs or Contract Support Cost
    (CSC). 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 difference between
    the way indirect costs are calculated and the way they are 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 the
    administrative costs we are required to spend, Federal law provides us
    less and less money to meet these federally required expenditures. The
    more we spend, the less we get. The less we spend, the less we get.
    Both the Congress and the Federal agencies have caused this crisis.
    Together we can solve it.
        tlingit haida tribal trust funds pay for federal responsibility
        Federal law specifically states that a tribe who 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 contract support costs violates this provision of Federal
    law and severely undermines the concept of tribal self-determination.
        Tlingit Haida diligently tries to abide by Federal laws that set
    our indirect cost rates and to live within other Federal appropriations
    laws that provide us much less than the Federal Government's 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 contract support costs
    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 Tribal Trust Fund is what remains of a judgment fund provided
    to us in exchange for land taken by the United States from our tribe.
    Our Tlingit Haida tribal government has a fiduciary responsibility to
    preserve the principal of this Tribal Trust Fund for future generations
    and the earnings of this fund that are so critical to maintaining
    essential governmental functions for our tribe. It is not the purpose
    of our Tribal Trust Fund to use the interest earned to make up for
    shortfall 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, shut our offices, layoff employees, and pay for early
    termination of contracts, or dip deeper and deeper into our Tribal
    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 and diminishment of our Tribal Trust
    Fund earnings, the shortfall in BIA contract support funding has been
    felt throughout Tlingit Haida. As an immediate result of this shortfall
    which the 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
    federally funded 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), Tlingit Haida had to
    abstain from fully participating in available programs because of the
    15-percent cap of administrative costs placed on those programs. We did
    accept one $1.5 million award for childcare assistance to supplement
    our ``welfare to work'' initiatives but this cost Tlingit Haida
    $330,000 of our own money, again, depleting our meager Tribal Trust
    Fund, to manage that federally funded program.

                   INDIRECT COSTS ARE FIXED-COST REQUIREMENTS

        If indirect costs were not primarily ``fixed'' costs, the recurring
    problem of a shortfall in BIA contract support cost 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 federally set indirect cost 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 by all
    Federal agencies with whom Tlingit Haida manages a contract or grant.
    The rates use actual expenditures from prior years to project costs in
    the future year. Once our federally established indirect cost rate is
    set, Federal law requires that our tribe apply that Federal rate
    uniformly to all the programs we administer. In other words, Federal
    law requires us to spend money on administrative costs, but will not
    let us charge all of that spending to the Federal grants and contracts.
        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. We would spiral into complete financial disaster
    as a tribe 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). Deferring certain
    costs to the following year aggravates the hardship of the shortfalls
    that cripple that year. The Public Law 93-638 language which supposedly
    protects tribal contractors against theoretical under-recovery does
    work with respect to BIA funds, but historical underfunding of CSC has
    caused our tribe very serious difficulties in 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 on to the CSC for the subsequent year. Higher indirect
    cost rates are no answer, given the uncertainty of future funding
    levels. Tlingit Haida, in our efforts to keep our CSC indirect cost
    rates lower has chosen not to carry all of those costs forward and so
    has had to pay the shortfalls out of non-Federal sources. But Tlingit
    Haida, and many other tribes, have very few non-Federal sources of
    funding. For these reasons, I ask your consideration of including the
    following bill language in the fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment,
    and Related Agencies appropriations law. It would provide flexibility
    to Tlingit Haida and other tribes caught by a crushing, unfunded
    Federal mandate.

                  PROPOSED NEW FISCAL YEAR 2013 BILL 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 2013 to an Indian tribe may, at the option of the Indian tribe, be
    applied to pay for up to 100 percent 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-determined indirect cost rate agreement of that Indian tribe
    and the relevant OMB circulars.''

                       INTENT AND EFFECT OF BILL LANGUAGE

        The proposed amendment is 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 otherwise governing
    those awards or agreements.
        The proposed amendment would expand existing authority to permit a
    tribal contractor an additional tribal option--it would provide tribal
    authority to use any federally funded award to meet up to all of a
    tribe's 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. This would not require any increase in overall
    Federal funding. The funding level of each award would not be affected.
    It would simply extend flexibility to a tribal contractor to apply its
    federally awarded funds to meet federally required administrative
    costs. This would be a huge benefit to tribal contractors, like Tlingit
    Haida, who are providing services in high-cost areas with few or no
    financial resources other than Federal awards and grants.

                                   CONCLUSION

        I very much understand the serious financial challenges facing the
    Federal Government. It is vitally important that there be a balanced
    approach in addressing Federal budget deficits. Balancing our Nation's
    budget on the backs of the programs serving the needy will not work. I
    thank you for the opportunity to share my views with you. 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 Trust for Public Land

        On behalf of The Trust for Public Land, thank you for the
    opportunity to submit testimony in support of programs under your
    jurisdiction for the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process. The Trust
    for Public Land (TPL) is a national nonprofit land conservation
    organization working to protect land for people in communities across
    the Nation. We are extremely grateful for the support members of this
    subcommittee and other conservation leaders in the Congress have shown
    for Federal conservation programs during these challenging fiscal
    times. We recognize that the subcommittee will again face enormous
    challenges in meeting the broad range of priority needs in the
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill this year. But we
    believe the American people support continued investments in
    conservation, even during a time of economic challenge. Most recently,
    on ``Super Tuesday'' in March, voters in communities in Florida,
    Georgia and Ohio approved conservation funding measures, putting 2012's
    passage rate at 100 percent--4 for 4 so far.
        These ballot initiatives reflect the very essence of conservation
    in the 21st century:
      --collaborative;
      --leveraged;
      --partnership-based; and
      --locally supported.
        Federal funding is an absolutely critical part of the conservation
    toolbox and provides manifold benefits to the American people. Given
    the limited public conservation funding at all levels of government,
    TPL works to leverage Federal conservation dollars, bringing to bear
    private philanthropic support as well as State and local funding to
    forge workable solutions to complex conservation funding challenges.
        We are especially grateful for your recognition during the fiscal
    year 2012 process that funding for programs like the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a worthwhile investment. TPL respectfully
    requests that you continue this commitment by supporting the
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2013 for LWCF of $450
    million. This amount includes $270 million for Federal land purchases,
    $60 million for grants to States for parks and outdoor recreation,
    including a new competitive grant component for city parks, $60 million
    for the Forest Legacy Program and $60 million for the Cooperative
    Endangered Species program. Continued investment in this suite of LWCF
    programs is essential and TPL is ready to work with the subcommittee to
    ensure that dollars invested are well spent on our most urgent needs.
    We urge you to also support the President's budget requests for the
    North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the Community Forest
    Program.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        For almost 50 years LWCF has been the cornerstone that sustains our
    Federal public lands heritage and remains today a compelling and
    urgently needed program. When the Congress created LWCF in 1964, it
    sought to ensure that land conservation would receive funds every year
    by dedicating certain revenues. For most of its history, the major
    source of LWCF funds has been revenues from offshore oil and gas
    development in Federal waters. LWCF activities neither require nor are
    designed to receive taxpayer dollars. This arrangement is built on the
    principle that the revenues generated from energy development and
    natural resource depletion should be used for the protection of other
    natural resources such as parks, open space, and wildlife habitat for
    the benefit of current and future generations of Americans. TPL
    believes that this principle remains a sound one and that the American
    public supports using this very small percentage of OCS receipts--which
    annually average more than $6 billion--as a conservation offset.
        Federal Land Acquisitions.--Every year tens of millions of
    Americans, as well as international visitors to our country, visit our
    public lands. Federal funding of land acquisition ensures that the
    public can access lands for these recreational and educational
    purposes. If accessible properties are instead sold for development or
    subdivision, there is no guarantee that the public will be able to
    enjoy the nearby public lands. Purchase can also enhance the quality of
    recreational experiences, encouraging greater public participation and
    use, and in some cases resolve public land management issues and
    achieve cost savings. There is a clear economic impact from these
    activities. A 2006 Federal interagency study determined that 87.5
    million people annually spend $122.3 billion on fishing, hunting and
    wildlife watching alone. These activities and others have significant
    ripple effects. The Outdoor Industry Foundation estimates that active
    outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion annually to the U.S.
    economy, supports nearly 6.5 million jobs across the United States,
    generates $49 billion in annual national tax revenue, and produces $289
    billion annually in retail sales and services across the country.
        Among the recreation destinations whose economic and natural
    resource values might be significantly compromised without sufficient
    LWCF funding in fiscal year 2013 are Virgin Islands National Park where
    TPL is working to finally connect the two sections of the national park
    along the shores of Maho Bay, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in
    Idaho, where a conservation easement will protect the lands along the
    river are scenic vista at the gateway to the NRA, the California
    Coastal National Monument, where a property will connect visitors to 2
    miles of the Pacific coast, and along the Pacific Crest Trail in
    Washington State.
        Incompatible development within established Federal units is a
    continuing concern for the public and for public land managers, and we
    have found that private landowners of inholdings and edgeholdings are
    open to and quite often seek a conservation solution. Faced with
    uncertainty about the availability of Federal land acquisition dollars,
    however, many landowners find that they cannot afford to wait on a win-
    win outcome. Adequate and timely acquisition of inholdings through the
    LWCF is critical to efforts to protect the Nation's public lands
    heritage when these time-sensitive acquisition opportunities arise.
    Often the window for a conservation outcome is narrow, and the
    availability of LWCF funds ensures that landowners can sell their
    properties in a timely manner. For instance, important conservation
    properties are available for a limited time at Kennesaw Mountain
    National Battlefield Park in Georgia, at the new Middle Rio Grande
    National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico and at Red Cliffs National
    Conservation Area in Utah. Funding for Kennesaw Mountain--a national
    battlefield that is under severe development threat--is particularly
    important given the ongoing commemoration of the Sesquicentennial of
    the Civil War. In addition, a number of partially completed projects at
    Virgin Islands NP, Sawtooth NRA, and the Carson, Uncompahgre and
    Superior National Forests await further funding to be completed and are
    included in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget request. Recent
    funding levels for LWCF have been insufficient to allow agencies to
    complete these projects in a timely fashion and we urge your support
    for funding levels in fiscal year 2013 that address these needs.
        We also urge the subcommittee to consider fully the urgent need for
    funding for Civil War Sesquicentennial units, national trails and
    recreational/hunting/fishing access projects as proposed in the fiscal
    year 2013 President's budget for the National Park Service, Bureau of
    Land Management, and U.S. Forest Service, respectively. TPL has pending
    projects eligible under each of these categories and stand ready to
    provide information to the subcommittee to support these categorical
    line item requests.
        As the subcommittee evaluates the myriad programmatic needs and
    measures for making programs more efficient for the fiscal year 2013
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill, we look forward to
    working with you and your staff to ensure that funds are spent wisely
    on strategic and urgent conservation priorities.
        National Park Service Land and Water Conservation Fund Grants.--
    Since 1965, the stateside program has provided 41,000 grants to States
    and local communities for park protection and development of recreation
    facilities. This program reaches deep into communities across our
    Nation, supporting citizen-led efforts to conserve places of local
    importance. Stateside funds were an essential part of land protection
    in Maine's famed 100-Mile Wilderness, the northernmost and wildest
    stretch of the Appalachian Trail. Most recently, TPL worked with the
    State of Tennessee to add 1,388 acres to the popular Cumberland Trail,
    extending it by 19 miles, using State LWCF grant funding. To meet needs
    such as these as they continue to arise in all 50 States and in U.S.
    territories, we urge you to fund this program at $60 million.
        Competitive Grants.--Within the $60 million requested for State
    LWCF grants in the President's budget for fiscal year 2013, the
    administration has proposed a new competitive grant program to invest
    in community parks and greenways, landscapes, and recreational
    riverways. This effort will particularly help cities and urbanized
    counties increase the availability of parks and green spaces for
    residents of our more populated areas, many of whom lack access to
    safe, close-to-home recreational sites. This proposed targeting of LWCF
    funds to areas most in need of new parks will help address the health
    threats many Americans--especially children--are now facing due to lack
    of access to parks. TPL is the Nation's only national land conservation
    organization working to create parks in cities across the Nation, and
    we strongly support this competitive grant program as laid out in the
    Department of the Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal. With our
    extensive experience creating parks for people nationwide, we see this
    type of program as meeting a critical need in the places where most
    people live and recreate. There is currently no Federal program that
    addresses park needs for cities, metropolitan areas and urbanized
    counties. The NPS LWCF grants program--funded competitively rather than
    by formula--could assist TPL's work in places like San Francisco and
    Los Angeles in California; Portland, Maine; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and
    New Orleans, Louisiana.

