[Senate Hearing 113-133]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-133
Senate Hearings
Before the Committee on Appropriations
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of the Interior,
Environment, and
Related Agencies
Appropriations
Fiscal Year 2014
113th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, 2014--Part 1
S. Hrg. 113-133
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Department of Agriculture
Department of the Interior
Environmental Protection Agency
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-060 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairwoman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Vice
TOM HARKIN, Iowa Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
JACK REED, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey MARK KIRK, Illinois
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas DANIEL COATS, Indiana
JON TESTER, Montana ROY BLUNT, Missouri
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK BEGICH, Alaska JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
Charles E. Kieffer, Staff Director
William D. Duhnke III, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies
JACK REED, Rhode Island, Chairman
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Ranking
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
JON TESTER, Montana ROY BLUNT, Missouri
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
Professional Staff
Rachel Taylor
Ginny James
Ryan Hunt
Leif Fonnesbeck (Minority)
Brent Wiles (Minority)
Administrative Support
Teri Curtin
Courtney Stevens (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Page
Environmental Protection Agency.................................. 1
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary.............. 61
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Department of Agriculture: United States Forest Service.......... 131
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 191
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013
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, Udall, Begich, Murkowski, Cochran,
Blunt, and Johanns.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STATEMENT OF BOB PERCIASEPE, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR AND
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
opening statement of senator jack reed
Senator Reed. I would like to call the hearing to order and
welcome everyone. Good morning. On behalf of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee,
welcome.
This is our first budget hearing this year. It will be a
hearing on the fiscal year 2014 budget request for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I am very pleased to
welcome Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe to testify before
the subcommittee. Mr. Administrator, thank you. And also, we
are grateful that Acting Chief Financial Officer Maryann
Froehlich is also with you. Thank you, Maryann.
Let me make a few acknowledgments before we begin. First, I
would like to thank and recognize my ranking member, Senator
Murkowski, not only for joining us this morning, but for her
great efforts over the last several years to work
collaboratively and effectively to craft these budgets, which
are very challenging.
I simply could not have a better colleague and partner in
these endeavors than Senator Murkowski. And I want to
personally thank her for these efforts, and also for her very
talented staff. Thank you, Senator.
I would also like to acknowledge that we have added four
new members to the subcommittee this Congress: Senators Udall,
Merkley, Begich, and Johanns. I welcome each of these Senators
and look forward to their contributions.
At some point this morning, the Chairwoman, Chairwoman
Mikulski might arrive. When she does, I will at that point, at
the appropriate moment, suspend and give her an opportunity to
make any statement that she might want.
But we are very gratified to have Senator Mikulski as the
chairwoman of the full committee. She served many years on this
subcommittee, and she has a particular appreciation and regard
for the efforts of the EPA. So we are multiply fortunate in
that regard.
Now, turning to the budget, the President's fiscal year
2014 budget request includes $8.15 billion for EPA. That amount
is $173 million or 2 percent less than the fiscal year 2013
enacted level of $8.32 billion.
Unfortunately, there is not a lot of good news to discuss
in this reduced budget request, but there are a few items that
I wanted to highlight as we begin this conversation, including
a 6-percent increase to EPA's operating programs above the
fiscal year 2013 level.
Within that amount, I am pleased that the administration
proposes $2 million for a geographic program to restore
southern New England watersheds. I worked closely with the EPA
for several years on this effort. It is extremely important,
not just to Narragansett Bay, but to the surrounding waters in
Massachusetts and Connecticut. So I am grateful that the EPA
leadership has moved forward on this initiative.
The budget request also provides $73 million for the
Chesapeake Bay Program and flat funds the National Estuary
Program at $27 million. It includes a new $60 million E-
Enterprise Initiative to improve electronic data collection and
sharing to ease the reporting burdens on regulated entities,
and we may get into that in the questioning.
And finally, it is worth noting that the request also
includes a nearly 5-percent increase in grants that help States
and tribes run their environmental permitting and monitoring
programs, including increases in safe air and water pollution
control grants.
Of course, despite these good investments, I am
disappointed with the overall budget level. This is the fourth
year in a row that EPA's budget request has contracted, which
makes it difficult for this subcommittee to hold the line on
the EPA budget when our final bill is enacted.
And I am particularly concerned about the specific areas in
this budget that were identified for cuts. I am most
disappointed that the largest reductions, again, were made to
clean water and drinking water State Revolving Funds (SRF)
which are cut by 19 percent less than fiscal year 2013 levels.
I really find it hard to understand how these proposed cuts
square with the President's focus on job creation and
infrastructure development. You know, we have discussed these
statistics before in this subcommittee, but they are worth
repeating. Just take my home State, and we could take the State
of any of my colleagues at this dais.
In Rhode Island alone, we need $1.5 billion in identified
needs for clean and drinking water projects; that is $1.5
billion in the smallest State in the country. Yet, the State is
only slated to receive $15 million in water infrastructure
grants in this budget request, which is about $3 million less
than what I expect them to receive in fiscal year 2013.
Mr. Perciasepe, I know EPA faced tough decisions when you
put this budget together, but it just does not make sense why
we should focus such large cuts in programs that create jobs
and help meet an enormous public health need, infrastructure
need, economic productivity need in every State in this
country.
And since every $1 we spend for the SRF generates more than
$2 in projects on the ground, that means we are walking away
from opportunities to further leverage Federal investments with
local funds and other funds.
I am also concerned about a number of other reductions to
the budget, including your proposal to eliminate $10 million in
BEACH Act grants that help Rhode Island and other coastal
States. And I do not understand why your budget, again,
proposes to eliminate nearly $10 million in funding for a
centralized environmental education program.
We have just been through two major hurricanes in the last
several years, Irene and Sandy, and the expectation is that we
will have more hurricanes. That means our beach erosion is
going to be exacerbated. And unless we take steps to just try
to modify these beaches and protect them, we are going to lose
not only beaches, we are going to lose communities, and we are
going to tear up the social fabric of States up and down the
east coast, and I would expect this and similar comments could
be made by my colleagues on their coast.
There is another area, funding for the Diesel Emission
Reduction Act grants is cut by 70 percent, for a total of $6
million cut. And it is also worth noting that your request
trims 10 percent from the Brownfields Program, even though
these grants fund local clean-up and job training efforts that
redevelop communities and put people to work.
Mr. Perciasepe, I remain concerned about all these
reductions, and I look forward to having a chance to discuss
them further with you and to work on restoring these cuts
through the appropriations process.
And now, let me turn to my ranking member, Senator
Murkowski, for any comments she might have.
statement of senator lisa murkowski
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate your kind remarks about our ability to be
working together on this very important budget, and the work
that both of our staffs do. As you have indicated, I think it
is a great working relationship. We have been able to do some
good things in the past, and I look forward to doing so this
session as well.
I would like to welcome our Deputy Administrator, Mr.
Perciasepe and Chief Financial Officer Froehlich to the
subcommittee. Good morning to you.
Most of my questions for you this morning will involve
policy issues but first, I want to applaud and recognize the
effort to maintain the Alaska Native Villages Program at $10
million within the budget request. Rural Alaska, as you know,
faces some very, very serious challenges in meeting the need
for wastewater improvement. So I appreciate that you have
included these funds at a time, as the chairman has noted, of
very, very tight budgets. I hope that we can do more, but we
will be working with you in that regard.
I also want to thank you personally for meeting with my
staff following last year's budget hearing. There were about a
dozen different EPA issues that were noted at that hearing. The
commitment was made that we would work together, follow through
with some, and you have helped us in that regard.
Now, some of these issues are very specific to the unique
circumstances of my State, but in fairness, most of them
reflect the same problems that communities around the Nation
are facing with EPA's regulatory actions.
I do have some concerns over a number of rulemakings that
the EPA is working on, and their impact on the national
economy, as well as their impact on Alaska. I hope that you and
your staff will continue to meet with us, dialogue with us on
this again this year. And I look forward to discussing that,
among other things, when we meet later this week.
When Administrator Jackson appeared before this
subcommittee last year, I told her at that time that I hear
more complaints from the people of Alaska about the EPA than
any other Agency out there. And I can assure you that even
given the passage of time and the work that has gone on, those
complaints remain the same. EPA, unfortunately, is still number
one in the views of many Alaskans as not necessarily a good
thing.
The sheer number of rulemakings the EPA is currently
proposing, the cost of compliance with the vast array of
regulations already on the books and what, at times, are the
unreasonable consequences of their enforcement. It is very
frustrating to the public.
In the past month alone, the EPA indicated its plans to not
only finalize regulations for greenhouse gases on new
powerplants this year, but also to get a significant start on
rules for existing powerplants in fiscal year 2014. EPA also
unveiled new draft rules concerning the sulfur content in
gasoline. And last Friday, it announced new rules for
concerning water discharges from powerplants.
And putting aside the merits of these various proposals, no
one can dispute their far-reaching impacts, from effectively
barring the construction of new coal-fired plants, to raising
the cost of gasoline by as much as 10 cents per gallon for the
average consumer, even though our economy continues to sputter
and unemployment remains high.
What I have done is I have asked my staff to keep a list of
the current rulemakings that are affecting Alaska, our energy
supply, or both that the EPA is working on. Our list, at this
point in time, is up to about 60 different rulemakings; not 16,
but 60 current rulemakings, and there is a fair chance that we
may have missed one or two. So you can understand how the
public feels when they just feel that there is this barrage of
regulations coming at them.
I would like to leave the subcommittee, my colleagues, with
one example here this morning, and I think it is a pretty vivid
example that demonstrates this point. This comes from
constituents in Soldotna, Alaska down on the Kenai Peninsula, a
small, little community. It is a husband and wife. They are
both veterinarians. They own a veterinary clinic, and one of
the services that they provide for the community is cremation
of animals.
When ``Fluffy'' decides that it is time to give up the
ghost, this veterinary clinic provides for cremation for the
family pets. And more often than not, it is used during the
wintertime when you cannot bury your animals because the ground
is frozen and burial is not possible.
Now, as I understand it, EPA sent them a notice after the
comment period had closed. So this small veterinary clinic gets
a notice from EPA about proposed changes in the rules for
commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units. And
when they called to learn more, even though the comment period
was closed, the EPA official said that all incinerators, even
the small ones like this very small animal incinerator in
Soldotna, Alaska would have to undergo what is called ``annual
source testing''. And this testing, which is designed for
larger commercial facilities, exceeds a cost of $50,000
annually. That is more revenue than the clinic generates in a
year from operating any incinerator.
According to the veterinarians, the EPA official said that
the Agency had no leeway in allowing exemptions, even for low
levels of emissions, and that essentially its hands are tied.
Now, we are still looking into this. We are still gathering the
facts. I do have a copy of that letter.
And Mr. Chairman, I have actually asked that the letter be
included as part of the record.
Senator Reed. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Twin Cities Veterinary Clinic,
Soldotna, AK.
Dear Senator Murkowski: My wife and I are veterinarians and the
owners of Twin Cities Veterinary Clinic in Soldotna. As part of our
veterinary service we provide pet cremations for clients who desire an
alternative to burial (or quite frankly landfill disposal) as a
respectful means to care for the remains of their deceased family pet.
I am writing to you as a constituent and small business owner who is
concerned about significant burdens that will soon be imposed on small
businesses like mine by recent regulations adopted by the Environmental
Protection Agency. The recently passed Clean Air Act included
regulations for commercial incinerators and combustion units. Some of
the changes were announced in March 2011 for CISWI (Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration) units. Apparently the ``new and
improved'' testing standards were written with large scale commercial
incinerators in mind, but these standards failed to make any reasonable
exceptions for small, low-volume units such as mine (a small animal pet
cremation unit).
Let me give you a bit of history as to how I was alerted of these
proposed changes. I received a letter on February 22, 2012, notifying
me that the EPA had proposed CISWI changes on December 12, 2011. Any
interested parties could submit comments up until the closure of the
``public comment period'' which ended February 21, 2012. Naturally one
would ask, ``How am I to provide comment on something I was made aware
of one day after the closure of the open comment period?'' I called the
EPA office number provided and left a voice mail with Heather Valdez
(Seattle, Washington). Heather was kind enough to return my call the
next business day and she answered some questions about how this change
will impact me in the next 3-5 years. You may want to research the
details to confirm the facts, but below is what gathered from my
conversation with Ms. Valdez:
My business would fall under the Clean Air Act ``section 129 CAA
requirements.'' These OSWl (Other Solid Waste Incinerator) regulations
are proposed to take effect in 3-5 years. Under these regulations all
incinerators are required to perform ``Annual Source Testing'' to
determine if the unit is meeting EPA output and emissions standards.
When I inquired what source testing entails, Heather noted that this
testing, which is typically designed for larger commercial facilities
(i.e. units that burn 250 tons/day), often exceeds $50,000 per annual
test--and it is charged to the owner. She admitted that this testing is
not really reasonable or likely affordable for small units like mine
(especially given that some provide less than $50,000 in gross
cremation services per year). But based on the current regulations the
EPA is given ``no leeway'' in the enforcement of this testing
regulation and there are ``no exemptions'' allowed. In her defense,
Heather was quite honest and forthcoming about the impacts of the
regulation on small businesses like mine. She suggested I contact any
cremation trade organizations to garner their support. She also
recommended I contact my representatives in Washington to encourage a
legislative remedy as the EPA's hands are essentially ``tied'' to
enforce the regulation at this time.
As you can imagine I am somewhat irritated by the timing of this
announcement in relation to the comment period. Having received this
notice 1 day after the public comment period is ludicrous! How can a
Government agency (that my tax dollars support) propose and enact
regulations, without proper notification, and without allowing time for
those affected a chance to comment on the impact of these measures?
This type of activity leads me to believe the EPA is not accountable to
anyone, and therefore makes decisions irrespective of how it may harm
the individuals they are hired to serve.
In addition, I don't see the need to further regulate small
incinerators like mine that provide such a small output of emissions.
Presently we voluntarily contract Periodic Maintenance Inspections
(PMIs) from the manufacturer of our cremation unit. These inspections
ensure the safety and efficiency of our cremation unit. The more
efficient our unit burns, the less gas we use, and the less emissions
we produce. It is in my best interest for both the business and the
environment to keep my unit running efficiently and maintained at
factory standards.
Senator Murkowski, I hope that you or your staff will have the time
to look into this regulation. I'm sure that other veterinary hospitals,
pet cremation providers, and even human cremation providers will be
significantly impacted by this change. If the projected costs for
Annual Source Testing are anywhere near those noted by Ms. Valdez, my
business and likely many others like it will not be able to feasibly
absorb this fee. The likely end result is that we would not be able to
provide this valuable service to our clients. I hope you can help find
a solution to this issue for myself and other small businesses like
ours across the country. Please review the enclosed copies of
correspondence I had received from the EPA. I appreciate your
consideration and would be eager to assist with any follow-up on this
matter.
Regards,
James Delker, D.V.M.,
Twin Cities Veterinary Clinic, Soldotna, Alaska.
Senator Murkowski. But we want to work with your staff to
see if this is the final answer. But I think you can see the
problem here.
It would be outrageous, really, if this small family-run
business has to stop providing a service for local families
with pets because the cost of compliance with the regulations,
of dubious environmental benefit at least in this instance, is
just too high. But it is also emblematic of what many feel
about the EPA that it is a vast bureaucracy issuing a dizzying
number of rules that have enormous impact on their lives, while
conversely, they may have very little input into EPA's
decisions. And I share these concerns.
So I look forward this morning, Mr. Chairman, to being able
to ask questions of the Acting Administrator to understand a
little bit more of the budget and the priorities. But I think
this is an agency where, again, the impact on so many across
our country, our families, our businesses, this is seen very
much throughout what comes out of EPA. So very important this
morning, and I appreciate your leadership in this oversight
role.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.
Just to establish our routine, we will use our normal
procedures, recognizing Senators based on their arrival,
alternating from side to side. And before I ask Mr. Perciasepe
for his statement, is there any of my colleagues that would to
make very brief opening remarks or comments?
If that is not the case, then Mr. Perciasepe, your
statement will be made part of the record, without objection.
Feel free to summarize your comments.
Mr. Administrator, please.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF BOB PERCIASEPE
Mr. Perciasepe. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Murkowski.
I appreciate the opportunity to be before you today and all
the members of the subcommittee, to talk about our proposed
fiscal year 2014 budget.
EPA's budget request of $8.153 billion for 2014 fiscal year
reflects our ongoing efforts to change the way EPA does
business. To invest in more efficient ways for the agency to
operate and to further reduce costs wherever possible, while
preserving and enhancing our ability to carry out EPA's core
mission to protect human health and the environment. It is the
product of many internal discussions in the administration, and
tough choices that you have already identified, in some cases.
In the end, we believe this budget will enable us to work
toward the goals that the Congress has established for EPA to
effectively and efficiently implement the laws.
Let me run by a few of the key highlights, and I will try
to be quick.
Despite these fiscal challenges, supporting State and
tribal partners, they are our key partners in implementing the
Federal environmental statutes that have been enacted, remains
a priority for EPA. And the State and tribal assistance grants
account for nearly 40 percent of our entire budget for fiscal
year 2014. I want to point out that it includes a $57 million
increase more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount for
specific grants to help States, tribes, and operations.
You have already mentioned, and I want to emphasize again,
that we have done some disinvesting and reinvesting in the
budget including a $60 million project that we are beginning
that we are calling E-Enterprise. It may sound a little bit
esoteric, but really, what we are trying to do is move EPA and
working with States and tribes into the 21st century in how you
transact business with the rest of the world.
And we are learning from the States. Many States are
starting to move in this direction. And what we are really
looking at is something that is going to reduce regulatory
paperwork, reduce our regulatory reporting burden, but at the
same time make some of the work that we do together with States
and tribes to be more transparent. We see this as an investment
in the future of a more efficient operating EPA.
We also have, in fiscal year 2014, a request for $176.5
million to support a variety of partners and stakeholders, and
our own work on greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to
note that this funding also includes support for successful
programs like ENERGY STAR, the Global Methane Initiative that
we work on, greenhouse gas reporting programs, SmartWay, which
is a program we work on with the trucking industry, and several
others. It also includes $20 million on research of some of the
impacts of climate change as we start to look at mitigation.
Nutrient pollution is a pretty important problem throughout
the country in our waterways, and we have requested in this
budget a $15 million increase in State grants to help the State
agencies begin that process of putting plans together that more
specifically coordinate for nutrient reductions.
You mentioned the SRF, again, a number of painful choices
here, but we continue to fund these SRF at $1.1 billion for
clean water and $817 million for drinking water. We have been
capitalizing these funds, the clean water one, since 1987 and
the drinking water one since 1996 when the Safe Drinking Water
Act Revolving Fund was created. And when we get into the Q&A,
we could talk about how they are currently operating.
But we are also--I think this is pretty important--working
with the Conference of Mayors, the Association of Water Quality
Agencies, and the National Association of Counties on, what we
call, an integrated planning, or really, basically, it is
trying to get ahead of the curve on trying to deal with the
issues that we have at the municipal level. Look for lower cost
ways to solve some of the problems.
And I am sure most of you have heard of the concept of
green infrastructure, which is very helpful in some parts of
the country that will allow us to find more cost-effective ways
and a better life-cycle cost for some of the infrastructure.
So even though the annual capitalization of the SRF has
declined through the years, in addition to the amount that is
already there, plus looking at new, more cost effective ways to
solve the problems, we are hoping that we can continue to make
the progress we need to make.
We also have $1.3 billion for land cleanup. This is
Superfund. This is emergency response. This also includes
funding for Brownfields Programs as well, and some of those are
included in our State grants.
We have $686 million for chemical safety. This includes
both pesticides and other chemicals in commerce, and looking at
how we can make sure--well, first of all, we want to make sure
we are processing and working through the risk assessments that
we have to do for pesticides in a timely fashion, and
appreciated the support from the Congress last year on the
Pesticide Registration Improvement Act.
Finally, we are looking at some of these hard choices you
mentioned. Our budget includes $54 million in savings, some of
which is reinvested in programs that, we think, other people
can carry on or that their level of effort has declined and we
need to shift the funds to other activities.
And then you noted a number of programs have received a
larger than the rest reduction as we look to build some of
these other programs.
Finally, I will just say in addition to looking at how we
operate with things like E-Enterprise and doing that we have a
governance system with the States that we are using to move in
that direction together.
We are also looking at our own infrastructure, how many
buildings EPA occupies. How many labs do we have? How do we
consolidate and modernize where necessary to shrink the space
and/or improve the energy profile? And we continue to save
money.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We have moved away from more than 400,000 square feet of
rented space in the last number of years, and we also continue
to save money on some of our operating costs. So we are very
excited about some of that work in terms of our own
improvements.
So I will stop there with that very brief summary, Mr.
Chairman and Ranking Member Murkowski, and we will get onto the
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bob Perciasepe
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before
you to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed
fiscal year 2014 budget. I'm joined by the Agency's Acting Chief
Financial Officer, Maryann Froehlich.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget demonstrates that we can
make critical investments to strengthen the middle class, create jobs,
and grow the economy while continuing to cut the deficit in a balanced
way. The budget also incorporates the President's compromise offer to
House Speaker Boehner to achieve another $1.8 trillion in deficit
reduction in a balanced way. By including this compromise proposal in
the budget, the President is demonstrating his willingness to make
tough choices. EPA's budget request of $8.153 billion for fiscal year
2014 starting October 1, 2013, reflects our ongoing efforts to change
the way EPA does business--to invest in more efficient ways for the EPA
to operate, to further reduce costs wherever possible all while we
preserve and enhance our ability to carry out the EPA's core mission to
protect human health and the environment.
The President's budget reinforces our firm commitment to keeping
American communities clean and healthy, while also taking into
consideration the difficult fiscal situation and the declining
resources of State, local, and tribal programs.
EPA's requested budget will allow us to continue making progress
toward cleaner air, addressing climate change, protecting the Nation's
waters, supporting sustainable water infrastructure and protecting
lands and assuring the safety of chemicals.
It is the product of long discussions and difficult choices. In the
end, we believe this budget will enable us to work toward EPA's goals
as effectively and efficiently as possible.
Let me run through a few highlights from the President's fiscal
year 2014 budget request.
Despite the fiscal challenges we face, supporting our State and
tribal partners, the primary implementers of environmental programs,
remains a priority of the EPA. Funding for States and tribes through
the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account is once again the
largest percentage of the EPA's budget request--at nearly 40 percent in
fiscal year 2014. The fiscal year 2014 budget includes a total of $1.14
billion in categorical grants.
We have requested a $60 million investment in an EPA-wide
initiative to develop new tools and expand systems designed to reduce
the regulatory reporting burden on regulated entities, and provide EPA,
States, and the public with easier access to environmental data for
compliance monitoring and other purposes. This new initiative is fully
paid for, so does not add a single dime to the deficit.
This project--what we call ``E-Enterprise''--would enable
businesses to conduct environmental business transactions with
regulators electronically through a single interactive portal, similar
to online banking. The paperwork and regulatory reporting burden would
be reduced thanks to more efficient collection, reporting, and use of
data, in addition to regulatory revisions to eliminate redundant or
obsolete information requests. The initiative will encourage greater
transparency and compliance.
The result will be widespread savings--for industry and for the
States and tribes. For example, E-Enterprise builds on efforts such as
the e-manifest system which is projected to reduce reporting costs for
regulated businesses by up to a range of $77 million to $126 million
annually, because it replaces the millions of paper manifests for
hazardous waste shipments with a modern tracking and reporting system.
The fiscal year 2014 request also includes $176.5 million to
support the agency's work with partners and stakeholders to address
greenhouse gas emissions and its impacts. These funds will help reduce
emissions--both domestically and internationally--through careful,
cost-effective rulemaking and voluntary programs that focus on the
largest entities and encourage businesses and consumers to limit
unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions.
Some of this funding will support existing, successful approaches
like ENERGY STAR, the Global Methane Initiative, the GHG Reporting
Rule, and State and local technical assistance and partnership
programs, such as SmartWay. Approximately $20 million will go toward
research, so we can better understand the impacts of climate change on
human health and vulnerable ecosystems. Our requested budget contains
$175 million to support our Clean Air Act-mandated work to develop,
implement and review air quality standards and guidance. This funding
will also allow EPA to enhance our support to our State, local, and
tribal partners to implement the programs.
Nutrient pollution is one of the Nation's most widespread and
challenging environmental problems. To assist in tackling this
challenge, EPA is requesting an increase of $15 million in Clean Water
Act section 106 Water Pollution Control grant funding to support
States, interstate agencies and tribes that commit to strengthening
their nutrient management efforts.
Ensuring that Federal dollars provided through the State Revolving
Funds support effective and efficient systemwide planning remains a
priority for EPA. The fiscal year 2014 budget request includes $1.1
billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) and $817 million
for the Drinking Water SRF. This money will also assist EPA efforts to
expand and institutionalize the use of up-front planning that considers
a full range of infrastructure alternatives like ``green''
infrastructure, so that the right investments are made at the right
time, and at the lowest life-cycle cost. This budget request will allow
the SRFs to finance approximately $6 billion in wastewater and drinking
water infrastructure projects annually.
In fiscal year 2014, EPA is requesting more than $1.34 billion for
its land cleanup programs to continue to apply the most effective
approaches to preserve and restore our country's land. This money will
go toward developing and implementing prevention programs, improving
response capabilities, and maximizing the effectiveness of response and
cleanup actions. EPA is also renewing its request to reinstate the
Superfund tax in order to provide a stable, dedicated source of revenue
for the Superfund Trust Fund and to restore the historic nexus that
parties who benefit from the manufacture or sale of substances that
commonly contaminate hazardous waste sites should bear the cost of
cleanup when viable potentially responsible parties cannot be
identified.
Ensuring the safety of new or existing chemicals in commerce to
protect the American people is another top priority. Chemicals are used
in the production of everything from our homes and cars to the cell
phones we carry and the food we eat. The $686.2 million requested in
fiscal year 2014 will allow EPA to continue managing the potential
risks of new chemicals entering commerce, without impacting progress in
assessing and ensuring the safety of existing chemicals. These
resources encompass all efforts across the agency associated
specifically with ensuring chemical safety and pollution prevention,
including research and enforcement.
EPA's research budget provides $554 million to support critical
research in key areas, ranging from chemical safety to water
sustainability to climate and energy to human health. This research
will help advance the administration's commitment to healthy
communities and a clean energy future.
Finally, let me discuss some steps we are taking to ensure taxpayer
dollars are going as far as they possibly can.
The budget includes $54 million in savings by eliminating several
EPA programs that have either completed their goals or can be
implemented through other Federal or State efforts. Adding to these
savings and demonstrating a willingness to make tough choices, more
than 20 EPA programs, are being reduced by 10 percent or more in fiscal
year 2014.
EPA has also been laying the groundwork to ensure the best use of
human resources, which will continue in fiscal year 2014. We will
continue to analyze our workforce needs to achieve EPA's mission
effectively and efficiently. This is reflected in our full-time
equivalent request for fiscal year 2014, which is our lowest in 20
years.
We also continue to look for opportunities to consolidate physical
space and reduce operating costs at our facilities nationwide. Ongoing
improvements in operating efficiency, combined with the use of advanced
technologies and energy sources, have reduced energy utilization and
saved nearly $6 million annually.
In fiscal year 2014, we are requesting $17 million in the building
and facilities appropriation to accelerate space consolidation efforts,
which will result in long-term savings in rent and operating costs. By
consolidating space, we have, since 2006 released approximately 417,000
square feet of space at headquarters and facilities nationwide,
resulting in a cumulative annual rent avoidance of more than $14.2
million.
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 answering your questions.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Administrator.
We are going to do 6-minute rounds. I anticipate at least
two rounds, and let me begin.
STATE REVOLVING FUNDS
No surprise, let's talk about the SRF. First, your own
estimate suggests that in the next 20 years, we are going to
have to spend, as a Nation, about $633 billion on
infrastructure: clean water and other water projects. The
American Society of Civil Engineers has given our clean water
structure a ``D'' grade. So there is no question about the need
to do this.
And then the other aspect of this which, I think, you have
to consider--and certainly the President does--is that these
jobs put people to work at a time when we desperately need to
do that.
So how do you justify the discrepancy between the huge cuts
in this program and the huge needs, obvious needs, for
infrastructure investment and also need for jobs?
Mr. Perciasepe. I have to sort of couch many of these
questions as painful as they are with the painful choices that
we have to make in the budget. And I actually was involved with
setting up a SRF when I was the secretary of environment in the
State of Maryland. And so, I have been at the very beginning of
this program and recognize the real advantages of having it.
But we have also had appropriations and capitalization to
this fund for the years since 1987, and in the last 5 years, we
have put nearly $20 billion into this program, including
appropriations that were included in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. So the fund has a significant amount of
capitalization, much more than the Congress originally
envisioned.
So when I look at what actually happened in 2012 between
the capitalization grants that EPA gave, the reuse of the
repayments that come back in from loans that are already
outstanding, and the leveraging of those loans, the SRF
programs together, both water and drinking water, clean water
and drinking water, funded almost $7.7 billion of
infrastructure improvements.
So when we look at that landscape and have to make these
hard choices, we are trying to look at how we can make sure we
keep capitalizing that fund so it keeps growing, but also
working with the States and local governments on more efficient
ways to use the fund and, perhaps, reduce the impact of what
the Society of Civil Engineers were looking at in the long
haul.
But there is no doubt about it that the country has a
significant gap in funding of water infrastructure. And I think
the challenge for us together is how much of that gets funded
by the Federal Government versus local funds versus State
funds.
But this was a tough choice we made. I am giving you some
background as to what we think, how we continue to carry
forward.
Senator Reed. Just to elaborate. Even at the $7.7 billion
level times 20, and I am always suspicious of my math, roughly
$150 billion. Your 20-year projection is $633 billion of work.
So we are at a $500 billion gap between what you need you have
to do and what we are doing.
So even if that $7 billion total is consistent with prior
years or maybe a little up, it is greatly lacking the demand.
So for the record, let's make sure we make that point.
HURRICANE SANDY SUPPLEMENTAL
Let me shift to a more detailed issue with respect. EPA
receives $600 million in mitigation, the recent Hurricane Sandy
supplemental going to try to affect some of these water
problems, both drinking water and other water projects. Many
States, even adjacent States, did not get direct access to it.
But how are you using these funds to help out today? And
what about those States that suffered in Sandy, but did not get
direct access to funds like Rhode Island?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, let me talk about the law as enacted
and what we are doing.
We are working with New York and New Jersey, obviously, to
allocate the funds that were developed for water and wastewater
systems, and identify the priority facilities to receive that
funding, to improve their resilience.
And I actually had the pleasure of being at a sewage
treatment plant with you, Senator, after the floods in Rhode
Island a couple of years ago where we did not move the plant
but, working with our regional office, we actually looked at a
way to make the plant more resilient for the next time it
floods. Sewage plants are often located at the low point in
town. And so, rather than move them and have the expense of
pumping wastewater uphill, we want to make them more resilient,
recognizing that they may be flooded.
And so, we are looking at places like that where we have
found ways to do that, so that we can work with the two States
to improve the resilience of some of those plants.
Now, in the Sandy instance, there are other funds that are
involved. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has funds,
and part of that was appropriated plus their existing funding,
to restore what was there, and there was also funding in the
Community Development Block Grant program that the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has. So what we are
trying to do in an interagency taskforce level, is to look at
all those fundings together and how they would be impacted--how
they can be impactful together.
So if you have funding from the SRF into the actual sewage
treatment plant, can we use Community Development Block Grant
funds to look at some of the conveyance system issues that may
be in place, and look at techniques like green infrastructure,
reduce the amount of runoff that gets to the sewage treatment
plant during these high rain events.
So we are looking at how to integrate all that together and
I guess that is a tail into the second part of your question
about what about the other States. I think that to the extent
that they were in an area that is covered by the Stafford Act,
we would be able to do, I hope, similar things like we did in
Rhode Island to some of those plants in terms of using funds
from FEMA and other sources to try to improve resiliency so
that we reduce the impact of future events, which I think we
have to predict will occur.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BRISTOL BAY WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Mr. Perciasepe, let's talk for a moment here about the
Bristol Bay Watershed assessment that EPA is conducting.
I understand that we anticipate an announcement on this
relatively shortly, is what I am told. But when EPA undertook
this assessment after being petitioned to preemptively veto
development within the area, EPA moves forward. The assessment
is based on this hypothetical mine plan to predict impacts from
mineral development. Obviously, this assessment is being
watched very, very carefully by many Alaskans and, actually,
many folks outside of the State.
I was just visited yesterday by individuals who live within
the region or work within the Bristol Bay region, and we had a
discussion about this assessment, whether or not EPA has
sufficient funding to do a thorough assessment to really
collect the massive data that will be required for study of a
watershed area of this size.
We have asked, my staff asked numerous times, about how
much is being spent on the watershed assessment. We still have
not been able to receive an accounting of that and this is
exactly what we try to do here in this subcommittee.
Can you tell me why we have not been able to receive this
information up to this point in time? And then also in this
same area is: when might we expect to see the announcement from
EPA on the watershed assessment?
Mr. Perciasepe. I will get used to this in a second, the
button. Thank you, Senator.
There are a couple of questions in there, but they are all
related to the same point.
One of the--let me--the first part of it is when can we
expect--we are hoping shortly to be--we are cognizant----
Senator Murkowski. ``Shortly'' is an ill-defined term in
the Congress. Can you give me anything better?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, let me try, that we are very
cognizant of the fishing season demands on people and we want
to make sure that whatever we do is going to accommodate folks
in the region to be able to have the time to be able to look at
this report.
So I cannot say it is going to be next week, but it's, you
know, we are within weeks of doing this so that we can have it
out there during the May time period, so that people will be
able to look at it. And then, let me work backward just a
little bit to the other parts of the question.
One of the things that has created some complexity in
analyzing all the full costs of this is how we responded to the
peer reviewers on the first draft. And so, we had to see what
they said, and then figure out how we reconstruct it or
responded to the advice we got from them, which is what we have
now done, and now we are putting out this report.
So I think we will be, again, using a word that I can tell
you are not completely comfortable with, we should be able to
soon be able to tell you what those costs are now that we have
put this final, another final draft together to put out for
peer review again.
So I can tell you that I am going to try to make sure that
we get that answer to you with the knowledge of what we have
just done now on this other one.
In terms of adequate resources, again, it is related and
so, you've got all this correctly connected. And that is when
we got the peer review comments from the first draft and we had
to pull different parts of EPA together to make sure we
responded appropriately, that work was to make sure that we
have the adequate resources to put to it. So we will now, once
we get this next report out for public and peer review--and we
are going to peer review it again, I think you know that--we
will be in a position to be able to analyze what all the costs
were that went into it.
Senator Murkowski. Well, if you can encourage that shortly
is sooner rather than later, as you know, fishing season is
coming fast upon us. And again, we want to make sure that if
the study is out there, that it is complete and it is thorough,
but it seems to me that we ought to be able to get a better
accounting.
AUTHORITY UNDER CWA SECTION 404
Let me ask you about a decision that came out of the D.C.
Circuit Court yesterday. This was the decision concerning the
Agency's retroactive veto of dredge and field permits that are
issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. This is the Mingo Logan
Coal Company v. EPA.
I have to tell you, I am concerned about what we have seen
coming out of the Circuit Court here. If the EPA can withdraw,
in effect, the Army Corps' permit at any point, how can you
ever give the assurance that any permit is ever final if you
have got this dangling out there that it can be removed almost
unilaterally by the EPA?
And a couple of follow-ons to that is whether or not within
EPA, how you are going to proceed with this authority, whether
or not the EPA will use this authority preemptively.
What are the consequences of this court decision yesterday?
Mr. Perciasepe. I know that--I heard that the court
decision was made, but I have not really had time to look at,
nor have I gotten a summary, in the last 12 hours, of what
exactly the court said.
But I can point out at a very high level, Senator, that the
authority is in the Clean Water Act under section 404, since
1972, has been used 13 times in the history of the law. So it
is not something that EPA takes very frivolously through all
the different administrations that have used it. And that
authority has been used in both Democrat and Republican
administrations. So it is a very rarely used authority.
I do not have a good handle right now, in front of you, but
maybe we might be able to talk about it later this week when we
get together exactly what this does to that authority.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I would appreciate the opportunity
for that discussion. I know that this is going to be on the
minds of many, many Members because, again, even though it has
not been used on a very frequent basis. If you are looking to
develop anything and the threat exists that your permit that
has been issued could be retroactively pulled from underneath
you, it injects a level of uncertainty in just about anything
going forward, whether it is the coal mining or whatever the
activity might be.
So I think we are all going to have to get up to speed on
this a little bit more.
Mr. Chairman, I have exceeded my time, and I apologize.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
URANIUM POLLUTION--INDIAN RESERVATIONS
And Mr. Perciasepe, thank you very much for your service. I
am going to focus a couple of questions on the uranium
pollution that has occurred on the Navajo Reservation and the
Hopi Reservation, and this is a legacy issue that has been
going on for many years. And I believe the EPA has been very
active in this.
In fact, the EPA Region 9 recently concluded a 5-year plan
to address uranium contamination on the Navajo Nation, and
coordination with several other agencies including the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, the Department of Energy, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and others, EPA Region 9 was able to
take significant steps towards addressing uranium legacy issues
on the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Nations.
It is my understanding that EPA is coordinating with other
agencies to identify next steps in clean up of uranium
contamination and expects to have a new 5-year plan for this
region put together by this coming fall.
Additionally, EPA Region 6, which covers the rest of New
Mexico, is currently carrying out a similar 5-year plan to
address legacy uranium in my home State. I appreciate the
Agency for taking these deliberate steps to address this
important public health and environmental issue.
And my question is will Region 6 and Region 9 have adequate
resources under this budget to continue these long overdue
cleanup projects to address this toxic cold war legacy?
Mr. Perciasepe. The short answer is ``Yes.'' The little bit
of context is we are very proud of how we have moved forward on
these legacy issues in the last 5 years, and we think that they
are important and must be dealt with. And I am very happy with
the coordination between the State, the tribe, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the other agencies, as you have pointed out, as well
as between the EPA regions.