                   U.S. FOREST SERVICE FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM

        The Forest Legacy Program provides extraordinary assistance to
    States and localities seeking to preserve important working forests.
    Since its inception in 1990, the Forest Legacy Program has protected
    more than 2 million acres of forestland together with more than $630
    million in non-Federal matching funds. For fiscal year 2013, the
    President's budget recommends projects that provide multiple public
    benefits that derive from forests--clean water, wildlife protection,
    climate change adaptation and mitigation, public access to recreation,
    economic development and sustainable forestry. The Forest Legacy
    Program has been very effective over its short history, leveraging a
    dollar for dollar match to Federal funds, well more than is required
    under the program. TPL urges your continued support for sustained
    investment in this strategic conservation program. Included in the
    fiscal year 2013 budget are three projects where TPL is working in
    partnership with the States of Idaho, Vermont and Wisconsin to protect
    recreation access for snowmobilers and hikers, ensure jobs in the
    woods, buffer important Federal and State conservation areas, and
    provide strategic land conservation that fits a larger goal.

          FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE--LAND CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAMS

        We are grateful for the subcommittee's historic support for Fish
    and Wildlife Service grant programs, including the Cooperative
    Endangered Species Conservation Fund--which leverages State and private
    funds and has protected threatened and endangered species habitat
    across the Nation. Through the most recent grant cycle, for example,
    TPL, in partnership with the State of Washington, secured a $3.5
    million grant that helped protect 2,700 acres of pristine habitat along
    the Methow River in Okanogan County. This habitat is considered
    critical spawning habitat for the endangered Pacific salmon, but
    benefits many other protected species as well, like Canada lynx, gray
    wolves, and bull trout. The Methow Watershed project leveraged $4.27
    million in non-Federal funding, which is more than double the non-
    Federal match required under the program. We also urge your support for
    program funding at the President's budget level of $60 million in
    fiscal year 2013. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA)
    provides much-needed matching grants to carry out wetlands
    conservation, restoration and enhancement projects. We urge the
    subcommittee to provide the President's budget request of $39.4
    million.

             UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE COMMUNITY FOREST PROGRAM

        Last but not least, we urge your continued support for the
    Community Forest Program (CFP), which received appropriations in fiscal
    years 2010, 2011, and 2012 and now has its first-ever grant
    solicitation underway. This program will provide a complement to
    existing conservation programs by helping local communities and tribes
    identify, purchase, and manage important forestlands that are
    threatened with development. These locally led efforts can be tailored
    to the needs of each community, from timber revenue for local budgets
    to recreation access and outdoor education. Every Federal dollar from
    CFP will be evenly matched by funding from State, local, and private
    sources. We believe the response to the first grant round will be
    substantial and that this program will generate significant interest
    from local entities concerned about the future of their close-to-home
    forests. TPL is working right now to create new community forests in
    California, Montana and Vermont, and we hope that the Community Forest
    Program funds will contribute to these efforts. Given the strong
    interest in community forests from coast to coast, we urge you to
    include the President's budget level for CFP of $4 million in the
    fiscal year 2013 bill.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to submit public testimony. The
    programs highlighted in my testimony are critical to the future of
    conservation at the local, State and Federal levels, reflect the
    continued demand on the part of the American people for access to
    outdoor recreation, help sustain our economy and reflect the true
    partnership that exists in Federal conservation efforts. As ever, we
    are deeply thankful for the subcommittee's recognition of the
    importance of these programs and urge you to maintain robust funding
    for them in the fiscal year 2013 Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies bill. Thank you for help and support, and for your
    consideration of our requests.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society

        The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide
    testimony on the fiscal year 2013 budget for the Department of the
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The Wildlife Society was
    founded in 1937 and is a nonprofit scientific and educational
    association representing more than 11,000 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.
    Fish and Wildlife Service
        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 $70 million for
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants in fiscal year 2013. We also ask that
    the Congress support continuation of a reduction in the non-Federal
    match requirement from 50 to 35 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 $495 million in fiscal year 2013 for the operations and
    maintenance of the NWRS. Additionally, The Wildlife Society supports
    the increase of $3 million for NWRS's Inventory and Monitoring program,
    which is needed to provide the Service with the necessary information
    to guide effective use of funds.
        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 more than
    the fiscal year 2012 funding level of $35.5 million, to bring the
    funding to $40 million in fiscal year 2013.
        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
    $6.5 million in fiscal year 2013.
        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 $179.7 million in funding in
    fiscal year 2013.
        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 $60 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 Affairs office, 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 $13.054 million in support
    of FWS International Affairs.
    Bureau of Land Management
        Bureau of Land Management (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. Historically, the
    Wildlife and Fisheries Management (WFM) and the Threatened and
    Endangered Species Management (TESM) programs have been forced to pay
    for the compliance activities of BLM's energy, grazing, and other
    nonwildlife related programs, eroding both their ability to conduct
    proactive conservation activities and their efforts to recover listed
    species. 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 $55
    million for BLM Wildlife Management. This will allow BLM to maintain
    and restore wildlife and habitat by monitoring habitat conditions,
    conducting inventories of wildlife resources, and developing
    cooperative management plans. We support the proposed increase of $15
    million for sage grouse conservation efforts; this kind of broad-scale,
    landscape-based conservation is exactly what is needed to manage and
    conserve sage grouse across their range.
        Increased funding is also needed for the Threatened and Endangered
    Species Management Program, to allow BLM to meet its responsibilities
    in endangered species recovery plans. 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 BLM's endangered
    species program to $33 million in fiscal year 2013.
        The Wildlife Society appreciates the commitment of BLM to
    addressing the problems associated with Wild Horse and Burro
    Management. The President has requested an increase of $2 million for
    research and development on contraception and population control. The
    Wildlife Society is concerned about BLM's emphasis on fertility
    control. 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 $77.068
    million should be provided to BLM if they continue removing excess
    horses from the range at a reasonable rate and focus additional
    resources on habitat restoration.
    U.S. Geological Survey
        The basic, objective, and interdisciplinary scientific research
    that is supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (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 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 USGS in fiscal year 2013.
        The Ecosystems Program of USGS contains programmatic resources for
    fisheries, wildlife, environments, invasive species and the Cooperative
    Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The Ecosystems unit is a new
    department within USGS resulting from the recent reorganization that
    strives to maximize research and support for comprehensive biological
    and ecosystem based needs. The Wildlife Society supports the
    President's request of $177.85 million for USGS's Ecosystems Department
    in fiscal year 2013. Within Ecosystems, we support the request of $49.4
    million for the Wildlife Program. Additionally, we appreciate the
    requested addition of $1 million to support research and surveillance
    of White Nose Syndrome and of $2.2 million for research on hydraulic
    fracturing and its effects on land use, terrestrial wildlife, and
    habitats.
        The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CFWRUs) are
    managed under the Ecosystems Department and 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 2013 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 2011 funding of
    $25.5 million for the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science
    Center. This center plays 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, The Wildlife
    Society recommends that the Congress fund the National Climate Change
    and Wildlife Science Center at the requested $26.2 million in fiscal
    year 2013.
    United States Forest Service
        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 $793 million for the Integrated Resource
    Restoration program in fiscal year 2013.
        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 $300 million in fiscal
    year 2013 for Forest and Rangelands to support this high-quality
    research.
        Thank you for considering the recommendations of wildlife
    professionals.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
                                    Research

        On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
    (UCAR), a consortium of 77 research universities that manages the
    National Center for Atmospheric Research, I submit this written
    testimony regarding the fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the
    Department of the Interior's (DOI) climate science programs, for the
    record of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The U.S. Geological
    Survey's (USGS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) climate
    science, adaptation, and education programs contribute a distinct and
    important component to the country's efforts to better understand,
    predict, and respond to the impacts of climate variability on human and
    natural systems. These programs are perhaps the most important in the
    entire Federal Government for helping scientists understand the
    relationship between climate variability and our Nation's abundant
    natural resources and treasures. I urge the subcommittee to fully fund
    the fiscal year 2013 budget request of $1.102 billion for USGS,
    including $67.7 million for Climate Variability, which funds the
    Nation's eight regional Climate Science Centers. I similarly urge the
    subcommittee to fully fund the $1.5 billion budget request for FWS,
    including $33.1 million for Cooperative Landscape Conservation and
    Adaptive Science, which funds the Nation's network of Landscape
    Conservation Cooperatives.
        The Federal leaders in natural resources science, USGS and FWS are
    making major contributions to science and data integration on the
    impacts that climate variability is having and may have in the future
    on natural resources, including wildlife, ecosystems, and landscapes.
    These agencies are building the knowledge, capacity, and networks to
    work with and guide hunters, farmers, natural resource managers, Indian
    tribes, and resource-dependent businesses toward more sustainable,
    productive, and resilient management practices. In particular, the
    establishment of eight regional Climate Science Centers over the last
    few years to directly support a national network of Landscape
    Conservation Cooperatives will provide the scientific basis for future
    adaptive land and water management decisions. By building on the body
    of basic research conducted by the atmospheric research community and
    linking it to managed environments and social systems, the DOI's
    climate science and adaptation programs have been set up to maximize
    and leverage the value of the entire national scientific enterprise.
        The USGS's efforts in this field were stepped up with the
    establishment of a National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center
    in 2008 and came to fruition with the recent completion of a national
    network of 8 Climate Science Centers and 22 Landscape Conservation
    Cooperatives. Through these regionally integrated research and
    stakeholder hubs, the DOI is now engaged in first-tier research
    focusing on impacts such as wildlife migration patterns, wildfire risk,
    precipitation levels and drought, coastal erosion, and invasive
    species, spearheading how environmental and climate science can be more
    effective and practical, and thus useful, on the ground. These programs
    will bring critical regional information to local and regional resource
    managers and decision makers in order to help them manage cities and
    towns, tribes, farms, waterways, and public lands.
        The eight Climate Science Centers, managed by the USGS, are carried
    by university consortia within the region to better serve the specific
    needs of their area as well as the country. They will advance
    interdisciplinary science in an end-to-end environment by coordinating
    research among themselves and optimizing investments across the
    regional network, and they will collaborate with national laboratories
    to conduct research and develop computer models that can better predict
    large regional impacts of climate variability on natural resources. The
    nationwide network serves the Alaska, Pacific Islands, Northwest,
    Southwest, North Central, South Central, Northeast, and Southeast
    regions. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, managed by the FWS,
    engage with other Federal agencies, States, tribes, and local partners,
    to develop timely products and craft strategies that are based on the
    science and can be easily translated into adaptive, practical
    management solutions.
        In order to ensure the strength and sustainability of these
    programs, I hope you will support the fiscal year 2013 budget request
    of $1.102 billion for USGS, including $67.7 million for Climate
    Variability, and $1.5 billion for FWS, including $33.1 million for
    Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science. Thank you in
    advance for your support of the DOI's efforts to contribute to and
    disseminate knowledge that will enable stakeholders to protect and more
    efficiently manage their land and our Nation's natural resources and
    treasures.
                                     ______

                    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 2013. The USGS Coalition urges the
    Congress to appropriate at least $1.2 billion for the USGS in fiscal
    year 2013.
        The USGS is uniquely positioned to address many of the Nation's
    greatest challenges. The USGS plays a crucial role in assessing water
    quality and quantity; reducing risks from earthquakes, tsunamis,
    floods, landslides, wildfires, and other natural hazards; 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 natural and managed environmental systems and public
    health.
        The USGS Coalition is an alliance of more than 70 organizations
    united by a commitment to the continued vitality of the United States
    Geological Survey 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 U.S. Geological Survey has a truly national
    mission that extends beyond the boundaries of the Nation's public lands
    to positively impact the lives of all Americans. 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, USGS works with
    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 of
    USGS's valuable work are provided below.
        The Survey collects scientific information on water availability
    and quality to inform the public and decision makers about the status
    of freshwater resources and how they are changing over time. During the
    past 130 years, 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 freshwaters--both above and
    below the land surface--for domestic, public, agricultural, commercial,
    industrial, recreational, and ecological purposes.
        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. Seismic networks and hazard analyses are
    used to formulate earthquake probabilities and to establish building
    codes. USGS 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 bureau and its
    Federal partners monitor seasonal wildfires and provide maps of current
    fire locations and the potential spread of fires. USGS research on
    ecosystem structure informs fire risk forecasts.
        USGS assessments of mineral and energy resources--including rare
    earth elements, coal, oil, unconventional natural gas, and geothermal--
    are essential for making decisions about the Nation's future. The
    Survey identifies the location and quantity of domestic mineral and
    energy resources, and assesses the economic and environmental effects
    of resource extraction and use. The agency is mapping domestic supplies
    of rare earth elements necessary for widespread deployment of new
    energy technologies, which can reduce dependence on foreign oil and
    mitigate climate change. The USGS is the sole Federal source of
    information on mineral potential, production, and consumption.
        USGS science plays a critical role in informing sound management of
    natural resources on Federal and State lands. The USGS conducts
    research and monitoring of fish, wildlife, and vegetation--data that
    informs management decisions by other Interior bureaus regarding
    protected species and land use. USGS science is also used to control
    invasive species and wildlife diseases that can cause billions of
    dollars in economic losses. The Survey also provides critical
    information for resource managers as they develop adaptive management
    strategies for restoration and long-term use of the Nation's natural
    resources in the face of environmental change.
        Research conducted by the USGS is vital to predicting the impacts
    of land use and climate change on water resources, wildfires, and
    ecosystems. The Landsat satellites have collected the largest archive
    of remotely sensed land data in the world, allowing for access to
    current and historical images that are used to assess the impact of
    natural disasters and monitor global agriculture production. The USGS
    also assesses the Nation's potential for carbon sequestration. Other
    Interior bureaus use USGS research on how climate variability affects
    fish, wildlife, and ecological processes to inform natural resource
    management decisions.

                               FUNDING SHORTFALL

        Over the years, the Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to
    restore damaging budget cuts proposed by administrations from both
    parties. These efforts have paid dividends and helped the USGS continue
    to provide answers to the challenging questions facing decision-makers
    across the country.
        The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for the USGS is
    $1.1 billion. The budget request contains $49.5 million in program
    reductions in valuable, longstanding programs that offset increases in
    other areas. The proposed budget cuts would have significant negative
    impacts on core scientific capabilities of the USGS.
        Proposed budget cuts in the fiscal year 2013 USGS budget request
    include:
      --$6.5 million for Water Resources Research Act Program;
      --$6 million for National Water Quality Assessment Methods
            Development and Monitoring;
      --$5 million for Cooperative Water Program Interpretive Studies;
      --$5 million for Mineral Resources;
      --$3.3 million for Hydrologic Networks and Analysis Information
            Management and Delivery; and
      --$2 million for Toxic Substances Hydrology Methods Development and
            Assessments.
        We urge the Congress to support the budget request plus work to
    restore these and other detrimental cuts. An appropriation of $1.2
    billion would provide the USGS with approximately $50 million that
    could shore up critical research programs, enhance new research
    efforts, and fully fund ``fixed costs'' and ``operational
    efficiencies.''
        Notably, the proposed budget requests $10.8 million for fixed
    costs. Although we applaud the agency for including these expenses in
    the budget request, we are not certain that this request will fully
    cover these expenses. Moreover, we are concerned about $4.4 million in
    proposed operations and maintenance ``efficiencies.'' According to USGS
    budget documents: ``The proposed reduction will degrade the condition
    and performance of the USGS real property portfolio . . . . In turn,
    the USGS expects to see an increase in the frequency with which
    equipment and facility components will need more costly emergency
    repairs and replacements, as well as a shortening of the overall
    lifecycle of our real property assets.''
        The budget request does not propose transferring responsibilities
    for Landsat satellites from NASA to USGS. We appreciate congressional
    efforts last year to ensure that the USGS would not assume budget
    authority for the Landsat satellites. Such a move would have likely
    compromised core USGS science programs as the costs of the satellites
    rose significantly in future years.