The only asterisk that I have to put on that, and I am not
trying to make a statement here, I am just telling you, it is a
real asterisk that you and the Appropriations Committee have to
think of. If there is a sequestration, depending on how that
falls down, there could be some impact on some cleanup
projects. We have already had impact on cleanup projects this
year because everything was cut by 5 percent.
But with that asterisk, we expect to have the funding in
this budget to be able to move forward on the first part of
that 5-year plan.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you.
And I think your answer emphasizes the fact that
sequestration really hits some long-term projects in a
significant way. I do not want to see that happen because I
believe that this is a project, as I said, long overdue, that
has to be completed, and it is on a good track now, and we
should not have to see it setback.
BROWNFIELDS
A question on Brownfields. Last month, I joined Senator
Lautenberg, Senator Crapo and Senator Inhofe, to introduce the
Brownfields Utilization Investment and Local Development Act.
We call it the BUILD Act. This legislation would modernize and
improve key elements of the EPA's Brownfields Program.
Since 2002, the successful program has funded the
rehabilitation of abandoned and polluted properties to increase
safety and attract new businesses to communities. In New
Mexico, we have great success stories like the Santa Fe Rail
Yard and the old Albuquerque High School. Two areas were
revitalized from hazardous areas to become economically
productive and important cultural spots.
I am concerned about the cuts to the Brownfields Program.
This program leverages valuable private investment and pays
dividends to economic prosperity.
Do you agree that there are more productive projects out
there than this funding level will support? And if so, does EPA
see any ways to help these limited dollars go farther?
Mr. Perciasepe. First of all, being a former city planner
earlier in my career, this is one of my favorite little
programs at EPA, and I think it has done more than many to
enhance the quality of life in communities across the country.
In fact, I think there isn't an area, a place in the
country that hasn't had some project along the lines that you
have just mentioned where they can point to the fact that the
flexibilities afforded in cleanups to get these properties to
beneficial use and community-focused use faster. I just have to
say it is oversubscribed.
One of the things that we have been doing in the last
several years through an agreement with the Department of
Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, is a sustainable communities memorandum of
understanding (MOU) among the three agencies so we can look at
how we can pool our resources in some of these communities.
So we may take a little longer to, perhaps, do a
Brownfields Project, although we are working on it. That does
not mean that we cannot be in that community doing some of the
other preparatory work with Community Development Block Grant
funds or some Transportation funds.
And I was just recently in Cincinnati where we are looking
at additional Brownfields redevelopment sites along the route
of their light rail or trolley system that they are building
through the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood. And at the same time,
we are using HUD funds to do housing stabilization projects in
that community.
So one part of that is the tri-party effort is to really
work in those communities to get properties back into use,
productive use, and to get the communities revitalized. We are
looking at ways to be efficient with all the funds.
That is not the best answer, I just want to say, but it is
something we should do regardless. And if we all had more
money, we would go faster in more communities, there is no
doubt about it.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I have exhausted my time. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Blunt.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROY BLUNT
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a statement for the record, and I will submit that.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Roy Blunt
Thank you, Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski, for holding
this hearing today. I welcome this opportunity to examine the budgetary
needs of the Environmental Protection Agency.
I would also like to thank Acting Administrator Robert Perciasepe
for being here today.
EPA is requesting $8.153 billion, which is $296 million (3.5
percent) below fiscal year 2012 enacted levels. While this is a step in
the right direction, I have serious concerns with the way the EPA is
prioritizing spending.
For instance, the agency very clearly admits in its budget
justification that as a result of fiscal cuts, EPA must make
``difficult decisions resulting in reductions to support for water
infrastructure.'' State Revolving Funds, which provide critical support
to how municipalities finance water infrastructure projects, will be
cut by almost a half-billion dollars from fiscal year 2012 enacted
levels. This continues the pattern of the continual cutting of Federal
money for water systems over the past decade.
Yet your own agency has conducted studies finding that 30 percent
of pipes in systems that deliver water to more than 100,000 people are
between 40 and 80 years old. Further the EPA 2009 Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment found that our Nation's
community water systems will need to invest an estimated $334.8 billion
between 2007 and 2027.
In contrast, the EPA has requested $176.5 million for climate
change efforts, which is $8.1 million above fiscal year 2012 enacted
levels. The agency plans to use this funding to advance the pending
proposal to set New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for carbon
dioxide emissions from new powerplants.
The proposed NSPS rule will set unprecedented standards under the
Clean Air Act, harm our economy, and endanger electricity supply--which
is almost 50 percent coal fired. Missouri is 82 percent coal fired. The
proposed NSPS rule would effectively ban these new coal plants from
being built.
This on top of the fact that many existing EPA regulations seek to
prevent existing coal sources from making upgrades to improve
efficiency and allow for more electricity generation with less fuel and
less emissions.
Spending our Federal dollars to kill the use of coal in this
country but not improve our Nation's water infrastructure is a far cry
from a common sense approach to protecting the environment.
EPA needs to expend Federal taxpayer dollars in a way which takes
into account the cumulative way in which each agency regulation affects
ratepayers. One such way is to let communities develop local plans that
achieve the ``biggest bang for the buck'' toward environmental
protection and keep rates affordable.
The agency should not spend taxpayer dollars on massive, burdensome
regulations that hamstring the economy, kill jobs, and hike up
electricity prices. This is not the right path forward for our country.
Thank you, and I look forward to your testimony.
Senator Blunt. And I have some questions.
Mr. Perciasepe, you are the Acting Administrator, and I
actually have a hold on the nominated Administrator. Based on a
commitment from the administration that they made in February
to Senator McCaskill and me that they would just agree, they
would see that the organizations involved in coming up with the
environmental impact study for a project in southeast Missouri
would agree to the facts by March 15.
They set the deadline. We did not ask for the deadline. The
call on March 15 was, ``Well, we cannot get this done by the
day we said we would get it done.'' And we have had no outreach
from EPA in our office at all. I do not know how many Senators
have holds on the nominee, but it must be so many that there is
no interest in doing anything about the holds that are out
there.
WETLANDS
Principally, there are a couple of concerns on this topic.
One is the estimate of wetlands that your organization came up
with originally was 118,000 acres.
The USDA said it was 500 acres. The Fish and Wildlife
Service said it was somewhere in between. You said 118,000
acres. And I think the last estimate that you all have made is
5,000 acres, which is an interesting, the difference in 118,000
and 5,000--your own estimate--is intriguing to me.
And then you created a new category of wetlands that is not
defined anywhere else in Federal law, which is, ``wetlands in
agricultural areas''. I have two or three questions on this.
One, why do you think the wetlands determinations from your
Agency have been so different on this one project?
Mr. Perciasepe. I have not looked at those particular
numbers. But when you just mentioned agriculture, there are
prior converted wetlands that are not covered under certain--
they are not covered under the Clean Water Act. Somebody could
have been adding those in, in the original one, and now they
are looking at different ones. I----
Senator Blunt. Do you know if the Agency has provided any
recent information to the Corps on this topic or not?
Mr. Perciasepe. We have on--going back to the original part
of your question----
Senator Blunt. Yes.
Mr. Perciasepe. We have ongoing conversations with the
Corps, and what I think I can commit to you, Senator, is that
the next critical step in this, in addition to the information,
is that the Corps of Engineers needs to be put together the EIS
document----
Senator Blunt. Right, right.
Mr. Perciasepe. And I think what we are all working on very
hard is to get the Corps to get whatever information they need
so they can get that document done. And then we will respond as
quickly as--we will respond right away. Our Regional
Administrator is prepared to do that and we want to move
quickly once we get that document.
So people are working on this, and I can provide more
information----
Senator Blunt. Yes. I want you and my colleagues to both
understand that this is not about trying to force a project to
be built or anything else. It is just trying to get the
Government to quit arguing with the Government.
This is trying to get the Government to agree on the facts,
which does not seem--actually, it seems that the administration
is simple enough project that they thought it could be done
well over a month ago. And this is after a couple of years of,
``Why is this not getting done?'' ``Well, we don't agree on the
facts.'' We would just like the Government to agree on the
facts of whatever you can do----
Mr. Perciasepe. I will.
Senator Blunt [continuing]. Of course, if this was left up
to me on this issue, you could be the Acting Administrator
forever. Maybe you are very popular at the Agency and they just
do not want to respond to these pretty simple questions.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, our role in this is to review the
work that the Corps of Engineers does. We are not the one doing
the environmental impact statement (EIS).
But I--we will help them get it done. As soon as they get
it done, we will do the comments on it. That is the normal way
we reconcile things is get that EIS process going. So I think
that is the key here.
WETLANDS--VETO AUTHORITY
Senator Blunt. And you would have ultimate authority on the
wetlands question based on this veto potential that you always
have on an issue like this? Is that right?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, under the Clean Water Act, the EPA
writes the guidelines, which we have done many years ago on how
to make the wetlands determinations. And so, the Corps uses
those guidelines to do it. And there are some agricultural
converted wetlands that are not part of that process. They may
be something that somebody will analyze in an environmental
impact study, but they are not part of the Clean Water Act
process.
Senator Blunt. But you can veto these projects even while
they are going on based on what I think I just heard you say to
Senator Murkowski?
Mr. Perciasepe. I think that that is an untested--what she
was--what the Senator was referring to was a court decision
yesterday that was related to a veto after a project had
already been permitted, not in advance of it.
Senator Blunt. So you have no question you could veto it
before.
What is the open question, whether you could veto it after
or not?
Mr. Perciasepe. All the times that we have used the veto
authority that is under--and really it is--the authority is
actually to remove a section of water from being able to have
fill materials discharged into it. But we use the common word
of ``veto'', which I do not think is actually in the act.
But all the times it has been used, to my memory, and I
could double check this for the record, has been after the
Corps project review process has begun.
Senator Blunt. And before work has begun or do you know?
Mr. Perciasepe. If you want detail on all the times it has
been used, I will have to get it for the record.
Senator Blunt. I do. I want----
Mr. Perciasepe. I don't have that.
Senator Blunt. I want detail on all the times it has been
used and look forward to you providing that.
[The information follows:]
Timing of EPA Action Under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act
EPA uses its authority under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act
judiciously and sparingly. In the over 40 year history of the Clean
Water Act section 404 program, EPA has used its authority under section
404(c) a total of 13 times. This is a particularly small number in
light of the tens of thousands of projects that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers authorizes in the Nation's wetlands, streams and other waters
each year. EPA can exercise its authority under section 404(c) before a
section 404 permit application has been submitted, while a permit
application is under review, after a permit has been issued or in
instances where a regulated discharge does not require a section 404
permit (e.g., Corps Civil Works projects). EPA has exercised its
authority in the following contexts:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location
-----------------------------------
Project Name Initiation and Final Determination Dates EPA
Region State Corps District
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine...... Initiated October 16, 2009................. 3 WV Huntington
Surface Coal Mine Final Determination issued January 13, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yazoo Pumps.................... Initiated February 1, 2008................. 4 MS Vicksburg
Flood Control Project Final Determination issued August 31, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Forks...................... Initiated March 24, 1989................... 8 CO Omaha
Water Supply Impoundment Final Determination issued November 23,
1990
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big River...................... Initiated August 24, 1988.................. 1 RI New England
Water Supply Impoundment Final Determination issued March 1, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ware Creek..................... Initiated August 4, 1988................... 3 VA Norfolk
Water Supply Impoundment Final Determination issued July 10, 1989
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Alma...................... Initiated June 8, 1988..................... 4 GA Savannah
Dam and Recreational Final Determination issued December 16,
lmpoundment 1988
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Rem Estates.............. Initiated April 22, 1987................... 4 FL Jacksonville
Agricultural Conversion-- Final Determination issued June 15, 1988
Rockplowing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russo Development Corps........ Initiated May 26, 1987..................... 2 NJ New York
Warehouse Development (After- Final Determination issued March 21, 1988
the-fact permit)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attleboro Mall................. Initiated July 23, 1985.................... 1 MA New England
Shopping Mall Final Determination issued May 13, 1986
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bayou Aux Carpes............... Initiated December 17, 1984................ 6 LA New Orleans
Flood Control Project Final Determination issued October 16, 1985
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Maybank Site.............. Initiated April 15, 1984................... 4 SC Charleston
Duck Hunting/Aquaculture Final Determination issued April 5, 1985
Impoundment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norden Co...................... Initiated September 30, 1983............... 4 AL Mobile
Waste Storage/Recycling Plant Final Determination issued June 15, 1984
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Miami.................... Initiated June 25, 1980................... 4 FL Jacksonville
Landfill/Municipal Recreational Final Determination issued January 19, 1981
Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information please visit: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/
guidance/cwa/dredgdis/404c_index.cfm.
Senator Blunt. I think we are going to have a second round
of questions later, chairman? Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you and
the other members of the subcommittee in welcoming our
distinguished witnesses to the hearing today.
GULF OF MEXICO
It occurs to me that one of the most riveting events that
threaten the environment of the Gulf of Mexico has been the oil
experience and the blowout down there of a well. And the effort
to which we have gone to marshal our resources and to figure
out exactly how we protect ourselves from adverse environmental
consequences from that experience.
And I just wonder, what is your observation about whether
or not what we have been doing is working? Are we restoring the
good environmental health to the Gulf of Mexico and related
areas like the Mississippi River, the lower parts of the river?
Mr. Perciasepe. I appreciate that question and how
important that is. Obviously, I think we all remember that,
those 3 months of our lives in not the most favorable ways, but
I am very optimistic.
We put a taskforce together after the event. There was a
separate review commission that had recommendations, but the
President put together a taskforce which Lisa Jackson chaired
that brought together the States around the gulf.
And the States and the different Federal agencies all
agreed to a general approach in consensus, which I was
extremely pleased to see, which gave me a lot of optimism that
when funding became available, either through congressional
appropriations, or coordinating the funding we all get with our
existing programs, or any penalties or payments from any
responsible party would get put to a good plan.
So I am confident that as those settlements occur and as we
look at coordinating our existing funds, that we will be
putting it to a plan that is pretty well coordinated because we
have that work together. And obviously, your State was involved
as well, and we think that that plan is actually pretty solid.
It is the first time, to my knowledge, all the gulf States and
the Federal Government came together on what needed to be done.
Senator Cochran. Well, the Congress certainly acted quickly
in response to the request from the administration to provide
earmarked funds, excuse the expression, oh, my goodness.
But that is part of our job to designate Federal funds to
help deal with emergencies that threaten the environmental
safety and security of our country, and particularly the
economic investment that we have in the Gulf of Mexico, the
fisheries. And the efforts we make to keep the Mississippi
River from destroying all of the rich farmland that is
important to our State's economy and many others as well. So we
want to be sure we bring a balance to these competing
challenges sometimes.
And I would just close by asking you if you are satisfied
that the administration, and the Congress, are constructively
working together to help ensure that these goals are reached?
Mr. Perciasepe. Senator, actually I am more confident than
I would have imagined, to be honest with you, given the damage
the nature of that event.
I think we see an industry response, which is starting to
get some marks in their preparedness. We went through a painful
part of getting preparedness to be ready in case it ever
happens again. But on the other side of repairing the damage,
and even going further to the extent we can to restoring--
because as you know, some of the ecosystems there were not in
the best shape even before the event.
So I think we have a once in a lifetime opportunity here,
and the fact that the Congress and the administration have
worked together as well as they have, I think, bodes very well
for success, and the fact that the States are onboard with the
basic plan.
So it won't be without challenges, but I think the
foundation is there for success.
Senator Cochran. But your assessment is that it is safe to
swim in the Gulf of Mexico again, isn't it?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, I believe people are doing that every
day.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Given our procedures, in order of arrival and going back
and forth, Senator Begich.
BRISTOL BAY WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to reconfirm. I know my colleague asked this
question when I was not here. I just want to hear it again for
my own sake here on the Bristol Bay Watershed assessment issue.
You indicated that you do have enough money to finish the
assessment, and that you will get it out and soon; ``soon''
defined as potentially in fill-in-the-blank. That is your cue.
Mr. Perciasepe. Fill in the blank. Well, what I said to--I
said ``soon'' but that did not----
Senator Begich. That does not work.
Mr. Perciasepe. I want the record to show ``soon'' doesn't
work.
But I wanted you to know, and I mentioned this to Senator
Murkowski that we completely understand that we need to get it
out in time for people to be able to look at it and participate
in the public process. This is the revised analysis after we
got the comments from the peer reviewers.
Senator Begich. Correct.
Mr. Perciasepe. Which is one of the reasons, as I
mentioned, that we have been a little bit floating on how much
we are spending on this because we needed to pull together the
resources in the Agency to make sure we responded, and
modified, and improved the assessment based on the comment we
got. So we will also shortly be in a position to be able to
layout some of those funding components of it.
But we are working to get this out so that a substantial
part of the month of May is available for people to respond to
it before the fishing season really kicks in.
Senator Begich. And then let me understand also the timing,
then. Let's assume you hit that target. It comes out in May,
then the public can review and comment on it.
Is there a time limitation or is it an open-ended? Help me
understand that.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, we certainly want it to be the time
period that the public will have the most ability to do it. The
peer reviewers will also be reviewing it at the same time. I
cannot--I don't know right now what the time limit would be,
but we have some flexibility there, and we will see how it goes
once we have people commenting on it in May.
Senator Begich. And then, once they comment on it, what is
next?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, we wait to get the--in addition to
public comment, we are going to wait to get the science review
of it and that we put the same peer review panel we had the
last time. We were able to get every member of that panel to
agree to do it again so that we have good continuity on the
scientific review.
We wait to see what comments we get from that peer review,
and may, depending on that view, have to make some additional
modifications, but I think I can't predict because I don't know
what they are going to say. And I think anything we do here
because while this is not a regulatory action this study.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Perciasepe. This is something that will inform
everybody. We want to make sure that it has the best scientific
foundation in it. So that is going to be our number one
priority as we go through this next peer review process.
Senator Begich. And let me just push you one more point on
this. And that is, so you have the public commentary and other
review commentary. You review that, then at some point, you
will have a final assessment document.
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, that would be available for whatever
processes go on after that.
BRISTOL BAY WATERSHED ASSESSMENT COMPLETION
Senator Begich. Okay. Can you give me--and I know it is
hard without knowing some of the comments that come in, how
technical they might be, or how simplistic they might be,
whatever the range is--can you give an understanding to me
that, ``By this range of dates, we think we will be completed
with the assessment,'' with some caveats. I am going to give
you some hold harmless here----
Mr. Perciasepe. Okay.
Senator Begich [continuing]. And that is recognize there
may be some peer review issues or other things that are more
technical and that may require a little more work, because I
hear what you are saying right now, but then it goes back into
your guys' lap, and then what happens?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well----
Senator Begich. I mean, is it a fall completion? Is it a
summer?
Mr. Perciasepe. You know, if I think the work is--if the
work we have to do following this next round of comment is
pretty straightforward and ready for us to do, I can see us
getting it done by the fall.
Senator Begich. By the fall. ``Fall'' meaning Alaska fall
or District of Columbia fall? Let's use the solar.
Mr. Perciasepe. Okay.
Senator Begich. The vernal----
Mr. Perciasepe. The autumnal equinox. Okay, which I think
is the same in Alaska.
Senator Begich. Okay. I am just checking. I appreciate it.
It is important as you get a sense from both.
Mr. Perciasepe. We know that----
Senator Begich. I apologize. I was not here earlier to hear
more explanation.
Mr. Perciasepe. It should not be, to the two Senators from
Alaska, it should not be--you should not think we don't know
how important it is that--keep this from not lingering forever,
but at the same time, it is equally important that we do the
best job we can.
Senator Begich. Get the science right.
Mr. Perciasepe. So the science has to be right because we
know that this is going to inform all the going forward work.
Senator Begich. Very good. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Begich.
Senator Johanns, please.
AERIAL FIGHTS OVER FEEDLOTS
Senator Johanns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perciasepe, more than a year ago now, I was in my
Senate office, and I had a group of family cattle feeders,
ranchers that I was sitting down with. And in the midst of the
conversation, one of them said to me, ``Mike, what do you know
about aerial flights by EPA over our feedlot?'' There was an
uncomfortable silence because I did not know anything about it.
I certainly could not recall that EPA had made me aware of
that. I could not remember my then colleague, Ben Nelson, or
any of my House colleagues, had made me aware of that.
So I wrote a letter to Lisa Jackson. The essence of that
letter was, number one, I am interested in what you are doing
in Nebraska. And number two, is this a national program and are
you doing aerial surveillance in other parts of the country?
For whatever reason, she felt that my letter was not
important enough to warrant a response from her. It was bounced
to the Regional Administrator, whom I met with. He seems like a
nice enough guy, but I do not think he speaks for the entire
Agency.
So let me ask--oh, and one other point I wanted to add to
this. In the, I believe it was the farm bill discussion some
months ago, I put in an amendment that basically would have
said, ``Hey, you cannot use any funding we give you for these
kinds of aerial surveillance missions.'' And I got 56 votes on
that; pretty bipartisan, and I am guessing we could have gotten
over 60, but there was a lot of pressure when we got that many
votes to quit voting yes on this thing.
So let me just ask you today a very simple question. Are
you doing aerial flights over whatever, feedlots, pork
production in Nebraska or, for that matter, in any other State
in the United States currently, or do you have plans to do that
in the future?
Mr. Perciasepe. We are not doing anything right now. We are
in the process for the springtime here of looking at what kind
of a notification system or other kinds of information we would
make available before we actually did any of these flights.
The flights are quite simple. They are fixed wing aircraft
like a Piper Cub, or a Cessna, or something like that and
basically designed to help find priority areas to look at for
people who would be on the ground in the field.
We don't do any enforcement work, or compliance work, or
anything based on this reconnaissance. It's simply to help
guide where we would send actual infield inspectors who would
actually interact with the landowner.
Senator Johanns. But it can lead to compliance, and
enforcement, and fines, and penalties.
Mr. Perciasepe. Depending on what they see on the ground
when they get there, but it won't be from, only from what
happens in the air. The air just simply helps figure out where
the folks on the ground who talk directly to the landowners go.
But we are--we have done this in different parts of the
country, not just in Nebraska and we are evaluating how we
would--how do we go about our annual notification processes on
this.
Senator Johanns. Mr. Perciasepe, I have got two
observations about this.
Observation number one is this: why is it so hard for EPA
to just write me a letter, write my colleagues a letter, and
say, ``This is what we're doing''? Why is that so difficult
that my letter would be ignored for a year? I mean, we are
literally coming up on the first anniversary.
The second observation I've got is this, as you know, I
have been around the block a few times. I was the Governor of
my State. I had a Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.
I was the Secretary of Agriculture. I worked with EPA on a
regular basis. I think I am a pretty well known person out
here. Why, I can't imagine why you would do this?
I have always preached that we should work with people. You
know, if you've got a bad actor, bring the hammer down; no-
brainer. But why would you just go out and fly feedlots? I
mean, that's just, to me and I think to the average American
out there, this sounds kind of wacky. It kind of sounds like
this is a Federal Agency that is completely and totally out of
control.
And when I can't get answers to my questions, it feeds into
that. People have this notion that the EPA is kind of a rogue
group out there, doing whatever they want to do because the
United States Senator can't get a simple letter answered. Do
you see what I'm saying?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, when I get back to the office today,
I will find out what is going on with the answer to your letter
and make sure you get one.
But I do have to respectfully disagree with the rogue
agency characterization. We are trying to actually do exactly
what you just said: find bad actors in the most efficient way
by trying to narrow where we would send people to go talk to
the landowner. That's all we are doing with the aerial flights.
Senator Johanns. But this is so indiscriminate. When you
are out there just flying eastern Nebraska, this is so
indiscriminate. You are flying at low altitudes. You are flying
over law-abiding people who are trying to do everything they
can to honor your rules and regulations. And you are not coming
down on the bad actors. You are checking on everybody and it
feels terrible.
It feels like there is a Federal agency out there spying on
American citizens, and no matter how much I try to convince
people otherwise or you do, it is still going to feel that way,
especially when you are lacking so much in transparency when
you don't respond to letters. When I find I have to show up at
a hearing and get on a subcommittee so I can ask you question
as to what is going on because my letters are ignored.
Mr. Perciasepe. I am concerned about the feelings that you
are relating in terms of how people feel about it. That's, I
think, an important thing for us to take into account in terms
of how we develop a communications effort here. So I will make
sure that we will get information to you and take these
concerns back to whatever we are doing.
[The information follows:]
On behalf of Administrator Jackson, EPA's Region VII Administrator,
Karl Brooks, sent a letter to the Honorable Mike Johanns, dated June
11, 2012, in response to Senator Johanns's letter dated May 29, 2012.
Enclosed with the letter were more detailed responses to the questions
in the Nebraska delegation's May 29 letter.
Mr. Perciasepe. But I want to assure you, the idea here is
not to spy on law-abiding citizens. We want to make sure that
like everyone else, they want to make sure that their law--law
abiding is on a level playing field. And that is, this is a
very efficient way for us to narrow where we go to on the
ground to talk to landowners about what they are doing. If they
are doing everything right, they are not going to--there's
going to be no consequences from this at all.
So I understand the perception issue that you are bringing
up. It is helpful for me to hear the intensity of it and I will
bring that back.
Senator Johanns. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Johanns.
Let me just make one point is that letters from my
colleagues should be responded to promptly, particularly
members of the subcommittee who have a detailed interest and
knowledge of the issues before the Agency. I would hope that
that would be the norm and that you would take that message
back too.
Mr. Perciasepe. Thank you very much.
STATE REVOLVING FUNDS
Senator Reed. I spent my opening comments, I think
rightfully, raising serious questions about the SRF, but let me
point to one area where you are providing some, I think,
necessary relief and that is in the State Categorical Grants
program.
My home State, I think, is not a lot different than other
States that our DEM, our department of environmental
management, has shrunk from 500 to 390. That is 110 jobs in a
tough economy. But more than that, it strains the capacity to
do many of the things that you have delegated the Agency to do.
Can you comment on the fiscal situation throughout the
States that, I believe, is one of the motivations for the
increased funding of State categorical grants? And further,
perhaps, indicate if sequestration takes place, what further
impact that could have.
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, it is one of the prime motivators of
that, I point out in addition of the request to the Congress to
increase those grants. And it is, I have to admit, it is a
modest amount, but one of the things that I have been working
on with the environmental commissioners in my double job here,
my other job is the Deputy Administrator EPA, I have been
spending a lot of time directly with State environmental
commissioners through their organization, the Environmental
Council of the States, which all the States are a member of.
And we have been working on how to improve--given the fact
that all of us are constrained and we have the laws to
implement together, how do we look at this as a holistic team,
so to speak? You know, using that enterprise word again, I say
the environmental protection enterprise of the United States is
really the tribes, the States, and EPA together.
So how do we make that partnership work? And we are very
keen on improving their, by a relatively small amount, their
financial situation, but also on how we share the work.
So when I mentioned E-Enterprise earlier, a number of the
States, due to the necessity that you've pointed out have
turned to using a more electronic transactional process with
the world. Similar like what any of us might do with an
airline. You know, how do we get our tickets? How do we book a
hotel room these days? Many of us, and I don't want to speak
for everyone, but many of us will just go online and do it.
Our transaction with our banks are getting more online and
the security systems that have been put in place, you know,
we've never translated them over to, you know, in how you can
do that in the public forum.
So some States have started to look into how to do this.
Some of them have convinced their general assemblies to provide
capital funds. You know, the Federal Government doesn't have a
capital and operating budget. I'm used to that in my State and
local experience. But the idea is you can capitalize some of
these investments over time because they pay for themselves in
efficiency.
So just a neighboring State of yours, Connecticut, I think,
is one of the ones that has been doing that and we have been
working closely with them to see how they're going about doing
that.
So we are not looking just at increasing the funds, which
is very important. But we are looking at how we work together
and share work. Can we change that dynamic? Can we improve
priority setting between the States and EPA so that we are not
chasing everything all the time? And can we come to a point
where the information flow is not redundant?
So if I am a holder of a permit, I don't have to send my
stuff to the State and send my stuff to different parts of the
State, different parts of EPA. They can go to one place where
they do their transaction. So much of the world has achieved
this and many States are thinking this is a way to deal with
some of the constraints that they have.
And the Congress, last session, approved the E-Manifest
System for tracking the transport of hazardous waste. I mean,
we were still using pink, blue, and yellow carbon copy paper,
or actually we still are, because we are required by law to be
using paper copies. And so all the hazardous waste that is
moving around the country has got paper following it around;
millions and millions of pieces of paper at great expense.
And so if you have ever purchased anything from virtually
any online system, you could actually, and if you use FedEx
to--I am not advertising here. I want to show that----
Senator Reed. UPS.
Mr. Perciasepe [continuing]. As an example of many. L.L.
Bean does the same thing. So you can track where your package
is down to which post office it's in.
In fact, with some company, I should stop naming them, but
I recently ordered a vest from, I got an email that they had
put the package in my backyard. So, these systems exist, but we
don't have them for tracking hazardous waste.
So you passed that legislation last year and that's part of
the kind of concept that we're talking about here. Get to the
point where we're using these modern technologies.
I go on a little about that, because I feel pretty
passionately about the relatively modest investment we're
asking by moving funds around, because this will let us link up
with the States to be more efficient. And then the modest
increase in the State funding will also help.
I should point out that the $60 million your staffs have
identified and that we've identified to you, also include some
startup design money for some States who don't have, may not
have the ability to get started.
So I'm sorry for that long answer, but this is one of my
highest priorities, figuring out how we improve our working
relationships with States. The money is a piece of that, but
not the only one.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Let me recognize Senator Murkowski.
PM2.5
Senator Murkowski. I would like to pick up a subject that
we have had a lot of discussion on here in this Appropriations
subcommittee with our colleagues from the EPA, and that is the
situation in the community of Fairbanks, Alaska with the
particulate matter, the tightened standards for small,
particular matter the PM2.5.
I know that it is a subject that you are prepared on
because we talk about it all the time. The problem for the
people of Fairbanks is we have not been able to gain any
flexibility from the EPA on this issue, and it becomes more and
more serious.
This is the second largest community in the State of
Alaska. It is probably the coldest city in America for its
size. They are trying to meet these new standards. They are
working to provide some incentives for the residents to change
out their older furnaces and their older stoves and boilers for
more efficient pieces of equipment.
We have asked the EPA to work with us in terms of timeline.
We have asked whether there might be grants available for doing
the change out.
Right now, what the Fairbanks North Star Borough is
proposing is a research program where they are looking to
define whether or not emission reductions can be achieved by
doing a switch out and effectively moving to more efficient
means of heating their homes. When it is 40-50 below zero in
Fairbanks, not heating your home is not an option.
And unfortunately, their options are really very limited.
It is either coal, it is wood, it is home heating fuel. We do
not have natural gas into the community. We are trying to get
there. And we have asked EPA for leeway on this.
So the question to you this morning is whether or not you
have identified any areas where there might be some level of
assistance that the Agency can provide with the--it is about a
$4.5 million cost to the study, or the funding that we have
asked for to help the residents move from one technology to
another? Whether there is anything that can be done to provide
for this.
We are now trying a firewood exchange program where
homeowners are swapping out wet wood for dry wood. You are
talking about technologies here with the chairman that leads us
to greater efficiencies.
We are going back into the Stone Age practically and
telling the people of Fairbanks, ``Well, the way that you're
going to deal with your emissions is you're not going to burn
wet wood. You're going to burn dry wood.'' Well, the fact of
the matter is we are burning wood to keep warm.
So if there are no areas given the tight budget that we are
dealing with, you can help us with in terms of assistance.
Is the Agency looking at an extension to give the community
more time to meet the new standards before this penalty phase
begins in 2016? The community is working aggressively on
alternate plans, whether it is trucking natural gas from the
North Slope. We are looking at alternatives to bring gas up
from the South. But we all know that you cannot flip a switch
and make it happen between now and then. Assessing penalties on
top of a community that is already socked with high, high,
high, exorbitantly high energy costs is really not the way to
go.
So what can you offer the residents of Fairbanks in terms
of some level of assurance that you are willing to work with
us?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, I think that's the key right there is
to keep working on this together. I don't know that we have the
right solution yet, so I can and will offer to do the continued
effort to try to see if we can get through this period.
I think, obviously, you've mentioned a couple of ideas in
your comments there in the long haul about natural gas and
other things like that. And I'm sure if Fairbanks wants to get
to that point.
I am not inexperienced with this issue. I heated my own
home in upstate New York with wood for 5 years with my father
and that was my job was to cut the trees. And I know that they
are wet most of the time in the winter.
So I am painfully familiar with this particular issue and
want to offer that we'll continue working on it with you and
with the State of Alaska to see if we can come to the right
place.
Senator Murkowski. Well, Mr. Perciasepe, I appreciate that.
It doesn't necessarily comfort me because I have received the
same assurances from Administrator Jackson. The people of
Fairbanks, it is not a short winter up there. It is a long,
cold, dark, winter and, again, when you don't have many
alternatives, you are looking for some assistance.
I will ask then, the same thing I asked the Administrator.
Sit down with us and let's go through some of these areas where
we don't feel that the Agency is working with the residents.
Whether it is the issue that I raised with Fairbanks in
PM2.5 or what I raised in my opening statement with
the solid waste incinerator rule, and the impact that it has on
a small husband-wife veterinary clinic in Soldotna.
It seems to me in that particular instance, and I will let
you address that, but it seems to me that there should be a way
to address this administratively rather than having to assess
this veterinary clinic $50,000 to do an annual test to make
sure that they meet the compliance.
So I would like your assurance that you will work with us
on issues that may not be that big in terms of your Agency's
perspective, but for this community and for this small
business, it is everything because it is this regulation that
could shut this business down.
Mr. Perciasepe. I do know that we have discussions going
on, on that particular rule that you are expressing the
concerns that the vet has.
I believe some of the folks from Alaska are visiting our
North Carolina office this week to talk through some of these
issues, and later, in a couple more weeks in May, we're going
to get a bunch of other people down.
So I will make sure that the people at EPA who are doing
that work and that group of incinerator operators and some of
the others that are involved from Alaska, know that you and I
have talked about this. We would be able to talk about it a
little bit more perhaps tomorrow.
But I want to make sure that you know that we have that
little process going on. That we are going to be meeting with
those folks, and we are going to be looking under every stone
to see how we can build a path forward there, so.
Senator Murkowski. Well, maybe we can look at our list
tomorrow then.
Mr. Perciasepe. Yeah. I know that both of these answers are
more process than absolute answers, but part of our work, I
think, together is to get a process to make sure that we get to
the answer.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you. Senator Begich.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just have a couple of quick questions. One is on the
general issue of resource development within Alaska, maybe
mining, oil and gas, and so forth.
SEQUESTER AND PERMITTING PROCESS
But regarding the sequester and also your budget into the
future, can you give me a feeling on the impacts that you would
see in regards to the permitting process as well as how long it
takes with regards to these two types of impacts you have it on
the budget? And especially around these issues, as you know,
our seasons are very unique. They are not year round, in some
cases of how the developments have to be set up and proposed.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, I think the--as a general matter, the
way the sequestration happened in this particular budget year
is it was spread out, you know, around. There was very little
ability and we can--I'm not trying to say one thing or another
about that, to say, ``Well, we'll do much less of that and only
a little bit of this.''
Senator Begich. Right. You have the flexibility----
Mr. Perciasepe. Oh, right.
Senator Begich [continuing]. By division within the Agency
essentially.
Mr. Perciasepe. So what we--what we've done is tried to
mitigate that as much as possible, but the inevitable effect of
everything being a little bit less is that there will be some
delays or some choices that have to be made a little bit more
than they were without it.
So I would expect that there will be fewer inspections;
that some permits will take longer. This is the kind of stuff
that--and the reviews, and the processing of grants, and things
of that nature are all going to take a little bit longer. If
you want to cumulatively say they will all take 5 percent
longer, you know, that's one way to think about it.
On the other side of the coin, when you don't have enough
flexibility between the personnel budgets and the non-personnel
budgets, you end up with a situation where some of the people
are going to be not working full time. So we have a--well,
they'll be full time employees, but they won't hit every day
because we have to furlough some of them.
And at EPA, we've tried to minimize that. We've got it less
than 5 percent because we were able to do some things where
there was some flexibility. So we're now no more than 10 days
of all our employees will be furloughed.
But I think that that is--we might be able to reduce that a
little bit more. We're going to look in June one more time to
see if were able to make any savings. But I think the simple
answer is there'll be some slowing across the board.
But on issues in Alaska, I personally participate with
David Hayes, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, who I know
you guys are all familiar with particularly in Alaska, who's
chairing our interagency group, and we meet frequently. We have
phone calls frequently to make sure we're keeping our eye on
the ball with the critical and often difficult issues in
Alaska----
Senator Begich. Right, the timetables, the seasons, and so
forth, right?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes.
Senator Begich. Well, I think that--I know Senator Blunt
has a piece of legislation that I signed on to regards to
flexibility with essential employees. So I don't know how that
plays with EPA, but I know it's an important aspect that you
have as much flexibility as possible. Because those permits, if
they're delayed by a month or two, it could cause, as you know,
a whole season missed in development. But I thank you for that
comment.
But also I appreciate your end comment there that you're
working with Under Secretary Hayes regarding the coordinating
effort. That, to me, has been a huge plus for us in Alaska and
it's had some ability to move some things that may be not as
fast in the past because of different agencies having debate
and so forth. So I appreciate that.
Mr. Perciasepe. I agree that that has enabled us to resolve
issues more quickly and, you know, between all the different
agencies, and it's been a very helpful process.
Senator Begich. Very good. Let me, if I can add one other
thing, and I was listening to your comments on kind of the E-
Government component of what you're trying to do. And it
actually surprised me a little bit, while nothing surprises me
around here anymore, but that a law requires you to keep the
paper, and you had to get the law changed in order for you to
come into the 21st century.