                                   CONCLUSION

        We recognize the financial challenges facing the Nation, but losing
    irreplaceable data can increase costs to society today and in the
    future. The USGS Coalition requests that the Congress appropriate at
    least $1.2 billion for the USGS in fiscal year 2013, a level that will
    support critical USGS programs that improve the Nation's environment,
    health, safety, quality of life, and future economic growth.
        The USGS Coalition appreciates the subcommittee's past leadership
    in strengthening the United States Geological Survey. Thank you for
    your thoughtful consideration of our request.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Washington County Commission, Utah

        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 2013
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
    President's budget for this year recommended $450 million for LWCF.
        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 public benefits
    including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
    drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
    assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
    support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
        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, historical and recreation 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 a conservation
    offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and gas resources.
        As part of the LWCF request in fiscal year 2013, the Bureau of Land
    Management included an allocation of $4 million for Red Cliffs NCA. I
    am pleased that this funding was included in the request and urge the
    Congress to provide necessary funds for LWCF for this important
    project.
        The Washington County Commission approved a resolution on February
    7, 2012 expressing its strong support of acquisitions by BLM of private
    in-holdings in the Red Cliffs NCA and the appropriation of Federal LWCF
    funds for these acquisitions. This resolution was passed by unanimous
    approval of the County Commissioners, and states:

        ``WHEREAS, the Washington County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
    was implemented in 1995 to reconcile conflicts between desert tortoise
    conservation and economic development; and
        ``WHEREAS, the HCP established the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve
    (Reserve) to maintain the long-term viability of desert tortoises
    within the Upper Virgin River Recovery Unit; and
        ``WHEREAS, in return, Washington County (County) was granted an
    incidental take permit under Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species
    Act to allow development of tortoise habitat outside the Reserve,
    thereby providing for the ability for the County to meet demands for
    anticipated population growth and economic growth through land
    development; and
        ``WHEREAS, HCP signatories and cooperators include Washington
    County, the Utah Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and local
    municipalities; and
        ``WHEREAS, an objective of the HCP is to acquire remaining private
    in-holdings within the boundaries of the Reserve for protection of
    desert tortoise habitat; and
        ``WHEREAS, the United States Congress passed the Omnibus Public
    Land Management Act of 2009 which established the Red Cliffs National
    Conservation Area (NCA) to be managed by BLM and which had boundaries
    corresponding to the Reserve boundaries; and
        ``WHEREAS, several of the landowners who own private lands within
    the NCA are willing sellers of their land to the BLM and the Federal
    acquisition of these specific lands is an important objective of the
    HCP; and
        ``WHEREAS, the BLM is seeking Federal funds through the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund to acquire these private lands starting with
    the fiscal year 2013 and future years.
        ``NOW, THEREFORE, at a regular meeting of the legislative body of
    Washington County, Utah, duly called, noticed, and held on the 7th day
    of February 2012, upon motion duly made and seconded, it is
    unanimously:
        ``RESOLVED that the Washington County Commission strongly supports
    the acquisitions of private in-holdings in the Red Cliffs National
    Conservation Area from willing sellers by the Bureau of Land Management
    and the appropriation of Federal funds for such acquisitions.''

        In fiscal year 2013, an allocation of $4 million from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund, as requested in the President's budget for the
    Bureau of Land Management, is needed to begin these key acquisitions at
    Red Cliffs NCA.
        In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund of $450 million, as proposed in the President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget, including critical funding for the Red Cliffs
    National Conservation 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 Utah, and I
    appreciate your consideration of this funding request.
                                     ______

       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 2013
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The
    Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition is a nonprofit citizens
    group founded in a historic bipartisan effort by former Governors Dan
    Evans and Mike Lowry. Our members consist of a diverse group of more
    than 250 organizations representing conservation, business, recreation,
    hunting, fishing, farming, and community interests.
        Our members come together for the same reason people and businesses
    chose to locate in Washington State:
      --our close-to-home parks;
      --outdoor recreation opportunities; and
      --wildlife habitat.
        Mount Rainier is one of our State's great symbols and has been
    protected as a national park since 1899. Across Puget Sound, a major
    water and economic resource of its own, lie the jagged outlines of the
    Olympic Mountains, and beyond them the only temperate rainforest in the
    world and the rich seashore of the Olympic Peninsula. The Cascades
    stretch from the Canadian border to the Columbia River Gorge, protected
    in four national forests and accessible via the Pacific Crest National
    Scenic Trail. From the Methow Valley to Turnbull Wildlife Refuge,
    eastern Washington holds exceptional habitats protected for a diversity
    of species and accessible for hunters and anglers. The LWCF has helped
    to protect these iconic places since 1965.
        Consequently, I join conservation leaders, hunters, anglers,
    business owners, and communities across the Nation in urging you to
    support funding for LWCF. This year, the administration's budget
    request includes funding for four high-priority, ready-to-go, willing-
    seller projects across Washington State's national parks, wildlife
    refuges, forests and other public land. It also makes investments in
    stateside LWCF grants for local parks and trails, ball fields and boat
    launches, and for protecting our working timber and range lands.
        Our 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. 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
    communities, 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. LWCF accomplishes these management
    improvements largely because most of the funds go toward the
    acquisition of inholdings, private lands bordered on two, three, or
    four sides by existing public lands.
        Washington has two excellent examples of 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 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 LWCF funds have been used by 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.
        I understand this subcommittee and the Congress face severe
    constraints in this tight fiscal climate. However, forward-looking
    investment in LWCF will permanently pay dividends to the American
    people and to our great natural and historical heritage. LWCF is paid
    for using a very small percentage of offshore oil and gas drilling
    receipts, not taxpayer dollars. The Congress made a commitment to the
    American public that a small portion of revenues from offshore drilling
    paid by oil companies should go to conservation and outdoor recreation
    programs. Yet nearly every year, the majority of LWCF funds are
    diverted to other unintended purposes--more than $17 billion over the
    history of the program.
        I therefore respectfully ask that you support the administration's
    fiscal year 2013 recommendation of $450 million for the LWCF program.
    At one-half the authorized funding level for the program, this
    represents a measured proposal that spreads limited resources wisely
    across urgent and diverse LWCF priorities and programmatic goals. At
    this level, LWCF would fund four projects at a Fish and Wildlife
    Service refuge, National Park Service unit, a USFS site and working
    forest lands in Washington State:
    Fish and Wildlife Service
                Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge: $1 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.
    National Park Service
                Mount Rainier National Park: $1 Million
        These funds would be used to complete acquisition of smaller
    properties in the Carbon River expansion area, protecting old growth
    forests along the Carbon River and important habitat for populations of
    anadromous fish, including salmon.
    United States Forest Service
                Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail: $618,000
        The multistate request for the trail includes checkerboard parcels
    in the central Cascades that would improve trail stewardship and access
    and protect the trail corridor and view shed. Available for acquisition
    in fiscal year 2013 are two parcels along the PCT:
      --Pyramid Peak and Missing Link within the Wenatchee; and
      --Mount Baker-Snoqualmie national forests.
                Pysht Coastal Forest: $3 Million
        This Forest Legacy Program request would be used to fund a
    conservation easement on working forestland along the Strait of Juan de
    Fuca.
        We support these requests for LWCF funds to acquire critical tracts
    in the parks, refuges, and forests of Washington.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for your
    dedication and service, on behalf of our organization's members and
    also on behalf of my family. I can think of no greater legacy for my
    two sons than the protection of our recreation lands, clean waters and
    wildlife heritage. I appreciate your consideration of these funding
    requests.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Whitetails Unlimited, Inc.

        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 2013 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The President's
    budget for this year recommended $60 million for FLP. 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), which as a whole received
    $450 million in the budget request.
        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 public benefits
    including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting
    drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and
    assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. LWCF investments also
    support jobs, tourism and economic vitality across our communities.
        I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
    tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in the Forest
    Legacy Program will permanently pay dividends to the American people
    and to our great natural, historical and recreation 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
    a conservation offset to the energy development of our offshore oil and
    gas resources.
        As part of the FLP request in fiscal year 2013, the U.S. Forest
    Service included an allocation of $3 million for the Central Sands
    Pines project in Wisconsin. I am pleased that this funding was included
    in the request and urge the Congress to provide necessary funds for FLP
    for this important project.
        Wisconsin's Central Sands region was the setting for world-renowned
    naturalist Aldo Leopold's ``A Sand County Almanac'', published in 1949.
    This classic work stands with Thoreau's Walden and Rachel Carson's
    Silent Spring as the inspiration for generations of conservationists to
    protect our Nation's treasured places. Today, there is an opportunity
    to heed Leopold's call for a ``land ethic'' by preserving this historic
    landscape.
        The Central Sands region was shaped tens of thousands of years ago
    during the last great ice age, known as the Wisconsin Glaciation.
    Today, this 2-million-acre region is located in the bed of the extinct
    Glacial Lake Wisconsin, which left behind a legacy of sandy soils,
    extensive wetlands, and oak and pine forests. The sandy soils cover
    bedrock, and serve as an aquifer for 80 lakes and hundreds of miles of
    headwater streams and wetlands. The area's remarkable hydrological
    system largely occurs underground. The aquifer collects precipitation
    as groundwater, and filters it before conveying it to the Wisconsin
    River and other surface waters. Watershed protection is a major concern
    in the Central Sands region due to relatively high levels of
    groundwater pollution.
        In fiscal year 2013, there is an opportunity to preserve key
    parcels in the Central Sands region that will protect the groundwater
    supply, secure critical endangered species habitat, maintain working
    forests, and preserve public recreational access. The Central Sands
    Pines Forest Legacy project in Adams County is the critical component
    of a larger 9,000-acre plan to fund a conservation easement over
    privately owned timberland. The project will ensure that the acreage
    remains in productive use under private ownership. While much of
    northern Wisconsin remains forested, more than 70 percent of the
    southern part of the State has been cut over and converted to other
    uses. The Central Sands Pines Forest Legacy tract is among the few
    remaining large blocs available for timbering. It currently provides
    pulp for paper production as well as construction lumber and telephone
    poles. This project will support the State's $22 billion forestry
    products industry, which employs more than 50,000 people.
        The Central Sands Pines Forest Legacy project will also protect the
    groundwater recharge zone from pollution. Approximately 700 acres of
    the property consist of wetlands which are important for water
    filtration. A fresh groundwater supply is crucial for crop irrigation
    in the Wisconsin River basin. Irrigated land has increased rapidly over
    the past 50 years, covering 175,000 acres in the Central Sands region.
    Protecting this acreage will allow farmers to continue to pump clean,
    fresh groundwater for irrigating crops.
        Whitetails Unlimited believes the acquisition of this perpetual
    easement is in line with the spirit of our mission statement. Beyond
    protecting critical wildlife habitat, this perpetual easement will
    offer the general public numerous outdoor recreational opportunities.
    In particular, the property offers sportsmen and women prime hunting
    opportunities for white-tailed deer, turkey, and grouse. As Aldo
    Leopold once wrote, ``There are two kinds of hunting: ordinary hunting
    and ruffed-grouse hunting. There are two places to hunt grouse:
    ordinary places and Adams County.'' Whitetails Unlimited commends the
    Forest Legacy Program for promoting the environmental sustainability of
    this property for future generations.
        Forest Legacy funding will also benefit threatened and endangered
    species. The area's mixed oak-pine forests, barrens and peatlands
    provide the habitat needed by the endangered Kirtland's warbler, Karner
    blue butterfly, and whooping crane. The federally listed endangered
    Kirtland's warbler was discovered on this property in 2007. Wisconsin,
    Michigan, and Ontario, Canada have the only documented nesting pairs of
    Kirtland's warbler in the world, and this property contains the highest
    concentration of the species in the entire State.
        The President's budget for fiscal year 2013 requests $3 million
    from the Forest Legacy Program for 5,722 acres of the Wisconsin Central
    Sands Pines project. The State of Wisconsin will provide a match of at
    least $1 million to complete the easement purchase. Securing these
    funds will ensure that the property remains in productive use under
    private ownership. Residents will continue to enjoy recreational
    opportunities, endangered species habitat will be preserved, and local
    groundwater will be protected from pollution.
        In closing, I urge you to provide funding for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund of $450 million, as proposed in the President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget, including critical funding for the Forest
    Legacy Program and the Central Sands Pines 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
    Wisconsin, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
    Background
        One of the most significant threats to biodiversity in the Nation's
    coastal and estuarine habitats as well as Wisconsin's inland navigable
    waters is the introduction of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species
    (ANS) into the ecosystem. The introduction of ANS through intentional
    or accidental means establishes a stress on ecosystems that can result
    in the decline of native species population, serve as an impediment to
    species recovery and pose a long-term economic and ecological threat to
    the health of the area. The control and management of these ANS in such
    areas as the Mississippi River Basin Drainage, Great Lakes, Everglades,
    and San Francisco Bay/Inland Delta costs the economy and taxpayers
    billions of dollars annually.
        The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) commends the
    Congress and the Federal Government's recognition of this problem and
    efforts to address it through enactment of the Non-indigenous Aquatic
    Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA) of 1990 (Public Law 101-
    646) and the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996 (Public Law
    104-332). The establishment of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
    (ANSTF) makes use of a coordinating body to improve efforts to
    administer the Government's responsibilities as carried out by the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (USFWS), U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other Federal agencies.
        In 2003, Wisconsin developed an Aquatic Nuisance Species Strategic
    Plan to combat aquatic nuisance species and to prevent their
    introduction into State waters. Wisconsin's actions supplement the
    national activity and are indicative of an ongoing need for resources
    and action to reduce the threat and minimize the impacts of ANS on U.S.
    waters.
    State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan
        The NANPCA (as amended by NISA) recognized that States are integral
    partners in the battle against ANS by authorizing the State/Interstate
    Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan (SIANSMP) grant program.
    Managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the program provides
    annual funding to States, Tribes, and Regional organizations to support
    the implementation of State and interstate ANS management plans that
    have been approved by the ANSTF. The SIANSMPs identify feasible, cost-
    effective measures to be undertaken by the States and cooperating
    entities to manage ANS infestations in an environmentally sound manner.
    This funding has helped Wisconsin establish an ANS program with
    mechanisms for prevention, early detection and rapid response,
    containment, and control. Wisconsin's efforts link together with other
    State's ANS Plans and Federal efforts to form an effective national ANS
    partnerships to eliminate or reduce the environmental, economic, public
    health, and human safety risks associated with ANS.
        Section 1301(c) of NANPCA authorized a total of $4 million for the
    SIANSMP grant program; however, that amount has never been fully
    appropriated. Funding was gradually increased from $68,000 for the
    first approved State Management Plan in 1994, to its current level of
    $1,075,000 beginning in 2004. Over the years, the number of plans
    approved far outpaced the capacity of the SIANSMP funding. In fiscal
    year 2011, Wisconsin received $29,800 to implement its statewide plan
    from the Service.
    President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget
        Wisconsin developed an ANSTF approved management plan and ANS
    programs in accordance with congressional authorizations in NANPCA and
    NISA. The SIANSMP grant program remains a high priority to Wisconsin
    and is critical for our implementation of a successful ANS prevention
    and control program. Funding for the SIANSMPs has remained stable since
    2004 at only 25 percent of the authorized level; however total requests
    to support the 36 approved State/Interstate ANS Management Plans that
    applied for funding in fiscal year 2011 exceeded $9 million. The States
    have consistently demonstrated a need for increased appropriations to
    implement ANS prevention and control priorities, yet the President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget eliminates the SIANSMP grant program for
    implementation of ANSTF-approved plans. The WDNR urges the Congress to
    restore fiscal year 2013 appropriations of $1,075,000, and to provide
    additional fiscal year 2013 appropriations to fully fund that SIANSMP
    grant program at $4 million as authorized by NANPCA and NISA.
        Wisconsin appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on such a
    critical national issue and looks forward to our continued partnership
    with the Federal agencies that are as committed to preventing,
    containing and controlling ANS as we are.
        Note.--Information provided in this document was pulled from
    existing documents including:
      --2011-2012 Policy Positions for the Jurisdiction of the Environment
            Committee, National Conference of State Legislatures, http://
            www.ncsl.org/state-Federal-committees.aspx?tabs=855,23,667.
      --State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans 2010
            (1st in a Series of 3). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April
            2012.
      --Accomplishments of the State/Interstate Aquatic Nuisance Species
            Management Plans A Summary of State Efforts in the Battle
            Against ANS (2nd in a Series of 3). U.S. Fish and Wildlife
            Service. February 2012. The Evolution of the State/Interstate
            Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Grant Program (third
            in a series of three). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April
            2012.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of the Zuni Tribe