E-GOVERNMENT
I would ask you this, and I would be very interested in
working with you on this. Sometimes I think legislative bodies
have a bad habit of wanting to legislate down to what pencil
and size of pencil you buy, and the grade, and everything. And
I want to, I guess, not just you, but other agencies, give you
the flexibility especially in order to get into the E-
Government ability because without that, you are way behind in
a lot of areas.
So I would be very interested in: are there things within
the legislative arena that we have hamstrung you in the ability
to move into this 21st century technology? You don't have to
tell me now, but if you could prepare something that says, you
know, ``Here's some laws that prevent us from going to
electronic because we have these three things that are in the
law that requires to have things in triplicate, and we have to
have them in paper, and we have to have certain files.''
I would be very interested in that because part of the
budget process, that's what we're here to do, is find ways to
make you more efficient. But if we have created some
legislation that requires you to--you know, like I always have
this argument. This black suitcase or briefcase I carry around,
my view is always if it's more than what fits in there, I've
got too much to file and I honestly believe that. It is what I
carry. That's my file. That's my information. Anything more
than that is way too much. So when I'm not using technology
properly.
So I would be very interested in any of that kind of issue
that you could bring forward to us.
Mr. Perciasepe. We will follow up on that. I know it's not
just the legislation. It's also some of the regulations that
we've done in the past. Many of these laws were passed 20 years
ago before people visualized the kind of world we're currently
in.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Perciasepe. I don't think it was anybody's fault, but
they wanted to make sure that they could keep track of these
things, and so did some of the regulations EPA and other
agencies did back then.
So it requires a combination of looking to make sure there
are no legislative barriers, and I think we've got one of the
big ones, because I think we'll save over $100 million a year
for the regulated industry when we get that implemented.
Senator Begich. That's great.
Mr. Perciasepe. But I think it's going to be a joint
effort, I think, between the Congress and the executive branch
to look at how we've constructed the systems we have, you know,
maybe even from a lean analysis look.
Senator Begich. Okay.
Mr. Perciasepe. To find those--where those sore spots would
be. So I will look at that.
Senator Begich. We would be very happy. I did a lot of that
when I was mayor of Anchorage where we really, you know,
implemented a lot of E-Government and it changed the whole way
we did business. And the customer's much happier because the
timetable has changed in a positive way. So I'd be very anxious
to work with you. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
Information on Laws That Prevent the EPA From Going Electronic
(Electronic Filing) in Certain Cases
Many of EPA's statutes were enacted in the 1970s and 1980s when
electronic communications were much less common and submissions of all
types were typically done on paper. EPA has made great progress in
moving our programs toward more efficient and less wasteful electronic
systems. For example, the vast majority of Toxic Release Inventory
reporting is now done electronically. The Agency is currently engaged
in a number of rulemakings to increase electronic reporting, which will
continue to move the Agency away from systems that rely on paper
submissions.
Senator Reed. Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
NEW SOURCE REVIEW
I want to get to New Source Review in a minute. I did not
intend to talk about this, but Senator Johanns's questions were
particularly--the answers were particularly troubling to me.
Where do you think you have the authority to fly over
people's property and see if they are doing anything wrong?
Mr. Perciasepe. I'm not really prepared to do some kind of
legal analysis here, Senator, but I would say that that there--
the general authority that EPA has to inspect, to implement the
laws that the Congress has passed, and we're also trying to be
efficient. We're trying to only, you know, use our scarce
resources in places where there appears to be some problem. And
I don't know why that concept is difficult. I think we can
understand that concept.
I think the issue which I think the Senator made it more
clear to me than I've heard before is that people who feel like
they are--they are not a problem, why are they having a, you
know, something fly over their house. And so I mean I think I
will----
Senator Blunt. I would think a guy from upstate New York
would understand that if you thought about it for very long.
Mr. Perciasepe. Dairy, I lived in the dairy country.
Senator Blunt. Exactly. My mom and dad were dairy farmers.
I understand that whole concept of the Government and you.
But now, you can't just walk onto somebody's property, can
you, because you think they might be doing something wrong or
can you?
Mr. Perciasepe. I don't know the answer to that.
Senator Blunt. And you said it's not like you were spying
on people.
What term would you use?
Mr. Perciasepe. We were looking for where there may be
animals and their waste in the water. So we're not looking at
people at all.
Senator Blunt. So you're spying on animals.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, we're looking to see where we would
send inspectors to see if there was a problem of water
pollution. So I don't know that animals are what we're spying
on. We're looking at the conditions that could be creating
water quality violations.
Senator Blunt. You know, I work for almost 6 million
people. I am trying to figure out how many more than 5 million
of them would be concerned by this. But I think at least 5
million of them would say, ``I really don't like the sense of
that.'' That the EPA can do things that, I don't know that law
enforcement without any reason can just fly around. Maybe they
can.
It is troublesome to me and I do not want to use all my
time on this, but I think you should say, if I was going to
sequester something at the EPA, I think I would sequester this
surveillance flying around at the top of the list. I wouldn't
want to be trying to justify that if I couldn't get a permit
issued for somebody to do something that creates private sector
jobs, for instance. That would be my sense.
I saw a report, just came out, from George Washington
University that the regulatory rules from the Federal
Government in 2012, by their own estimate, exceeded the cost of
the entire first term of the two preceding Presidents. That the
regulatory rules in 2012, by the administration's estimate,
exceeded the cost of the first terms of President Bush and
President Clinton.
And one of those rules, this New Source Review standard. It
looks like--I don't know how you could possibly build a coal
plant. Our State, I think we are number six in the country. We
are 82 percent-or-so dependent on coal. I guess you can't build
a plant without carbon capture storage.
Do you believe that that is commercially feasible today,
carbon capture storage?
Mr. Perciasepe. Let me make sure I know which rule you're
talking about.
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Senator Blunt. I'm talking about the New Source Performance
Standards.
Mr. Perciasepe. Standards for electric generating.
Senator Blunt. Right. Exactly.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, I was actually co-chair with the
Department of Energy on the carbon capture and storage report
that we did for the President.
Senator Blunt. Oh, good. Well, you are a good guy to ask
this question.
Mr. Perciasepe. The simple answer is that all the pieces of
that technology exist. People use it now. People use it now for
enhanced oil recovery projects and things of that nature. But
having it altogether in a package has not been constructed
except in demonstration projects.
We received a lot of comments on that proposal, I think 2.7
million comments on that proposal, and that's why we're taking
our time to look at that, and we haven't finalized that rule
yet. We have to continue to look at those comments and figure
out some of the issues that you're bringing up.
But one of the things we did in that proposal is provide a
long averaging period, like 30 years, so taking into account
the potential of that type of evolution of technology.
However, we did get a lot of comment on that as well,
Senator, and I think that's what, you know, that's among many
things that we're looking at before we would finalize that.
Senator Blunt. Well, it--one of the things I am sure you
have been asked to study is just the overall question of this
rule that, if the rule is promulgated it absolutely prohibits
future activity in this area?
And if carbon capture is not commercially realistic, what
you are really saying if you move forward with this rule that
you have had lots of other people comment on already, is can't
build a coal-fired plant in the country.
Mr. Perciasepe. I wouldn't make that complete conclusion
because of the averaging concept that we put in there. What we
have to determine is whether or not that is a feasible approach
to dealing with the diversity of fuels that are out there.
So I recognize that some people view it the way you've
recognized it and we certainly got tons of comment on that. So
we have to look at the idea that if the technology's not
available now when would it be available and how do you build
that into the future? We have to continue to work on that.
Senator Blunt. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
Let me recognize Senator Murkowski for any comments she has
in conclusion.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Perciasepe, thank you for being here this morning,
trying to work through some of our questions.
I do have a host of other questions that I will be
submitting for the record, everything from Keystone Pipeline,
hydraulic fracturing, forest roads, sulfur content, greenhouse
gas, powerplant rulemaking, commercial fishing sector. I think
I could probably spend the rest of the afternoon with you, but
unfortunately we do not have the time allowed.
But one thing that I would like to just leave with you, not
necessarily in a question format for you this morning, but just
something that I would like you and those in the Agency to
consider.
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
We talk a lot around here about cost benefit analysis at
times of declining budget. It is important. We are making sure
that we get good value for the dollar. And the President has
asked, he says we want to, again, make sure that we are doing
things in the right areas.
And it was just, well, it was this month that the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce came out with a study regarding the impacts
of EPA regulations on employment within the United States. And
in that study, they found that the EPA is using what they
consider to be some overly optimistic forecasts that overstate
the benefits of regulation and understates their cost.
And they go through their assessment in terms of how they
reached this conclusion. They went on further to provide that
the correct approach for assessment of the overall impacts of
rules with large economy-wide costs is to calculate the impact
of regulation compliance costs through a whole economy model.
And it is something that, I think, many of us are talking
about is how do we accurately reflect the costs and the
benefits?
There was an opinion piece recently in The Hill, which
referred to this. This is a gentleman, Jeff Rosen, who is the
former general counsel over at the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). And he cites a rule that was proposed by the EPA
back in 2011 that relates to equipment that powerplants and
manufacturing facilities use to draw in water to prevent
overheating.
EPA gets concerned about the impact of these water intake
systems on larva or fish. So they do an assessment, EPA does an
assessment. They find that the rule would impose $466 million
in annual costs on powerplants and consumers, while the
benefits would be about a $16 million benefit. So in other
words, you've got $1 of cost for every 3 cents in fish
benefits.
So then what EPA does is after they do this assessment,
they chose to mail out a survey to several thousand households
asking them to place a value on how fish and other aquatic
organisms make them feel. Now, I don't know how you define how
a fish makes me feel, but the survey asked how much people
would be willing to save 600 million fish.
And then last summer, EPA published a notice based, in
part, on this fish survey showing that the fish benefits are
now $2.2 billion per year. This is a 14,000-percent increase
over the initial estimate.
So it kind of speaks to the point that I have made that
when we talk about costs benefit and the analysis, I think it
is important to really understand in fairness how we have
arrived at these analyses because it is important as we, as
policymakers, make determinations, try to figure out how we
advance legislation that is good, sound policy, good for the
economy, good for jobs.
And so when we see things like this where it would appear
that you are truly overstating benefits based on what most of
us would suggest is a pretty flimsy survey, it casts doubt on
whether or not there is any credibility to the analysis.
So rather than putting you on the spot and saying, ``Is
this fair? Should we restructure it?'' I think it is something
that I would ask the Agency to look at critically. Take, not
necessarily that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has all the
answers, but again, for us in policymaking positions, you as
the agencies working to move through regulations, we want to
make sure that there is good value to taxpayers throughout all
of this.
So how we do these analyses fairly, I think, is something
we should all be focused on, and I would welcome your input and
that of others within the Agency as we kind of move forward on
this. But I do appreciate you being here.
And again, I appreciate the chairman, the thoughtful way
that you not only conduct the hearings, but in getting us to
the point where we have good, thoughtful, constructive
hearings.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.
I think she makes an excellent point. These cost benefit
analyses are critical and there are some things you can measure
easily, you know, the cost to put a boiler in. There are costs
and benefits that are hard to measure because there are social
costs or social benefits. So I think her point is well taken as
your analysis has to be very nuanced, sophisticated, and
factually based on both the cost side and the benefit side. So
I will echo that thought.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I thank you very much, Mr. Administrator. I am sure there
are many questions that will be forthcoming. I will ask that
all questions be submitted by May 1, next Wednesday, and then
ask you to respond as promptly as possible to the questions.
[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
fertilizer plant explosion in west, texas
Question. What was EPA's role in assuring safe handling and storage
of the chemicals at the facility in West, Texas that exploded on April
17, 2013?
Answer. EPA is responsible for implementing regulations and
policies both under the Clean Air Act and under the Emergency Planning
and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). The regulations under these
laws required West Fertilizer to prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP)
under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (the Risk Management Program)
and EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 68. West Fertilizer was also
required to report their chemical inventory to local and State
officials under EPCRA sections 311 and 312. West Fertilizer did submit
an RMP in June 2011 as well as a chemical inventory form for calendar
year 2012.
Under the Risk Management Program, a covered facility is required
to conduct a review of the hazards associated with covered substances,
processes and procedures, and then develop a prevention program and an
emergency response program addressing those hazards. The ``regulated
substances'' are chemicals which, by virtue of an accidental release to
the ambient air, have the potential to cause serious adverse effects to
human health and the environment. The Risk Management Program is not an
``all hazards'' regulation. It is aimed specifically at risks arising
from the accidental release of a covered substance to the ambient air.
Accordingly, ammonium nitrate is not a covered substance under the Risk
Management Program. West Fertilizer did submit an RMP to EPA for the
anhydrous ammonia at its facility. This is the only chemical present at
the facility for which an RMP was required.
The ``Hazard Review'' conducted under this process must identify
opportunities for equipment malfunction or human error (such as flood
or fire), that could in turn cause the accidental release of covered
substances, as well as safeguards to prevent the potential release, and
steps to detect and monitor for a release. These requirements are
documented in the RMP that is submitted to the EPA. A covered facility
must implement the RMP and update it every 5 years or when certain
changes occur. The EPA is responsible for implementing and overseeing
this program which includes the development and implementation of
regulations and policy, providing technical assistance, carrying out
inspections and conducting enforcement at covered facilities.
The EPA Region 6 conducted an RMP inspection at the West Chemical &
Fertilizer Co. on March 16, 2006. The inspector observed the processes
and the equipment at the facility, and reviewed the facility's RMP and
associated records. The inspector identified the several violations,
including:
--failure to update the RMP (the update due in 2004 had not been
submitted), including updating the Hazard Assessment and Hazard
Review and consequences of deviation in operating procedures,
--failure to properly document new operator training,
--failure to develop a formal mechanical integrity program, and
--failure to conduct compliance audits.
In accordance with the EPA approved penalty policy in place in
2006, on June 5, 2006, the Region issued a proposed Expedited
Settlement Agreement (ESA) which assessed a penalty of $2,300 to West
Chemical & Fertilizer Company. The company submitted its updated RMP on
July 7, 2006 and paid the penalty. As a condition of the ESA, the
company was required to correct all deficiencies identified during the
inspection. The Agency issued the final ESA on August 14, 2006.
Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA require facilities to submit to State
and local emergency planning authorities (but not to EPA) information
on hazardous chemicals on-site in order to help communities prepare for
and respond to chemical accidents. Ammonium nitrate is reportable (in
quantities above 10,000 lbs) under this regulation and it appears at
this time that West Fertilizer had reported as required.
For each extremely hazardous chemical as listed under section 302
of EPCRA, or each hazardous chemical (including explosives) as defined
by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard
Communication Standard at a facility in excess of established threshold
amounts, the facility must annually submit a Material Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS) and a Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form (Tier II form) to their
State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), their Local Emergency
Planning Committee (LEPC) and their local fire department. The MSDS
contains information on chemical identification, health and physical
hazard, necessary personal protective equipment and emergency response
procedures. The Tier II form contains facility identification, chemical
identification, the form of chemical present, the amount of chemical
on-site and days per year on-site, the location of the chemical at the
facility and the type of storage used.
As noted above, West Chemical and Fertilizer submitted Tier II
forms in 2012 for seven chemicals, including ammonium nitrate and
anhydrous ammonia. This information is designed to be used by State and
local authorities for preparing for and responding to potential
accidents. Fire departments may use the information to help them in
addressing issues or compliance with fire codes and safe storage of
chemicals under applicable State or local laws.
Question. What regulatory authority does EPA have to limit the
types or amounts of chemicals at a facility for safety concerns
compared to its Federal and State partners? Please provide a detailed
explanation that explains the agency's roles and responsibilities
compared to its partners.
Answer. Under the current Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(r) Risk
Management Plan regulations at 40 CFR part 68, the EPA does not have
authority to limit the types or amounts of chemicals at a regulated
facility for safety concerns.
The CAA section 112(r)(1) General Duty Clause (GDC) can require
facilities to take steps to ensure compliance with the general duty.
The GDC requires facilities to identify hazards which may result from
releases using appropriate hazard assessment techniques, to design and
maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to prevent
releases, and to minimize the consequences of accidental releases which
do occur. Such steps could include limiting the type or amount of
chemical to address unsafe conditions or hazard present at the source.
The EPA's GDC is similar to that of OSHA in the Occupational Safety and
Health Act.
CAA section 112(r)(9) authorizes the EPA to take actions to abate
any ``imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or welfare
or the environment because of an actual or threatened accidental
release of a regulated substance.'' In such cases where such a danger
exists, EPA can require facilities to limit a chemical's presence in
order to address the threat.
The EPA does not have sufficient familiarity with the regulatory
authority of its partner agencies to provide the comparative analysis
requested. We respectively defer to our partners agencies to explain
the nature of the regulatory authority that they implement.
Question. How does EPA coordinate with other Federal agencies such
as the Department of Homeland Security to ensure chemical facility
safety and security?
Answer. On a Federal level, the EPA has an effective working
relationship with key Federal agencies involved in chemical safety,
including OSHA, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Chemical
Safety Board (CSB), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). As
part of our collaboration and coordination with these agencies, we meet
regularly or as issues arise to discuss areas of interest in our
programs and how to work together to better implement our respective
programs and promote chemical safety. An example of such cooperation is
the ongoing sharing of information between the EPA and DHS and OSHA.
Since the EPA completed building the RMP database, it has been
available to OSHA, and they have used it to (in part) prioritize their
inspections. Since the advent of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism
Standard (CFATS), the EPA has made our RMP facility database available
to DHS, and continues to do so.
In addition, on August, 1, 2013, the President issued Executive
Order (EO) 13650 establishing a Chemical Facility Safety and Security
Working Group and setting forth additional actions to be taken by the
Federal Government in an effort to further improve the safety and
security of chemical facilities and reduce the risks of hazardous
chemicals to workers and communities. The Executive Order calls upon
Federal agencies to initiate innovative approaches for working together
on a broad range of activities, such as identification of high-risk
facilities, inspections, enforcement, and incident investigation and
follow up. Additionally, Federal agencies are specifically directed to
modernize the collection and sharing of chemical facility information
to maximize the effectiveness of risk reduction efforts and reduce
duplicative efforts. EPA will co-chair the working group and has taken
steps toward compliance with the EO. For example, EPA, OSHA, and DHS
have deployed the regional pilot program that will validate best
practices and test innovative new methods for Federal interagency
collaboration on information collection and utilization, inspection
planning, and stakeholder outreach.
Question. Risk management plans describe the ways in which a
facility reduces the likelihood of accidental releases of extremely
hazardous substances and their plans for dealing with any accidental
releases which may occur. Please describe the enforcement
responsibilities of the agency's Risk Management Plan.
Answer. The RMP is a summary of the facility's risk management
program and is to be submitted to the EPA. In general, the RMP
submitted by most facilities includes the following: executive summary;
registration information; off-site consequence analysis; 5-year
accident history; prevention program; and emergency response program.
Owners or operators of a facility with more than a threshold
quantity of a regulated substance in a process, as determined under 40
CFR section 68.115, must submit an RMP no later than the latest of the
following dates: 3 years after the date on which a substance is first
listed under 40 CFR section 68.130; or the date on which a regulated
substance is first present in a process above a threshold quantity. The
RMP must be reviewed and updated at least once every 5 years from the
date of a facility's latest submission.
RMP inspections ensure compliance with the Risk Management Program,
and these inspections can lead directly to enforcement actions for
regulatory violations as they involve on-site verification activities.
Most EPA oversight and enforcement of CAA section 112(r) and 40 CFR
part 68 involve inspections.
EPA takes enforcement actions against facilities that fail to
submit an RMP and those that fail to comply with the other part 68
requirements. For example, if there is evidence of a facility's failure
to perform an initial process hazard analysis on covered processes (40
CFR section 68.67) and failure to train an employee involved in
operating a covered process (40 CFR section 68.71) then EPA could (and
does) take an enforcement action to assess penalties and obtain
compliance for both violations. If a facility has not submitted an RMP
but has a chemical accident prevention program in place which satisfies
the specific part 68 requirements, a single count for failing to file
an RMP may be appropriate. See Combined Enforcement Policy for Clean
Air Act 112(r)(1), 112(r)(7), and 40 CFR part 68, dated June 2012.
(http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/air/documents/policies/gdc/
112rcep062012.pdf)
Question. How much funding has been provided for the Risk
Management program in fiscal year 2013, and how much funding is
requested in the fiscal year 2014 budget request?
Answer. The agency Risk Management program resource level in the
fiscal year 2013 Enacted Operating Plan is $12.2 million (including a
$655,000 reduction for sequester) and $14.1 million in the fiscal year
2014 President's budget request. This includes a $0.8 million increase
to support additional high-risk chemical facility inspections. The
request will enable EPA to conduct 460 RMP inspections in fiscal year
2014. Of these inspections, 34 percent will be conducted at high-risk
facilities.
environmental education
Question. What is the rationale behind eliminating a centralized
environmental education program, and what benefit does the
administration expect to achieve? Please explain how EPA plans to
effectively manage environmental education grants if they are spread
across EPA programs rather than centrally coordinated.
Answer. Eliminating the centralized Environmental Education (EE)
program allows the Agency to better integrate environmental education
activities into existing Agency programs under a streamlined and
coordinated approach. The EPA remains committed to environmental
education and outreach and will continue to ensure that all of the
EPA's content and information is available to students, educators and
communities.
In fiscal year 2014, the EPA will employ an intra-agency approach
to environmental education grant making which will allow the Agency to
leverage existing full-time equivalent (FTE) and grant management
resources. This intra-agency coordination will maximize reduced
resources and afford additional programming that has a greater impact
on 21st century EE needs. By integrating EE into all of our program
offices via funds and support from the Office of External Affairs, we
are confident that the EPA's work in educating the American public will
continue in a more effective way than previously structured.
For the past 3 fiscal years the EPA's EE grant program has been
aligned with the agency priorities in air, water, solid waste, toxic
substances and expanding the conversation on environmentalism. These
are many of the same programs that have existing EPA authorities that
enable the EPA to perform the new environmental grant and outreach
approach. These authorities include: Clean Air Act; Clean Water Act;
Solid Waste Disposal Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; Toxic Substances
Control Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
southeast new england coastal watershed restoration program
Question. What progress does EPA expect to make on the Southeast
New England Coastal Watershed Restoration initiative in the current
fiscal year?
Answer. In fiscal year 2013, the EPA expects to build on the
progress made over the past year, bringing together a variety of
stakeholders for the restoration of coastal southeast New England
waters. The EPA has met extensively with Federal and State agencies as
well as key stakeholders and the two local National Estuary Programs
(Narragansett and Buzzards Bay) across Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
Response has been positive, with a specific desire to devise a
collective approach to advance key habitat and water quality
restoration priorities, particularly in work that helps achieve both
objectives. Key progress and activities to date are summarized below.
The EPA facilitated sessions of a broadly composed working group
drawn from Partnership members to: Develop a vision statement, draft
restoration framework, and explore organizational options for
sustaining implementation over the long-term; analyze approaches to
regional-scale restoration that merges both habitat and water quality
objectives, with a specific focus initially on nutrients; and identify
gaps in existing programs and highlight potential opportunities for on-
the-ground restoration projects.
The EPA provided staff analytical support to: Inventory and assess
existing restoration efforts; analyze and present models of other
successful regional programs as possible frameworks/strategies for
regional restoration; begin development of restoration metrics; and
partner with the Massachusetts Clean Energy Foundation to support an
RFP element seeking innovative solutions for cheaper and more effective
denitrifying septic systems.
Question. How much funding does EPA expect the program to receive
in fiscal year 2013, and how will these funds specifically be used to
support the program?
Answer. The EPA proposes to formalize the establishment of the
Southeast New England Coastal Watershed Restoration Program in fiscal
year 2014 by including a $2 million budget request. In fiscal year
2013, the EPA is preparing for this new program through the Surface
Water Protection and National Estuary Program budgets, but has not
dedicated additional funding for activities beyond those conducted
under the NEP and for other watershed efforts. These activities
include: hosting Southeast New England Coastal Watershed Restoration
Partnership meetings; development of a restoration framework and
criteria as well as organizational and communication materials in
preparation for the initiative.
Question. What activities does EPA plan to carry out with the $2
million included for this initiative in the fiscal year 2014 budget
request?
Answer. The EPA plans to work with the newly formed Southeast New
England Coastal Watershed Restoration Partnership to restore the
ecological health of southeast New England's estuaries, watersheds, and
coastal waters by funding large projects to restore physical processes,
improve water quality, and restore key habitat. The initial focus will
be on nutrients and habitat, as well as nonpoint source and stormwater
pollution. This initiative will adopt a holistic, systems-based
approach to restoration by incorporating a variety of integrated
management approaches that address the region's broad set of stressors
and disturbances. We will work closely with the Narragansett Bay and
Buzzards Bay National Estuary Programs as well as active groups on Cape
Cod.
beaches protection categorical grants
Question. What is the justification for eliminating the Beaches
Protection Categorical grant program?
Answer. EPA's proposal to eliminate the Beach Grant Program is a
product of the hard choices the agency had to make in light of the
difficult fiscal situation we face. This is especially acute in light
of the significant cuts imposed on the agency by sequestration. In
fiscal year 2013, EPA reviewed its programs for areas where any
potential efficiencies and streamlining can yield savings. The Agency
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 successfully support
State and local governments in establishing their own programs.
However, States (including territories and tribes) and local
governments now have the technical expertise to continue beach
monitoring as a result of the technical guidance and more than $110
million in financial support the EPA has provided over the last decade
through the beach program.
Question. What assurance does the Committee have that these
programs will be maintained by other funding sources if Federal grants
are eliminated?
Answer. Beach monitoring continues to be important to protect human
health. States will determine, based on resources and priorities,
whether and to what extent to continue beach monitoring within the
context of their broader water quality monitoring program. Under Clean
Water Act section 106, grant-eligible States are expected to have a
monitoring program consistent with EPA's guidance on elements of a
monitoring program. Recreational uses are included in the guidance.
e-enterprise initiative
Question. The budget requests $60 million for E-Enterprise. Is the
proposed E- Enterprise initiative a one-time investment, or a multi-
year investment?
Answer. E-Enterprise for the Environment is a major effort to
transform and modernize how EPA and its partners conduct business. It
is a joint initiative of States and EPA to improve environmental
outcomes and dramatically enhance service to the regulated community
and the public by maximizing the use of advanced monitoring and
information technologies, optimizing operations, and increasing
transparency. An initiative of this scale will require multiple years
of planning, implementation, and investments that will allow us to
reduce future costs for regulated entities and the States while giving
the public access to comprehensive, timely data about the environment.
E-Enterprise includes a number of complex and simultaneous
projects, including streamlining regulations, enhancing data systems,
expanding public transparency, and improving collaboration among EPA
and the States. For example, it will involve the creation of an
electronic interactive ``portal'' for the regulated community to do
things like apply for EPA and State permits, access information on
their permit status, submit compliance information to States and EPA,
and receive compliance assistance from environmental agencies. The
portal will also result in greater sharing of data on environmental
conditions with the public, thereby empowering communities to help
solve their own pollution problems. In addition, the initiative will
explore the use of advanced monitoring technologies that could provide
more accurate, timely and reliable environmental data about
environmental conditions and specific pollutant discharges. Under E-
Enterprise, environmental agencies will also make e-reporting the ``new
normal'' in environmental regulations, thereby significantly reducing
paper reporting and reaping major benefits in terms of cost savings for
industry and for the EPA and States and the availability of timely,
more accurate information. In order to achieve these benefits,
significant investment will be needed in IT systems, process changes,
monitoring equipment, and rule design for EPA and its State partners.
If EPA receives its full request for E-Enterprise funding in fiscal
year 2014, the Agency projects that funding needs would span
approximately a 5-year timeframe.
Question. If it is a phased approach, how many years does EPA
expect to request funding for this initiative and what will be the
total cost of the initiative?
Answer. EPA will be phasing this initiative, and EPA expects to
request funding over multiple years. The total cost of the initiative
has not yet been determined as EPA needs to complete formal analysis of
the projects and how they will be implemented over the next few years.
EPA is also collaborating closely with its State partners through the
Environmental Council of States (ECOS), and State input will be
critical in completing a full plan for E-Enterprise phasing. EPA and
ECOS expect to complete a full plan for E-Enterprise phasing in fiscal
year 2014. If EPA receives its full request for E-Enterprise funding in
fiscal year 2014, the Agency projects that funding needs would span
approximately a 5-year timeframe.
Question. The budget request discusses the potential cost savings
that the regulated community will realize through electronic reporting.
If funded in fiscal year 2014, when will the initiative be fully
operational?
Answer. The initiative consists of a series of interconnected
projects. Some projects will be completed sooner, such as shared tools
for validating electronic reporting. Other projects will take longer to
be fully operational, such as NPDES electronic reporting and electronic
manifests for hazardous waste. EPA has not yet projected a fixed date
for when the entire initiative will be fully operational, but EPA
projects that the initiative will span approximately a 5-year timeframe
(depending on availability of funding) and some components should be
operational in the fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2015 timeframe, and
that initial cost savings could begin to be realized after these
components are operational.
brownfields projects
Question. EPA is proposing to reduce the brownfields projects
funding by 10 percent, yet at the same time it increases the operating
program for brownfields by 10 percent ($2.4 million). What is the
explanation for why EPA is cutting the brownfields projects program but
at the same time increasing operating costs?
Answer. The Agency's fiscal year 2014 request for brownfields
program related costs provides critically needed funding to support the
successful and timely selection and funding of annual brownfields grant
competition awards; manage existing and future brownfields 104(k) and
128(a) grants; increase technical assistance and outreach activities
for local communities, States, and other brownfield stakeholders; and
improve the collection of program data to assess and identify the most
efficient and effective use brownfields grant funds.
radon grants
Question. Last year, EPA, along with the American Association of
Radon Scientists and Technologists and the Conference of Radon Control
Program Directors conducted an assessment to determine the needs of
State radon programs if State Indoor Radon Grants were eliminated.
Twenty-three States reported that they will have to eliminate their
radon programs. Based on these results, why did EPA decide to eliminate
this important grant program?
Answer. The State Indoor Radon Grants (SIRG) program was
established by Congress to fund the development of States' capacity to
raise awareness about radon risks and promote public health protection
by reducing exposure to indoor radon gas. After 23 years in existence,
the radon grant program has succeeded in establishing States' capacity
to raise awareness about radon risks and promote public health
protection by reducing exposure to indoor radon gas. Also, given the
current budget climate, eliminating the SIRG program is an example of
the hard choices the Agency has had to make. The elimination of SIRG
funding in fiscal year 2014 will mean that EPA will no longer subsidize
State radon programs (and local programs with whom they collaborate) as
they continue their efforts to reduce the public health risks of radon.
Instead, the States will need to target their remaining resources to
continue radon-related activities, such as training real estate and
construction professionals; adopting building codes; and conducting
outreach and education programs. To better target resources at the
Federal level, EPA will implement the Federal Radon Action Plan, a
multi-year, multi-agency strategy for reducing the risk from radon
exposure by leveraging existing Federal housing programs and more
efficiently implementing radon-related activities to have a greater
impact on public health.
sequestration
Question. Thirteen percent of EPA's budget is grants that go to the
States so that they can implement their pollution control programs, and
sequestration impacts those programs too. What effect will a 5 percent
cut to the categorical grants have on the State agencies?
Answer. It should be noted that approximately 43 percent of the EPA
budget is appropriated as grants to States and tribes (STAG);
categorical grants comprise approximately 13 percent of the EPA budget.
With that said, sequestration will reduce funding for activities
that positively impact our communities, the health of our families, and
the economic vitality of key industries by reducing categorical grant
funding by $54.6 million from fiscal year 2012. For example:
STAG.--The STAG appropriation funds States directly for
environmental initiatives and programs. The reductions due to
sequestration will impact States' ability to perform technical
assistance to small systems in need, conduct sanitary surveys, achieve
drinking water compliance targets and short-term annual numerical goals
for reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads.
PWSS.--This grant funding enables States to target and support
small systems that pursue effective compliance strategies, including
identifying appropriate treatment technologies, alternative sources of
water, consolidation options, and sources of funding. A cut of this
magnitude will impact the States' ability to oversee and ensure that
public water systems, especially small systems, provide safe, reliable
drinking water to their customers. Small systems alone account for over
9,000 health based violations which have nearly doubled since 2002.
Section 319 Grants.--This funding helps States meet Clean Water Act
requirements for nonpoint source pollution. This reduction would
eliminate approximately 45 nonpoint source projects throughout the
United States. The reduced funding for projects will impact States'
ability to achieve goals for reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and
sediment loads.
State and Local Air Quality.--States depend on EPA funding for air
monitoring sites that provide vital information to citizens with
respiratory and cardiac diseases trying to avoid the harmful impacts of
air pollution. In considering where to take the reductions, EPA has
been looking at several different options to minimize the impact on
States. Among these options, EPA is looking at potential flexibilities
across its suite of monitoring programs. For example, with Phase I of
the NO2 near-road monitoring rollout now complete, EPA is
exploring extending the implementation of Phase 2. Additionally, EPA is
considering deferring spending on replacement of monitoring equipment,
data analysis, and methods development.
Categorical Grant Brownfields.--States utilize EPA funding to
establish core capabilities and enhance their brownfields response
programs which include activities such as oversight of site cleanups.
This reduction will result in existing grantees experiencing reductions
in their fiscal year 2012 allocation in order to accommodate new
applicants (on average, EPA receives seven new requests a year from
eligible tribes and/or territories). The reduction will also result in
State and local staff reductions that would decrease the number of
properties that could be overseen by Voluntary Cleanup Programs by
nearly 600 properties a year.
Lead Program.--Lead-Based Paint STAG funds support authorized
States and tribes in their ability to implement training and
certification programs for lead-based paint abatement and renovation,
which are key efforts in the goal of reducing the prevalence of
childhood lead poisoning. Impacts caused by sequestration could include
a decrease in the ability to perform compliance assistance to the
regulated community as well as certification of firms and accreditation
of training providers. Reductions could also impact EPA's ability to
implement the program in the 37 States where EPA operates the
renovation program and in the 11 States where EPA operates the
abatement program.
Pesticides Program Implementation.--This funding helps States and
tribes ensure that pesticide regulatory decisions made at the national
level are translated into results at the local level; since
responsibility for ensuring proper pesticide use is in large part
delegated to States and tribes, this funding is critical. Reduced
funding will result in a proportional reduction of activities by State
and tribal program staff. For example, funding reductions will cause
reduced worker protection training; reduced monitoring, evaluation, and
response for pesticides in local water resources; fewer programs to
help identify, respond to, and prevent pesticide poisoning; and reduced
outreach on the safe handling and use of pesticides.
hydraulic fracturing
Question. In 2010, Congress directed EPA to initiate a multi-year
study on potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water
resources. Where is EPA in this process?
Answer. In 2011, EPA released the Final Plan to Study the Potential
Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources. The study
plan reflects extensive input from the EPA's Science Advisory Board
(SAB); industry; environmental and public health groups; States;
tribes; and communities. EPA released a Progress Report in December
2012 that provides an update of the ongoing research.
In March 2013, the EPA's independent SAB announced the formation of
its Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory panel. In May, EPA received
input from individual panel members on EPA's ongoing research to inform
the report of results. EPA expects to release the draft report of
results of the Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing
on Drinking Water Resources for external peer review in late calendar
year 2014.
Question. Is the Agency on track to issue a final report next year?
Answer. The EPA expects to release the draft report of results of
the Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking
Water Resources for external peer review in late calendar year 2014.
Question. Last year, EPA signed an MOU with the Department of
Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey to coordinate and align current
and future hydraulic fracturing research. What progress and
coordination have been made since then?
Answer. The Tri-Agency Research Plan is still under development.
The work to date to develop the plan has been very helpful in both
coordinating the research efforts of the three agencies and developing
the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request.
The EPA, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) routinely exchange information regarding ongoing
research, including plans and progress. Exchanges among the principal
investigators, in addition to high level discussions, help to assure
that scientific details about the work is shared and can be used to
help inform work underway by others.
DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory recently briefed the
EPA on the progress of their work in hydraulic fracturing. Reciprocal
meetings will be held soon. USGS briefed the EPA on their work in
seismicity. DOE and USGS are among those participating in the EPA's
technical workshops, in which they engage in information exchange
regarding research both with the EPA and the other participants.
Question. EPA is also proposing to do more hydraulic fracturing
research in the area of air and water quality. What additional
information does EPA hope to learn from this research and what is the
timeline to complete this research?
Answer. The EPA will study air emissions from Unconventional Oil
and Gas (UOG) operations, including hydraulic fracturing, particularly
the composition and rates of emissions from key sources (e.g.,
wastewater handling operations, and emissions during completion and
production from wells that have been hydraulically fractured) and
possible preliminary dispersion modeling and/or ambient measurements to
verify source emissions data.
Building upon knowledge obtained from the Drinking Water Study, the
EPA will work to better characterize the composition of wastewater and
wastewater treatment residuals, including solids, as well as develop an
approach to define and evaluate the potential area of impact around
horizontal wells from UOG operations, including hydraulic fracturing,
across the United States.
At this time, we do not expect that the air and water quality
research will culminate in a report like the multi-year study on
potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources.
There is not a specific deadline when the research will be completed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
state revolving funds
Question. I heard Senator Reed comment on the disappointment in
cuts to the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. I'd
like to echo that disappointment.
This program provides critical funding to States to invest in water
infrastructure and protect clean water. In New Mexico we are looking at
cuts of over 50 percent in terms from 2012 to 2014.
I won't reiterate many of the concerns that have already been
raised, but I'd like to point out a related problem that is brewing for
New Mexico . . . flooding and polluted stormwater.
We are experiencing record droughts in New Mexico, but when the
rain comes, it can come in the form of heavy floods and monsoons.
Stormwater is a major water quality problem, especially when the water
flows over burned areas or overwhelms treatment plants.
I'm currently circulating a discussion draft of legislation to spur
innovative stormwater solutions--sometimes called ``green
infrastructure'' since it minimizes the use of expensive steel and
concrete. This bill supports cost-effective approaches that many
communities are already integrating into their water management plans
such as porous pavement, flood detention areas, and other designs that
can help re-charge acquifers, rather than just send floods downstream.