    Background
        Pre Public Law 93-638, Indian Self Determination and Education
    Assistance Act, the Zuni Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, acting on a commitment
    for success, contracted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to
    perform functions previously carried out by the Federal Government.
    Namely these functions/programs are:
      --Housing improvement;
      --Law enforcement;
      --Tribal courts;
      --Higher education scholarship; and
      --Road maintenance and social services/welfare assistance.
        Performance of these functions by the Tribe was authorized under
    the authorities of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act with the promise
    of self-determination to operate programs fitting tribal needs.
    However, since the 1970's the Zuni Tribe has experienced drastic fund
    reductions in these contracted and other programs still administered/
    operated by the BIA.
        The Zuni Tribe understands the United States' fiscal difficulties
    and challenges at this time and acknowledges the administration is
    focused in reducing the deficit, however, the Zuni Tribe is requesting
    the administration keeps its promise to the Indian country by
    protecting and increasing funding provided under the BIA Tribal
    Priority Allocations (TPA) process in fiscal year 2013. Protecting and
    increasing TPA for the Zuni Tribe will assist in effectively
    administering programs which would otherwise be performed by the
    Federal Government. Not only will the tribe carry out programs
    effectively which affects their respective community, it will also
    continue to be partners in a mutual commitment to strengthen not only
    the tribal and national economy, however, it will have a major impact
    on the health and social well-being of the community as a whole. This
    effort has a ripple effect on generation of jobs, and improvement of
    economies.
        The Zuni Tribes request under the Department of the Interior (DOI),
    BIA fiscal year 2013 President's budget request a total of $9,474,000
    to administer core programs under the TPA categories operated by the
    BIA and under the authorities of Public Law 93-635. The following are
    the amounts specifically identifying programs and their respective
    amounts.
        Tribal Government-Road Maintenance Bureau of Indian Affairs
    Operated.--This program requires a minimum level of $992,000 to carry
    out the program responsibilities. This funding level will get closer to
    the 2009-2010 target units under a Level of Services rating of 2 or
    better for the Zuni Indian Reservation. The Road Maintenance program
    supports 411.2 miles of Indian Reservation Roads in a remote
    reservation, approximately 150 miles from a metropolitan area of
    Albuquerque, New Mexico.
        A 2009 assessment of paved routes in the Zuni community shows that
    at a minimum 4 miles of pavement overlay, and 20 miles of pavement
    surface treatment of major traveled routes with high average daily
    traveled counts. Providing funds for improvement of the Zuni
    Reservation roads will reduce the potential liability of tort claims
    from the traveling public in Zuni. Improvements to the above identified
    miles of roads do not include maintenance of unpaved roads, including
    school bus routes, ingress and egress to homes for medical service
    vehicles such as ambulances, transportation services for patients who
    are on dialysis and need medical care, etc.
        If funds are not provided at a bare minimal level the Zuni Tribal
    Road Maintenance program will continue to incur annual increases of at
    least 4 percent of deferred maintenance backlog on reservation roads
    and bridges. Since fiscal year 2007, this program has been grossly
    underfunded and range in funding for the past several years in the
    amount of $246,642 to a high of $274,116 in fiscal year 2007.
        Human Services--Social Services and Indian Child Welfare Act--
    Tribal Priority Allocations Public Law 93-638 Tribal Contract.--A
    minimum level funding for the Tribal Social Services program in the
    amount of $260,000 is needed to maintain programs at a current level. A
    minimum level of $95,000 is needed for the Indian Child Welfare Act
    program. These two programs are critical to assist the social-economic
    programs of the community. Program personnel works with various
    agencies in and outside the community which includes child care places,
    foster home placements and domestic violence with the tribal and
    outside courts-judicial systems, the Zuni Tribal Police Department,
    etc. Once again this program has not been adequately funded for a
    number of years.
        Human Services--Welfare Assistance--Tribal Priority Allocations
    Public Law 93-638 Tribal Contract.--A minimum level of $75,000 is
    required to operate this program at a ``bare minimum'' level. With the
    isolation of the Zuni Reservation and lack of employment and other full
    service programs, these funds are needed to deal with socio-economic
    issues/problems of the community.
        Public Safety and Justice--Community Fire Protection--Tribal
    Priority Allocations Public Law 93-638 Tribal Contract.--A minimum of
    $150,000 is required to operate this program. Minimum funds requested
    will allowed the program to maintain three tribal employees on staff
    and provide operation expenses that services the community which
    includes a hospital operation, high school, junior high school, two
    elementary schools, a community college, BIA agency and tribal
    infrastructure, two parochial schools and other community facilities.
        Public Safety and Justice Tribal Courts--Tribal Priority
    Allocations Public Law 93-638 Tribal Contract.--A minimum of $580,000
    is needed to operate the Zuni Tribal Court. This level of funding will
    allow the tribal court of access training needs and filling positions
    that will assist in handling an increasing number of criminal, civil,
    juvenile, and child welfare cases which are referred to the tribal
    court for resolution. The number of cases the tribal court handles
    range from a low of 4,144 adult cases to a high of 7,000 cases. The
    children's court also ranges in a low of 455 to a high of 566 cases.
        Natural Resources--Bureau of Indian Affairs Operated.--Minimum
    level of funds required is $392,000 to fulfill the BIA trust
    responsibilities as it relates to natural resources. Funding for this
    critical program continues to increase which the need increases.
    Critical functions need to be continually addressed. These functions at
    least include:
      --Range and agriculture management;
      --Safety of dam;
      --National Environmental Protection Act compliance requirements; and
      --Public Law 93-638 contract administration and administration of the
            Zuni Tribal grazing permits and leases by encoding, updating,
            and maintaining range permits and grazing lease data into
            TAAMS.
        Natural Resources--Fish and Wildlife Management--Tribal Priority
    Allocations Public Law 93-638 Tribal Contract.--A minimum of $111,000
    is required to operate the Zuni Fish and Wildlife program. This program
    manages activities associated with cultural and academic biological
    wildlife management. It also works with the other Federal and State
    agencies including the States of New Mexico, Arizona, and other
    customer base clientele from the private sector.
        Natural Resources--Forestry and Fire Management--Bureau of Indian
    Affairs Operated.--This program requires a minimum funding level of
    $189,000 to maintain program operations and maintain a one FTE.
        Trust Services--Real Estate Services--Tribal Priority Allocations
    Public Law 93-638 Tribal Contract.--This program requires a minimum
    level of funding in the amount of $198,000 to carry out program
    responsibilities associated with trial trust and individual allotments,
    tribal fee lands and tribal land assignments for the purpose of:
      --Leasing and permitting;
      --acquiring and disposal of lands and promotion of development of
            mineral resources and renewable energy resources;
      --maintenance of existing contractual agreement and assurance in
            recording of all encumbrances in the Tribal Trust Assets
            Accounting Management System and Land Titles and Records
            Office.
        The Program is responsible for land base protection of 537,055.55
    acres of land. (Included in the level of fund request is Probate and
    Rights Protection along with the Real Estate Services.)
        The program also promotes and encourages consolidation of
    fractionate interests of trust allotments by providing estate planning
    holding outreach efforts to provide information on the American Indian
    Probate Reform Act.
        Executive Direction and Administration--Bureau of Indian Affairs
    Operated.--A minimum of $192,000 is required for the Executive
    Direction and $160,000 is needed for the Administrative Services
    operations at the Zuni Agency. These two program operations provide
    critical functions which assist the Zuni Tribe in maintaining and
    managing oversight of BIA operated and tribal contract programs. These
    crucial program operations have been grossly underfunded for a number
    of years to adequately fulfill trust responsibilities to the Zuni
    Tribe.
        Law Enforcement--Zuni Police Department--Public Law 93-638 Tribal
    Contract.--A minimum funding level of $2.9 million is required to
    maintain law and order on the Zuni Reservation, which include the
    immediate community and the surrounding reservation lands. Over several
    years the tribal law enforcement program has not received adequate
    funding for the size of reservation lands and the growing population
    they are responsible for serving and protecting There has been an
    increase in violent crime, gang activities, methamphetamine and other
    drug uses, not to mention violence in the schools.
        Other unfunded mandates such as the Adam Walsh Act and the
    enactment of the Federal Tribal Law and Order Act, Sex Offender
    registry and other like requirement compliances requirements also
    requires that funds be provided to meet these mandates.
        The Zuni tribal wage scale grossly lags behind other agencies' wage
    scales to maintain law enforcement officers in Zuni. Additional funds
    are also required to maintain a stable trained staff with proper
    equitable compensation. It is critical the Department and BIA consider
    full funding for this critical program.
        Detention Center Public Law 93-638 Contract Program.--A minimum of
    $1.5 million is required to operate the Zuni Tribal detention center.
    Additional personnel with equitable funding are required to maintain
    the detention center operations. The Zuni Detention center is a 24-hour
    7-days a week operation. Like other organizational programs, the Zuni
    Tribe needs to bring the wage scale to a comparable level with other
    agencies to maintain/retain qualified trained personnel. This is a
    crucial operations that is not only associated with stress-related
    duties, but requires commitment and dedication of a workforce.
        Detention Facilities Operations and Maintenance--Public Law 93-638
    Contract Programs.--These two programs have traditionally been funding
    on a formula, square foot basis which does not provide adequate funds
    to operate and maintain infrastructure. Serious considerations need to
    be made to adequately fund operation and maintenance programs of
    facilities. A minimum of $150,000 is needed for the operations portion
    of the facility and a minimum of $30,000 is needed for the maintenance
    of the facility.
        Education and Adult Vocational Training Program.--$1 million is
    requested for the Education Tribal Scholarship program and $500,000 is
    requested for the Adult Vocational Training Program. These two programs
    have been part of the ``477'' program which is not part of the TPA
    program considerations. However, these two programs are critical and
    are abridge to ensuring viable future for the Zuni Community. These two
    programs will provide scholarship funding assistance to students
    pursuing college degrees and vocational type training to acquire
    marketable skills should they seek employment off the Zuni Reservation.
        The Zuni Tribe also requests that funds for be maintained/increased
    for the Indian Guaranteed Loan program to assist the Zuni Tribe in
    pursing economic development ventures.
        In addition, funds should be provided to fully support contract
    support cost for tribes administering programs under the authorities of
    Public Law 93-638. These programs have been traditionally administered
    by the Federal Government; however, when tribal governments take on
    responsibilities for program administration/operations, their
    budgetary/financial needs are not adequately addressed.
        As stated the Zuni Tribe is aware of the national economic
    conditions, however, in order for the Zuni Tribe to foster self-
    determination, including, self-governance, we request you seriously
    consider the Zuni Tribe's funding request.
        The Zuni Tribe extends our appreciation for the opportunity to
    present our funding needs.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Abbey, Hon. Robert V., Director, Bureau of Land Management,
      Department of the Interior.....................................    77
        Prepared Statement of........................................    82
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   116
        Summary Statement of.........................................    81
    African Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the...........   240
    Ala Kahakai Trail Association, Prepared Statement of the.........   243
    Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Prepared Statement of the   244
    Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Prepared Statement of the.   245
    Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................    68
        Statement of.................................................     7
    American:
        Association of Museums, Prepared Statement of the............   248
        Bird Conservancy, Prepared Statements of the...............250, 252
        Fisheries Society, Prepared Statement of the.................   254
        Forest:
            And Paper Association, Prepared Statement of.............   252
            Foundation, Prepared Statement of the....................   255
        Forests, Prepared Statement of...............................   237
        Geosciences Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............   257
        Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the   260
        Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the..   263
        Lung Association, Prepared Statement of the..................   265
        Society:
            For Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the..............   268
            Of:
                Agronomy, Prepared Statement of the..................   271
                Landscape Architects, Prepared Statement of the......   272
        Veterinary Medical Association, Prepared Statement of........   240
    Americans for the Arts, Prepared Statement of....................   235
    Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the..............   273
    Arctic Slope Native Association, Prepared Statement of the.......   276
        Limited, Prepared Statement of the...........................   275
    Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation,
      Prepared Statement of the......................................   277
    Association of:
        American State Geologists, Prepared Statement of the.........   280
        Art Museum Directors, Prepared Statement of the..............   282
        Fish & Wildlife Agencies, Prepared Statements of...........252, 254
        Public and Land-Grant Universities, Prepared Statement of the   284
        State Drinking Water Administrators, Prepared Statement of
          the........................................................   286
        Zoos & Aquariums, Prepared Statements of...................240, 254
    Audubon, Prepared Statement of...................................   252

    Bat Conservation International, Prepared Statements of.........252, 289
    Beaudreau, Hon. Tommy P., Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy
      Management, Department of the Interior.........................    86
        Prepared Statement of........................................    87
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   119
    Bennett, Barbara J., Chief Financial Officer, Environmental
      Protection Agency..............................................   175
    Bernalillo Board of County Commissioners, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   292
    Blunt, Senator Roy, U.S. Senator From Missouri, Prepared
      Statements of................................................128, 193
    Bonobo Conservation Initiative, Prepared Statement of............   240
    Born Free USA, Prepared Statement of.............................   240
    Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, Prepared Statement of.......   245