Does EPA believe that States like New Mexico need more help with
water treatment infrastructure to meet Federal standards--and are these
innovations a way to reduce costs?
Answer. EPA understands that many State and local governments face
challenges improving their water infrastructure to meet water quality
objectives. The Agency supports green infrastructure as a cost-
effective solution to reduce stormwater pollution and help control the
impacts of localized flooding. Many communities have already
demonstrated that by using green infrastructure to reduce the
stormwater flows going into their sewer systems or further downstream,
they can avoid more costly gray infrastructure investments and save
money. Communities have also recognized that green infrastructure can
provide multiple environmental and community benefits, making it an
attractive investment option.
mine screening
Question. I understand from the budget justifications that the EPA
has a goal of completing 93,400 assessments by 2015 at potential
hazardous waste sites to determine if they warrant more analysis and
remediation. It is also my understanding that in recent years much of
this screening was uranium mine assessments, including surveys of 521
mines in the Navajo Nation.
Additionally, EPA Region 6 continues to conduct screenings of mines
throughout New Mexico. According to the EPA budget justification, the
President's budget could fund 700 new screenings.
Do you expect a portion of these will be carried out in New Mexico
and the Navajo Nation?
Answer. About 20 percent of the remedial assessments in fiscal year
2011 and fiscal year 2012 took place at abandoned uranium mines (AUM).
Most of these AUM assessments were conducted as part of EPA Region 9's
initial Five Year Plan to address uranium contamination on the Navajo
Nation that ended in 2012. EPA's estimate of 700 total remedial
assessments in fiscal year 2014 applies to all site types and includes
3 assessments at non-Navajo Nation sites in New Mexico (two of the
three are AUM sites) and 2 assessments at Navajo Nation AUM sites. EPA
is currently working with DOI and DOE and the Navajo Nation to develop
a second 5-year plan to address impacts from abandoned uranium mines.
This plan will set goals for additional, more detailed assessments of
uranium mines on the Navajo Reservation.
Question. Does the EPA have a clear picture of the number of
abandoned mine sites that continue to need screening throughout New
Mexico and the Navajo Nation?
Answer. EPA estimates about 60 AUMs in New Mexico and two AUMs on
the Navajo Nation still require further Superfund remedial assessment.
EPA expects to determine if additional AUMs on the Navajo Nation
require more detailed assessment as part of the 5-year plan currently
under development.
Question. Given the President's fiscal year 2014 budget trajectory,
would EPA be able to meet its goal of completing 93,400 assessments at
potential hazardous waste sites by 2015?
Answer. EPA expects to meets its goal of completing 93,400
assessments at potential hazardous waste sites by 2015 based on
completed assessments and planned future assessments.
Question. Could you estimate what percentage of the abandoned
uranium mine sites throughout the country will be screened when the EPA
completes 93,400 assessments?
Answer. EPA's Strategic Plan includes a goal of completing a total
of 93,400 remedial assessments at potential hazardous waste sites by
2015 since the inception of Superfund. While a portion of these
assessments were at abandoned uranium mine sites, EPA has not
determined the total number of abandoned uranium mines that need to be
screened by the Superfund program. EPA expects the inventory of AUMs
being developed by the DOE in coordination with EPA and Federal land
management agencies may provide useful information in this regard. The
inventory is planned for completion in July 2014.
superfund budget
Question. There are several Superfund sites in New Mexico and the
Navajo Nation that I am very concerned about, including the North East
Churchrock site and associated United Nuclear Corporation Superfund
Site, and the Jackpile Mine located on the Pueblo of Laguna to name a
few. It is my understanding that the President has proposed a $33
million cut from fiscal year 2012 enacted levels for the overall
Superfund budget, and it appears that this cut is specifically being
taken out of the cleanup account which was enacted in fiscal year 2012
at $796 million, but the President is now proposing $762 million.
Could you explain for the committee this reduction in Superfund
cleanup funds?
Answer. The Superfund program's top priority remains protecting the
American public by reducing risk to human health and the environment.
While continuing to rely on the Agency's Enforcement First approach to
encourage potentially responsible parties to conduct and/or pay for
cleanups, the Remedial program will continue to focus on completing
ongoing projects and maximizing the use of site-specific special
account resources. The Agency will also continue to place a priority on
achieving its goals for the two key environmental indicators, Human
Exposure Under Control (HEUC) and Groundwater Migration Under Control
(GMUC).
Many Federal programs have undergone substantial reductions in the
past few years to help address national budget deficits. The President
has had to make difficult choices with regard to funding EPA programs,
including the Superfund cleanup program. The fiscal year 2014
President's budget request for the Superfund Remedial program
represents a $26 million reduction from the fiscal year 2012 enacted
level. Primarily because of a fiscal year 2013 sequestration reduction
of $22 million, the fiscal year 2014 President's budget request for the
Superfund Remedial program would represent a $32 million increase from
the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. The scope of the reductions to the
program is having effects on program performance throughout the cleanup
pipeline leading to a reduction in EPA's ability to fund remedial
investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FSs), remedial designs (RDs),
remedial actions (RAs) and ongoing long-term response actions. Based on
current planning data the number of EPA-financed construction (remedial
action) projects that will not be funded could be as high as 40-45 by
the end of fiscal year 2014.
Question. Has the need for cleanup dollars decreased?
Answer. No. The need for the cleanup dollars has not decreased as
the program continues to address a large ongoing project workload and
has unfunded projects ready to start. As referenced in the answer to
the question above, the President's budget reflects difficult choices
with regard to funding EPA programs, including the Superfund cleanup
program.
Question. How will these cuts impact efforts to complete Superfund
cleanup throughout New Mexico?
Answer. New Mexico currently has 14 sites on the final NPL, 4 sites
deleted from the NPL, and 1 site (Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine)
proposed for listing on the NPL. EPA is currently responding to
extensive comments on the proposed rule to add Jackpile-Paguate Uranium
Mine to the NPL with a final listing decision anticipated in fiscal
year 2014.
Of the 14 final NPL sites, 11 sites are designated as construction
complete. The three sites that are not ``construction complete''
include MolyCorp, Inc., Eagle Picher Carefree Battery, and McGaffey and
Main Groundwater Plume. The McGaffey and Main site has ongoing EPA-
funded remedial action work occurring. A new EPA-funded remedial action
construction project at the site that is anticipated to be ready for
funding this fiscal year may not be able to start work given the
limited resources available for new construction projects nationwide.
There is anticipated to be as many as 25 unfunded construction projects
by the end of fiscal year 2013 and as many as 40 to 45 unfunded
construction projects by the end of fiscal year 2014. Although Agency
funding may not be available in fiscal year 2013 to start a new
construction project at the site, all current human exposures are under
control. EPA continues to seek out all available funds for construction
projects ready to start work and a final decision on any funding
available for new construction projects will be made later in the
fiscal year. Cleanup at the MolyCorp, Inc. and Eagle Picher Carefree
Battery sites are being conducted by potentially responsible parties
with EPA enforcement oversight. Similarly, the work at the North East
Church Rock site and the related United Nuclear Corporation NPL site is
being conducted by a potentially responsible party with EPA oversight.
responsible parties
Question. Perhaps the most cost effective way of addressing funding
of cleanup of mine, mill, and other contaminated sites is by
identifying responsible parties. In considering mine and mill sites in
the Navajo Nation alone, it is my understanding that principal
responsible parties have been found for 74 mine sites, but that no
responsible party has been identified for approximately 450 other
sites.
Could you share with the committee what the EPA is doing to
identify responsible parties, and the potential impact identification
of such parties would have on budgets and the EPA's ability to complete
remediation of sites?
Answer. Actions taken to identify responsible parties.--Since all
of the contaminated mining sites on the Navajo Reservation are
abandoned, EPA conducted investigations to try to identify the parties
that owned or operated those sites in the past. EPA is committed to an
``enforcement first'' approach that maximizes the participation of
liable and viable parties in performing and paying for Superfund
cleanups. As an initial step in our investigation, the EPA sent CERCLA
104(e) letters requesting information about potential liability to 10
companies that had been previously identified as having mined uranium
on the Navajo Nation. The EPA used the information provided to identify
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) for mines posing the highest
risks. Prior to initiating extensive research, the EPA and Navajo
Nation EPA (NNEPA) worked together to identify mines that both agencies
agreed posed the greatest risk to human health and the environment.
To date, EPA has notified potentially responsible parties of
liability for 74 mines on the Navajo Reservation, including:
IDENTIFIED PRPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
Potentially Responsible Party Mine
Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tronox Incorporated............................................. 49
KinderMorgan, Inc. (El Paso Natural Gas Company)................ 20
Western Nuclear, Inc./Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold, Inc..... 2
United Nuclear Corporation/General Electric..................... 1
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.............................................. 1
Rio Algom Mining LLC............................................ 1
-------
Total Number of Mine Claims With Identified PRP........... 74
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other 449 mine sites are being evaluated for human health risk,
and EPA is conducting searches for PRPs at mine sites as we determine
that they require CERCLA response actions.
Potential impact identification of such parties would have on
budgets and the EPA's ability to complete remediation of sites.--The
EPA is continuing to pursue an enforcement-first policy, and will
continue to conduct searches for PRPs at abandoned uranium mines on the
Navajo Reservation. Identification of PRPs for abandoned mines on the
Navajo Reservation is essential in order to provide additional
resources for EPA to conduct further investigations and clean up at
mines.
Impacts on EPA's budget and ability to complete remediation of
sites cannot be reasonably estimated at this time as much of this work
is dependent upon ongoing studies and assessments. However, in general,
uranium mining site cleanup costs have historically been very
expensive, in the range of tens of millions of dollars or more per
mine. To date, PRPs have spent over $17 million to carry out site-
specific CERCLA response actions at abandoned mines on the Navajo
Reservation. In addition, EPA has collected more than $11 million
pursuant to settlements with PRPs. The use of these resources is taken
into consideration during the annual budget formulation process. Both
Superfund special account resources and appropriated resources are
critical to the Superfund program, and the Agency will continue to
submit resource requirements on an annual basis through the budget
formulation process for congressional consideration. Congressionally
appropriated resources will then be allocated by the Agency to projects
and activities based upon future project plans and program funding
prioritization guidelines, including available resources from
settlements with PRPs.
EPA maintains a strong partnership with the Navajo Nation and,
since 1994, the Superfund program has provided technical assistance and
funding to assess potentially contaminated sites and develop a
response. EPA is currently working with the Department of Energy, other
Federal agencies, and the Navajo Nation to develop a second 5-year plan
to address impacts from abandoned uranium mines. This plan will
continue to build on our efforts of conducting associated responsible
party enforcement and set goals for additional CERCLA response actions.
EPA is committed to continue working with the Navajo Nation to reduce
the health and environmental risks and to finding long-term solutions
to address the remaining issues related to contamination due to
abandoned mines on the Navajo Reservation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
keystone pipeline
Question. On Monday, the last day for public comment, EPA concluded
that the State Department's latest review of the Keystone pipeline
project contains ``insufficient information'' on several fronts,
including greenhouse gas emissions, alternative routes and the
consequences of a potential spill of diluted bitumen. In 2010 and 2011,
the EPA criticized the State Department's first two environmental
reviews of the project on similar grounds. Now you've found a problem
with the most recent Supplemental EIS.
Can you explain what additional information needs to be collected
at this point? The State Department received very similar criticisms
from you before and you say they still didn't get it right.
Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) comment
letter outlines a number of areas where we believe additional
information will improve the analysis, including: pipeline safety,
alternatives, and community impacts. The EPA also recommended
strengthening the economic market analysis given that its findings are
key to the Supplemental EIS's conclusions regarding the project's
potential greenhouse gas emissions impacts.
Question. Is this simply just a pretext for more delay?
Answer. No, we do not believe that collecting the additional
information will be time consuming, and the additional information will
be important to inform Federal decision makers and the public about the
potential environmental impacts of the project.
Question. Can you explain what the process is going forward with
respect to review of public comments and the timeline for a final
decision on the pipeline?
Answer. The Department of State (DOS) is currently reviewing public
comments received on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and is working to address those comments in the Final
EIS. As a cooperating agency, the EPA is working with the DOS to
address comments in the Final EIS; DOS is responsible for the Final
EIS's preparation schedule. Once the Final EIS is issued, the DOS will
begin its 90-day National Interest Determination process, which will
weigh factors such as economics and energy security in addition to
environmental impacts, and make a decision on whether to issue a permit
for Keystone XL's boundary crossing.
Question. Does the EPA have any plans to invoke its authority under
the National Environmental Policy Act to object to the project and
elevate an interagency dispute to the White House Council on
Environmental Quality?
Answer. The EPA is a cooperating agency in the development of the
EIS, and we are committed to working with the DOS to prepare a document
that informs decision makers and the public.
hydraulic fracturing
Question. Your budget requests $8 million to continue work on the
hydraulic fracturing study that was requested by Congress in fiscal
year 2010. However, there are a number of issues being raised with the
methodology that the EPA is using to conduct the nationwide study. For
example, my understanding is that the agency is starting its analysis
with ``retrospective'' sites. These are locations where fracking has
already occurred for years, potentially along with many other
activities. ``Prospective'' sites, where fracking will be studied from
its beginning won't occur until later and therefore those results won't
be out until 2014 when the study is completed.
Why did EPA decide to test retrospective sites to start the study?
As we have seen with the Pavillion site in Wyoming, going back in time
where hydraulic fracturing has occurred for years makes it very
difficult to have a baseline and also complicates the assessment of the
effects of the fracking process. Why did the agency not start with
prospective sites, and test the technology in ``real time''?
Answer. In developing its draft study plan, the EPA received input
from a wide variety of stakeholders. Stakeholders from many points of
view urged the EPA to include both prospective and retrospective case
studies as part of the overall effort, and the Science Advisory Board
also supported both types of case studies. Given this input, the EPA
decided to conduct both types of case studies.
The EPA began developing both the prospective and retrospective
case studies at the same time. Retrospective case study locations were
nominated by stakeholders. The EPA evaluated the nominated locations,
identified five suitable locations for retrospective case studies, and
started on them in a timely manner. The EPA continues to work with oil
and gas well owner/operator companies to develop prospective case
studies and intends to begin them expeditiously when suitable locations
are identified.
Late last month, the EPA announced the formation of the Hydraulic
Fracturing Research Advisory panel made up of 31 individuals from
academia, industry, and the environmental community. Some have
criticized the composition of the panel as not having a sufficient
number of experts with industry experience in hydraulic fracturing.
Apparently, a number of Panel nominees were disqualified from serving
because the EPA determined that they had a ``disqualifying financial
interest.'' The American Petroleum Institute sent you a letter
concerning this issue on March 22.
Question. How would you respond to the criticism that the Research
Advisory panel lacks ``real world'' industry experience?
Answer. The Panel does not lack ``real world'' industry experience.
The SAB panel is comprised of current employees of companies and
consulting firms; government employees; and academics/university
professors (including some previously employed in industry). It has at
least three experts in each of the following nine areas of expertise
that were sought for the panel: Petroleum/Natural Gas Engineering;
Petroleum/Natural Gas Well Drilling; Hydrology/Hydrogeology; Geology/
Geophysics; Groundwater Chemistry/Geochemistry; Toxicology/Biology;
Statistics; Civil Engineering; and Waste Water and Drinking Water
Treatment.
``Real world'' industry experience includes working for private
industry or in consulting. Eight panel members are current industry
employees, or are currently working in consulting. These eight members
have a collective total of 218 years working in industry or consulting
(average of 27 years' experience each). Ten other panel members have
significant industry experience (i.e., at least 2 or more years working
as industry employees or as full-time consultants). These 10 members
have a collective total of 61 years working in industry or consulting
(i.e., an average of 6 years' experience each).
Question. Out of the 31 members of the Panel, how many come from
industry?
Answer. Eight members of the Panel are current industry employees,
or are currently working in consulting. Ten other members have
significant industry experience (i.e., at least 2 or more years working
as industry employees or as full-time consultants).
Question. Did the EPA apply the rules concerning financial
interests too narrowly when it came to industry experts? For example,
I'm told that there are members of academia on the panel who have
received grants from the EPA and other Government agencies or their
universities do. Is that true? If so, how was that factored in their
selection? Does that pose a potential conflict of interest?
Answer. Members of Science Advisory Board (SAB) panels serve as
Special Government Employees (SGE) or non-EPA regular Government
employees and are subject to ethics rules and conflict of interest
regulations that apply to executive branch employees. Rules defining
financial conflicts of interest and appearance of a loss of
impartiality are applied to all prospective panelists, regardless of
their work affiliation or experience.
With regard to financial conflicts of interest, 18 U.S.C. section
208 prohibits the participation of panel members in particular matters
in which the member (or his/her spouse or minor child) has a financial
interest, if the matter will have a direct and predictable effect on
that interest. For example, panel members and their immediate family
are restricted from owning more than a certain de minimus dollar amount
in a sector mutual fund or securities issued by one or more entities
directly and predictably affected by the particular matter under
consideration by the Panel. One remedy for an otherwise disqualifying
financial interest is for the potential panelist to divest from the
portion of holdings above the de minimus threshold. Several panelists
did adjust their holdings in order to serve on the SAB Hydraulic
Fracturing Research Advisory Panel.
Ethics regulations issued by the Office of Government Ethics also
provide for an exemption for SGEs serving on Federal advisory committee
panels where the disqualifying financial conflict arises from their
non-Federal employment or prospective employment when the particular
matter under consideration is a matter of general applicability (see 5
CFR 2640.203(g)). No candidate for the panel was excluded solely on the
basis of his or her employment.
Twenty-one members of the panel are current academic employees. All
but one of these members either receive current research funding or
have received recent research funding from the EPA or other Federal
Government agencies. All of the institutions for which these members
work receive current recent research funding from the EPA or other
Federal Government agencies.
In evaluating research funding, the SAB Staff Office follows the
approach identified in the 2004 OMB Bulletin on peer review: ``Research
grants that were awarded to the scientist based on investigator-
initiated, competitive, peer-reviewed proposals do not generally raise
issues of independence. However, significant consulting and contractual
relationships with the agency may raise issues of independence or
conflict, depending upon the situation.'' The SAB Staff Office reviews
the totality of the information for each prospective panelist,
including the nature of grant support from the EPA and other entities,
as it relates to the specific advisory activity being considered. The
SAB Staff Office examines the funding sources indicated in the
Confidential Financial Disclosure Form (EPA Form 3110-48) for the nexus
between these sources and the work to be performed by the SAB as well
as the nature of the source (e.g., grant or contract).
In that context, the SAB Staff Office does not consider the current
or past receipt of EPA or other Federal grants generally to be, by
definition, a conflict of interest under 18 U.S.C. 208. Rather, the SAB
Staff Office considers information about EPA (or other Federal) grants
and other information as they relate to the context of the specific
advisory activity. Furthermore, EPA generally does not consider
research grants (whether current or past), if they are unrelated to the
work being performed by the SGE on an SAB panel and are investigator-
initiated, competitive and peer-reviewed, to give rise to questions
concerning the independence of a current or potential SGE.
For future reviews by this Panel, if additional expertise is
needed, the SAB Staff Office will augment the Panel to ensure that all
necessary scientific expertise is present. In addition, the SAB Staff
Office recognizes the need to keep the Panel as informed as possible
with new and emerging information related to hydraulic fracturing.
There will be periodic opportunities for the public to provide new and
emerging information to the Panel. The SAB Staff Office will provide
notice in the Federal Register and on our SAB website on the logistics
venue for doing that.
forest roads/silvicultural exemption from cwa
Question. Section 429 of the fiscal year 2012 Interior bill
codified for 1 year the 37-year-old EPA policy that forest roads
associated with logging activities are not ``point sources'' requiring
permits under the Clean Water Act. Under the terms of the fiscal year
2013 continuing resolution, Congress barred EPA from beginning any new
programs, and we understand that EPA has interpreted this language as
barring the agency from initiating a permit program for forest roads.
On March 20, 2013 in NEDC v. Decker, the Supreme Court reversed the
Ninth Circuit court ruling that would have required mandatory permits.
However, the Supreme Court did not address the Ninth Circuit Court's
other ruling that forest roads are point sources subject to a permit or
other Federal regulation by EPA under its discretionary authority
within point source rules.
I understand that EPA has sought public input and has said it is
considering regulating a subset of forest roads as point sources
through its flexible authority, though not via point source permits in
response to a 2003 Ninth Circuit ruling regarding forest roads. I am
concerned that this regulation will expose Federal, State, municipal,
private and Alaska Native forestland owners to citizen lawsuits. Is the
agency undertaking such a review pursuant to this litigation? If so,
when will this review be complete?
Answer. No. The Agency has made no decision at this time to develop
a new rule requiring permits for stormwater discharges from forest
roads.
sulfur content rule for gasoline
Question. On March 29, EPA announced draft rules for automobiles
designed to lower emissions by requiring the use of lower sulfur
gasoline. According to the EPA, these new rules will cost refiners only
1 cent per gallon while the refiners claim that this change will
increase the cost of gasoline by 9 cents per gallon with very little
environmental benefit.
Can you explain how the agency determined its cost estimates for
implementation of the rule?
Answer. As in our past ultra-low sulfur diesel and gasoline benzene
rules, the Agency performed a detailed refinery-by-refinery cost
analysis of each refinery in the country. We established the baseline
conditions for each refinery based on publicly available information as
well as confidential information from our own databases and those of
the Energy Information Administration. We then estimated what actions
would be the least cost for each refinery to comply with the proposed
Tier 3 standards, using the latest cost information provided by various
technology vendors and engineering firms whose equipment is already
being used by refineries to comply with the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur
standards. Our cost analysis was independently peer reviewed by
knowledgeable experts in the field, and the feedback from the peer
review, along with EPA's response, can be found in the rulemaking
docket on www.regulations.gov.
Question. Why do they vary so widely from industry projections?
Answer. There are four main reasons for the apparent differences
between EPA's projections and the industry reported projections. First
is that EPA's cost estimate is an average cost while the industry
reports out only the costs for the highest cost refineries. Expressed
on an apples to apples basis, EPA's average cost estimate of about 1
cent per gallon should be compared to the average cost that can be
calculated from the industry study of 2.1 cents per gallon.
Alternatively, if focusing on the highest cost refineries, EPA's
modeling projects the marginal compliance cost for the highest cost
refineries to be between 4.5-6.5 cents per gallon while the industry
has reported the marginal cost for the highest cost refineries of 6-9
cents per gallon. Second, the industry did not analyze the program we
have proposed, which provides considerable flexibility. The proposed
averaging, banking, and trading program would allow those few high cost
refiners to comply through averaging with or purchasing credits from
other refineries, which would lower not only the average cost, but
especially the marginal costs. Third, the industry study's capital cost
assumptions for Tier 3 are high. The industry study used reported Tier
2 compliance costs for five selected refineries and then doubled them,
rather than estimating the capital costs needed to comply with the much
smaller increment of sulfur control required for Tier 3. Simply
correcting their capital costs to reflect Tier 3 rather than Tier 2
reduces their average cost to 1.6 cents per gallon. Fourth, the assumed
rate of return on investment is higher in the industry analysis than
the rate of return in the EPA analysis. Simple adjustments to the
industry study to reflect plausible capital costs and accepted rates of
return on investment bring their average costs in line with those of
EPA and actually support EPA's cost estimate of about a penny per
gallon. The reasonableness of EPA's cost estimate is further bolstered
by the feedback received from our independent peer reviewers, a 2011
study conducted by Mathpro for the International Council for Clean
Transportation and a 2012 study conducted by Navigant for the Emission
Control Technology Association. Furthermore, Valero, one of the
Nation's largest refiners, recently announced its expected Tier 3
compliance costs, and they indicated that their compliance costs would
be lower than those reported by industry.
Question. Do you believe that there is a more transparent way that
the agency could calculate its cost/benefit data that would lead to
greater consensus on what the right projections are?
Answer. The Agency has been very transparent in how we performed
our cost estimate and is updating the cost/benefit analysis for the
final rule. The Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis fully details the
analysis performed and the assumptions made. The only thing we are
unable to share publicly is our specific cost projections for each
refinery, as doing so may directly or indirectly divulge confidential
business information for specific refineries. We have followed this
same approach in several past rulemakings, which has allowed
stakeholders to fully assess the reasonableness of our cost estimates
and comment on them, while still preserving confidentiality. The
industry's recent study of Tier 3 costs followed a very similar
approach.
ghg powerplant rulemakings
Question. Mr. Perciasepe, when the fiscal year 2014 budget was
released, you were quoted as saying that you expected to complete the
new source performance standard for future powerplants this year and
that you expected that the rules for existing powerplants ``would be on
the table for fiscal year 2014.''
Can you tell us what actions or work you have performed thus far on
the rule for existing powerplants, if any?
Answer. EPA is not currently developing any existing source GHG
regulations for powerplants. The office's current work is focused on
reviewing the comments submitted in response to the proposed carbon
pollution standard for new powerplants under section 111(b).
Question. What is your best estimate with respect to the schedule
and process that you will use for writing the rule for existing
powerplants? For example, how long do you expect it to take to complete
and when will the first draft be made public?
Answer. EPA is not currently developing any existing source GHG
regulations for powerplants. In the event that EPA does undertake
action to address GHG emissions from existing powerplants, the agency
would ensure, as it always seeks to do, ample opportunity for States,
the public, and stakeholders to offer meaningful input on potential
approaches.
commercial fishing sector npdes problem
Question. Beginning in 2010, EPA issued regulations requiring NPDES
permits for commercial fishing vessels engaged in catcher processing
activities in Federal waters off the coast of Alaska. The Effluent
Limitation Guideline (ELG) standard applied by EPA is based on criteria
for shore-based facilities, and compliance with this standard has been
virtually impossible for vessels at sea to meet. At issue is the
requirement that all seafood waste be ground to ``0.5 inch or smaller
in any dimension.'' While offshore vessels are able to achieve the 0.5-
inch standard, they cannot achieve it for any dimension. That is,
either the length or width or height exceeds 0.5 inches. This is a
particular problem with respect to fish skin strands, where it is
impossible to achieve this standard 100 percent of the time.
The shore-based ELG standards were developed with the understanding
that the shore plant effluents would be deposited in harbors where the
lack of flushing might cause negative impacts to the near shore marine
environment. Those standards were applied to the offshore sector
without any rationale or testing to determine whether discharges from a
mobile vessel at sea would cause negative impacts to the environment.
Will EPA agree to work with the offshore catcher processor sector
to produce a more workable standard, and if necessary, suspend the
current 0.5 inch or smaller in any dimension grind standard?
Answer. Yes, the EPA is prepared to work with the offshore catcher
processor industry on this important issue. The agency has advised
industry representatives of our willingness to work with them during
meetings on this concern. As we have discussed, if offshore catcher
processors would like to pursue a change in the Effluent Limitation
Guideline (ELG), we urge them to engage in the Effluent Guidelines
Planning process. EPA may not change an ELG requirement through a
letter or a permit. Any change to the Permit or any subsequent permits
requires a change to the national ELG.
EPA expects to publish for public notice and comment the next
iteration of its proposed ELG Plan in the Federal Register shortly, and
EPA encourages offshore catcher processors to submit comments to that
plan.
More information on the Effluent Guidelines Planning Process can be
found at: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/304m/.
regional haze rule
Question. In February the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed a regional haze rule for the Navajo Generating Station (NGS)
in northern Arizona. That proposal would require the plant owners,
which includes the Bureau of Reclamation, to install Selective
Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology. There is some debate as to
whether baghouses would also be required. Regardless, the minimum
estimated cost is $540 million--with a potential price tag of $1.1
billion. How does EPA's budget account for the increased Federal
capital costs that would be imposed by SCR (and possibly baghouses)?
Answer. EPA is not an owner of NGS; therefore, EPA's budget would
not be a source of funding for new controls at NGS. As stated in our
February proposal, EPA understands that past pollution control
investments at this facility have made use of alternative financing
methods and that a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) indicated that mechanisms may exist to help avoid or mitigate
the estimated level of impact on water rates resulting from the Federal
portion of the cost of new pollution controls. The proposal sets limits
consistent with levels achieved by SCR, but it does not in fact require
SCR. EPA, DOI, and DOE have committed to work together on several
short- and long-term goals, including innovative clean energy options
for electricity generation and seeking funding to cover expenses for
the Federal portion of pollution controls at NGS.
Question. In February a landslide destroyed portions of highway 89
in Arizona causing three car accidents and closing the highway
indefinitely--this is the primary roadway used to travel between
Flagstaff and Page. Geotechnical experts and engineers are reviewing
the damage to determine the cause of the landslide and whether it is
safe to reconstruct the roadway. The current detour adds approximately
50 miles to the trip from Flagstaff to Page, diverting traffic through
highly populated areas on the Navajo and Hopi reservations in and
around Tuba City and Moenkopi. EPA's regional haze proposal would
require daily truck deliveries of hazardous anhydrous ammonia from
Flagstaff to NGS near Page. EPA initially ``determined that the
increase in daily tanker truck traffic to transport anhydrous ammonia
to and from NGS for SCR will not result in a significant health risk.''
Has EPA performed an analysis of the geologic event along highway 89 in
northern Arizona and the health risks posed by approximately 728 tanker
truck deliveries of hazardous anhydrous ammonia traveling through
highly populated portions of the Navajo and Hopi reservations?
Answer. EPA's analysis of air quality impacts associated with
increased truck traffic was conducted prior to the landslide affecting
portions of Highway 89 in Arizona and therefore did not examine
potential impacts associated with a different route to Page. EPA notes,
however, that deliveries of anhydrous ammonia would not occur until
after SCR is installed and operational. The earliest that would be is
2018 and EPA's proposal includes several alternatives with longer
deadlines. Our proposal included a BART alternative that required
installation and operation of SCR in 2021-2023. Although EPA
anticipates that Highway 89 will be reopened by the time SCR is
installed and operational, EPA will continue to monitor the status of
the plans for this highway during our extended comment period, which
closes on August 5, 2013.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
state revolving funds
Question. The administration's fiscal year 2014 budget includes a
reduction of $328 million for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State
Revolving Funds (SRFs). Communities in my State are coming under
increasing pressure to upgrade their wastewater treatment facilities in
order to comply with more stringent water regulations. This seems to me
to be an unfunded Federal mandate. Do you have any advice for
communities and municipalities that do not have the revenue base to
finance the multi-million dollar upgrades needed to comply with these
increasingly stringent water regulations?
Answer. EPA has been working with States and municipalities to meet
their CWA obligations in a flexible and environmentally responsible
approach called integrated planning. The Integrated Planning approach
allows municipalities to balance CWA requirements in a manner that
addresses the most pressing health and environmental protection issues
first. Our work with States and municipalities also can lead to more
sustainable and comprehensive solutions, such as green infrastructure,
that improves water quality as well as supports other quality of life
attributes that enhance the vitality of communities.
The budget requests a combined $1.9 billion for the SRFs, a level
that will still allow the SRFs to finance approximately $6 billion in
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects annually. The
administration has strongly supported the SRFs, having received and/or
requested a total of approximately $20 billion in funds for the SRFs
since 2009. Since their inception, the SRFs have been provided over $55
billion.
rural water systems
Question. Your agency has been providing communities with much
needed training and technical assistance to comply with complex EPA
regulations. It appears to me that the administration's budget does not
explicitly include any funding to assist small rural water system
operators to comply with EPA rules and regulations.
Do these communities have the ability or resources to navigate
toward compliance without your help? Other than set-asides from the
revolving funds what assistance does your budget provide to communities
to comply with your agency's complex regulations?
Answer. Small and rural communities receive training and technical
assistance directly from EPA and State agency staff, as well as from
nonprofit organizations funded by EPA, State environmental and health
departments, and the United States Department of Agriculture/Rural
Utilities Service. EPA's Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) grant
and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) enable States to
develop technical assistance plans for their water systems, especially
rural water systems and small systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.
PWSS grants help States, territories, and tribes develop and
implement a PWSS program to ensure that all water systems comply with
the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. States use the grant
funding to develop and maintain State drinking water regulations;
develop and maintain an inventory of public water systems throughout
the State; track compliance information on public water systems;
conduct sanitary surveys of public water systems; review public water
system plans and specifications; provide technical assistance to
managers and operators of public water systems; carry out a program to
ensure that the public water systems regularly inform their consumers
about the quality of the water that they are providing; certify
laboratories that can perform the analysis of drinking water that will
be used to determine compliance with the regulations; and carry out an
enforcement program to ensure that the public water systems comply with
all of the State's requirements.
Besides set-asides provided by the DWSRF program, the DWSRF itself
makes funds available to drinking water systems, including small and
rural systems, to finance infrastructure improvements. The program also
emphasizes providing funds to small and disadvantaged communities and
to programs that encourage pollution prevention as a tool for ensuring
safe drinking water. In fact, under the DWSRF program, States are
required to provide a minimum of 15 percent of the funds available for
loan assistance to small systems to help address infrastructure needs.
In addition, EPA provides direct technical support and training to
States so they can assist small systems in building the capacity they
need to comply with current and future drinking water rules, and has
made strengthening the technical, managerial, and financial capacity of
small systems an Agency priority goal. For example, EPA implements the
Area-Wide Optimization Program (AWOP) which is often directed towards
small systems. This program provides compliance assistance and teaches
problem solving skills to improve operations at drinking water systems
rather than focusing on costly capital improvements. The agency is
developing a new online training system to provide basic training on
all of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA also
provides training to States, tribes, and water systems through periodic
webinars on various compliance issues. For example, there are webinars
in fiscal year 2013 on the monitoring requirements for the Stage 2
Disinfection/Disinfection Byproducts Rule and microbial inactivation.
EPA's website contains resources for systems challenged with compliance
with arsenic and radionuclides, and work is underway to develop a
compliance assistance tool for small water systems facing nitrate
noncompliance.
To assist small systems to improve their managerial and financial
capacity, the Agency has also developed CUPSS (Check-up for Small
Systems), a free, easy-to-use, asset management tool for small drinking
water and wastewater utilities. Small systems can use CUPSS to develop
a record of assets, a schedule of required tasks, an understanding of
finances; a tailored asset management plan. The agency also developed
the Energy Use Assessment Tool for small drinking water and wastewater
utilities to help them understand their current energy use and better
enable them to identify opportunities for reducing energy costs.
EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline also is available to help the
public, drinking water suppliers, and State and local officials
understand the regulations and programs developed in accordance with
the Safe Drinking Water Act. This includes information about drinking
water requirements, source water protection programs, underground
injection control programs, guidance, and public education materials.
The Hotline also provides contact information for resources such as
State-certified labs and EPA regional offices.
desoto county attainment
Question. Was DeSoto County, Mississippi, in non-attainment status
in 2004?
Answer. No, DeSoto County was not in non-attainment status in 2004.
Question. Did DeSoto County enter non-attainment based on 2008
standards?
Answer. For the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, EPA included the northern portion
of DeSoto County, Mississippi, in the Memphis Nonattainment Area.
Shelby County, Tennessee, and Crittendon County, Arkansas, make up the
rest of the area. This is the first time DeSoto County has been
designated as nonattainment for ozone. EPA determined that DeSoto
County should be part of this nonattainment area based on an analysis
of the technical factors, including information submitted by
Mississippi, and concluded that emissions from the county contribute to
the monitored violations in the area.
Question. Did ozone concentrations in DeSoto County increase or
decrease from 2004 through present?
Answer. The ozone air quality monitor located in central DeSoto
County indicates that ozone concentrations have decreased since 2004.
The EPA evaluates air quality status in terms of a 3-year average. For
DeSoto County, the 3-year average ozone levels decreased 11.2 percent
from 0.084 ppm (2002-2004) to 0.074 ppm (2010-2012). (Note that in
2008, the standard was revised from .085 ppm to .075 ppm).
Question. What portion of the Memphis area non-attainment status is
attributable to DeSoto County sources?
Answer. It makes sense to include DeSoto County in the
nonattainment area because analysis shows mobile source and area source
emissions are significant contributors to ozone formation in the
Memphis area. Population has grown steadily and the county has the
second highest Vehicle Miles Traveled in the area. From 2000-2010,
population in DeSoto County increased 48 percent. Much of this growth
has been in the northern portion of the county that is adjacent to
Tennessee.
The county has the second highest Vehicle Miles Traveled in the
Memphis area. More than 30 percent of the county's ozone-forming
emissions of NOX and VOC are from mobile sources and over 40
percent are from area sources. In addition, EPA's analysis of
meteorology and the conceptual model for high ozone events in the
Memphis area supports a conclusion that DeSoto County is contributing
to high ozone levels in the Memphis area. In 2008, sources in DeSoto
County emitted approximately 5,100 tpy NOX (9 percent of CSA
total) and 5,200 tpy VOC (12 percent of CSA total).
Question. Does non-attainment status limit certain types of
activities in DeSoto County?
Answer. The Memphis nonattainment area is classified as a Marginal
Nonattainment Area for ozone which specifies an attainment deadline of
2015. Marginal areas do not need to submit an attainment demonstration
or a Reasonable Further Progress Plan. DeSoto County does need to
participate in the Memphis metropolitan area's transportation
conformity planning to ensure emissions associated with certain
transportation-related projects are consistent with achieving clean air
standards. Also, new or modified major stationary sources in the area
are subject to the Clean Air Act's nonattainment area new source review
preconstruction permitting requirements. Inclusion in this area also
makes DeSoto County eligible for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) funds.
Question. Is DeSoto County's non-attainment status consistent with
Executive Order 13563, aimed at improving regulations and regulatory
review, in which President Obama stated that ``Our regulatory system
must protect health, welfare, safety, and our environment while
promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job
creation.''?
Answer. As indicated in the Federal Register notice announcing the
final designations for the 2008 ozone standards, area designations
actions are a mandatory duty under the Clean Air Act. The EPA shares
the responsibility with the States and tribes for reducing ozone air
pollution to protect public health. Working closely with the States and
tribes, the EPA is implementing the 2008 ozone standards using a common
sense approach that improves air quality, maximizes flexibilities, and
minimizes burden on State and local governments. Current and upcoming
Federal standards and safeguards, including pollution reduction rules
for powerplants, industry, vehicles and fuels, will assure steady
progress to reduce smog-forming pollution and will protect public
health in communities across the country. EPA will assist States as
much as possible with any additional measures so that they can return
to attainment status as soon as possible.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
regional haze program
Question. EPA's Regional Haze program is designed to protect
visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. I am concerned that,
in its implementation of the program, EPA is using outdated regulatory
tools to assess projected visibility improvements and compliance costs
when making Regional Haze decisions.
The Air Pollution Cost Manual currently used by EPA in estimating
costs for regional haze and other best available retrofit technology
(BART) determinations was published in 2002. Costs for designing,
engineering and installing controls obviously have increased
significantly since then. Given that the current cost manual was
published over a decade ago, is it out of date? What steps are being
taken by EPA to update it? Doesn't the use of an outdated cost manual
increase the likelihood that EPA is underestimating regional haze
compliance costs?
Answer. One important aspect of the Control Cost Manual (CCM) is
that it sets forth one well recognized control cost methodology that
provides consistency for all air agencies in preparing and reviewing
cost estimates for BART and other programs, thereby providing a
foundation for the comparison of cost estimates prepared by different
sources in different locales. This methodology is still well recognized
and valuable today and includes equations and data to generate cost
estimates for engineering and installing control technology. Through a
notice-and-comment rulemaking, the EPA has required that BART analyses
for certain powerplants (based on size) follow this methodology.\1\ 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 CCM for some of
these powerplants by either including items that are not part of this
methodology or not including all cost items. While EPA has no reason to
believe that the methodology for cost estimation is out of date, the
Agency will review the methodology provided in the CCM in light of the
concerns outlined and update the methodology if necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B) and section IV.D.4.a.5 of appendix Y
of 40 CFR part 51 require that cost estimates used in BART analyses for
powerplants having a generating capacity greater than 750 megawatts
must be based on the OAQPS Control Cost Manual, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CCM also contains cost estimates for particular types of
emission control systems, based on then-current information from actual
installations of particular controls at particular sources. These
historically based estimates may become outdated. However, the CCM
itself specifically allows and encourages users of the Manual to
develop and use alternative cost estimates based on more recent or more
directly relevant installation experiences, provided such alternative
estimates are well justified and documented. In fact, EPA has never
disapproved a State BART determination based only on the State having
used cost estimates based on such more recent or more directly relevant
experiences.
Question. EPA uses an air dispersion model, called CALPUFF Version
5.8, to assess projected improvements in visibility from proposed
NOX retrofit technologies. How does EPA respond to
scholarly, peer-reviewed studies asserting that CALPUFF Version 5.8
overestimates visibility improvements? What does EPA need to do to
update CALPUFF Version 5.8? Is this underway? Why is EPA not allowing
the use of more recent versions of CALPUFF, such as Version 6.4?
Answer. EPA, States, and industry work collaboratively to ensure
that dispersion models are continually improved and updated to ensure
the most accurate predictions of visibility impacts. While the studies
have been described as having been through peer review, 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 Appendix W.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Section 3.2.2(e)(i) of EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models
(published as Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALPUFF Version 5.8 is the most recent version of the model that
meets the criteria in Appendix W. The newer version(s) of the CALPUFF
dispersion model 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.
In the BART guidelines, EPA acknowledged that the regulatory
version of the CALPUFF model (Version 5.8) could lead to modeled over
predictions. The over predictions could overestimate the visibility
impairment that a source causes on the day when weather conditions make
the source have its maximum impact on a Class I area.\3\ Therefore, in
the final version of the BART guidelines, EPA recommended that the
CALPUFF model be used to estimate the 98th percentile visibility
impairment rather than the highest daily impact value as proposed. If
updated versions of CALPUFF can be shown to meet the criteria of
Appendix W, it would likely be appropriate for the EPA to recommend
that States switch to use the highest daily impact given that the
updated chemistry of the CALPUFF model would result in more accurate
results on such days than does Version 5.8.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``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.
\4\ In past agreements in using the CAMx photochemical model, which
has a robust chemistry module, EPA has recommended the use of the 1st
High value when sources were being screened out of a full BART analysis
based on the CAMx results. See Comment Letter from EPA Region 6 to TCEQ
dated February 13, 2007 regarding TCEQ Final Report ``Screening
Analysis of Potential BART-Eligible Sources in Texas,'' December 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In coordination with the Federal Land Managers, EPA has already
updated the current regulatory version of CALPUFF (Version 5.8) to
address known ``bugs'' and expects to release the updated version later
this summer. At the AWMA Specialty Conference in March 2013 and Annual
Regional/State/Local Modelers workshop in April 2013, EPA provided
information 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. EPA and
Federal Land Managers have formed an interagency workgroup to review
all available models to determine their suitability for these analyses,
including updated versions of the CALPUFF modeling system. EPA also
interacts with industry and other stakeholders. The information
provided to EPA by WEST Associates and the model developer indicates
that the new science updates include changes to incorporate atmospheric
chemistry. These changes would require a notice and comment rulemaking
in order for CALPUFF to be approved for analysis of atmospheric
chemistry under Appendix W. Therefore, EPA will be considering this
updated version of CALPUFF along with other models and techniques in
its current review and planned regulatory update to Appendix W.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mike Johanns
citizen-suit transparency
Question. With respect to public transparency where a citizen's
suit has been brought against the Agency alleging a failure to
undertake a nondiscretionary duty and where a third party has been
granted status as an intervenor:
Does the Agency believe there is any legal bar to notifying the
public (including intervenors) in a timely manner of the EPA's intent
to enter into settlement negotiations with the plaintiff?
Answer. EPA fully appreciates the importance of public involvement
in its rulemaking and other decisions. Most of EPA's defensive
environmental cases are under the Clean Air Act, which provides the
public notice and the opportunity to comment on any consent order or
settlement before it is final or filed with the court. EPA does not
commit in settlement to any final, substantive outcome of a prospective
rulemaking or other decisionmaking process. The rulemaking process
offers ample opportunity for the public, including regulated entities,
to provide meaningful comment on any proposed regulation.
Question. Does the Agency believe there is any legal bar to
including intervenors in any settlement negotiations?
Answer. The conduct of litigation involving the United States,
including settlement negotiation, is the primary responsibility of the
Department of Justice. EPA notes that there are existing opportunities
under the Federal civil rules of procedure for interested parties to
intervene in litigation, and settlements requiring court approval of
consent decrees provide opportunities for interested parties to present
their views. The involvement of third parties in settlement
negotiations may constrain the ability of the Federal Government to
reach an appropriate settlement, however, and the Department of Justice
needs to retain the discretion to determine when involvement of third
parties serves the interests of the United States.
foia disclosure
Question. In early February, your agency released personal
information on 80,000 livestock operations across the United States. In
Nebraska, personal information on over 3,500 operations was released.
Did EPA conduct an independent evaluation of the data States
submitted to EPA and redact any such personal information the Privacy
Act, Freedom of Information Act, or EPA's own policies required it to
before the Agency made its first release of the data?
Answer. In recognition of the concerns raised by the animal
agricultural industry, the EPA engaged in a review of its FOIA response
to determine whether the information released is publicly available,
and whether any revisions to the agency's determination to release the
information is warranted under the privacy exemption (Exemption 6) of
the FOIA.
As a result of this review, we have determined that, of the 29
States \5\ for which the EPA released information, all of the
information from 19 of the States is either available to the public on
the EPA's or States' websites, is subject to mandatory disclosure under
State or Federal law, or does not contain data that implicated a
privacy interest. The data from these 19 States is therefore not
subject to withholding under the privacy protections of FOIA Exemption
6. The EPA has determined that some personal information received from
the 10 remaining States \6\ is subject to Exemption 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The 29 States are: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado,
Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine,
Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
\6\ The 10 remaining States are: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia,
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, and Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has thoroughly evaluated every data element from each of
these 10 States and concluded that personal information--i.e., personal
names, phone numbers, email addresses, individual mailing addresses (as
opposed to business addresses) and some notes related to personal
matters--implicates a privacy interest that outweighs any public
interest in disclosure.
We amended our FOIA response to redact portions of the data
provided by these 10 States. The redacted portions include telephone
numbers, email addresses, and notations that relate to personal
matters. They also include the names and addresses of individuals (as
opposed to business facility names and locations, though facility names
that include individuals' names have also been redacted). We believe
that this amended FOIA response continues to serve its intended purpose
to provide basic location and other information about animal feeding
operations in order to serve the public interest of ensuring that the
EPA effectively implements its programs to protect water quality, while
addressing the privacy interests of the agricultural community.
Question. I am told the original release contained no redactions
based on FOIA Exemptions or the Privacy Act. Is this accurate?
Answer. Our initial FOIA response was released in the same
condition as it was received by EPA from the States.
Question. EPA has now reportedly agreed that in the case of data
from 10 States EPA should have redacted information. Is this an
accurate rendering?
Answer. After a comprehensive review, the EPA determined that some
personal information received from 10 States is subject to FOIA
exemption 6 and took action to redact that information.
Question. Does EPA believe that the release of unredacted data in
early February is consistent with applicable FOIA and Privacy Act law?
Answer. It was EPA's understanding, based on our communication with
States, that the information received, and subsequently released, was
all publicly available, either through an online database or through a
public records request to each State. EPA requested only publicly
available information from States. EPA believes that its response to
the FOIA requesters was consistent with its obligations under the
Privacy Act.
Question. With respect to the redactions that EPA now acknowledges
should have occurred before any FOIA release occurred, has EPA asked
for a list of entities and individuals who received (or viewed) the
unredacted data?
For those individuals and entities, has EPA asked for affidavits
certifying that those individuals and entities have not kept copies or
otherwise released or inappropriately recorded the data that was
subsequently redacted?
Answer. The EPA requested that all copies of the original response
be returned from all the requesters. The EPA also requested that the
requesters confirm that all copies of the information were destroyed.
The FOIA requesters subsequently complied. The EPA will work together
with our Federal partners, industry, and other stakeholders to ensure
the agency continues to address the privacy interests of farmers.
Question. Is it EPA's goal to establish and publish a national
livestock database to be published on EPA's website?
Answer. EPA has made no decision about establishing such a database
and is coordinating with stakeholders and other Federal agencies to
determine how data EPA has gathered about Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs) will be used.
Question. Does the Agency believe that publishing a national
livestock database will make our food supply less secure?
Answer. As noted above, EPA has made no decision about establishing
such a database. I can assure you that the agency's future actions to
protect water quality will be done in coordination with industry, other
Federal agencies, and other stakeholders to ensure the privacy
interests of farmers and the integrity of our Nation's food supply.
cooling water intake structures--cwa 316(b)
Question. With respect to EPA regulations addressing the systems
and equipment that powerplants and manufacturing facilities use to pump
water into a facility to manage heat:
Is EPA considering an impingement proposal that will consider each
site on an individual basis, taking into account fish-protection
measures in place, and consider the costs and benefits of mandating
additional measures intended to address impingement?
Answer. The EPA proposed a regulation that would allow application
of ``best professional judgement'' on how most effectively to address
fish impingement for cooling water users who intake under 50 million
gallons/day (MGD). A number of States expressed concern during the
public comment period about the costs of implementing a site-specific
approach to permitting. In a subsequent Notice of Data Availability,
EPA also requested comment on adopting a site-specific approach to
address impingement for all facilities. EPA received numerous comments
on this issue. EPA is carefully considering these comments, in crafting
the final rule consistent with the Clean Water Act.
Question. With respect to the requirements addressing the selection
of and installation of entrainment and impingement technology, is the
Agency considering making congruent the deadlines applicable to
entrainment and impingement requirements?
Answer. Yes, EPA is considering including provisions in the final
rule to align the deadlines for impingement and entrainment, so that
facility compliance would be less costly and more efficient.
Question. I have constituents who are very concerned with the sheer
volume of information that may be required to be submitted within 6
months of the final rule, (the (r)(2) through (r)(9) report submittals)
which EPA has already collected through previous information requests.
If this information has already been submitted, is the Agency
considering writing the final rule such that facilities would be
permitted to exclude previously submitted information from this list of
requirements?
Answer. Yes, the EPA is considering how its final rule can limit
information burden on facilities. For example, the EPA is considering
provisions in its final rule that would reduce or eliminate information
collection requirements when the permitting authority does not need the
additional information.
Question. Will the Agency consider extending the deadline for
submittal from 6 months to 1 year?
Answer. Yes, the Agency is considering this and other suggestions
the Agency has received that would help minimize reporting
requirements.
Question. The proposed rule, under (r)(9) Entrainment
Characterization Study Plan, requires a peer review process that some
consider undefined and unreasonable compared to any other rules EPA has
promulgated. Is this requirement unlike a public comment period that
would already be required by the facility's NPDES Permit, and if so,
how?
Answer. In devising the proposed rule, EPA was concerned about the
burden associated with site-specific decisionmaking that States would
bear. EPA was sensitive to the fact that States may lack staff with
economics expertise necessary to review benefit/cost analyses as part
of NPDES permitting. EPA viewed peer review as a close substitute for
State burden. EPA received public comments on the peer review
requirements consistent with this question. In the final rule, EPA
expects to address the burden of peer review and is considering
altering the requirements to reduce peer review burden.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Reed. And if there is no further business before
the subcommittee, the hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., Wednesday, April 24, 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 2014
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:31 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Reed, Feinstein, Leahy, Tester, Udall,
Merkley, Murkowski, Cochran, Alexander, Blunt, Hoeven, and
Johanns.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DAVID HAYES, DEPUTY SECRETARY
RHEA SUH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
PAMELA HAZE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUDGET, FINANCE,
PERFORMANCE AND ACQUISITION
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Let me call the hearing to order. Good
morning. On behalf of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I'd like to convene this
hearing on the fiscal year 2014 budget request for the
Department of the Interior.
Before we begin, I'd like to take a moment to welcome our
new Secretary, Sally Jewell, who was sworn in as the 51st
Secretary of the Interior on April 12. We are all fortunate
that she brings to her new position three decades of very
distinguished experience as a corporate executive, a banker,
petroleum engineer, and most recently, serving as the Chief
Executive Officer of Recreational Equipment Incorporated. And
just as importantly, I think, she also brings to the job her
personal experience as an avid outdoorswoman and advocate for
public lands.
So, thank you, Madam Secretary, for your commitment to
service.
I congratulate you, obviously, on behalf of the entire
subcommittee, and we are very, very pleased that we are able to
host your very first congressional hearing as Secretary. I
think, knowing Senator Murkowski, we promise to behave. So,
good luck. And I also look forward to hosting you up in Rhode
Island to see one of America's great natural treasures.
Let me also recognize Deputy Secretary David Hayes, who is
here for us in his final appearance before he departs for his
new position at Stanford Law School and the Hewlett Foundation
in June. David, thank you for your extraordinary experience in
both the Obama administration and the Clinton administration.
You have performed extraordinary service for the country.
You've been very helpful to us in terms of offshore development
of wind power off Rhode Island. And I want to thank you
particularly for joining Senator Murkowski and me, and then
Secretary Salazar, on our tour of Alaska, including the North
Slope.
Now, subject to being corrected by Senator Murkowski, I
don't think you'll find another restaurant quite as unique as
Pepe's North of the Border in Barrow. If you do find such a
restaurant in Stanford, please let us know, because we will go
there.
But good luck in all you do. Thank you.
And let me also recognize Ms. Rhea Suh, Assistant Secretary
for Policy, Management and Budget, and Pam Haze, her deputy.
They provide extraordinary assistance, and they are the
continuity and the expertise. Madam Secretary, I think you
already recognize that, since David is leaving.
I also want to congratulate Ms. Haze because she has been
recently awarded the Presidential Distinguished Rank Award to
honor her exemplary service to the Department. So, Pam, well
done. Thank you--an honor richly deserved.
2014 BUDGET
As we turn to the budget, it's worth noting that the
President's request for fiscal year 2014 provides the Interior
Department with substantial increases for energy development,
land acquisition, science programs, and operations of our
Nation's public lands. And, Secretary Jewell, it's good to see
such a strong budget request for conservation programs at a
time when the Department has been challenged by the effects of
sequestration and other pressures on the budget.
Let me suggest a few details that we can discuss as the
hearing proceeds. All told, Interior Department programs funded
by this subcommittee increased by almost 4 percent compared to
fiscal year 2013, for a total of $10.7 billion. The request
includes $2.6 billion to the National Park Service (NPS), which
is a 4-percent increase more than fiscal year 2013. While the
budget provides a significant increase for the operation of the
national parks, however, I'm concerned that the budget again
proposes to cut funding in half in National Heritage Areas,
like the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National
Heritage Corridor in Rhode Island, and I look forward to
discussing this issue with you.
Funding for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is also up
4 percent more than the fiscal year 2013 level, for a total of
$1.1 billion. That amount again includes a proposal for a $48
million fee to strengthen the onshore oil and gas inspection
program. The request also proposes to increase funding for the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service budget by 7 percent, for a total
of $1.55 billion. That amount includes increases for the
National Wildlife Refuge operations and science programs.
Additional investments in science and research are also made in
the budget for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which is
slated to receive a 9-percent increase more than fiscal year
2013.
In this atmosphere, these increases are significant and
notable, as you, I think, recognize, Madam Secretary.
Funding to the Department's offshore energy programs, which
have long been an item of interest to the subcommittee, also
increased by 9 percent, for a total of $392 million. That
amount includes $169 million for the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management to fund new investments for permitting renewable
energy projects like the ones we're pursuing off the coast of
Rhode Island.
It also includes $222 million to the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement, which handles inspections and
enforcement related to offshore oil and gas production, and
that is an increase of $22 million more than fiscal year 2013
levels. The request includes $777 million for Wildland Fire
Management programs within the Department, a decrease of $60
million below fiscal year 2013. But that amount fully funds the
10-year rolling average for fire suppression, but does not
include offsetting cuts to the Hazardous Fuels Reduction
program.
Finally, the budget request includes a major initiative to
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which I expect we'll
discuss this morning. Specifically, the budget provides a total
of $600 million for the LWCF programs at the Interior
Department and the U.S. Forest Service, including $400 million
in appropriations funded by this subcommittee. For the first
time ever, the budget proposes to fund part of the land
acquisition and conservation budget with mandatory, rather than
discretionary, funding.
Obviously, I support this increased funding, but we have a
long-term role in the allocation of these funds, and I think
it's something that we should discuss with respect to this
proposal. I indeed look forward to hearing from you.
With that, let me now turn to the ranking member and
colleague, Senator Murkowski, for any comments she would make.
Senator.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome and
good morning, Madam Secretary. It's good to have you before the
subcommittee. This will be, of course, the first of many
opportunities to sit down and work together on issues that are
clearly important to our Nation, the public lands, clearly
important to my State as the host of so many of those
treasures. So again, welcome and congratulations.
I also want to acknowledge the good work of Deputy
Secretary David Hayes, and I share the chairman's appreciation
for the work that you have provided for the Department of the
Interior under former Secretary Salazar. We all know that, we
both know that there were some very difficult issues that you
worked on, particularly the issues related to the Arctic Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS). We didn't always agree on everything,
but you were always very honest, very open with me and my
staff. I appreciate that, and I appreciate your leadership
within the Department.
I am sorry to see you leave, but good luck to you as you go
off to Stanford. And anytime you want to come fishing up north,
you know that we're there to welcome you.
I also want to acknowledge today both Rhea Suh, the
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, and of
course, Pam Haze. Again, a great individual within the
Department there, I appreciate your good work. Madam Secretary,
I know that you're new to this position. But you truly do have
a seasoned budget team with you today that I think will serve
you well during your tenure.
Like your predecessor, who visited our State frequently, I
hope, Madam Secretary, that you will come to Alaska soon. This
is a critical time for our State. And I would certainly
appreciate the opportunity to show you personally some of the
things that are a priority for me and for Alaskans, not the
least of which, we'll have an opportunity, hopefully in August,
to go out to King Cove. But there's so much to see. So I look
forward to those opportunities.
As you start your new position, I will say the same thing
that I said, too, to my friend Ken Salazar, when he assumed the
position as Secretary of the Interior. You are Alaska's
landlord, effectively. We've got more than 220 million acres
under the Department's jurisdiction, and that does not include
the millions of acres of OCS waters. We have the Nation's
largest National Wildlife Refuge, which is fully 85 percent of
the entire refuge system. We have the Nation's largest national
park and nearly one-third of all BLM lands, more than 75
million acres.
We also have one-half of all federally recognized tribes.
And the trust responsibility that the Federal Government owes
to our first peoples is very important to me. And at times, I
don't think it has been given the attention that it deserves by
either the Department of the Interior or BIA's sister agency,
the Indian Health Service. So I hope that you would take a
fresh look at improving the Department's relationship with
Native Americans and Alaska Natives.
Now, turning to your budget, I know that most of it was
largely developed prior to your assuming this position as
Secretary. That's got to be a tough, tough situation to walk
into. But I must tell you that there are two proposals in this
request that are, frankly, an insult to the people of Alaska,
and I'm speaking particularly of the legislative proposals
concerning future funding for the cleanup of legacy wells in
the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPRA) and the
completion of surveys that are necessary to convey final
patents to the State of Alaska and to Alaska Natives.
More than 100 wells were drilled by the Federal Government
within the NPRA and then simply abandoned. The Government
simply walked away. The annual budget for BLM has for many
years contained base funding of only about $1 million for
cleaning up these wells. The last two sites that were addressed
cost the agency $2 million each to remediate to acceptable
standards. So at this pace, it's going to take over 100 years
to clean up this mess.
Interestingly, if the Federal Government were a private
company operating on State lands, the fines, the fines alone
would exceed $8 billion. But we all know that the Federal
Government is exempt from State regulation on its own lands.
While the current situation is bad enough, the budget now
proposes to take the State's share of future revenues that are
generated from the NPRA to pay for the cost of the cleanup. In
other words, Mr. Chairman, what is proposed here, the budget
proposes to charge the State of Alaska for the Federal
Government's own mess. For what they failed to clean up, they
are now asking the State to step in and pick it up.
And I just need to be very, very plain today. This
proposal, in my view, is dead on arrival. It's just not going
to happen. So we need to be working together to address the way
that we will move forward with that, and I look forward to that
opportunity.
Likewise, the notion that the State must pay for the final
lands entitled to it under the statehood act is equally
wrongheaded. This has been a problem for decades. So again, you
are walking into a situation that has been out there
unaddressed, and how you will deal with it is difficult. In
2004, the Congress passed the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration
Act that was intended to nearly finish conveyances by the 50th
anniversary of statehood; that was back in 2009. That, of
course, didn't happen. But at least the Department has made an
attempt to increase the pace of conveyances, and I do
appreciate that.
For the last several years, the Department annually slashes
the budget request for this program, even though the State is
still waiting for title to more than 37 million acres of its
lands. Alaska Natives are awaiting final transfer of 11.4
million acres, fully one-quarter of their lands. Some 40 years
after the fact, they're still waiting.
My staff has searched; they can find no other State in the
Union that was ever asked to effectively pay to gain the lands
that were promised them when they joined this Union. Not
Arizona, not New Mexico, not Florida, not California--no one,
not one State has been asked to foot the bill to pay for the
lands. We're not going to start with Alaska.
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, I've received a letter from the
Alaska Native Village CEO Association that speaks to the issue
of the land conveyances, and I would ask that that be included
as well, for the record.
Senator Reed. Without objection.
[The letter follows:]
Letter From the Alaska Native Village CEO Association
Alaska Native Village
CEO Association,
Anchorage, AK, April 19, 2013.
Re: Funding for BLM Alaska Conveyance Budget.
Hon. Don Young,
House of Representatives,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mark Begich,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Sally Jewell,
Secretary of the Interior, Department of the Interior,
C St. NW, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Young, Senator Murkowski, Senator Begich, and
Director Jewell: I am writing on behalf of the Alaska Native Village
CEO Association (ANVCA). ANVCA is the largest statewide Village'
Association representing more than 80 Alaska Native Village
Corporations. ANVCA's mission is to provide services that will improve
the efficiency, profitability and stability to its member corporations
and to advocate for policies that will benefit and protect interests of
Alaska Native Village Corporations with local, State and Federal
governments.
Due to the President's budget and the 8 percent sequestration which
is in effect until the end of September, there is no funding for
cadastral surveys of ANCSA Corporation exterior boundaries, 14(c) or
pending Native Allotments this year, and possibly next year. This is
unacceptable. BLM cannot follow through on its Federal mandate in ANCSA
13(a) which states: ``The Secretary shall survey the areas selected or
designated for conveyance to Village Corporations pursuant to the
provisions of this act.''
A number of ANCSA Village and Regional Corporations had remaining
entitlements and 14(c) surveys that were ready for survey this summer;
however BLM had funds to perform only one cadastral survey this year.
Many of these survey projects were to be contracted out to Public
Law 638 Indian Self Determination and Education Act Contractors who
perform the surveys on behalf of their own communities and on
traditional lands. 638 Contracting promotes local hires, more funding
is pumped directly into the local economy and the 638 contractors gain
valuable Federal contracting experience.
This setback will have profound consequences on our community and
our entire State, both economically and socially. Dozens of our Alaskan
village lands need surveys on the ground so vested 14(c) claimants can
receive title to their homes, businesses, subsistence campsites and
land for community expansion. Without survey of home lots, local people
have difficulty getting a loan from the bank. Municipal governments
need site control to get State and Federal funding for pressing
community needs. ANCSA Corporations have a liability issue that comes
from owning land that the public uses. The lack of survey also means
that title to our remaining Corporation land is clouded until the 14(c)
obligation is done and surveyed lands are conveyed to individuals,
organizations and the City. Lack of survey is not only an ANCSA
Corporation problem; it is a State of Alaska problem as well.
Therefore. we urge you to make it a priority to restore. or even
increase, funding for Alaska Native, and State of Alaska, lands through
the Bureau of Land Management Alaska Conveyance Program for the survey
of ANCSA and State lands.
Please feel free to contact me regarding this matter at any time by
contacting ANVCA.
Thank you for your consideration.
Nichola Ruedy,
ANVCA Operations Manager.
Senator Murkowski. So, Madam Secretary, you have a very
unique background. We had an opportunity to discuss this during
your confirmation hearings, a unique background in both the oil
and gas industry in the private sector, as well as the
conservation community. I know that some have perhaps been
critical about your lack of experience in the public policy
realm.
But I'm hopeful that, as a fresh set of eyes and new
perspective like you bring can help us move beyond some of the
traditional stalemates that we have faced that pit one interest
against another. I honestly believe it's possible for you to
set a policy agenda at the department that is beneficial to all
parties.
My State and our country have so much potential to provide
the help needed to address our Nation's energy, security, high
unemployment, the sluggish economy. And I think that, working
together, we can set this on the right course. So I appreciate
your willingness to work with me on that.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and all of our witnesses for
appearing before this subcommittee today and look forward to
the opportunity for questions.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Let me just sort of give an overview of where we are. We
have a 12 o'clock vote. It's now 10:45 a.m. We'll do 6-minute
rounds, order of arrival, and we'll go by side to side.
At this point, if any of my other colleagues would like to
make a very brief, in the order of 1-minute statement, I'd be
happy to entertain it.
Very good. Thank you. In that case, Madam Secretary, your
testimony is going to be made part of the record in its
entirety. So feel free to summarize. Madam Secretary.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF SALLY JEWELL
Secretary Jewell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Murkowski, members of the subcommittee. It is an
honor to present the fiscal year 2014 budget. I look forward to
future years when I actually will have a hand in creating it.
But I'm now in my fourth week on the job and certainly enjoying
it so far.
I do want to recognize my colleagues up here at the table,
and in particular thank David Hayes for his guidance and his
leadership, and his willingness to stay through the end of
June, because I am doing as much as I can to tap his wisdom.
Rhea Suh and Pam Haze have been incredibly helpful to me, as
well, and continue to be.
SEQUESTRATION
It's helpful to have a business background right now at
this time in Government. I will do a glancing blow at
sequestration. I can't not express that it is very, very
difficult to walk into a Department that's just had an $881
million cut to the budget for fiscal year 2013. Five percent in
a year, but applied over the remaining months has been very,
very difficult, and hard on employees, who are hardworking, who
are committed to our mission, to all the things that you care
about as well.
They're really taking it on the chin, from furloughs of
U.S. Park Police, 14 days that they're not going to be getting
paid, to a 25-percent reduction across the board in our
seasonal hires. So wildlife biologists, law enforcement
rangers, interpretive rangers, maintenance folks, it's just
very, very difficult for us to carry out the mission in the way
it's expected.
Just a couple of examples: Our public lands in all of your
States have welcomed 435 million visitors a year, and they're
going to see reductions in services and programs. Some of the
parks won't be open to the extent that we would like them to be
because you've got to protect the people and protect the
resources.
On the energy side, we just announced that we would not be
able to do a few lease sales in California through BLM, because
we have to prioritize those activities that are already in
flight, from an environmental safety and protection standpoint,
to authorizing permits to drill. This is going to impact our
ability on both the conventional energy side and the renewable
energy side to complete the environmental impact statement
work, the permits and so on.
I know it's not where you want us to go; it's certainly not
where we want to go. This budget we're dealing with in fiscal
year 2013 is roughly equivalent to where we were in 2006, not
accounting for inflation. So it's very, very difficult. I have
to say that I have been doing what I can to boost the spirit
and encourage the people that work at Interior and devote so
much of their time to this. But it's a rough year.
2014 BUDGET
So fiscal year 2014 is a better choice for all of us. I
know you all agree with that. The $10.9 billion budget for
fiscal year 2014 supports energy and conservation. It supports
upholding our trust responsibilities, as Ranking Member
Murkowski referenced, to Native Americans and Alaska Natives,
and sound science to drive our decisionmaking.
The investments are focused on our economy, jobs, and our
country's future. Of the $513 million increase requested over
the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget, about 40 percent of it is
strictly for the fire program. So there's a lot of puts and
takes.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
You referenced, Mr. Chairman, the LWCF and our request that
over a 2-year period of time the funding be moved into the
mandatory funding category. It fulfills, really, a 50-year
promise to the American people to take offshore oil and gas
revenues and mitigate those impacts by putting a portion of the
revenues into conservation programs onshore. The LWCF has
touched every single county across the United States. We think,
given the environment that we're in, mandatory funding makes
sense, and we could certainly get into more of that in the
questioning.
SCIENCE
On the science side, we have a $946 million investment in
both basic and applied science to support the mission-essential
programs. It's about a $138 million increase from fiscal year
2012. What do we use this for? USGS and the FWS address
invasive species threats. One big one is the Asian carp as it
potentially moves into the Great Lakes. If we let that get out
of control, we're in real trouble. This provides the science
and the support to try and nip that in the bud before it
becomes a problem.
The white-nose syndrome in bats, a big issue for the
agricultural community, particularly in the Northeast, but
actually throughout the country as well, again bringing the
resources to bear from science to address things like that. The
use of geographic information system mapping to get a lot
smarter about how we manage our lands overall. These are all
investments in science I think will help us carry out our
mission and fulfill the interests of your States.
INDIAN PROGRAMS
On the Indian programs side, our fiscal year 2014 budget
requests $2.6 billion for Bureau of Indian Affairs programs
overall. That is upholding our trust management
responsibilities in Indian education, law enforcement, and
social service programs. We have increases in this budget for
contract support costs for tribes around their self-
determination, to help combat domestic violence in Indian
communities, help tribes manage their natural resources, and
prepare for threats from climate change.
2014 BUDGET
This is a balanced budget, from the standpoint of
supporting the administration's priorities without adding a
dime to the deficit. One thing that is beneficial about
Interior is we generate revenue. This budget proposes to
generate $3.7 billion in additional revenue over 10 years.
We've cut administrative costs by $217 million by reducing
travel and being strategic in purchasing since 2010. My
colleagues here on my left have orchestrated the largest IT
consolidation, perhaps across the Federal Government, which is
saving hundreds of millions of dollars by being smarter and
more efficient in how we deliver services.
And the budget reflects what a businessperson would do,
which is pick your priorities, scale back in other areas so you
can fund the areas important to you and that align with the
missions of Interior. We have about $600 million in reductions,
which include $476 million under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee, freeing up that money to fund the priorities you
referenced in your opening statements.
We want to manage this Department, and I will bring my
business expertise to the table to deliver on our missions
effectively and support the American taxpayer.
Final note on Hurricane Sandy. I want to thank all of you
for your efforts to pass the Hurricane Sandy supplemental
appropriations act, and a little later on today, we'll be
issuing a press release on $475 million to be released to
support Hurricane Sandy relief efforts. Mr. Chairman, it is
$1.5 million for refuges in Rhode Island. It is reopening the
Statue of Liberty for the Fourth of July, and many other
programs identified in that press release that will repair the
damage and also create more resilience for the future, as we
have additional storm events that are impactful.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, I thank you very much for the opportunity and privilege
to be here. And we all look forward to your questions. Thank
you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sally Jewell
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here today. I am glad to have an opportunity to talk with you about my
priorities, the Department's continuing role in job creation and the
economy, and how we are practicing good Government.
We share very deep connections in our roles as stewards of the
Nation's parks, forests, deserts, rivers, and seashores and as the
keeper of the history of this country. We share responsibilities to
protect and advance the role of public lands and Indian lands as huge
economic engines for the Nation. From energy development, to grazing,
to logging, tourism and outdoor recreation, our lands and waters power
our economy and create jobs. In many of your States, the revenues we
share from energy production and other activities are a critical
component of the local economy.
I believe our partnership efforts and ability to resolve challenges
and take advantage of opportunities will advance our goals and shape
our country for years to come.
2013 appropriations
Before I talk about the 2014 President's budget, I would like to
paint the contrast created by the 2013 budget situation. For the
programs that this subcommittee oversees, the Department's operating
level for 2013 is $9.9 billion, including a sequester cut of $523
million.
The cuts to our budget push us back in time to funding levels we
last saw in 2006. The cuts reverse much of the progress made by
Secretary Salazar, who worked in partnership with this subcommittee to
build capacity to advance the President's all-of-the above energy
strategy; conserve our lands, waters and wildlife; advance youth
engagement in the outdoors; and honor commitments to Indian Nations. I
will admit we were disappointed by the outcome of the 2013 budget. It
has resulted in dispirited agencies and demoralized employees and it
undermines the work we need to do on so many fronts.
I look at the Bureau of Land Management, an agency that has a
diverse and challenging set of responsibilities, and I feel a sense of
loss about the impacts to their budget. BLM balances its dual missions
to protect and conserve natural and cultural resources, oversee and
manage the development of energy and minerals, and responsibly manage
historic uses of public lands for grazing and timber production, while
meeting public demands for wilderness designation and recreation. This
agency of nearly 11,000 employees has the enormous responsibility of
managing 245 million acres of land and a mineral estate of 700 million
acres. BLM oversees 6,000 miles of trails in 14 States, hosts 59
million visitors annually, and oversees the production of 41 percent of
the coal produced in this country. BLM's vast estate and complex
mission requires a balancing of work and stretches resources across 17
western States.
BLM strives to be a good neighbor. The BLM's operating budget is
reduced from last year's operating level by $70 million or 6 percent.
This reduction comes now, halfway through the fiscal year and at the
start of field season. The outcome of the 2013 appropriation process
will slow BLM's efforts to strengthen the management and permitting
processes for oil and gas, minerals and coal on public lands; reduce
efforts underway to protect and restore sage grouse habitat; reduce our
partnerships that help to maintain trails and recreation opportunities;
and slow the issuance of grazing permits and timber leases. This will
impact BLM's ability to be a good neighbor because it will be necessary
to reduce invasive species control, the protection of archeological
sites, and limit access for camping, hunting and fishing, and other
recreation.
In the coming months you will see these types of impacts across the
country in all of our bureaus and offices. You will also see the
impacts on your constituents because of cutbacks in programs and
services and because of reduced revenue sharing, grants and contracts.
We recently notified State treasurers that they can expect to receive
reduced mineral payments for the balance of the fiscal year and we
notified county commissioners that Payments in Lieu of Taxes payments
will be reduced.
This discussion is important--we are at a watershed moment for our
Nation. We can't continue to mortgage our future by cutting back on
programs that fulfill commitments to the Nation for natural and
cultural resource stewardship, energy independence, and upholding our
commitments to Indian Tribes. Interior's budget is 1 percent of
discretionary spending--a small slice of the pie. However, cuts to our
programs have disproportionate impacts that we cannot continue to
erode.
Our Department collects nearly $13 billion annually through mineral
extraction, grazing and timber activities on public lands, and
recreation fees. We share nearly $5 billion of these revenues annually
with States, tribes, counties and others in the form of grants and
direct payments. An additional $2 billion of our budget is used in
local communities across the Nation through contracts for goods and
services.
We will survive these cuts in 2013 by freezing hiring, eliminating
seasonal positions, and cutting back on our programs and services.
These steps are essential in order to maintain our core mission to
serve the public. However, they are not sustainable, as these actions
which are eroding our workforce, shrinking our summer field season, and
deferring important work cannot be continued in future years without
further severe consequences to our mission.
2014 budget
The 2013 situation is in stark contrast to our 2014 budget.
Interior's 2014 budget represents the needs of this Department in
balance with the constrained fiscal situation. The budget will help us
to operate effectively and fulfill our mission requirements and
authorized purposes as prescribed by the Congress.
The 2014 budget request includes $10.9 billion for programs under
the jurisdiction of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
Subcommittee. The budget for current appropriations is $513.2 million
or 5 percent above the 2012 level.
Including the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Completion
Act, which is under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee, the 2014 President's budget includes $11.9
billion, an increase of $486.4 million. Interior's budget request
includes reductions and savings of over $600 million. These reductions
reflect the outcome of difficult choices, sacrificing in many areas,
deferring projects, and programming savings for efficiencies in order
to maintain funding for highest priorities.