    Cherokee Nation, Prepared Statement of the.......................   295
    Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, Prepared Statement of the..........   276
    Children's Environmental Health Network, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   298
    Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Prepared Statements of the........276,  305
    Chugach Regional Resources Commission, Prepared Statement of.....   294
    Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Prepared Statement of the.............   276
    City Parks Alliance, Prepared Statement of.......................   272
    Civil War Trust, Prepared Statement of the.......................   308
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    74
    Collins, Senator Susan, U.S. Senator From Maine, Statement of....     5
    Colorado River:
        Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of the......   310
        Board of California, Prepared Statement of the...............   311
    Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   313
    Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Prepared Statement of the.............   301
    Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   304
    Crop Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of...........   271

    Dance/USA, Prepared Statement of.................................   316
    Defenders of Wildlife, Prepared Statement of.....................   318
    Doris Day Animal League, Prepared Statement of...................   559
    Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School, Navajo Nation,
      Prepared Statement of the......................................   321

    Environmental Investigation Agency, Prepared Statement of........   252

    Fauna & Flora International, Prepared Statement of...............   240
    Federal Forest Resource Coalition, Prepared Statement of the.....   323
    Federation of State Humanities Councils, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   326
    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
      Questions Submitted by..............................55, 116, 170, 216
    Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   329
    Friends of:
        Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared
          Statement of...............................................   331
        Rachel Carson NWR, Prepared Statement of.....................   333
        The:
            Florida Panther Refuge, Inc., Prepared Statement of the..   334
            National Wildlife Refuges of Rhode Island, Prepared
              Statement of the.......................................   334
            Potomac River Refuges, Prepared Statement of the.........   335
            Refuge Headwaters, Prepared Statement of.................   338
            Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges, Inc., Prepared
              Statement of the.......................................   341
        Virgin Islands National Park, Prepared Statement of..........   342
        Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of.....   344
    Fuller Park Community Development Corporation, Prepared Statement
      of.............................................................   252

    Geological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the.........   345
    Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   347
    Green Mountain Club, Prepared Statement of the...................   350

    Hardwood Federation, Prepared Statement of.......................   252
    Hayes, David J., Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Interior.....................................     1
    Haze, Pamela K., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Finance,
      Performance, and Acquisition, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Interior.....................................     1
    Hoeven, Senator John, U.S. Senator From North Dakota, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   233
    Humane Society:
        International, Prepared Statement of.........................   240
        Legislative Fund.............................................   559

    Illinois Lake Management Association, Prepared Statement of the..   352
    Independent Tribal Courts Review Team, Prepared Statement of the.   353
    International:
        Crane Foundation, Prepared Statement of......................   240
        Elephant Foundation, Prepared Statement of...................   240
        Fund for Animal Welfare, Prepared Statement of...............   240
        Mountain Bicycling Association, Prepared Statement of........   272
        Rhino Foundation, Prepared Statement of......................   240
    Interstate Mining Compact Commission, Prepared Statement of the..   355
    Izaak Walton League of America, Prepared Statement of the........   364

    Jackson, Lisa P., Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.   175
        Prepared Statement of........................................   181
        Summary Statement of.........................................   179
    Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Washington State, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   367
    Jane Goodall Institute, Prepared Statement of the................   240
    Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................    64
        Statement of.................................................   129

    Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan Industry and
      Government Coalition, Prepared Statement of the................   369
    Klamath Bird Observatory, Prepared Statement of..................   252
    Kodiak Area Native Association, Prepared Statements of the.....276, 371

    Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   372
    Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   374
    Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Questions
      Submitted by...................................66, 118, 119, 121, 222
    League of American:
        Bicyclists, Prepared Statement of............................   272
        Orchestras, Prepared Statement of the........................   377
    Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont, Questions
      Submitted by........................................62, 171, 173, 216
    Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Prepared Statement of the...   379
    Lummi Nation, Prepared Statement of the..........................   381

    Maine's Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   387
    Malheur Wildlife Associates, Prepared Statement of...............   385
    Maniilaq Association, Prepared Statement of......................   245
    Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Prepared Statement of the.   390
    Merritt Island Wildlife Association, Prepared Statement of the...   391
    Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   394
    Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Association, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   395
    Moat Creek Managing Agency, Prepared Statement of the............   397
    Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
        Questions Submitted by.....................................172, 223
        Statements of.......................................3, 79, 127, 177

    National:
        Association of:
            Abandoned Mine Land Programs, Prepared Statement of the..   398
            Clean Air Agencies, Prepared Statement of the............   405
            Forest Service Retirees, Prepared Statement of the.......   408
            State:
                Energy Officials, Prepared Statement of the..........   411
                Foresters, Prepared Statement of the.................   412
        Audubon Society, Prepared Statement of.......................   254
        Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Prepared
          Statement of the...........................................   420
        Congress of American Indians, Prepared Statement of the......   415
        Cooperators' Coalition, Prepared Statement of the............   418
        Federation of Federal Employees Local 1957, Prepared
          Statement of the...........................................   422
        Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the......   426
        Ground Water Association, Prepared Statement of the..........   428
        Humanities Alliance, Prepared Statement of the...............   430
        Institutes for Water Resources, Prepared Statement of the....   432
        Parks Conservation Association, Prepared Statement of the....   434
        Recreation and Park Association, Prepared Statement of the...   437
        Tribal:
            Contract Support Cost Coalition, Prepared Statement of
              the....................................................   440
            Environmental Council, Prepared Statement of the.........   446
        Trust for Historic Preservation, Prepared Statement of the...   449
        Wildlife:
            Federation, Prepared Statement of the....................   452
            Refuge Association, Prepared Statement of the............   455
    Natural Science Collections Alliance, Prepared Statement of the..   458
    Nelson, Senator Ben, U.S. Senator From Nebraska, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    65
    Nevada Department of Wildlife, Prepared Statement of the.........   459
    Nez Perce:
        Tribal Executive Committee, Prepared Statement of the........   460
        Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.............................   276
    North American Banding Council, Prepared Statement of............   252
    Northwest:
        Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the.......   463
        Portland Area Indian Health Board:
            Letter From..............................................   468
            Prepared Statement of the................................   465
    Norton Sound Health Corporation, Prepared Statements of the....245, 472
    Nuclear Energy Institute, Prepared Statement of the..............   474

    Office of the State Engineer, State of New Mexico, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   476
    1,237 Forest Owners, et al., Prepared Statement of...............   477
    OPERA America, Prepared Statement of.............................   488
    Oregon Water Resources Congress, Prepared Statements of the....491, 493
    Outdoor Alliance, Prepared Statement of the......................   495

    Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared Statement of the.............   498
    Partnership for the National Trails System, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   500
    Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission, Prepared Statement of the...   506
    Performing Arts Alliance, Prepared Statement of the..............   503
    PGA of America, Prepared Statement of............................   272
    PNM Resources, Inc., Prepared Statement of.......................   508
    Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Prepared Statement of..............   252
    Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, Prepared Statement of the...........   276
    Preservation Action, Prepared Statement of.......................   508
    Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Prepared Statement of the.............   511

    Quinault Indian Nation, Prepared Statement of the................   514

    Rare Species Fund, Prepared Statement of.........................   240
    Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island:
        Opening Statements of...............................1, 77, 125, 175
        Questions Submitted by.................................54, 164, 213
    Restore America's Estuaries, Prepared Statement of...............   516
    Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Center for Elephant
      Conservation, Prepared Statement of............................   240

    Sac and Fox Nation, Prepared Statement of the....................   518
    Safari Club International, Prepared Statement of.................   240
    Salazar, Hon. Ken, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department
      of the Interior................................................     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................    10
        Summary Statement of.........................................     8
    Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the....   521
    Sawtooth Society, Prepared Statement of the......................   522
    Sea Turtle Conservancy, Prepared Statement of....................   240
    Sierra Club, Prepared Statement of...............................   252
    Skokomish Tribe of Washington State, Prepared Statement of the...   524
    Society of American Foresters, Prepared Statement of the.........   526
    Soil Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of...........   271
    South Eastern Wildlife & Environment Education Association, Inc.,
      Prepared Statement of the......................................   540
    Southcentral Foundation, Prepared Statements of the............276, 543
    SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium, Prepared Statements
      of the.......................................................276, 542
    Spear, Susan, Acting Director, Strategic Planning Budget and
      Accountability, United States Forest Service, United States
      Department of Agriculture......................................   125
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   173
    Squaxin Island Tribe, Prepared Statement of the..................   545
    St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   276
    Sustainable Northwest, Prepared Statement of.....................   548

    Tanana Chiefs Conference, Prepared Statements of the...........276, 550
    Taos, New Mexico, Prepared Statement of..........................   552
    Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Prepared Statement of..   254
    Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Prepared Statement of the...   554
    Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   218
        Statements of............................................6, 80, 129
    The:
        American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
          Prepared Statement of......................................   555
        Conservation Fund, Prepared Statement of.....................   556
        Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International, Prepared Statement of   240
        Equal Access to Justice Act and U.S. Forest Service Land
          Management: Incentives to Litigate?........................   529
        Humane Society of the United States, Prepared Statements of240, 559
        Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statements of.......240, 252, 254, 562
        Trust for Public Land, Prepared Statements of..............272, 571
        University of Montana, Prepared Statement of.................   252
        Wildlife Society, Prepared Statements of...................254, 574
        Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Prepared
          Statement of...............................................   252
    Theatre Communications Group, Prepared Statement of the..........   566
    Tidwell, Tom, Chief, United States Forest Service, United States
      Department of Agriculture......................................   125
        Prepared Statement of........................................   132
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   164
        Summary Statement of.........................................   130
    Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   568
    Town of Ophir, Colorado, Prepared Statement of the...............   567

    Union of Concerned Scientists, Prepared Statement of.............   252
    United Steelworkers, Prepared Statement of.......................   252
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared
      Statement of
      the............................................................   577
    USGS Coalition, Prepared Statement of the........................   578

    Washington:
        County Commission, Utah, Prepared Statement of the...........   580
        Wildlife Recreation Coalition, Prepared Statement of the.....   581
    Watson, Hon. James, Director, Bureau of Safety and Environmental
      Enforcement, Department of the Interior........................    91
        Prepared Statement of........................................    92
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   121
    Whitetails Unlimited, Inc., Prepared Statement of................   582
    Wild Salmon Center, Prepared Statement of........................   252
    Wildlife:
        Conservation Society, Prepared Statements of...............240, 252
        Management Institute, Prepared Statement of..................   254
    Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   584
    World Wildlife Fund, Prepared Statements of....................240, 252

    Zuni Tribe, Prepared Statement of the............................   585

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          United States Forest Service

                                                                       Page

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   163
    Airtanker:
        Contracting..................................................   146
        Delivery Studies.............................................   146
        Long-Term Strategy...........................................   141
        Modernization.........................................128, 131, 140
    America's Great Outdoors Initiative..............................   131
    Budget Context...................................................   132
    Categorical Exclusion Impacts....................................   127
    Collaborative Forest Landscape Forest Restoration Projects.......   157
    Communities Theme................................................   135
    Economic Impacts.................................................   144
    Facilities and Roads Maintenance Priorities......................   137
    Fire:
        Season 2012..................................................   140
        Theme........................................................   137
    Firefighting:
        Asset Confidence.............................................   147
        Capacity.....................................................   152
        Helicopters................................................146, 152
        With Helicopters.............................................   154
    Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request..................................   126
        And Priorities...............................................   133
    Forest:
        Health Management:
            Co-op....................................................   165
            Federal..................................................   165
        Resources Information and Analysis...........................   165
        Roads........................................................   158
    Fuels Reduction Priorities.......................................   138
    Gaining Efficiencies and Cost Control Measures...................   139
    Hazardous Fuels..................................................   156
    Helicopter Positioning...........................................   153
    H.R. 1581.................................................129, 147, 163
    Impacted Projects................................................   143
    Increasing Efficiencies..........................................   131
    Integrated Resource Restoration...........................128, 130, 142
        Direction....................................................   142
    Land:
        Acquisition..................................................   169
        Rehabilitation...............................................   155
    Landscape Scale:
        Conservation Prioritites.....................................   135
        Restoration..................................................   157
            Priorities...............................................   133
    Modular Airborne Firefighting System.............................   141
    National Forest System...........................................   126
    Planning:
        Monitoring, and Analysis Priorities..........................   134
        Rule.........................................................   160
    Predecisional Objection Process..................................   144
    Preparedness Priorities..........................................   138
    Program Consolidation............................................   157
    Recreation and Trails Priorities.................................   136
    Region 1.........................................................   148
    Research Priorities..............................................   134
    Restoration Theme................................................   133
    Secure Rural Schools Program.....................................   159
    Sequoia ForestKeeper vs. Tidwell...............................127, 143
    State:
        And Private Forestry.......................................126, 164
        Fire Assistance..............................................   165
    Station Fire.....................................................   154
    Stewardship Contracting..........................................   161
    Suppression Priorities...........................................   138
    Urban and Community Forestry.....................................   157
    Volunteer Fire Assistance........................................   165
    Wildland Fire:
        Management............................................126, 130, 166
        Policy.......................................................   154

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                           Bureau of Land Management

    Abandoned Mine Lands and Hardrock Mining Reform Proposals........    85
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   116
    Bureau of Land Management:
        Office of Surface Management Merger..........................   112
        Solar Supplemental Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
          Statement..................................................   118
    Department of Defense Land.......................................   117
    Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Overview.................................    83
    Geothermal Development...........................................   115
    Hydraulic Fracturing......................................103, 106, 110
    Legacy Wells.....................................................    99
    Meeting Our Nation's Needs.......................................    82
    National Environmental Policy Act Reviews........................   116
    Oil and Gas Production..........................................97, 100
    Onshore:
        Inspection Fees............................................102, 111
        Oil and Gas:
            Leasing..................................................   101
            Production...............................................   104
        Renewable Energy Leases......................................   114
        Royalty Rates................................................   104
    Priority Permitting..............................................   117
    Promoting American Energy Production at Home.....................    83
    Reductions and Efficiencies......................................    85
    Royalty Rates....................................................   103
    Well:
        Closure......................................................   108
        Integrity Inspections........................................   101
    West Mojave Solar Energy Zone....................................   116

                       Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   119
    Key Priorities and Accomplishments...............................    88
    Offshore:
        Lease Auctions...............................................   108
        Leasing......................................................   102
        Wind:
            Energy...................................................    95
            Inspection...............................................   109
    The Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request..............................    90

                 Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   121
    Environmental Enforcement........................................    94
    Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request Specifics........................    94
    Inspection:
        And Compliance Program.......................................    94
        Fees.........................................................    96
    Outer Continental Shelf Inspection Personnel.....................   105
    Permitting.......................................................    93
    Recruitment of Key Positions.....................................    93
    Regulatory Change................................................    93

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    54
    America's Great Outdoors Initiative..............................    29
    Automated Standard Application for Payments Program..............    33
    Blackstone River Valley..........................................    26
    Bureau of Land Management Solar Supplemental Draft Programmatic
      Environmental Impact Statement.................................    58
    Cadiz............................................................    55
    Central Valley Project...........................................    58
    Coastal Impact Assistance Program................................    40
    Contract Support Costs...........................................    27
    Cuts and Efficiencies............................................     9
    Delivering Sustainable Growth Through Water......................    15
    Encouraging Economic Development in Indian Country and Honoring
      Trust Responsibilities.........................................    15
    Energy........................................................... 9, 37
    Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation--Background....    73
    Fee to Trust Process and Applications............................    61
    Fiscal Year 2013 Budget..........................................     8
    Fish Hatcheries..................................................    36
    477 Program......................................................    27
    Gaming...........................................................    56
    Geological Surveying of Afghanistan..............................    52
    Government Reorganization........................................    53
    Grazing Administrative Fee.......................................    50
    Growing the Economy Outdoors.....................................    12
    Gulf States Funding..............................................    44
    Hunting and Fishing Access.......................................    34
    Hydraulic Fracturing.........................................28, 34, 46
    Indian:
        Country......................................................    10
        School Equalization Program..................................    30
    Interior's Budget in Context.....................................    16
    Joint Curatorial Collection Facility.............................    36
    Land and Water Conservation Fund.............................29, 38, 49
    Major Changes in the Fiscal Year 2013 Request....................    18
    Mandatory Proposals..............................................    21
    National:
        Park Service--Maintenance Backlog--Background................    72
        Wildlife Refuge Fund.........................................    51
    North Woods National Park Proposal...............................    32
    Offsetting Collections and Fees..................................    24
    Offshore:
        Development..................................................    35
        Inspection Fees..............................................48, 50
        Wind.....................................................25, 31, 54
    Oil and Gas......................................................    44
        Lease Revenues--Background...................................    71
        Production...................................................     9
        Revenues.....................................................41, 48
    Onshore:
        Inspection Fees..............................................    48
        Royalty Rate.................................................    51
    Powering America's Economy.......................................    12
    Private Lands Permitting.........................................    55
    Renewable Energy.................................................     9
    Rural Water......................................................    30
    San Luis Rey Water Settlement....................................    60
    School Construction..............................................    33
    Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge Land Acquisition........    39
    Spurring Growth and Innovation Through Science...................    14
    Stream Buffer Zone Rule..........................................    45
    Streamgages......................................................    40
    Tourism..........................................................    10
    U.S.:
        Fish and Wildlife Service--Background........................68, 69
        Geological Survey--Disaster Preparedness--Background.........    70
    White Nose Syndrome--Background..................................    71
    Wild Horses......................................................    67
    Yurok Funding....................................................    59

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   212
    Ambient Testing..................................................   205
    Aviation Fuel....................................................   212
    Beaches Protection Categorical Grants............................   213
    Bristol Bay Watershed............................................   185
    Camelina Biodiesel and the Renewable Fuels Standard..............   218
    Changing the Formula for Allocating Section 105 Funds............   213
    Chemical Safety..................................................   217
    Clark Fork Clean Up Site.........................................   221
    Clean Water Act..................................................   196
    CO2 Emissions.........................................   210
    Design for the Environment Program...............................   222
    DeSoto County....................................................   201
    Diesel Emissions Reduction Act...................................   214
    Emission Control Area............................................   204
    Enhanced Oil Recovery............................................   219
    Environmental Education Program..................................   201
    Farm Fuel Tanks..................................................   192
    Fort Berthold Reservation........................................   233
    Fuel Harmonization...............................................   194
    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative...............................   215
    Healy Clean Coal Plant...........................................   211
    Hydraulic Fracturing......................................191, 197, 206
        Study......................................................199, 203
    Information Technology Equipment--Executive Order 13514..........   232
    Integrated Risk Information System...............................   223
    Libby, Montana Superfund Site....................................   221
    Mercury in Ambient Air...........................................   216
    Narragansett Bay.................................................   183
    New Rules and Regulations........................................   190
    Oil Spill Response and Tribes....................................   220
    Perchlorate......................................................   216
    Permitting Guidance--Diesel Fuel And Hydraulic Fracturing........   234
    PM2.5.................................................   211
    Portland Cement Association......................................   196
    Regional Haze Regulations........................................   227
    State:
        And Local Air Quality:
            Grants...................................................   184
            Management Grants........................................   213
        Revolving Funds..............................................   182
    Transitioning Particulate Monitoring Funding From Section 103 to
      Section 105 Authority..........................................   213
    Wastewater Operations--Underground Pipe Infrastructure...........   223

                                       -