It is important to put this budget in context. The context is the
complex mission the Department of the Interior has and how the mission
affects the lives of all Americans. Nearly every American lives within
an hour's drive of lands or waters managed by the Interior Department.
In 2012, there were 483 million visits to Interior-managed lands.
Recreational visits to Interior's lands had an economic benefit to
local communities, particularly in rural areas, contributing an
estimated $48.7 billion in economic activity in 2011. The Department
oversees the responsible development of 23 percent of U.S. energy
supplies, is the largest supplier and manager of water in the 17
western States, maintains relationships with 566 federally recognized
Tribes, and provides services to more than 1.7 million American Indian
and Alaska Native peoples.
Achieving success in all of these important responsibilities on
behalf of the American people is the Department's primary focus. The
American people deserve nothing less.
investing in america
Through the America's Great Outdoors initiative, the administration
is working to expand opportunities for recreation and conservation,
through partnerships with States and others, and the promotion of
America's parks, refuges, and public lands. The benefits extend beyond
the conservation of natural resources and engagement of Americans with
the outdoors. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, the
American outdoor recreation economy provides an estimated 6.1 million
jobs, spurs $646 billion in spending, and brings $39.9 billion in
Federal tax revenue and $39.7 billion in State and local tax revenue.
I am very excited the 2014 budget request includes increased
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and a legislative
proposal to establish dedicated mandatory funding for LWCF programs,
with full funding at $900 million beginning in 2015. Enactment of a
mandatory LWCF program would ensure continued funding for this program
that was designed to make investments in conservation and recreation as
compensation to the American people for the development of oil and gas
resources. In 2014, the budget includes $600 million for LWCF,
including $200 million in mandatory funding to supplement discretionary
funds and provide an additional $141 million for Interior programs,
including $88 million for Federal land acquisition, and $53 million for
recreational and conservation grants. The budget includes $59 million
in mandatory funding for U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest
Service.
The AGO initiative is encouraging innovative partnerships in
communities across the Nation, 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. These efforts are based on donations reflecting the support
of local communities to protect these areas and create more open space.
For example, in 2012, the Department established the Swan Valley
Conservation Area which connects the Canadian Rockies with the central
Rockies of Idaho and Wyoming. The FWS established the area in
partnership with landowners who voluntarily entered their lands into
easements. The new area will protect one of the last low-elevation,
coniferous forest ecosystems in western Montana that remains
undeveloped and provide habitat for species such as grizzly bears, gray
wolves, wolverines, and Canada lynx.
The 2014 budget includes $5.3 billion in current authority for AGO
activities, an increase of $179.8 million above 2012. Funding is
focused on land acquisition programs supported through the Land and
Water Conservation Fund as well as land management operations, and
other grant and technical assistance programs to promote conservation
and improve recreational access. This includes $120.2 million for river
restoration activities by the Bureau of Reclamation, a new addition to
our AGO portfolio in 2014.
The AGO request includes $10 million for a revitalized and
refocused Urban Parks and Recreation Resource grant program, and $3
million for a Historic Preservation Fund competitive grant program to
support projects that help to tell the broader and diverse aspects of
America's story.
The 2014 budget continues a collaborative effort begun last year
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service in the to
focus on the conservation and restoration of landscapes and working
lands, protecting ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.
This approach works with partners at the local level to identify
landscape areas or ecosystems for collaborative and leveraged
conservation investments. Working jointly with the Forest Service,
Interior has identified four focal landscape areas for targeted
investment of $169.3 million in 2014.
a stronger energy future
Interior enables the safe and environmentally responsible
development of conventional and renewable energy on public lands and
the Outer Continental Shelf. The Department's oil and gas development
activities accounted for nearly $9.7 billion of the receipts generated
by Interior's activities in 2012. For the past several years, Interior
has targeted investments in America's energy future, particularly to
encourage the development of renewable energy on the Nation's public
lands and offshore areas where it makes sense. In 2009, there were no
commercial solar energy projects on or under development on the public
lands. From 2009 through March 2013, Interior authorized 37 renewable
energy projects on or through the public lands which, if constructed,
will have the potential to produce enough electricity to power more
than 3.8 million homes. The Department also plays a key role in efforts
to strengthen the Nation's electric transmission grid. In 2012,
Interior approved permits enabling more than 350 miles of transmission
lines in seven States across Federal lands.
A stronger America depends on a growing economy that creates jobs.
No area holds more promise than investments in American energy, with
the potential to provide clean, low cost, reliable, and secure energy
supplies. Success depends on the country's ability to pursue an all-of-
the-above energy strategy. Interior's energy resource programs are at
the forefront of this objective. The 2014 budget includes $771.6
million for renewable and conventional energy programs, an increase of
$97.5 million above 2012. This includes $1.1 million for the Bureau of
Reclamation to better integrate renewable energy technology into their
projects, building on significant investments to date. Reclamation's 58
hydroelectric power plants generate more than 40 billion kilowatt hours
of electricity to meet the needs of over 3.5 million households and
generate over $1 billion in gross revenues for the Federal Government.
Renewable energy, particularly solar and wind power, is a crucial
and growing component of the administration's all-of-the-above energy
strategy. Among the significant results achieved for renewable power,
since 2009, BLM has authorized more than 11,500 megawatts of energy on
public lands and waters, established a road map for responsible solar
development in the West designating energy zones, and flipped the
switch on the first solar energy project to deliver power to the grid.
The BLM also released the Final Environmental Impact Statement for a
proposed 750 megawatt facility in Riverside County that would be one of
the largest solar energy projects on public lands in the California
desert. The BLM is also moving forward on wind energy, with a proposed
complex in Wyoming that would generate up to 3,000 megawatts of power,
making it the largest wind farm facility in the United States and one
of the largest in the world. The 2014 budget includes $29.1 million in
BLM for onshore renewable energy programs.
Significant progress has been made to advance offshore wind energy.
In 2012, BOEM issued the second non-competitive commercial wind lease
off the coast of Delaware, and moved forward with first-ever
competitive lease sales for wind energy areas off Virginia and Rhode
Island/Massachusetts. These sales involve nearly 278,000 acres proposed
for development of wind generation to produce electricity to power as
many as 1.4 million homes. The 2014 budget includes $34.4 million in
BOEM for offshore Renewable Energy development.
Interior oversees onshore production of oil, gas, and coal on over
700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate and continues efforts to
expand safe and responsible onshore energy development. In calendar
year 2012, the Bureau of Land Management held 31 onshore oil and gas
sales. Although we planned to conduct 33 sales in 2013, the sequester
is anticipated to result in fewer and smaller lease sales. The BLM
sales resulted in 1,707 parcels of land receiving bids in 2012, 30
percent more than in 2009. Onshore oil and gas leasing reforms put in
place in 2010 resulted in fewer protests; less than 18 percent of 2,064
parcels offered in fiscal year 2012 were protested, the lowest since
fiscal year 2003, reducing costs and speeding development. In 2014, the
Department proposes a total of $127.1 million in current appropriations
and offsetting fees for BLM's oil and gas program, representing an
increase of $23 million in program capacity. This includes $48 million
in proposed inspection fees, allowing for an increase of $10 million in
BLM inspection and enforcement resources, along with a reduction of $38
million in requested appropriations for the program. The proposed
onshore inspection fee is similar to the fee now charged to inspect
offshore rigs and platforms.
Interior has been similarly active in supporting offshore
production of oil and gas, while continuing to stress management and
oversight reforms identified as a result of the Deepwater Horizon
incident. At the end of 2012, more rigs were operating in the gulf than
in the previous 2\1/2\ years, equaling the number of rigs in the gulf
before the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In 2012 alone, BSEE approved
112 new deepwater well permits, higher than in either of the 2 years
preceding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. At the same time, the
Department has implemented safety and environmental management systems
regulations; issued a new drilling safety rule to refine safety reforms
and strengthen requirements; took steps to hold contractors accountable
for their actions offshore; conducted the first full-scale capping
stack deployment exercise to respond to a potential future well blowout
scenario; and provided new guidance on oil spill response plans.
Interior released a new 5-year program for offshore leasing last
year, making areas containing an estimated 75 percent of the
technically recoverable offshore oil and gas resources available for
exploration and development. In March 2013, BOEM held the second Gulf
of Mexico sale under the new OCS Plan, drawing 407 bids on 320 tracts
covering more than 1.7 million acres offshore Alabama, Louisiana, and
Mississippi, with high bids totaling $1.2 billion. In 2012, BOEM began
to assess energy resource potential off the coast of the Mid and South
Atlantic. In 2012, Interior also oversaw the first new exploratory
activity in the Alaskan arctic in a decade, with Shell Oil Company
beginning limited preparatory drilling activities in the Chukchi and
Beaufort Seas under strict safety and environmental oversight. The 2014
budget includes a legislative proposal to implement an agreement
reached in 2012 with the Government of Mexico to open up previously off
limits transboundary oil and natural gas reservoirs in the Gulf of
Mexico. The 2014 budget includes $478.2 million for conventional
offshore oil and gas activities. The Department estimates the
exploration and production of oil, gas, coal, hydropower, and minerals
on Federal lands contributed nearly $275 billion to the U.S. economy in
2011.
fulfilling the trust
This administration has made it a top priority to help bring real
and lasting change in Indian Country and to open a new constructive
chapter of relations with Native Americans. The administration has a
comprehensive agenda to reform, repair, and rebuild Federal relations
with Indian Country to ensure American Indians and Alaska Natives are
offered the opportunities they deserve. This means respecting the
inherent sovereignty of tribal nations and making sure the Federal
Government is honoring its commitments, fulfilling its trust
responsibilities to tribal nations and individuals, providing
resources, working cooperatively to build stronger economies and safer
communities, and providing high quality education opportunities for
Indian youth at schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education.
Interior has worked diligently to restore tribal homelands. Since
2009, Interior has acquired more than 190,000 acres of land into trust
and processed over 1,000 requests for land acquisitions that will allow
for economic development, natural resource infrastructure, and health
and housing projects to move forward as determined by the Tribes. The
Secretarial appointed National Commission on Indian Trust
Administration and Reform will help further these efforts as it
undertakes a forward-looking, comprehensive evaluation of the
Department's trust management.
One of the most significant recent developments regarding
Interior's trust responsibilities was passage of the Claims Resolution
Act of 2010, which ratified the $3.4 billion Cobell v. Salazar
settlement agreement and four tribal water rights settlements. The
settlement became final on November 24, 2012, following action by the
U.S. Supreme Court and expiration of the appeal period.
Interior has launched implementation of a $1.9 billion Indian Land
Buy-Back Program, authorized in the legislation, to purchase
fractionated interests in trust or restricted land from willing
Individual Indian account holders at fair market value within a 10 year
period. The program enables tribal governments to use consolidated
parcels for the benefit of their communities. Interior will administer
the program by securing the Department's extensive expertise and
services, primarily in BIA and the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, to implement the operational aspects, including
valuations and acquisitions. As an added incentive to willing sellers,
the Indian Land Buy-Back Program will fund up to $60 million for a
scholarship fund for American Indian and Alaska Native students.
The entire program will be based on consultation with and
participation of Tribes. Building on the Cobell v. Salazar settlement,
the administration has engaged tribes in Nation-to-Nation negotiations
on 59 additional settlements leading to over $1.1 billion in
settlements to resolve long standing trust accounting and trust
management claims.
Interior has also taken another step to give tribes and individual
Indians greater control over their own lands with the finalization of
the most sweeping reform of Federal surface leasing regulations in more
than 50 years. The new regulations remove bureaucratic redtape and
streamline the approval for homeownership, expedite economic
development, and spur renewable energy. As a result, individuals and
tribes will have the ability to do fundamental things on tribal lands,
like buy a home or build a business. The 2014 budget includes increases
in Trust Real Estate Services, including a general increase of $4.2
million to support these efforts.
The 2014 budget proposes an interim solution in the way in which
funds are budgeted for contract support costs, which are important to
the furtherance of self-governance and Indian self-determination. The
1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as
amended, allows tribes to implement programs previously administered by
the Federal Government through contractual arrangements. In turn,
tribal contractors are paid for the administration of those programs,
known as contract support costs. Contract support costs funds are used
by tribal contractors to pay a wide range of administrative and
management costs, including but not limited to finance, personnel,
maintenance, insurance, utilities, audits, and communications. These
funds allow tribes to manage the programs for which they contract, and
eliminate the need for tribes to use program funds to fulfill
administrative requirements. The 2014 request for these costs is $231
million, an increase of $9.8 million above the 2012 enacted level.
In light of the Supreme Court's Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter
decision, the administration is proposing Congress appropriate contract
support costs funding to tribes on a contract-by-contract basis. To
ensure as much clarity as possible regarding the level of contract
support costs funding, the administration will provide Congress a
contract-by-contract funding table for incorporation into the
appropriations act. The administration proposes this change as an
interim step. The broader goal is to develop a longer-term solution
through consultation with the Tribes, as well as streamline and
simplify the contract support costs process which is considered by many
as overly complex and cumbersome to both tribes and the Federal
Government.
Another area of emphasis reflected in the 2014 budget is a
commitment to resolve tribal water rights claims and ensure Native
American communities have access to use and manage water to meet
domestic, economic, cultural, and ecological needs. Including funding
for technical and legal support and for authorized settlements
involving tribal waters, the 2014 budget request totals $159.6 million,
which is an increase of $25.9 million over 2012. This includes a total
of $135.3 million within the Bureaus of Reclamation and Indian Affairs
to implement water rights settlements, an increase of $20.4 million
above 2012. For communities benefiting from these settlements, a
permanent water supply will vastly improve their quality of life and
will offer greater economic security immediately as well as into the
future.
To strengthen the Department's capacity to meet its trust
responsibilities and more effectively partner with tribes on water
issues, $3.4 million in increases are provided in BIA's budget to
support Water Management and Planning, Water Rights Litigation, and to
conduct a comprehensive Department-wide evaluation to strengthen
engagement, management, and analytical capabilities of the Indian Water
Rights Office and other bureaus and offices that work on these issues.
An increase of $766,000 in Reclamation's Native American Affairs
Program and $1 million in the Cooperative Water Program at USGS will
also strengthen technical analysis in support of water rights
settlement work.
Interior is working to improve other services in Indian Country. In
education, Interior is working with the Department of Education to
develop a national education reform agenda to better serve Indian
children in BIE schools. The two agencies signed an agreement to
bolster cooperation and coordination. The budget includes $15 million
to fund an elementary and secondary school pilot program based on the
successful Department of Education turnaround schools model. Grants
will be awarded to BIE-funded schools demonstrating the greatest need
for the funds and the strongest commitment for substantially raising
the achievement of students.
Interior is putting more law enforcement officers in Indian
communities, and improving training and equipment. Interior's revamped
recruiting process for BIA law enforcement officers has increased the
number of applicants for those positions by 500 percent, resulting in
the largest officer hiring increase in BIA history. A pilot program of
intense community policing on four reservations experiencing high crime
rates saw promising results, a combined reduction of violent crime of
35 percent after the first 24 months. Now, 12 months later, crime
continues to drop for a new combined reduction of 55 percent. Interior
has expanded this successful pilot program to two additional
reservations. The 2014 budget of $2.6 billion includes $365.3 million
for BIA's Public Safety and Justice program, an increase of $19
million.
spurring growth and innovation through science
The proposed 2014 budget provides strong support for basic and
applied science to support sustainable stewardship of natural resources
as part of Interior's mission. The budget requests $963.1 million for
research and development across the Department. These investments
promote economic growth and innovation, advance American
competitiveness in the global market, strengthen natural hazard
preparedness and improve the Nation's fundamental understanding of our
natural resources and environmental capital at the heart of resource
development, and human and environmental health issues. Program
increases will support the application of science to address critical
challenges in energy and mineral production, ecosystem management,
invasive species, oil spill restoration, climate adaptation, and Earth
observation (such as satellite and airborne land imaging and water and
wildlife monitoring).
Interior's mission requires a careful balance between development
and conservation. The Department works to achieve this balance by
working closely with its diverse stakeholders and partners to ensure
its actions provide the greatest benefit to the American people.
Central to this mission is the development and use of scientific
information to inform decisionmaking. Scientific monitoring, research,
and development play a vital role in supporting Interior's missions and
Interior maintains a robust science capability in the natural sciences,
primarily in the U.S. Geological Survey. An example of how this
expertise is applied is USGS's work as part of an interagency
collaboration on hydraulic fracturing, which is aimed at researching
and producing decision-ready information and tools on the potential
impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the environment, health, and safety,
including water quality and inducement of seismic activity. The budget
includes $18 million to continue the inter-agency collaboration to
investigate the impacts of hydraulic fracturing.
As the Department's premier science agency, the U.S. Geological
Survey is funded at $1.2 billion in the proposed budget, an increase of
$98.8 million above the 2012 enacted level, the majority of which is
requested for increased research and development. Funding supports
research needed for the development of domestic energy, protection of
critical water resources, and to respond to natural disasters. The 2014
request emphasizes investments in science unique to USGS that will
address national impacts such as hydraulic fracturing, and research,
monitoring and tools to make science usable by decisionmakers in
ecosystem restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay, California Bay-
Delta, and the Upper Mississippi River.
The USGS provides exceptional support to Interior bureaus, however
USGS alone cannot provide for all of Interior's scientific needs. The
USGS and other Interior bureaus work collaboratively to find answers
and to translate and apply scientific information and tools to
important natural resource management questions. Science funding at the
bureau and office level allows bureaus and offices to collaborate to
produce and translate science into management-ready information,
providing required resources to purchase studies, models, and
expertise, and to hire scientists to help managers interpret the vast
body of knowledge generated by USGS, universities, and other scientific
institutions. These resources help answer imminent and important
natural resource management questions and provide near-term solutions
to address urgent and emerging issues such as the white-nose syndrome
in bats.
Interior agencies work collaboratively to bridge gaps in knowledge,
leveraging the complementary skills and capacity to advance the use of
science to support management decisionmaking, ensure independent review
of key decisions and science integrity, and adaptively use data to
assist States, Tribes, and communities throughout the Nation.
water for a growing america
Although the Bureau of Reclamation is within the jurisdiction of
the Energy and Water Subcommittee, it plays a critical role in
addressing the Nation's water challenges which are of interest the
subcommittee. Reclamation maintains 476 dams and 337 reservoirs with
the capacity to store 245 million acre-feet of water. The bureau
manages water for agricultural, municipal, and industrial use, and
provides recreation for millions of people. Reclamation's activities,
including recreation, generate estimated economic benefits of over $55
billion and support nearly 416,000 jobs.
These facilities deliver water to one in every five western farmers
to irrigate about 10 million acres of land, and provide water to over
31 million people for municipal and industrial uses and other non-
agricultural uses. The water managed by Interior irrigates an estimated
60 percent of the Nation's vegetables each year. Reclamation 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.
Population growth, development, and a changing climate are creating
growing challenges to the Nation's water supplies. In many areas of the
country, including the arid West, dwindling water supplies, lengthening
droughts, and rising demand for water are forcing communities,
stakeholders, and governments to explore new ideas and find new
solutions to ensure stable, secure water supplies for the future.
Interior is tackling America's water challenges by providing
leadership and assistance to States, tribes, and local communities to
address competing demands for water. Interior's programs are helping
communities improve conservation and increase water availability,
restore watersheds, and resolve long standing water conflicts. Interior
is leading a national water conservation initiative, WaterSMART. The
acronym stands for Sustain and Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow.
WaterSMART is finding better ways to stretch existing supplies and
helping partners plan to meet future water demands.
The USGS is a key partner in Interior's WaterSMART initiative, by
contributing research as part of its WaterSMART Availability and Use
Assessment effort. The 2014 budget for the USGS includes $22.5 million
for WaterSMART activities.
In 2012, USGS began a 3 year study of three focus areas in the
Delaware River Basin, the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin,
and the Colorado River Basin. The studies focus on water availability,
investigating the components of a regional water budget to understand
the amount entering and leaving each basin. This work contributed to
The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study released by the
Department in December 2012, funded by the Bureau of Reclamation and
the seven States in the Colorado River Basin. This first of a kind
study projects an average imbalance in future water supply and demand
greater than 3.2 million acre-feet by 2060. The study projects the
largest increase in demand will come from municipal and industrial
users, owing to population growth. The Colorado River Basin currently
provides water to 40 million people. The study estimates this could
double to nearly 76 million people by 2060, under a rapid growth
scenario.
fiscal responsibility
This budget recognizes the need for fiscal responsibility. The
priority programs are level funded with 2012 and limited strategic
investments proposed in 2014 are balanced by reductions in lower
priority programs, deferrals and planning efficiencies.
Despite increased resources needed for programs and services,
Interior will continue to improve efficiency and reduce its workforce.
Staffing reductions of 593 from 2012 are planned for 2014. These
personnel reductions are focused on areas where there are funding
reductions. Staffing reductions will be achieved through attrition,
outplacement, and buy-outs in order to minimize the need to conduct
reductions in force to the greatest extent possible.
This budget is responsible, with over $600 million in program
terminations, reductions, and savings from administrative efficiencies
and improvements. The budget also continues efforts to shift program
costs to industry where appropriate, and in so doing, improve program
effectiveness. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of
existing legislation without further action by the Congress results in
an additional $6.3 billion, for $18.3 billion in total budget authority
for Interior in 2014.
mandatory proposals
The 2014 budget includes 17 mandatory 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. Revenue and
savings proposals will generate more than $3.7 billion over the next
decade. The 2014 budget also includes three mandatory spending
proposals estimated at $8.1 billion in outlays over the next decade.
Land and Water Conservation Fund.--The Department of the Interior
will submit a legislative proposal to permanently authorize annual
funding, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation, for
LWCF programs in the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture.
During a transition to permanent funding in 2014, the budget proposes
$600 million in total LWCF programs funding, comprised of $200 million
permanent and $400 million current funding. Starting in 2015, the fully
authorized level of $900 million in permanent funds will be authorized
each year.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--The authorization for permanent PILT
payments was extended through 2013 as part of the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2012. The 2014 budget proposes to
extend authorization of the program an additional year through 2014,
while a sustainable long-term funding solution is developed for the
PILT Program. The PILT payments help local governments carry out vital
services, such as firefighting and police protection, construction of
public schools and roads, and search and rescue operations.
Palau Compact.--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. The 2014 budget assumes authorization of
permanent funding for the Compact occurs in 2013. The cost for this
proposal is estimated at $189 million over the 2014 through 2023
period.
Federal Oil and Gas Reforms.--The budget includes a package of
legislative reforms to bolster and backstop administrative actions
being taken to reform the management of Interior's onshore and offshore
oil and gas programs, with a key focus on improving the return to
taxpayers from the sale of these Federal resources. Proposed statutory
and administrative changes fall into three general categories: (1)
advancing royalty reforms, (2) encouraging diligent development of oil
and gas leases, and (3) improving revenue collection processes.
Collectively, these reforms will generate roughly $2.5 billion in net
revenue to the Treasury over 10 years, of which about $1.7 billion
would result from statutory changes. Many States will also benefit from
higher Federal revenue sharing payments.
Helium Sales, Operations and Deposits.--The Department will submit
a legislative proposal to authorize the Helium Fund to continue
activities supporting the sale of helium. Under the Helium
Privatization Act of 1996, the Helium Fund is set to expire upon
repayment of the helium debt, anticipated to occur the first quarter of
2014. This proposal will allow continued operation of the Helium
program while facilitating a gradual exit from the helium market.
Additional revenues from this proposal are estimated at $480 million
over the decade.
Transboundary Gulf of Mexico Agreement.--The 2014 budget includes a
legislative proposal to implement the Agreement between the United
States and the United Mexican States concerning Transboundary
Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico, signed by representatives
of the United States and Mexico on February 20, 2012. The Agreement
establishes a framework for the cooperative exploration and development
of hydrocarbon resources that cross the United States-Mexico maritime
boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. The Agreement would also end the
moratorium on development along the boundary in the Western Gap in the
gulf. The budget assumes revenues from lease sales in this area will
generate an estimated $50 million for the Treasury in 2014.
Return Coal Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fees to Historic
Levels.--The budget proposes legislation to modify the 2006 amendments
to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, which lowered the
per-ton coal fee companies pay into the AML Fund. The proposal would
return the fees to the levels companies paid prior to the 2006 fee
reduction. The additional revenue, with estimated net savings of $54
million over 10 years, will be used to reclaim high priority abandoned
coal mines.
Reallocate NPR-A Revenues to Priority BLM Alaska Activities.--The
budget proposes to temporarily redirect revenue sharing payments to the
State of Alaska from NPR-A oil and gas development to a new Alaska Land
Conveyance and Remediation Fund. This fund would supplement current
appropriations and address priority BLM program needs in Alaska,
specifically the remediation of oil and gas legacy wells in NPR-A and
the completion of remaining land title conveyances to the State of
Alaska, individual Alaska Natives, and Alaska Native Corporations.
Discontinue AML Payments to Certified States.--The budget proposes
to discontinue the unrestricted payments to States and tribes certified
for completing their coal reclamation work. While the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2012 capped annual payments to each
certified State and tribe at $15 million, this proposal terminates all
such payments, with estimated savings of approximately $327 million
over the next 10 years.
Reclamation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines.--To address the legacy of
abandoned hardrock mines across the United States and hold the hardrock
mining industry accountable for past mining practices, the Department
will propose legislation to create a parallel Abandoned Mine Lands
Program for abandoned hardrock sites. A new AML fee on hardrock
production on both public and private lands would be allocated to
reclaim the highest priority hardrock abandoned sites on Federal,
State, tribal, and private lands. Additional revenue is estimated at
$1.8 billion for the 2014-2023 period, while outlays for reclamation
projects, which lag behind collections, are estimated at $1.3 billion
over the same period.
Reform Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands.--Interior will submit a
legislative proposal to provide a fair return to the taxpayer from
hardrock production on Federal lands. The legislative proposal will
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. The proposal is projected to generate revenues to the U.S.
Treasury of $80 million over 10 years, with larger revenues estimated
in following years.
Net Receipts Sharing for Energy Minerals.--The Department proposes
to make permanent the current arrangement for sharing the cost to
administer energy and minerals receipts. 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. Permanent
implementation of net receipts sharing is expected to result in savings
of $44 million in 2015 and $421 million over 10 years.
Geothermal Energy Receipts.--The Department proposes to repeal
section 224(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 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 2014 and $48 million
over 10 years.
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.--The Department proposes
to reauthorize this act that expired on July 25, 2011, and allow
Federal lands identified as suitable for disposal in recent land use
plans to be sold using this authority. The sales revenues would
continue to fund the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and
administrative costs associated with conducting the 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.
The Department proposes legislation to increase these fees to $25 per
stamp per year, beginning in 2014.
Bureau of Land Management Foundation.--The budget proposes
legislation to establish a congressionally chartered National BLM
Foundation. This Foundation will provide an opportunity to leverage
private funding to support public lands, achieve shared outcomes, and
focus public support on the BLM mission.
Recreation Fee Program.--The Department of the Interior proposes to
permanently authorize the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act,
which expires in December 2014. The Department currently collects over
$200 million in recreation fees annually under this authority and uses
them to enhance the visitor experience at Interior facilities. In
addition, the Department will propose a general provision in the 2014
budget request to amend appropriations language to extend the authority
through 2015.
offsetting collections and fees
The budget includes the following proposals to collect or increase
various fees, so industry shares some of the cost of Federal permitting
and regulatory oversight.
Fee Increase for Offshore Oil and Gas Inspections.--Through
appropriations language, the Department proposes inspection fees
totaling $65 million in 2014 for offshore oil and gas drilling
facilities subject to inspection by the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement. These fees will support BSEE's expanded
inspection program to increase production accountability, human safety,
and environmental protection.
New Fee for Onshore Oil and Gas Inspections.--Through
appropriations language, the Department proposes to implement an
inspection fee in 2014 for onshore oil and gas activities subject to
inspection by BLM. The proposed inspection fee is expected to generate
$48 million in 2014, $10 million more than the corresponding $38
million reduction in requested appropriations for BLM, thereby
expanding the capacity of BLM's oil and gas inspection program. The fee
is similar to those already in place for offshore operations and will
support Federal efforts to increase production accountability, human
safety, and environmental protection.
Onshore Oil and Gas Drilling Permit Fee.--The 2014 budget proposes
to continue a fee for processing drilling permits through
appropriations language, an approach taken by Congress in the 2009 and
subsequent Interior Appropriations Acts. A fee of $6,500 per drilling
permit was authorized in 2010, and if continued, will generate an
estimated $32.5 million in offsetting collections in 2014.
Surface Mining and Reclamation Permit Fee.--The 2014 budget
continues an offsetting collection initiated in 2012, allowing the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 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 operating costs from the industry
benefitting from this service. The fee, authorized by section 507 of
SMCRA, will apply to mining permits on lands where regulatory
jurisdiction has not been delegated to the States. The permit fee will
generate $2.4 million in offsetting collections in 2014.
Grazing Administrative Fee.--The 2014 budget proposes a new grazing
administrative fee of $1 per animal unit month. The BLM proposes to
implement this fee through appropriations language on a 3-year pilot
basis. The 2014 budget estimates the fee will generate $6.5 million in
2014, which will assist BLM in processing grazing permits. During the
period of the pilot, BLM will work through the process of promulgating
regulations for the continuation of the grazing fee as a cost recovery
fee after the pilot expires.
Marine Minerals Administrative Fee.--The 2014 budget proposes to
establish an offsetting fee in the BOEM Marine Minerals program to
recover costs associated with processing offshore sand and gravel
mining permits. The fees are estimated to generate $470,000 in revenue
in 2014, to offset the cost of the program, and would be implemented
through existing regulatory authority under the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's 2014
budget request for the Department of the Interior. This budget balances
fiscal constraint with proposals for forward looking investments that
will advance the stewardship of lands and resources, renewable energy,
oil and gas development and reforms, water conservation, youth
employment and engagement, and improvements in the quality of life in
Indian communities. For America to be at its best, we need to be bold
and strategic and advance the ideas and policies in this budget. I
thank you again for your continued support of the Department's mission.
I look forward to answering questions about this budget. This concludes
my written statement.
HURRICANE SANDY
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary, for
your testimony.
As I said, there will be 6-minute rounds. And if our
schedule and your schedule allow, we'd be happy to do a second
round also to accommodate as many questions as possible. But
let me begin on the note that you concluded with, that is,
Hurricane Sandy. Thank you. There were $829 million to the
Department for mitigation in the Northeast because of the
storm. It is gratifying to hear that Rhode Island's wildlife
refuges will receive support in this way.
Can you give us some further indication of how you will
make all the details accessible to the public this afternoon
and the next few days, and also talk about the $360 million in
mitigation funds that you have at your disposal? Have you made
any plans, specific plans, and will you announce those?
Secretary Jewell. I'll give you a high-level answer and
then would invite my colleagues to provide more detail as they
have more detail.
The press release which will be going out this afternoon
will actually have a link to a list of the projects that
encompass the $475 million. That will be accessible to the
public here relatively soon.
On the mitigation funds, there is a lot of work done to
look at building up sand and berms, actually using sand from
the Outer Continental Shelf to make those habitats more
resilient, and a number of other programs. I'd like my
colleague, Rhea Suh, to address that further.
Ms. Suh. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On your first
question, the details of the funding to be released today will
all be contained on our website, so complete project lists
alongside the actual amount of appropriations for each.
In addition to that, with respect to the mitigation, we are
working very hard to come up with the best strategy we can for
those mitigation funds. We absolutely appreciate your
leadership and the leadership of this subcommittee for giving
us the opportunity to really think about mitigation, and to
really try to maximize the impact we have to create resiliency
on the ground. We are working with both our programs within the
Federal Government, but also partners outside of the Federal
Government to come up with a strategic plan that can ensure
those funds are spent as wisely and as effectively as possible.
Senator Reed. And you're not ready today to commit those
funds? You're still working the plan?
Ms. Suh. That's correct. The funds today are just the
recovery and restoration funds.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
HERITAGE AREAS
Madam Secretary, among the many public services that you
performed was in 2008 and 2009, along with our distinguished
predecessors, Senator Howard Baker and Bennett Johnston, you
served on a commission advancing the national park idea. And
one of the things you recognized was these heritage areas, one
of which we have in Rhode Island, are critical, in fact, long-
term assets to the National Park System. And you and your
colleague went so far as recommending permanent funding and
full program support for NPS.
Yet the budget proposes cuts to these heritage areas. Can
you give us some assurance that you will work with us so that
we can avoid these cuts and fulfill the vision that you so
eloquently and wisely laid out, along with Senator Baker and
our colleagues?
Secretary Jewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This budget
represents tough choices. The work of the Second Century
Commission was very rewarding. I think the need to support our
national parks, which have such a multiplier effect, is very
important.
On the heritage areas, specifically, I'm fully in support
of heritage areas. There was a difficult decision made to scale
back the funding in heritage areas to focus on those that are
relatively new that need to get a boost to get themselves
established.
I think one of the benefits of heritage areas is they have
broad community support. It does reflect some of the hard
choices we made in terms of how we prioritized. We felt
heritage areas in particular needed some support to get rolling
and get up and operational, but we needed to look at scaling
back some that had been around for a period of time to kind of
walk on their own two feet, if you will. So that was how the
priority was identified in this budget.
Senator Reed. Well, I appreciate that. And I do point out
they are public-private partnerships. So this is not something
that's just Federal money going in. This generates a lot of
economic activity. It's very critical.
And there is, I think, a shared notion that we can
collaborate better and be smarter about these things. But there
are certain--it strikes me and many of my colleagues, because
these are all over the country, that there has to be at least a
core Federal support level because that is what pulls a lot of
the private support. It sort of leverages a lot of activities.
And without that, these heritage areas could in fact fail. That
would be, as you point out in your previous report, a real
detriment.
RHODE ISLAND NATIONAL PARK
Let me quickly, as my time is running out, we've been
trying to build on the heritage area to, in fact, create a
national park which would not only memorialize Senator John H.
Chafee, but also give us our first major national park. We have
a national memorial, the Roger Williams Memorial. But it would
give us our first national park.
Secretary Salazar was strongly supportive. And I urge you
to be as enthusiastic. Can you give us a sense of your
enthusiasm level? I hope it's over the top.
Secretary Jewell. I'm enthusiastic, Mr. Chairman. I'm fully
enthusiastic.
Senator Reed. Madam Secretary, the President chose wisely.
I said that repeatedly.
Let me suggest, I will now relinquish my time to Senator
Murkowski. And as I said, we will try to do a second round.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ALASKA CONVEYANCE
Madam Secretary, let me ask you about the land conveyance
issues and legacy wells. As you can tell, not only from my
discussion here today, but previous conversations we've had,
this is something that isn't setting well with the people in
the State of Alaska, and it clearly doesn't set well with me.
You have indicated in your comments that, with the LWCF,
the proposal here to include it in terms of mandatory funding
keeps a commitment of a 50-year promise to the American people.
And I'm looking at a 54-year-old promise, we've been a State
now for 54 years, where we have yet to receive our full land
conveyances under that statehood act, a 42-year legal
obligation to the native people of the State under Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
And then I look at the budget, and it's like, ``Well, wait
a minute. We're making a new promise here to mandatory funding
for the LWCF. But we've got some outstanding obligations that
are very serious.'' And so I appreciate what you have said in
that these decisions were made prior to your arrival here.
You're defending a budget that you're tasked to defend.
But I need to have some assurance going forward that we're
going to be able to deal with this. Because my assessment is
that if we continue at the level of funding that we have been
for the land conveyances, again we're decades, we're another 50
years out. That's not acceptable.
Can you give me some assurance that you will look to
revising the spending priorities and attempt to finish these
interim conveyances and the surveying and patenting that needs
to go forward? My goal was that we would have this done by
statehood. When I came into office 10 years ago, everybody
thought that that was reasonable. Now it looks like it's not
only another decade, it may be a decade beyond that.
I need to have some assurance that we're going to finish
this, because in the meantime, the people of the State of
Alaska and the native people under ANCSA can't move. They can't
move on their lands. What assurances can you give me that we're
going to see some forward motion in this in a positive way
that's not going to be another two to three decades from now?
Secretary Jewell. Thank you, Ranking Member Murkowski. I
have had briefings on this topic and can reassure you there is
a commitment to move forward on the part of the BLM and my
colleagues.
I gather that 63 percent of the area has been surveyed and
mapped and about 33 percent has had interim conveyances so far.
There is a requirement, as I understand it, in the legislation
about actually physically putting a stake every 2 miles. The
use of mapping technologies, which weren't available at the
time those things were written, gives us an opportunity to be
able to move forward in a more expeditious way on conveyances
and do it using technology that's a lot more efficient and
effective.
I would be happy to get into more detail with you and have
my teammates that are steeped in this talk with you about how
the budget supports moving that forward.
Senator Murkowski. Well, and I'm going to be meeting later
today to review the schedule, apparently, that has been
proposed. I don't know whether or not that is a schedule that
you all have agreed to. But we need to have greater assurance
here.
ALASKA LEGACY WELLS
Let me ask you on the legacy wells. The concern that I have
is, you know, Federal Government comes in, does an assessment,
drills, leaves, doesn't clean up the mess. Decades later says,
when we are screaming about, ``You need to clean up your
mess,'' the idea is, ``Well, the State of Alaska can do that.
We'll take it from the State of Alaska's funding.''
I guess the simple question is whether or not you feel that
the State should be held financially responsible for the
Federal Government's responsibility to take care of the legacy
wells.
Secretary Jewell. Senator, as we discussed, legacy wells
are a significant problem, and I appreciate your bringing it up
to me in the past. We need to find a way to fund it in a budget
that doesn't have enough funding for everything we want to do.
I appreciate the reaction to the suggestion that the revenues
generated from the development on the NPRA on the State side go
to pay for that. If not that suggestion, we need to work
together to figure out how we prioritize in the budget the best
way to move forward in a comprehensive way to deal with this
issue. I share your concern.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I guess I need to hear from you
that you would agree that it's not the State of Alaska's
responsibility to clean up the Federal Government's mess. Are
we in agreement there?
Secretary Jewell. I would say that the wells were drilled
to assess the petroleum reserve up in Alaska, and as it's
developed, it will benefit both the Federal Government and the
State. So revenues from that development seem to be a
reasonable source to help address the issue on the legacy
wells. We can talk further on what that looks like: What is
State, what is Federal, and how do we do that in a constrained
budget environment?
Senator Murkowski. Well, and I will allow you greater
opportunity to learn more about this, hopefully see what we're
dealing with here. But there is no doubt in my mind but that
when the Federal Government comes into land that has been
federally designated, drills wells, walks away from it, leaves
a mess, that that is the Federal Government's responsibility
and that it should not then be on the shoulders of the State of
Alaska to do that cleanup.
So I just want to make sure that when you're talking about
prioritizing it within the budget, that it is prioritizing
within the Federal budget and not taking revenues that would
have otherwise come to the State.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. And again, we
are using the early bird rule, going from side to side.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank everybody for being here today. It's good to see you, and
thank you for putting yourself up for this position. I know
you're going to do a great job. Rhea and Pam, thank you for
your service. David Hayes, thank you for what you've done
during your tenure in the Department of the Interior. I very
much appreciate it. I even more appreciate your friendship. So,
thank you, thank you very, very much for your service.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
As far as the budget goes, I would just like to say I'm
very encouraged to see the administration is putting some
additional funding into renewable energy on public lands. We
all know what's going on in eastern Montana and in North Dakota
with conventional oil production, and it is--that's a very good
thing. But we cannot forget about other ways to become energy
independent, too. So I want to thank you for that.
I've got a bipartisan bill that I've introduced, the Public
Lands Renewable Energy Development Act, to hopefully promote
more such development. And I look forward to working with your
department on that. Is there anything else we can do?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, your support is very much
appreciated and valued. I think, in a balanced approach to
energy, renewables play an important role. I've been really
pleased to see the science behind the assessment of where the
resources are, the work going on collectively on transmission,
which is also important, because where the energy is, is not
necessarily where the energy is used.
Senator Tester. That's right.
Secretary Jewell. I hear a lot of enthusiasm in the
Department to continue doing that work, but also supporting
conventional development, as you referenced.
Senator Tester. As we move forth here, if there are other
things we can do to help facilitate that, let us know. I think
it's really important. I think your budget puts it forth as a
priority, and hopefully, we can indeed make it that.
WILDLAND FIRE
I want to talk a little bit about wildfires. And I know
when we talk about wildfires, everybody talks about the forest
service, which isn't in your area. But BLM is. And very
similarly, BLM has forested land, they have range land, and
they're being impacted by wildfires, too.
Given our current fiscal situation where a lot of the money
is being diverted toward fighting fires, I understand the
forest service is beginning to work out and collect data on the
effectiveness of their firefighting efforts by certain
aircraft.
I do not believe the BLM has started on this. And that's
okay, from my perspective. I don't know if they can use
information that comes from the USFS work or not. But I need to
know what your plans are. We've got a lot of public lands. A
lot of it, more than 1 million acres burned up in Montana alone
last year, BLM and USFS. What's your plans? Is it to collect
what the forest service gets? Or is the BLM going to do their
own thing? And if that's the case, when is that going to
happen? Or is it going to be a combination of the two?
Secretary Jewell. Thank you, Senator. As a Westerner
myself, I certainly am well aware of the impacts of wildfires,
and we've certainly got fires right now, a wildfire burning in
California, and it's only May. It's pretty scary.
The firefighting is coordinated between the Departments of
Agriculture and the Interior. Agriculture takes the primary
position, but we work hand in hand. I will be going out with
Secretary Vilsack to the fire center in Boise, Idaho, to talk
specifically about this.
As I mentioned, of the increase to the budget, 40 percent
is to fight wildland fires and it cuts back the hazardous fuels
reduction program, just to make sure we had funds available for
suppression.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Secretary Jewell. I think things you could do to help over
time are for those spikes in fires, to have that funded out of
emergency money, because it hits the operations and it's very,
very difficult to manage, for both Department of Agriculture
and the Interior.
Senator Tester. Well, fuel reduction is critically
important. We can talk about that at another time, and I'm sure
we will.
I guess the issue is, I mean, you addressed it in your
opening, we're in tight money times.
Secretary Jewell. Yes.
FIREFIGHTING AIRCRAFT
Senator Tester. Is the assessment that's being done by USFS
on which aircraft are most effective to fight the fires, is BLM
doing the same thing? Are they going to do the same thing? Or
are they just going to use USFS numbers?
Secretary Jewell. I'm going to have to defer to Rhea on
that.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Ms. Suh. Senator, we are working hand-in-hand with the
Forest Service. As you know, we have a cohesive strategy across
the Federal Government on aircraft in particular. The Forest
Service has the lead on large air tankers.
Senator Tester. Sure. Yes, that's correct.
Ms. Suh. We have been working very collaboratively with
them to come up with a strategy that can put large air tankers
on the ground for fires this season.
When it comes to smaller aircraft tankers, we have the lead
and we have been working, again, collaboratively with the
Forest Service to determine effectiveness and efficiency
throughout all of the aviation we have.
Senator Tester. Okay, good. Well, I would just encourage
you to do that. I think ``effectiveness'' is the key word here,
and ``efficiency''. We need to make sure that we're hiring the
right groups to fight the right fires with the right equipment,
okay? So thank you very much for that.
SEQUESTRATION IN INDIAN COUNTRY
I want to talk about Indian country for just a second.
Sequestration has negative impacted them in a big, big way. And
the main reason is because they are under funded to begin with.
And that's the problem with the sequester, and we all know
that, sitting around this dias, that when you make across-the-
board cuts, the programs that are fat and sassy don't really
care, and the ones that are cut to the bone really get whacked.
And hopefully, we can find the solution to this.
But in any case, the Indians, American Indians are, I
think, least equipped to absorb this loss. And could you detail
specifically or in general how your budget will help either
restore that money or remediate the potential impacts of the
sequester?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, I get a relatively short period
of time to answer. I would say, we are as frustrated and
worried about the impacts of the sequester. There's no question
in Indian country we've got needs that far exceed the ability
to meet them. We're trying to prioritize.
On Indian education, we're trying to pick model schools to
work on to try and find a path forward. Law enforcement,
domestic violence issues, self-determination, working with
tribes on a Government-to-government basis to help support
their ability to determine the ways they want to govern
themselves. These are all topics of critical discussion.
I know there's not enough money to go around, but we're
certainly working with tribes to do the best job we can.
David, do you want to add anything to that?
Mr. Hayes. I would just say, Senator, we feel this hurt
very hard because of the indiscriminate way in which the cuts
have to occur. Many of the tribes that operate under 638
grants, the self-determination tribes, are particularly hurt
because they're getting effectively a 9-percent cut for the
remainder of the year. There's nothing we can do about it.
Our BIA folks who work with them, likewise, are feeling
that cut. We're having to furlough BIA staff. Tribes are having
to furlough folks. That's why our fiscal year 2014 budget is so
important. It would restore and increase and get us back to
where we need to be with the tribes.
Senator Tester. Well, that's what I wanted to hear. And so,
thank you, thank you, thank you for that. And I'm sure there
will be further debate on that.
If I might, just 15 seconds, Mr. Chairman.
You talked about Asian carp. And it's too bad the ranking
member isn't here. And you talked about the impacts it's going
to have as it heads toward the Great Lakes, and it's negative.
I hope other folks are paying attention to things like
genetically modified organisms (GMO) salmon and noxious weeds
versus GMO crops. Thank you very much.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Tester. Before I recognize
Senator Blunt, let me review the order of arrival just to give
people sort of sense of where we are. On the Democratic side,
Senator Feinstein, Senator Udall, Senator Merkley. On the
Republican side, Senator Blunt, Senator Johanns, Senator
Alexander, and Senator Hoeven.
Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman. Secretary, welcome to
the subcommittee. I've always thought that your job may be the
best job in the Federal Government. I hope for your sake I'm
right. It's a challenging job with great opportunities.
ST. LOUIS ARCH
We haven't had a chance to visit yet, so I'm going to
actually spend my time talking to you a little bit about a big
project in Missouri, the Arch project. A lot of cooperative
effort has gone into that so far. Your predecessor, Mr.
Salazar, was there three times, two times there with Mr.
LaHood, who was there in relation to a TIGER grant.
I don't know if you're familiar with how the Arch sits, but
it's separated from the rest of sort of the downtown mall by
Interstate 70. The TIGER grant seems to be in place that will
actually connect the park to the rest, to the old Federal
courthouse where the Dred Scott case was and a lot of other
public land in town that's not necessarily Federal land.
This, I'm told, maybe has the potential, already is
possibly, the biggest joint partnership project that the Park
Service has ever done. The city just voted a $10 million annual
tax for the next 20 years that would support this project. I
think there are $220 million of private funds that have already
been pledged.
And the Arch is 50 years old in October 2015. So, you know,
every 50 years, you've got to look at these things and see what
needs to be done to be sure they can last another 50 years. And
that 50th anniversary was one that Secretary Salazar mentioned,
it's October 2015. I think his comment the last time he was
there was, he would move heaven and Earth to get this done by
October 28, 2015, which appears it might be easier to move
heaven and Earth than the Department.
So right now, there does seem to be a tendency for delay
that I'd like you to look at. You don't have to necessarily
comment on it today. These things are getting siloed again. The
one big request from Mayor Slay and others in St. Louis is if
you could put somebody in charge of this, one person that
really tries to be sure that all of this stays on focus, on
time, that the private and public elements of this that aren't
Federal continue to move forward in a way that all works.
I know there's one contract with Bi-State transportation
that's run the trams in the Arch since the beginning. And that
contract runs out, it actually expired December 31, 2012. There
was a 6-month extension that expires in 54 days, and it needs
some attention pretty quickly.
They need the contract for bonding and other purposes to
update the equipment that I think Bi-State does, I don't think
we, the Federal Government, even does that, but they have to
have a contract that allows them to do what they need to do.
And I think the Park Service has come in with some amendments
that have never been in the contract before that they're
concerned about.
So, I guess one thing I'd like to ask you to do is make a
commitment to come and visit us at the Arch and get personally
involved in this project, as your predecessor was. And then any
comments you want to make about how public park-private
relationships are going to be viewed by your department and by
the Park Service would be appreciated.
Secretary Jewell. Thank you, Senator. I do look forward to
meeting with you directly and also visiting the Arch. I
certainly would be delighted to do that.
There is a point of contact, Peggy O'Dell, who is the
number two person in NPS. You can look to her as the focal
point on this.
Senator Blunt. Okay.
Secretary Jewell. And I was briefed on it. I can't promise
the heaven-and-Earth thing. I think that may be beyond my pay
grade.
Senator Blunt. Well, the guy that did promise that left. So
maybe it was a bigger promise than he thought.
Secretary Jewell. Yes, maybe. To your comment about public-
private partnerships, and I think the St. Louis Arch is a great
example, from the private side, which is where I've been for my
35-year career. There's no question the ability of private
enterprise to work closely with our Federal land management
agencies, whether it's the Park Service or the USFS, other
elements of Interior, is really important. To leverage our
resources, to get buy-in from those communities so you have an
asset like the St. Louis Arch that's not just a national
treasure, but it is locally embraced and taken care of, helps
make our Federal dollars go further.
I think it's a great illustration of public-private
partnerships in action, and I think there are going to be many
more opportunities to do that kind of work as we think about
these assets we care a lot about, and we want to protect. There
are examples of them in other States as well.
Senator Blunt. You know, this is a case, too, where there
is significant adjacent public property that obviously is
visually part of this whole experience.
Secretary Jewell. Right.
Senator Blunt. And I think the Park Service, if you're
going to encourage partners, both public partners and private
partners, the Park Service has to be willing to look at this in
a different way than they have before. You know, if the Park
Service continues like, ``Well, we can't let this happen unless
it's something we totally control'', that's not really a
public-private partnership. It's something, but it's not a
public-private partnership.
So, yes, I think one of the things as the new leader of
Interior you can help instill is how partnerships really work.
Secretary Jewell. Right.
Senator Blunt. And it's not just one side giving you all
their money and saying, ``Do whatever you think you ought to do
with this.'' And so, you know, the community has made a huge
commitment; individuals are making a huge commitment. And I'd
like for you and I to be able to work together to make this a
model project of what these partnerships can be, moving
forward.
Not every time a community comes up with $200 million or
private individuals match that with another $220 million. And
we need to do the kinds of things that will be a good lesson,
going forward, to encourage that. And I'll do everything I can
to help you make that work.
Secretary Jewell. Sounds great, Senator. If I could just
have 5 seconds.
Senator Reed. Yes, ma'am.
Secretary Jewell. The National Parks Second Century
Commission that Chairman Reed mentioned in his opening comments
talked a lot about public-private partnerships. I can tell you
in my conversations with Director Jarvis of the NPS, he's very
supportive of this, and I think increasing flexibility on how
we recognize these kinds of partnerships and encourage them,
going forward. Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madam
Secretary, I want to add my words of welcome to my colleagues'.
I've had an opportunity to meet with you, and I look forward to
working with you.
But I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman on your
right. I have known David Hayes now for the 20 years I've been,
just about, in the Senate. It began with his negotiation of the
Quantification Settlement Agreement, which weaned California
off of a lot of Colorado River water and was a very
controversial, but I think good negotiation that you conducted.
And since those times, Mr. Hayes has been the point person
for the most contentious issue in California, which is water.
And he's been really quite wonderful in terms of moving to see
that the Department anticipates problems and moves
administratively to solve them. And I'm very, very grateful for
that. He's going on to teach law at both of our alma mater,
Stanford, and serve, I gather, the Hewlett Foundation.
And, David, I just want to wish you all good things, a
following sea. You have been just terrific, and your service to
the country has been remarkable. So I want to thank you for
that.
WILDLAND FIRE
Madam Secretary, I would like to associate myself with the
comments of Senator Tester. You mentioned the Ventura fire.
There have also been five other wildfires burning at the same
time. And we anticipate a very bad year. Wildfire usually hits
California in the fall. But the Santa Ana's were rolling, and
it hit in the spring. And it's really going to be a problem.
So you're correct: Hazardous fuel mitigation is critical,
the quick movement of planes, the ability to abate a fire. We
had 2,200 lightning strikes on one day, which started 1,000
small fires. So the ability to address them quickly is really
important before they rage out of control because of, candidly,
overgrowth that has been allowed to be unabated. That's the
first thing.
CALIFORNIA WATER
The second this is you are about to get a baptism of water.
And it's the absence of water. The primary source of
California's water is the Sierra Nevada snow pack, which is
drying up. As of May 2, the Sierra Nevada was at 17 percent of
normal. California is the largest agriculture State in the
Union. The allocation for farmers is 20 percent of their
contract amount. It takes 40 to 45 percent of a contract amount
to be able to plant and do everything that's required to farm
in California.
In 2010 when this happened, the unemployment rate in
Mendota, a farm town, was 40 percent. Farmers were in bread
lines. We cannot let that happen again. And I think much to the
credit of your reclamation department, on April 15, the mid-
region put out a press release detailing administrative actions
that have been taken to date to create an additional 110,000
acre-feet of water.
David, I want to salute you for that, and Madam Secretary,
this is what we had hoped that the Department will anticipate
and move to do those things with respect to water transfers
north-south, east-west, using the inner tie, using groundwater
banking, doing whatever we need to do that is prudent and wise
to see that water is adequate.
Beyond this 110,000 acre-feet, I am very interested in what
other actions can be taken. And this press release describes
banked groundwater 20,000 acre-feet and water transfers of up
to 166,620 acre-feet as two sources for additional supplies.
Essentially, I would like to ask you--I don't know whether you
know, but if you do, I'd like to know--what is the status of
reclamation's efforts to secure these additional supplies?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, I'm going to take a glancing
blow and then turn it over to my colleague to the right. First,
I want to say that David Hayes has been an amazing resource on
these issues. You're fortunate that his big brain is going to
California. I'm going to miss his big brain next to me, but I
will have all of his phone numbers and will use them liberally.
Senator Feinstein. Good.
Secretary Jewell. I will turn to David to answer
specifically on the sources topic with the Bureau of
Reclamation. I know I've had briefings from Mike Connor
directly, and this is a very, very important issue. David was
meeting with the Governor, actually, earlier this week, and was
actually flown in on the red-eye. So if he starts to nod off,
I'll give him a jab.
Senator Feinstein. Good. Good.
Secretary Jewell. The other thing I think we all need to
work on is conservation. How do we use the water resources we
have more wisely? Because we are, in fact, seeing these low-
water drought years, and that's the biggest source of the
challenge. But, David, do you want to add to that?
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your warm
words. It's been a pleasure working with you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Mr. Hayes. This is the driest January-through-April period
in California's history in the last 100 years, right now, 70
percent of normal for snow pack. As you noted, we have been
anticipating this. We are up to the 20-percent allocation for
south of Delta because of that 110,000 acre-foot increase due
to water banking, water transfers, et cetera.
In addition, you mentioned the additional 20,000 acre-feet
of water banking and water transfers. We are anticipating
working with the contractors that will have 160,000 acre-feet
of water transfers, and we're also working closely with them to
allow liberal rescheduling of water, which will be about
225,000 acre-feet of water.
All told, if we are successful in all of these ventures,
despite the dry water year, Senator, we are hoping to get to
about a 35 or even 40 percent equivalent amount for the south
of Delta folks. It's taking all hands on deck. We really
appreciate the work Westlands and other south of Delta
irrigators are putting into this, working closely with us.
Mike Connor is in California as we speak on these issues. I
was with the Governor yesterday. We're looking forward to
briefing you as soon as Mike gets back to talk about the Bay
Delta Conservation Plan, which is the long-term fix for this
problem that we have to solve.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. And Mike Connor is appearing
before the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee tomorrow.
Mr. Hayes. That's right.
Senator Feinstein. And we have a number of questions for
him.
Just one last thing. Madam Secretary, you are going to
receive a letter from five Members of the House, they're
bipartisan, and me, to ask if you would be willing to come to
the Central Valley and talk with farmers and understand the
crisis that we have year after year.
One last point. For 10 years, your Department has been
looking at feasibility studies for cost effect of dam raises in
California. And we have not yet had finality to those
feasibility studies. I would say that that's a matter of the
highest priority to get resolved. Because unless we're able to
hold water from the wet years for the dry years, California
will end up as a desert State. I really believe that. And it
will kill agriculture.
And you speak of conservation. Well, I come from a city
that's conserving water like mad. And, you know, they're going
to tertiary treatment of water in Coachella in southern
California. So that is being done to the greatest extent
possible. But you have to have some water to start with. So we
really need your help.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Johanns.
Senator Johanns. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And, Madam
Secretary, welcome. Glad to have you onboard.
SEQUESTRATION
Let me, if I might, shift focus, if I could, to a couple of
questions about the sequester. I have a little bit of a unique
experience here because I was a member of the Cabinet, as you
probably know, during the Bush administration, the Secretary of
Agriculture. And I certainly appreciate the fact that the sheet
of music you sing from comes from an office that's oval in this
town, if you know what I'm saying. And every Cabinet member has
talked about the sequester kind of in the same terms you have
talked about it in your testimony. And I must admit it's got an
aura of ``The sky is falling, the sky is falling.''
Now, you're also talking to a former Governor, a former
mayor, balanced budgets during good times and bad times. When
times were good and the revenues were good, you could do some
more things. When times were bad, for example, post-9/11, you
just kind of had to deal with it.
When I came here in 2005 and somebody said to me, ``You
could get somewhere around a 5-percent cut, and the best you
can hope for us a flat budget,'' I thought, ``Hallelujah! You
know? This is a breeze.'' After what we had been through post-
9/11 at the State level, that didn't seem to be too big a
challenge. And yet, I hear Deputy Secretary Hayes, I hear you,
I hear other Cabinet members talking about how dire this
situation is.
So let me ask a couple of very specific questions. And
either one of you can answer these questions. I appreciate the
sequester's less-than-artful, across-the-board cuts tend to be
less than artful. And I've done it all. I've done across-the-
board cuts, I've done focused cuts. Anything that was necessary
to get the budget balanced, we did.
But if the Congress were to give your Department and other
Departments greater flexibility to make judgments about where
you would allocate resources from one area to another, would
you find that to be helpful?
Secretary Jewell. Thanks for the question. Short answer,
absolutely we'd find that to be helpful. I am not quite 4 weeks
into Government service, and north of 35 years as a private
businessperson. I have certainly dealt with tough budget years,
as you referenced. I have never, ever implemented those on a
line-item by line-item basis. So when you see the comments that
come from me and others about the impact of the sequester, it
is the nature by which these cuts have been required of us.
The fiscal year 2014 budget reflects prioritization. It is
cutting some areas. It is investing in other areas. And no
question there is a desire to develop resources in this
country, both conventional and renewable. It costs money to do
that. But there is a return on that investment. We have a trust
obligation to tribes across this country. We need money to do
that.
We are reflecting in the fiscal year 2014 budget a set of
priorities that are in fact scaling back some areas and growing
others. And that's the big problem with the sequester.
Senator Johanns. So your issue with us is more along the
lines of, ``Look. It's not the cuts so much as the forced way
of implementing them. If we could get flexibility there, I
could manage this budget,'' I think is what you're saying. And
I suspect you could.
Secretary Jewell. We would appreciate all flexibility that
could be given to us, and predictability. A 5-percent cut
that's implemented partway through the year is in fact a 9-
percent cut. And then applied across every line item is very
difficult.
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
Senator Johanns. Yes. Let me ask you another question,
admittedly a more sensitive question, but I think it's an
important one to ask. One of the things that came about as a
result of the Affordable Care Act was that a certain select
group of Federal employees were targeted to go from the Federal
health plan into the exchanges. And that's the way the health
care law was passed. And it's basically our staff.
Congressional staff now will go to the exchanges. Some would
argue that's a good thing, some would argue it's a bad thing,
whatever.
Would you support an approach that basically said, ``If it
can save money, we'll take every Federal employee''--your
employees at Interior and wherever else--``and instead of
providing them that Federal plan, we will put them into the
exchanges''? Would you support that?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, I can speak from a perspective
of a businessperson. In the business I ran right before coming
here, we felt that it was important to provide our full-time
employees with a comprehensive plan. For our part-time
employees who had a limited plan, the exchange was going to be
a better option. So I think I would need to look broadly at how
it might be applied to the Federal Government. That's how we
chose to do it in private industry. It was a blend of both, as
you're suggesting was done here.
Senator Johanns. So, no, my employees are full time. I
don't think it had anything to do with them being part time.
They are full-time employees. But for the fact that I'm not
going to seek reelection, I'm certain that they're hoping for a
long, long career here on Capitol Hill.
Secretary Jewell. Yes. I'm not familiar with the
circumstance. I'd have to look into that.
Senator Johanns. Deputy Secretary Hayes, what's your sense
of all that? Would you be comfortable in all Interior employees
going to the exchange?
Mr. Hayes. Senator, I apologize, but I'm not an expert in
this area. Obviously, the Department of Health and Human
Services is implementing ACA. And I apologize, but I can't
respond.
Senator Johanns. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Johanns.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me also
join the whole group up here in just saying, first of all,
agreeing and associating myself with the remarks about David
Hayes. Madam Secretary, great to have you here, and thank you
for coming in and meeting. And Rhea and Pam, thank you for your
service to the department.
But, David, you've been a good friend of mine, and you've
been an extraordinary friend of the West. And I think it's been
echoed up here. You heard Senator Feinstein and the chairman
and many others talk about it.
WATER
And I think one of the things that's been so key is that
you have stayed focused on water. And water in the West, as you
know, is very controversial. And when we have these 3 years of
drought, in New Mexico it's up to 12 years, we have some very,
very serious situations.
And you've been right on top of it by working on
settlements and have achieved settlements where we're going to
be able to stretch our water resources. So I very, very much
appreciate that. And we're going to miss you a lot, and the
Department is going to miss you. And your students are going to
gain a lot from you out there at Stanford.
SEQUESTRATION IN INDIAN COUNTRY
Let me just briefly agree, Madam Secretary, with Senator
Tester on the Indian country and Native Americans and what's
happening on sequestration. And I'm encouraged to hear Deputy
Secretary Hayes say this budget will restore those. I don't
know why we ever got ourselves in this situation. When we
created the sequester, we tried to protect the most vulnerable.
And the most vulnerable population in America is the Native
American population. And we didn't put them in that category.
And so that's, it's a terrible tragedy, and they're really
being hit hard now.
I think the only healthcare that wasn't exempted was the
Indian Health Service. So I know it's not under your
jurisdiction, but it seems like an important point to make
here.
MINING LAW REFORM
I want to applaud the President and you for putting in the
budget the 1872 mining law reform. I worked with Senator
Murkowski and Senator Wyden on an amendment to the budget bill
that brought 1872 mining law reform forward. I know what you're
doing in the bill is proposing reform, including a new leasing
program, with royalties, and an abandoned mine land fee to be
used for reclamation of abandoned hard-rock mines throughout
the country. And we very, very much appreciate that.
SEQUESTRATION AND MINERAL REVENUE PAYMENTS
As you know, the Mineral Leasing Act provides that all
States shall be paid 50 percent of the revenues resulting from
the leasing of mineral resources on Federal public domain lands
within their borders. This revenue is vital to New Mexico,
where it funds our public education system. New Mexico State
leaders are very upset by the Department of the Interior's
Office of Natural Resource Revenue (ONRR) determination that
these State revenues are subject to sequestration. These are
State revenues based on mineral development within State
borders and are not Federal funds.
In New Mexico alone, we expect to lose $25 million in State
mineral revenues in fiscal year 2012 to sequestration. I'm
working with Senators from other mineral revenue-generating
States to formulate legislation that would address this issue,
but I hope that you can help resolve this administratively.
I understand that the decision to subject these State
shares of revenues was made before your time, and so I hope it
will get a fresh look from you. These State royalties are part
of the bargain between Western States and the Federal
Government, which owns so much land within our States. Altering
that bargain risks increasing conflict between the State and
the Federal Government.
Will you and your team review the Department's decision to
consider States' shares of mineral royalties as subject to
sequestration?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, thanks for raising my awareness
of this issue. I have a couple of notes here that my colleagues
have been bringing me up to speed that it's not ONRR, but it's
the Budget Control Act itself that governs this. It affects all
revenues and payments. So I'm unclear as to what kind of
jurisdiction we'd have over this.
Rhea or Pam, do you want to provide a little more detail?
Ms. Haze. Senator, we actually made determinations based on
BCA's evaluation of what things were exempt and were not. It
is, unfortunately, consistent for revenue and payments, like
secure rural schools, payments in lieu of taxes, and mineral
revenue payments. The sequester does impact those. We have
looked at it at least twice.
Senator Udall. Well, these are State revenues. I mean, they
are--what we're going to do in legislation is we're going to
look at making sure you don't even get your hands on them at
all so that we don't get in this kind of situation. So, you
know, that's where we are on that.
WILDLAND FIRE
The last 2 years have seen the largest wildfires in New
Mexico history. We're in a drought, and we're bracing for the
worst year yet. And I applaud the President and your Department
for making full funding of the 10-year suppression average a
priority and for supporting full funding for the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program at $40 million.
But I'm very concerned, however, that the President's
fiscal year 2014 budget request for hazardous fuels reduction
for the Office of Wildland Fire is reduced by $88.9 million.
This is a 48-percent cut for the program. And it just seems to
me that this isn't the area to be cutting. What's the
justification for this cut? And why are you doing this? Why are
you headed in this direction on hazardous fuels reduction in
the Department of the Interior?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, I'll give a high-level answer,
and my colleagues may be able to provide more detail.
There's no question that the sequester, where we run the
risk of removing the fuels removal budget to go into
suppression, is not the best way to operate our public lands.
Removing the fuel to begin with so you don't have the degree of
suppression makes all the sense in the world. The ounce of
prevention worth a pound of cure argument, and we agree with
that.
There are difficult decisions made in this budget. We don't
have the capacity to go to emergency funds. When we do have
wildfires that exceed the 10-year average, it impacts the
overall operations of Interior. We've made difficult choices
trying to balance what goes into suppression versus what goes
into fuels reduction.
Rhea or David, do you want to add anymore to that? Is there
more to add?
Ms. Suh. Senator, I certainly appreciate your concern. We
recognize the deep importance of hazardous fuels reduction and
the balance between the suppression and the prevention sides of
our fire program. We are, as the Secretary noted, dealing with
very difficult choices in the budget, and in particular, fire
is perennially a very difficult thing for us to budget in
whole. We are very committed to having the adequate funds for
suppression, particularly as we move into very complex fire
seasons, and we look forward to working with you to try to come
up with long-term sustainability for the budget overall.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Senator Alexander, please.
GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK
Senator Alexander. Thanks. Madam Secretary, welcome. Great
Smoky Mountains National Park, where you've been and where
you're well known and well appreciated, let me go over some
figures here. The Great Smokies had nearly 10 million visitors
in 2012, and they received $19 million in Federal
appropriations. Grand Canyon had 4.4 million visitors, half as
many, and received $21 million, $2 million more, in Federal
appropriations. Yosemite had 3.8 million, that's less than one-
half as many visitors as the Smokies, and received $29 million
in Federal appropriations.
Now, in the case of Grand Canyon, there were another $14
million from entrance fees; in the case of Yosemite, another
$15 million from entrance fees. There's a great inequality
here.
Taking the entrance fees first, the Great Smokies, as you
well know, was given to the United States by the people of
Tennessee and North Carolina and schoolchildren who collected
dollars, all this in the 1930s. And one of the agreements was
there wouldn't be an entrance fee. The Western parks were all
carved out of land owned by the United States.
And so, the Smokies are already penalized because they
don't get the $14 million Grand Canyon gets and the $15 million
Yosemite gets in entrance fees. But why should the most visited
national park, with twice as many visitors as these two great
western parks, Grand Canyon and Yosemite, receive less
appropriated funding every year than the Western parks?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, I appreciate your question. I
appreciate your park. I'm a lot closer to it, so I'll be
spending a lot more time there than I have been able to in the
past.
I will say that the fiscal year 2014 budget requests $19
million for Great Smoky Mountains, which is about level with
fiscal year 2012 funding. I think it's very difficult to
compare. I appreciate the visitation for the park and the road
that goes through and the number of people that come through
and the entrance-fee issue. The management of the parks has to
do with their acreage, with their threats. There are just a lot
of factors that go into the budget. I think it's very difficult
to say it's a function of the number of visitors versus, you
know, a broader view of what all----
Senator Alexander. But what I'd like to ask you to do is to
review the formula you use for this. Because, number one, I
think you ought to take into account the fact that the park
can't, by law, collect an entrance fee. And so it loses $14
million or $15 million right there, which is, you know, 75
percent as much as the entire Federal appropriation. And then,
second, for it also to be funded less than the Western parks at
a time when it has a lot more visitors, the wear and tear on
the parks is substantially a product of visitors.
You can't re-litigate the whole formula right here. But as
you begin your study, I would hope that you would take a fresh
look at that funding formula in light of what I think is the
persistent under-funding of the Smokies.
I mean, we love the Grand Canyon. I've been down it. In
fact, I went with Senator Udall's cousin. He took me down it 20
years ago. I'd like to go again. We love Yosemite. We want them
to be properly funded. But we don't want our park to be--so
will you take a look at that as part of your review of
policies?
Secretary Jewell. Absolutely. Yes, I'm happy to take a look
at it and see if there's something we can do.
WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME IN BATS
Senator Alexander. I have two other questions. One is, have
you been asked about the bats, the white-nose syndrome, at all?
Senator Leahy has talked about that before. If you hear a
Senator asking about bats, you may wonder, ``Well, why is he
talking about bats?'' But it's a big problem all through the
Eastern United States. And it costs about $74 per acre for the
insects they don't eat. I mean, the pest suppression is a big
part of it. It's a real concern in our area.
What's the status of research that you're working on to
deal with white-nose syndrome?
Secretary Jewell. Yes. I have been briefed on the white-
nose syndrome. The budget for fiscal year 2014 does include
increases in the USGS and the Fish and Wildlife Service budgets
to address that. For example, USGS is working on long-term
fixes like the vaccine to try and address it. FWS is addressing
the resource issue, and there's no question it's a huge
potential economic impact on agriculture. That is part of our
science budget that we're requesting for fiscal year 2014.
GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK
Senator Alexander. Thank you. On the question of funding,
again back to the Smokies, one of the things we're proudest of
is our volunteers in the park. And you're aware of that. That
might be a good thing for you to visit there, it's a good
example for other parks, when you come. There are over 3,000
volunteers, and the estimated value of their service is $3.5
million a year. Friends of the Smokies adds another million,
but that still doesn't make up for the funding loss.
[The information follows:]
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Operational funding for park units, such as Great Smoky Mountains
National Park, is appropriated through the Operation of the National
Park System (ONPS) account. This annual appropriation funds the day-to-
day operations at all park units, commonly referred to as park base
funding, as well as competitively awarded project funding for needs at
parks such as facility repair or rehabilitation and resource
stewardship needs. The ONPS account also funds the operations of
regional offices and the Washington, DC headquarters office. In 2014,
the President's budget requests $19.1 million for operations at Great
Smoky Mountains National Park, level with 2012 funding.
Visitation is not the only cost driver for operational
requirements; acreage, resource protection needs, and types of services
available to visitors are some examples of factors that influence the
cost to operate parks. Each year, the parks, regions, and headquarters
identify new or expanding operational needs. Funding proposals
submitted by park units are evaluated on a competitive, national basis.
The highest priority activities are reflected in the President's budget
request.
However, the NPS, like other bureaus, must operate within the
framework of constrained budgets. In 2014, the only park base
operational increases proposed total $6.7 million and are for start-up
activities at recently authorized units and critical management needs
such as combating invasive species. The budget also proposes $18.4
million reduction to park base operations.
WIND ENERGY AND BONDING
Senator Alexander. I have one other question that I'd like
to ask you. There is obvious enthusiasm for renewable energy
here and in the administration. And I've been puzzled by this
obsession with building these gigantic, grotesque, you know,
wind towers all over the scenic America. You know, most of our
great environmental groups were founded by people who admired
Ansel Adams's photographs and loved the beautiful vistas. And
then here we come along and turn whole stretches.
We destroy the environment in the name of saving the
environment by putting these Cuisinarts in the sky that kill
golden eagles and adopt an energy policy that is sort of the
energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats. So that's my
view on these giant windmills.
But my question is this. We have thousands of abandoned
mines across the country that people mined and left. And now we
are looking for money to clean those things up. What are we
going to do when these windmills blow down or when they wear
out after 20 years or when the big tax subsidies for the rich
people that fund them run out? And we decide we don't want to
spend $12 billion a year subsidizing them, who's going to clean
them up? There are thousands of them.
And my question is simple: Is there a bond that you require
of developers of wind turbines on public lands so that if at
any time they are abandoned by the developer, is there a bond
that the developer has to put up to make sure that the
landscape is returned to its former pristine beauty?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, I'm going to have to defer to
Deputy Secretary Hayes on that.
Mr. Hayes. Senator, I know there's a lease requirement for
the owner to take down those turbines at the end of their
useful life, much like we require for conventional oil and gas,
and return the land to its previous condition.
I don't know if there's a bond requirement. We will look
into it and get back to you.
[The information follows:]
Wind Energy and Bonding
BLM requires bonds for all wind projects on its public lands. The
bond is determined on a project-by-project basis to cover the
reclamation costs for a project and the removal of improvements on the
public land. However, the terms and conditions of a wind energy
authorization require the holder of the right-of-way to remove all
improvements. The bond is required to ensure compliance with the terms
and conditions of the authorization and to cover BLM's expenses if an
operator fails to fulfill the lease requirements.
Senator Alexander. Does it require it or just allow it?
Mr. Hayes. It requires it. There is a requirement by the
developer to take down--this is on public lands, obviously.
Senator Alexander. Yes.
Mr. Hayes. To take down the turbines at the end of their
useful life. But whether there's a specific bond requirement or
not, I don't know right now. But we will get that information
to you.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, David. I'd appreciate it very
much. And I'll add my compliments to your work here. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
Senator Merkley.
HAZARDOUS FUELS
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you all
very much. I wanted to start by echoing Senator Udall's
comments in regard to the proposed reduction in funding for
hazardous fuels reduction. We had this last summer in Oregon,
the largest forest fires we've had in 100 years, including one
forest fire the size of Rhode Island. And largely, partly, the
forest was dry, but the other big factor was the accumulation
of fuels from fire suppression in the past, combined with the
absence of forest management.
And it's kind of a very hazardous combination, those
factors. And in page BH106 on the conversation on this, it
notes, ``The President's budget proposes reducing the program
to $96 million, a reduction of $89 million''--I'm rounding it
off--``from 2012.'' And it presents, and it puts it in kind of
the silver lining, that ``the program presents an opportunity
to reevaluate and recalibrate the focus of hazardous fuels
reduction to align and support the direction of the National
Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy.''
I am doubtful that there's anything in that strategy which
says that the accumulation of fuels is not a problem and that
we should cut the funding by one-half. So I think this is
probably just kind of nice language to dress up the fact that
this didn't make the list of higher priority operation.
But I guess my question is, is there some type of
fundamental insight that hazardous fuels reduction no longer
merits the funding that it's had? And if so, I'd like to
understand that.
Secretary Jewell. Senator, I'll take a high-level crack at
the question. Fuels reduction is very important in reducing the
risk of wildland fires; no question about it. We have very
difficult budget choices to make. This budget reflects a
balance of what we expect to have to spend on suppression,
based on the 10-year average. And putting some money aside,
which has been removed, actually, in the sequester, putting it
back in to reduce the fuel load.
There are ways we fight fires that would be much better put
on the emergency funding side so we had a predictable annual
way to continue to reduce the fuel load and fight the sort of
normal fires without the spikes that inevitably occur in terms
of how it impacts our funding. We made some hard choices.
There's nothing I'm aware of or have been told that there's a
relation.
Senator Merkley. Okay. Well, I appreciate the hard choices,
and I just want to reiterate concern. A lot of our private
landholders are very concerned about forest fires that are
moving from public land onto their private land, their private
range land, their private timberland. And a good share of the
fires that occurred last year were on both public land leased,
so it operates as an income generator for our ranchers, and
also the private land, including private timber stands.
And when your private timber stand is burned up as a result
of a fire that initiated on a poorly managed public tract, you
can imagine how angry you become about that poor management.
And that's my concern, that we need to do more, not less.
KLAMATH BASIN RESTORATION AGREEMENT
I wanted to turn to the Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement. This is an agreement that I discussed with you
earlier that I just wanted to engage you on. This is an effort
to address a significant area in southern Oregon, where you
have a complicated set of rivers and dams and species,
including a freshwater sucker fish and then the salmon, both of
which have provisions to effect their survival that sometimes
are in conflict with how much water stays in the lake versus
how much water goes into the river, and so on and so forth.
Stakeholders have been fighting over this water forever.
They came together and forced the Klamath Basin Restoration
Agreement. Your predecessor flew in to be there for the signing
of this agreement. The Department worked very closely to try to
support these concepts to turn what's been a lose-lose
proposition into a win-win.
Nothing about this is simple. But I again wanted to raise
your attention to it and ask for your help in trying to take
this long-term water war and convert it into something that's
more reliable for the irrigators, better for the fish, both the
in-lake fish and then the downstream fish.
Secretary Jewell. Senator, thanks for your support, and I
am aware of how extensive, how important, how complex this is,
and I absolutely look forward to working with you on it.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Secretary. And then I
wanted to turn to the issue of the O&C lands in Oregon, the
Oregon and California Railroad grant lands. These lands have
gone through various management plans, and there is a pending
rewrite of the Resource Management Plans for six different
districts.
And one of the concerns, just as the concern that, if you
will, fire suppression or response will take away the funding
for fuels reduction, the concern here is that the resources
that are necessary to do these plans might come at the expense
of the planning for timber cuts. These are lands that were
dedicated for our counties to essentially have a timber supply
to feed the local mills. And part of the revenues from the
sales go to the local counties. And if the planning isn't done
for the sale of the timber, then nothing happens. Nothing gets
cut, nothing gets managed. We have second-growth forests that
continue to be good for fires and disease, but not for either
ecosystems or for timber sales.
And so, I wanted to raise this issue and ask whether the
dedication of the effort on the Resource Management Plans is
going to divert funds necessary to plan the sales on these
lands.
Secretary Jewell. I'll answer at a high level and then ask
my colleagues here to chime in with more. What I've heard from
the BLM is a commitment to provide a steady source of timber
for the mills in Oregon. I know it's very critical to funding
the Secure Rural Schools Program. I have not heard that the
Resource Management Plan takes away from the ongoing commitment
to provide a steady supply of timber.
My colleagues, would you like--Rhea?
Ms. Suh. Senator, we fully expect to meet our cut target of
197 board-feet that is expected in 2013.
Senator Merkley. Well, throw a million or something into
there.
Ms. Suh. I'm sorry. 197?
Secretary Jewell. Million.
Ms. Suh. 197 million; I'm sorry. What we were asking for in
the budget is an additional $1.7 million that will obviously go
into the Resource Management Plans. We do not think these
things are mutually exclusive. We think both of them are
equally important to the communities you represent.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I'll
just close by saying 2 weeks ago we lost the Rough & Ready
mill, the last mill that we had in that particular county. And
the owner of the mill said, and I believe I have this right,
that it's like a person starving to death in a room full of
food. That essentially that, because of the scarcity of the
sales off the nearby timberland, they just couldn't get the
logs to feed the mill.
In the small town of Cave Junction, this was 85 living-wage
jobs, which of course, will affect that payroll being spent in
Cave Junction, will affect every other retail operation in this
mill town. And certainly, kind of that snapshot reflects the
frustration and challenge of working out a sustainable timber
supply strategy off these lands. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Before I recognize Senator Hoeven, a vote has
just started. I will depart to vote. I'll ask the vice chair,
Senator Murkowski, to preside so that we can finish the first
round. And we anticipate a second round.
Senator Hoeven, thank you.
RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
good to see you again. Thank you for being here. A project that
we had submitted for a record of decision some years ago, we're
still waiting for a final record of decision, it's the Red
River Valley Water Supply Project. Would you be willing to
commit to me that we can get together and you could give us a
final decision one way or the other on that record of decision?
Secretary Jewell. Happy to meet with you on it and learn
more about it.
Deputy Secretary, do you know the status of the record of
decision?
Mr. Hayes. I do not, but we certainly will get back to you
on that.
Senator Hoeven. Yes. We need to get a decision from you.
And so could we agree to schedule something, get together and
get a frank discussion and a final decision?
Secretary Jewell. Sure. Absolutely.
[The information follows:]
Red River Valley Water Supply Project
The Bureau of Reclamation and the State of North Dakota completed
the Red River Valley Water Supply Project Final Environmental Impact
Statement in 2007. The preferred alternative identified in the EIS
would import water from the Missouri River basin for release into the
Red River through the Garrison Diversion Unit water supply facilities.
A report on the project was transmitted to Congress in 2008, consistent
with the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2008, Public Law 106-554. A
Record of Decision has not been signed and that decision has not been
revisited.
The Dakota Water Resources Act requires that if the selected option
includes the importation of Missouri River water, the project must be
expressly authorized by Congress. No legislation has been enacted. We
would be pleased to discuss the status of the Red River Valley Project
further with the North Dakota delegation.
SPIRIT LAKE NATION CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
Senator Hoeven. That would be great. Second, I want to
thank you for your willingness to come visit us in North
Dakota. I appreciate it very much. One of the stops that we've
got to make is at the Spirit Lake Nation. And I think it's very
important. There's a situation where the Bureau of Indian
Affairs has taken over the Child Protective Services. Their
problems on the reservations need to be addressed.
Your presence there, I think could be a big help in terms
of making sure the job gets done and getting a good progress
report. And I'd like your thoughts and, hopefully, a commitment
from you to do that.
Secretary Jewell. I'm very happy to work with your office
on my visit to see how we can prioritize working that in with
the other things that you'd like me to see in North Dakota.
NORTH DAKOTA OIL RESERVE ASSESSMENT
Senator Hoeven. Good. The third point is I want to thank
you again for the USGS study that came out updating the
recoverable oil reserves in North Dakota between double and
triple, 7.4 billion to 11.4 billion barrels recoverable. The
industry thinks it's going to be even higher than that. Natural
gas, almost 7 trillion cubic feet.
Your study is very important because it's going to help us.
We've got the oil companies in there, but we're growing so fast
we need private investors and private developers in there
building stores and housing and, you know, all of the different
things that go with quality of life, restaurants, in addition
to the public investment we're making in roads and bridges and
water supply and all that.
So it's very helpful. I want to thank you for that. I
worked with your predecessor, Secretary Salazar, very closely
to get USGS to do that study. We thank you for it. It's going
to have a real impact in terms of jobs and energy; tax revenues
at local, State, Federal level without raising taxes; and of
course, energy security, energy independence for our country.
It's a great example of what we can do together.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
So, now you're working on hydraulic fracturing. We can't
produce oil and gas without hydraulic fracturing. So I need
your commitment to work with us on that. That's one.
OIL AND GAS PERMITTING
At the same time, we're working on permitting wells, for
example, on BLM lands. Right now it takes 10 to 14 days to
permit a well in our State, but it takes 270 days on BLM lands.
We've got energy legislation in, our BLM Streamlining Act,
which I think we got bipartisan support. I think you guys are
onboard with it. We actually worked with some of your people to
develop it.
The point is this: We need your help streamlining the
regulatory burden. And that's one of the things we're going to
show you. For example, we're going to show you hydraulic
fracturing, that we're transparent and that we're open. We do
it right, we do it well. But we create a lot of jobs and a lot
of energy doing it right and well.
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
So, specifically, where are you at with the hydraulic
fracturing rules? Are you going to work with the States to make
sure they work? And can we continue this model of the BLM
Streamlining Act, where we work together to streamline this
regulatory burden? This is a win-win in a big way.
So I know that's kind of a long question. But it goes to a
big point here and a real opportunity. And I'd love your
response.
Secretary Jewell. I'm happy to respond. And as I'm sure you
recall from my confirmation hearing, I actually have fracked a
well before.
Senator Hoeven. Yes, I do.
Secretary Jewell. Having been a petroleum engineer earlier
in my career, I understand the process, I understand the risks,
I understand the rewards. It's essential and has been for
decades, in economically extracting the resource, it can be
done safely and responsibly. I do understand that.
Fracking rules, we're very close to releasing them. So I've
said that it's a matter of weeks, not months. So you won't have
long to wait.
In terms of streamlining the regulatory burden, we agree,
and the BLM agrees. Yesterday I had an opportunity to meet with
the Western Energy Alliance, which is small operators from
throughout the West. We talked about this.
I hate to keep bringing up sequestration, but we have a
movement afoot to streamline and automate the process. When we
do a line-item by line-item cut, it makes it difficult to do
that because we don't have the flexibility on where we cut.
People are necessary to process permit applications, and they
are being scaled back. We're actually prioritizing
authorizations for permits to drill, and our inspections over
additional leases.
But the BLM is very committed to being more streamlined.
There's some legislation that's had pilot offices that don't
allow us to go beyond those pilot regions.
Senator Hoeven. Exactly.
Secretary Jewell. We're asking for a fix to that. I think
the BLM is very much on the same page with you, Senator, in
where we need to go to be responsive.
Senator Hoeven. That's it. I mean, that's the legislation
I'm talking about. We're going to get you authority so that you
have flexibility to do some of these things. I think we can
leverage your resources. We can do much more together even
with, you know, the challenges of sequestration because, with
some flexibility, we're going to bring you State and local
resources, private resources in a way that will help us do
these things.
It really just comes back to your willingness to engage
with us and do it. And this is where your leadership, I think,
can be critical and make a big difference.
Secretary Jewell. Yes. Appreciate that.
Senator Leahy. First off, Madam Secretary, congratulations
being here. I was proud to vote for your confirmation. I think
your diversity of experience is going to be very good for us.
You've heard from a lot of the western Senators up here,
and I just want you know, as important as the Department of the
Interior is to the West, we have some interest in Vermont, in
the East. We take pride in our own stewardship. We appreciate
the value the Department of the Interior brings to Vermont, to
our two national wildlife refuges, two units of the National
Park System, two national fish hatcheries. And I was glad when
the Connecticut River and Vermont neighbor in the New England
States become the first National Blueway. So these are all
things that we're very interested in.
SEA LAMPREY
Since 1998, FWS has led the effort to control parasitic sea
lamprey in Lake Champlain in Vermont and New York. That's what
this ugly-looking thing is, which attaches itself to fish, lake
salmon, trout, and so on. It's critical to the restoration of
native fish species in Lake Champlain. They have a devastating
impact on the ecosystem if they're left unchecked.
The program to get rid of it has been a huge success. In
2011, your predecessor and former colleague, Ken Salazar,
joined me in Vermont to say FWS was accepting full
responsibility of the management of it. But they've yet to
budget money for this work.
When will FWS bidding plan begin to honor your
predecessor's commitment in 25 years of leadership by the Fish
and Wildlife Service and put money in to eradicate sea lampreys
in Lake Champlain, without sounding too parochial?
Secretary Jewell. Well, it's a great illustration of the
challenge we have in balancing the resources, particularly with
invasive species.
Specific to the sea lamprey, I'm looking at Pam to see if
she's got a number. She's scrambling to come up with a number.
Ms. Haze. The fiscal year 2014 budget, sir, maintains FWS
funding at the fiscal year 2012 level. It's at $1 million. This
supports FWS's efforts in Marquette, Ludington field stations
in Michigan, and the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resource
Office in Vermont.
Senator Leahy. So how much is going to be budgeted for
Vermont?
Ms. Haze. I'm not sure. We can get you that information,
sir.
Senator Leahy. Could you get it this week?
Ms. Haze. We can.
[The information follows:]
Sea Lamprey
The Department's efforts to control sea lamprey in Vermont and Lake
Champlain remains strong. The fiscal year 2014 budget maintains funding
in the Fish and Wildlife Service at the fiscal year 2012 level of $1
million. In addition, funding for sea lamprey control is provided by
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission through reimbursable support
agreements with the Service. In fiscal year 2012, the Commission
provided $9.8 million; $8.7 million in 2013; and the Service
anticipates receiving approximately $8.4 million in 2014, although
exact allocations are as yet unavailable.
The Fish and Wildlife Service supports sea lamprey control efforts
from field stations in Michigan and the Lake Champlain Fish and
Wildlife Resources Office in Vermont. Funding for sea lamprey control
efforts in Vermont is stable at approximately $1 million in 2012, 2013
and 2014. A portion of this funding is provided by the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission. The Service works in close coordination with both
Vermont and New York resource management agencies to support sea
lamprey control efforts and together they are making progress.
The U.S. Geologic Survey also provides scientific and technical
support to sea lamprey control efforts which has informed more
effective efforts. USGS provides support from facilities in Michigan
and Wisconsin.
WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME IN BATS
Senator Leahy. Thank you. I know that the Senator from
Tennessee has mentioned white-nose syndrome, something I raised
here several years ago. It is a matter of huge import, not only
to farmers that use pesticides, but also to those who are
involved in organic farming without pesticides.
FISH HATCHERIES
And then native fish populations, ever-increasing risks.
We've seen firsthand in Vermont FWS through the Federal Fish
Hatchery System is critical to preventing that. Vermont's two
Federal fish hatcheries support native fish restoration as far
west as Lake Ontario, as far east as Maine. The
administration's spending request is a significant drawback
from freshwater fish restoration.
Are you going to be able to continue a strong network of
Federal fish hatcheries?
WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME IN BATS
Secretary Jewell. Senator, I'm going to address white-nose
syndrome in bats, as well as the question on the fish
hatcheries. I do have information. We have $11.5 million for
programs in the fiscal year 2014 budget for the white-nose
syndrome in bats, and that's a $5 million increase above 2012,
so the budget recognizes the huge economic impact of that.
Senator Leahy. Good.
FISH HATCHERIES
Secretary Jewell. In terms of fish hatcheries, I know that
there is support for fish hatcheries in general. I don't know
specifically about Vermont.
Rhea.
Ms. Suh. Senator, we believe strongly that the Light River
National Fish Hatchery is one of the best examples of our work
in this realm. As you know, the hurricane in 2011 caused
significant damage to this facility. We have been undergoing
two separate construction projects to try to repair and rebuild
the fish-tagging building. In 2014, we have a total of $4.7
million budgeted for the operations of this program. We're
working on both the ongoing regular operations, as well as the
restoring, the rebuilding of the actual infrastructure.
Senator Leahy. Good. Well, thank you very much. And
finally, Madam Secretary, if you go online and pick up ``The
Onion,'' the satirical newsmagazine, you've probably seen this,
how you became President when the President, the Vice
President, the Speaker, myself, and those of us who are in line
to accession to the presidency took a hot-air balloon ride.
Trust me, we're not going to. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to join you
and others on the subcommittee in welcoming our distinguished
panel of witnesses today. We thank you for your leadership at
the Department of the Interior.
MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL PARKS
Two of the most important activities in my area of the
country involve the Gulf Islands National Seashore and the
Natchez Trace Parkway, both of which are very important for
visitation and appreciation of the beauty of that part of our
country. And I just want to put in a plug for adequate funding
to continue to carry out the activities that the Department has
in supervising and helping maintain the integrity and beauty
and enjoyability of that part of the country.
I think our time has run out on our vote over on the floor.
So I'm prepared to yield back my time without really asking you
for any commitments except your best efforts.
Secretary Jewell. Thanks, Senator. I do want to reference
that it looks like funding is equivalent to the fiscal year
2012 levels for the three parks in Mississippi. I look forward
to visiting Vicksburg, which is coming up, I think in a week or
two. So thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. And as
I indicated before, Senator Murkowski is now going to vote and
we will begin a second round.
OFFSHORE WIND
One of the major issues that's upcoming is the auctions for
offshore wind. This is particularly important to Rhode Island.
Can you give us a detailed timeline? There was a commitment, I
think, that all this process would be completed by the end of
the year. But perhaps either you, Madam Secretary, or Deputy
Secretary Hayes could comment.
Mr. Hayes. Be happy to, Senator. I want to compliment your
leadership here and the State's leadership. Rhode Island really
has invested from the very beginning in good studies and good
analysis to enable Rhode Island now to move forward as our
first competitive offshore lease sale with the combined Rhode
Island-Massachusetts wind energy area.
We are looking to have a notice of the sale to come out
within a matter of weeks and to have the actual sale occur
before the end of the year. That's our current timetable. As we
get closer, we will give your office, and I've enjoyed working
with Rachael directly on this, more precise information.
Senator Reed. Right.
Mr. Hayes. But we are on track to get it done this year.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Deputy Secretary Hayes.
SEQUESTRATION
Madam Secretary, the issue of sequester keeps, obviously,
coming up in many different contexts. Let me just ask, for the
record and also to sort of, I think, provide a good basis for
further discussion. First of all, your budget does not assume
the sequester; is that correct?
Secretary Jewell. The fiscal year 2014 budget does not
assume the sequester. We're making comparisons typically to the
fiscal year 2012 budget because that's the last enacted budget
that we had.
Senator Reed. Right. Right. So the budget we're talking
about, if the sequester continues into this 2014 fiscal year,
it will be further complicated. Right now you're looking at,
you're assuming no sequester?
Secretary Jewell. That's correct.
Senator Reed. Thank you. Now, and all of my colleagues, I
think, because, first of all, they're extremely effective and
thoughtful people, have suggested ways in which we could make
further investments not only in their States, but in national
programs. But even with the flexibility some people have spoken
about, these additional investments would be difficult to do in
the context of the budget with or without the sequester; is
that fair also?
Secretary Jewell. That's correct.
Senator Reed. And again, one of the issues is that--and I
think all of my colleagues would make the same point I would.
When we do these investments, they actually generate economic
activity, provide jobs, leverage the economy forward. So this
is not just spending for the sake of spending. Yet could these
critical investments--you know, you have a list of things you
had to leave on the cutting-room floor, as they say on the west
coast, that you probably believe would be hugely valuable for
jobs, for economic growth, and for the future of the country.
Is that a fair assessment, too?
Secretary Jewell. Yes. And just to put a few numbers behind
it, I come out of the active outdoor-recreation industry, $600
billion of revenue that is generated because of people's
recreation on public lands. The lion's share of those lands are
managed by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture.
On the energy side, I think we get a 26-to-1 return on
investment for every dollar we invest. We generate $26 of
revenue for both States and the Federal Government. So, yes, I
mean, as we scale back, as I referenced on the sequester, it's
about $200 million of lost revenue that we associate with just
the cuts we've had to make from the sequester alone.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much. That adds, I
think, some context and some real value to what has been so far
a very valuable discussion in and of itself.
URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM
Let me turn to another issue. It was very encouraging to
see this budget include $10 million to revive the Urban Park
And Recreation Recovery Program. You know, again, my colleagues
are from larger States and more rural States, have parks, et
cetera. But there's a need everywhere for access to nature,
conservation, and the services that parks provide.
Can you explain some of the specific activities that you
see funded under these grants? Who would be eligible as an
allocation formula? Any details would be helpful.
Secretary Jewell. Let me give the high level, and then I'll
encourage my colleague, Rhea, to weigh in.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Secretary Jewell. First, there is a significant, scary
growing disconnect between children and nature. It's something
that I have worked hard on before coming into this role. Urban
parks are frequently the best opportunity children have to have
any kind of a connection to the natural world at all. If we
want people sitting around this dias in the future that care
about these resources, which I think are vital for many
reasons, we need to connect them to parks today.
The UPARR program, which has been around for a long time,
but not funded consistently, is really vital. As a former
urbanite from the Seattle area, these kinds of funds are
desperately needed by local cities and counties to support the
parks that are necessary in the region. That's why we're asking
for it to come back. The Rivers, Trails and Conservation
Assistance Program that NPS administers is another critical
resource that is leveraged by local money.
So, Rhea, do you want to provide any more detail on the
program itself?
Ms. Suh. Mr. Chairman, we can certainly provide you
extensive detail on how the program will be operated. It is,
obviously, operated by NPS. It's our understanding that the
funds would go to local municipalities that have urban
populations, in a competitive process. So again, we would be
happy to get back to you with more details on the program.
This is a program, as you know, that used to exist several
years ago. We are resurrecting it because we believe strongly
and agree with you that the need, particularly in urban places
around the country, is great.
Senator Reed. Well, I concur, obviously. And in one point,
I would echo the Secretary, so that if we want the next
generation to be custodians of the environment and not just in
certain areas, but throughout this country, we have to expose
them to environmental education and issues. And again, we have
been pushing through the Department of Education for a
curriculum that has a recognition of getting kids outside. In
fact, we've got legislation, the No Child Left Inside Act.
But this is not just Department of the Interior, but across
the Federal Government engaging the next generation of young
people in environmental education. And the best education is
actually going in and seeing firsthand a park or, in our case,
going out on the bay, Narragansett Bay, and participating in
places like Seattle, going up into the mountains and hiking or
climbing, et cetera. So it's absolutely critical.
[The information follows:]
Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery
Established by the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978,
the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery grant program was designed to
provide matching grants to a prioritized list of urban cities and
counties that represent the most physically and economically distressed
communities Nationwide. The program provides direct Federal grants to
local governments to rehabilitate existing indoor and outdoor
recreation facilities; to demonstrate innovative ways to enhance park
and recreation opportunities; and to develop local Recovery Action
Programs to identify needs, priorities and strategies for
revitalization of the total recreation system.
Rehabilitation and innovation grants are awarded through a national
competition among the detailed project proposals submitted to the
National Park Service (NPS). These are evaluated and ranked by a
national panel and recommendations made to the Director of the National
Park Service for selection. The project selection criteria address the
goals of the UPARR program and are outlined in the UPARR Act. For
example, project selection criteria for rehabilitation projects include
but are not limited to:
--Maximizing project costs per capita in the community served.
--The degree of service to minority and low to moderate-income
residents, special populations, and distressed neighborhoods.
--The degree of State participation in the proposal, including
financial and technical assistance.
--The degree of private sector participation in the proposal,
including contributions of financial assistance.
--The degree to which the project is clearly a priority for action
listed in the Recovery Action Program and the jurisdiction's
commitment to improving its recreation system.
--The scope of whether the proposed project will serve neighborhood
recreation needs.
--The condition of existing recreation properties to be rehabilitated
and the need to maintain existing services.
--The level of improvement in the quality and quantity of recreation
services as a result of rehabilitation, including improvements
at specific sites and overall enhancement of the recreation
system.
--The degree of the projects consistency with local government
objectives and priorities for overall community revitalization.
--The degree of neighborhood employment opportunities created.
YOUTH
Senator Reed. And let me ask a broader question, which is,
this is one aspect of youth programs in the budget. Madam
Secretary, could you comment generally about other areas of the
budget that emphasizes sort of youth engagement?
Secretary Jewell. Yes, and I hate to keep hearkening back
to the sequester, but one of the biggest impacts we've had is
the reduction in youth hiring. When I go around the BLM or the
Park Service, or even USGS, a lot of the folks that work for
the Department of the Interior started as young people. They
might have been in college, and they did a summer job. My son
worked for 3 years as a volunteer ranger in a national park. It
connected him to place in a way that will change his life
forever
These opportunities are enormously critical in making sure
we have people that are interested in the jobs that take care
of these lands. I want to compliment Assistant Secretary Suh on
her commitment to youth hiring in Interior, because we've had
tens of thousands--how many thousands?
Ms. Suh. 84,000.
Secretary Jewell. 84,000 young people, looking in the rear-
view mirror, have been hired by Interior. These will be the
people that will be our park rangers, our wildlife biologists,
and our oil and gas lessees of the future.
We also have a very scary situation with the maturation, I
would say, of our workforce.
Senator Reed. You mean they're getting to be our age?
Secretary Jewell. I resemble that remark, yes.
Senator Reed. They're getting to be my age. I understand.
Secretary Jewell. Well, they're my age, and they will be
eligible for retirement in a 5-year period of time. You know,
will we have the people necessary with the skills set
necessary? We have a commitment to that, but it is difficult in
this budgetary time. And that's certainly something that's
reinstated in this budget.
Senator Reed. Well, you make another excellent point, which
is, there's, going forward, a capacity issue, because as you
lose these very valuable, very experienced personnel, for the
last several years we have not been hiring at the level we need
to keep the entry-level and middle ranks sustained so that
there's a natural progression upwards. And we could find
ourselves with a situation where we, you know, don't have the
capacity, the expertise. And that doesn't help anyone, because
you still have the mission, but you still have the capacity.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
But let me change to another topic that you've mentioned,
then I've mentioned, and that's the LWCF. We have, and I think
this is strong bipartisan support over the years for the LWCF.
We're fully funding it, et cetera.
The proposal in this budget is to make part of it
mandatory, and I think, the longer term, to transition to an
entirely mandatory program.
Secretary Jewell. That's correct.
Senator Reed. Which the value, obviously, is it tends to
lock in the money. But what it doesn't do is allow sort of the
not only just oversight, but, you know, members to be able to
indicate the local preferences, what's an important project in
Alaska or Nebraska or Rhode Island, which is part of what we
do, and also, the oversight of the program on specific issues,
accountability, et cetera.
So how are you planning to continue to involve Congress in
this process, first for this at least proposed, and not yet
adopted mandatory portion, and certainly at the point if this
ever got to be completely a mandatory program?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, as a businessperson, I spoke at
length with many members of this body about the importance of
full funding of the LWCF to fulfill its intended purpose. It
has been under threat consistently, and that is why we are
proposing mandatory funding.
I think there's an example in the Migratory Bird
Commission. There's another word in there, isn't there?
The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Where there is
engagement on the part of the Congress in prioritizing where
those funds are spent. I would welcome the opportunity to work
with you and this committee on establishing something similar
so there is insight and input from Congress on prioritizing
those projects. Because it's certainly not something that needs
to be driven by us. It's something I think we could drive
collaboratively.
Senator Reed. And again, one of the concerns is that it's
this balance between smaller areas of the country, larger areas
that might have, you know, just a bigger footprint, if you
will, where you have to deal with that. And without, I think,
healthy dialog within the Congress and the administration,
we're not going to be as effective as we should be. So I thank
you for that, going forward.
I'm going to recognize Senator Murkowski and ask her, at
the conclusion of her questions, because I do not believe any
of our colleagues will return, if you could gavel us out. I
would indicate that the record will remain open until Thursday,
May 16. So, Madam Secretary, you could get some written
questions from any of my colleagues. And we'd ask you to
respond as quickly as possible. Those questions have to be in
by May 16, and we ask again for your rapid response.
With that, let me turn the gavel over to Senator Murkowski
to ask a question and to conclude the hearing. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Appreciate that. And sorry for the Jack-in-the-box routine, but
this is what happens. And thank you for an opportunity to just
ask a couple more questions; I won't keep you too long because
it's been a long morning for you as well.
ARCTIC OCS REGULATIONS
Let me ask first about where we are in the process of
developing these Arctic-specific regulations within BOEM for
the exploration and development in the OCS areas out there. As
you know, exploration has been delayed going forward this next
season, in part because of what's gone on with the regulatory
uncertainty.
Can you give me some sense as to the timeline we're looking
at here for these regulations and whether or not it's your
intent to have those regs in place in time for the 2014
drilling season?
Secretary Jewell. Senator, I have had meetings with both
Shell and ConocoPhillips, who are the principals involved in
this. I've not yet met with Statoil; that may come up. I sense
a strong commitment to safe and responsible development of the
Arctic by the operators and by the regulators.
I don't believe that, in my conversations, that either
Shell or ConocoPhillips feels that it is regulations that are
getting in their way. It is ensuring that the technology is
available to be able to respond in the event of an incident, a
spill incident up there, that is of paramount importance to us
and I'm sure to you, as well. We certainly don't want a
situation in the Arctic like we experienced in the gulf.
Shell has been ahead of the game in working on particularly
the oil spill response. As you know, their response didn't pass
the test. They would acknowledge that, and certainly, the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management agreed that the test was not
passed. Shell is back working on developing a strategy to make
that happen, and they're going to continue to test until they
get it right.
There is a requirement that the ability to drill a relief
well be there, because unlike other parts of the world, where
you've got the ability to rapidly respond with other units that
might be in the area, that's not true. Both Shell and
ConocoPhillips, and Statoil if they proceed with their
development, will look to share resources to be able to drill a
relief well should there be a problem. That's another factor.
But I don't sense that there is any disconnect between
industry and the regulator in terms of what needs to be done or
the timing.
Senator Murkowski. Well, let me ask for clarification on
that because, as we know, when Shell was moving forward as the
only entity, the only producer up there, the plans were very
specific as to Shell's operations. Conoco is looking at a
different process using a jack-up rig. So in terms of ensuring
that the regulations are out there, that they are clear and
understandable, that allow for a level of certainty, there are,
as I understand, still regulations that need to be defined.
So the question is, will that be clearly mapped out far
enough in advance so that Conoco can advance in 2014, or Shell
can advance in 2014? Actually, excuse me, Conoco has already
said that they won't go in 2014. They're putting it off an
additional year. But will that regulatory certainty be there
for Shell should they decide to move forward in 2014?
And then a secondary question is as it relates to the air
quality programs. As you know, in the 2012 appropriations bill,
we transferred the authority from EPA to DOI. And so, same
question: Will you be prepared within BOEM to have finalized
these regulations, not only on the exploration and the
development side, but on the air-quality side, in time for the
2014 season?
Secretary Jewell. I'm going to ask Deputy Secretary Hayes
to weigh in with more detail.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Secretary and Senator. First on the
question of Arctic-specific standards, we are going to move
forward and put in regulations. The requirements that Shell was
required to do under the exploration plan, we are looking to
have performance standards so any company working the Arctic
will be expected to meet a performance standard, for example,
to deal with the containment for a spill, but with the
flexibility for companies to figure out how they want to meet
that standard.
We do expect to have proposed regulations out by the end of
this year so there will be clarity going forward. They will be
based on the kinds of requirements we've worked on together and
that were used in the field last summer. So there should not be
significant concern about what's in them, but we do believe
it's appropriate to put them in regulations now that we have
more than one operator moving up there, and that's our intent.
With regard to the air side, we are working hard at
developing the regulations to implement the addition of the
jurisdiction to BOEM to handle air requirements in Alaska as
they do in the gulf. And we expect forward movement on those
this year as well.
Senator Murkowski. Do you expect that there will be any
difference between how the department regulates the air quality
in the gulf and up north?
Mr. Hayes. I think it will be the same approach, Senator,
which is what I believe is required under the law that you
helped to instigate and pass.
Senator Murkowski. Good. I appreciate that. And I think it
was important to hear the word ``flexibility'' used in your
response when you're talking about the performance standards,
because recognizing that you may have different technologies,
different approaches there, yes, it's important to have that
backup, if you will, that standby system. But the designs might
be different, given what the different operators are utilizing.
So it is important, again, that we have those regulations
that are clearly defined in advance, well in advance,
hopefully, of this season so that that level of certainty,
moving forward, is there.
CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS
Let me ask one final question to you, Madam Secretary. And
this relates to BIA and IHS contract support costs. Last year,
the Supreme Court, in the Ramah case, held that tribes are
entitled to full contract support costs under their agreements
with the Federal Government.
What we're seeing, though, with the budget requests for
both BIA and IHS, they have proposed this separate
appropriations account solely for contract support costs that
also includes some statutory language that, in my view,
circumvents the court's holding there. The language would
effectively prevent the tribes from bringing claims for the
full amount of contract support costs if inadequate funding is
not appropriated to cover these costs.
I don't know what kind of feedback you have heard, but I
can tell you, the outcry from tribes from folks back home on
this particular issue is really loud. It's quite intense. The
tribes have spent so many years getting to this point,
significant legal costs. They get the Ramah decision and are
very optimistic that they will finally see some equity within
the budget here. And now this proposal, again, really kind of
undercuts where they have come from.
One of the questions that they asked me to ask you was
whether or not there had been any tribal consultation prior to
putting forth the proposal in the budget. And recognizing that
you weren't in that situation to do that, I don't know if any
of your staff has information in terms of what actually went on
prior to this decision or this proposal that is now in the
budget.
Secretary Jewell. Let me give a high-level on the contract
support cost dollars.
Senator Murkowski. Okay.
Secretary Jewell. And then I'll turn to my colleagues in
terms of the process. We've got $231 million in the budget for
contract support costs, which is about 91 percent of the need.
So it is not fully funded. It would require about $253 million
to fully fund. It is an increase of nearly $10 million. I
understand that the court provided some different options in
terms of how it might be administered.
The President and the Department of the Interior really
want to fulfill our obligations under this. And of course, it's
a function of money. We would very much like to resolve this,
working with Congress to come up with a mechanism to address
the conflict that we have in funding and, I think, in terms of
some legal conflicts as well in how the laws are administered.
David, do you want to provide more?
Mr. Hayes. Yes, thank you, Secretary. And, Senator, this is
a very important issue to us. As you know, this is an issue
that also affects the Department of Health and Human Services
with the Indian Health Service. In putting together the
President's budget, it was really a function of the
administration as a whole that had to deal with this issue, at
the same time that we're trying to now settle the class action
case as well, based on the Supreme Court decision.
The consultation is occurring now. And I know that within
the last----
Senator Murkowski. So after the fact? How is that going?
Mr. Hayes. Well, I think it was going pretty rough,
Senator. I know that Charlie Galbraith on behalf of the White
House and Kevin Washburn and Ms. Roubideaux and others have met
with the tribes about this. We very much view this budget as
the beginning of a discussion. We need to solve this problem,
working with you and the Congress, to ensure that full support
costs are available.
As the Secretary said, we're committed to it. We've found
some additional money. We have to solve this problem. This is
an interim step, and what we care most about, and I'm sure you
do as well, is that this not be a recurring issue year in and
year out and become an open sore.
I know that Kevin Washburn, in particular, the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs, is committed to deal with this.
I've engaged with my colleagues at the Department of Health and
Human Services and the Attorney General's Office to see if we
can't both get the retrospective litigation completed and then
have a solution going forward that works for you as
appropriators, as well, to fund the support costs and honor the
Supreme Court's decision.
Senator Murkowski. Well, and honor the Supreme Court's
decision, but also honor that trust responsibility to our first
peoples. It seems to me that the solution really here is to do
what the Ramah decision laid out, which is to pay the tribes
the full amount of their contract support costs, and the
President should include that full amount in his budget.
I am sure that the consultation right now, or I guess it's
not really consultation if it's after the fact, but I'm sure
it's difficult. And we do need to figure out how we're going to
do right, again, not only by the court decision, but just the
right thing when it comes to these obligations that our native
people have incurred when it comes to operation of our
hospitals, of our schools.
So this is an important one. And we've talked a little bit
about the impact of sequestration and what it may bring. But
this is not brought on by sequestration. This is just us
dealing with our responsibility, our obligation. And how we
make good on it is hugely important. So I appreciate the work
that's going into it, and I know that we stand ready to work
with you on this end.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
With that, we have held you here in the subcommittee for
some time. I appreciate, Madam Secretary, your willingness to
step forward and serve, working with good staff. Deputy
Secretary Hayes, we appreciate the service that you have given
for many years now. And Secretary Jewell, my free advice is,
take full advantage of him until June and tap into the resource
that he clearly has made available to the Department of the
Interior.
[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
national heritage areas
Question. Your fiscal year 2014 budget request proposes a change in
the distribution formula for national heritage areas (NHAs) including
the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Area in
Rhode Island that includes a new tiered and ``performance-based''
system of funding. Please describe, in detail, how and when the
Department plans to implement this formula change and provide the
proposed allocation of funds for each authorized heritage area as
provided by your fiscal year 2014 budget.
Specifically, how does your fiscal year 2014 budget request
continue to provide funding for mature national heritage areas like
Blackstone? At what level do you propose to fund these areas, and how
does that level compare with the funding that these areas will receive
in fiscal year 2013?
Answer. The National Park Service will initiate phase-in of a
revised funding formula as funding levels allow. The revised formula is
a merit-based system for allocating heritage areas funding that
considers a variety of factors based upon criteria related to program
goals, accountability, and organizational sustainability.
The revised Heritage Partnership Program (HPP) funding formula uses
three sequential tiers. The amount of funding available to each
heritage area coordinating entity depends upon the total annual HPP
appropriation and the number of coordinating entities authorized to
receive funds. Tier increases for each coordinating entity are
dependent upon meeting eligibility requirements and attaining
performance measures.
First the tier 1 allocation of $150,000 would be provided to all
NHAs that are authorized to receive HPP funding, able to meet any
Federal/non-Federal match requirements contained in their authorizing
legislation, and are able to expend funds obligated under their
cooperative agreement within a reasonable period of time.
Next, each NHA coordinating entity that meets the tier 2
requirements would receive an additional amount of funding up to
$250,000 or if sufficient funding is not available an equal share of
the available funds. To be eligible for tier 2 funding the coordinating
entity must meet additional eligibility requirements regarding
management plan approval, and have at least one full-time, paid staff
person in place to assume financial and administrative responsibility
of heritage area funds.
Last, if funds remain available after awarding tier 1 and tier 2
funds, then tier 3 funds will be allocated among those coordinating
entities that have already met the tier 1 and 2 requirements, have
long-term sustainability plans, and can match HPP funds at a 1:2 ratio,
or provide an all-cash match at a 1:1 ratio or the ratio specified in
the Area's authorizing legislation.
There are currently 48 National Heritage Areas authorized to
receive funds through the NPS HPP budget activity. If the appropriated
amount is equal to the request of $8,014,000 for Heritage Partnership
Commissions and Grants, the fiscal year 2014 allocations will range
between $150,000 and $170,872, which will constitute a dramatic
decrease for mature areas.
The following table shows the actual fiscal year 2013 allocations
and the planned allocation for fiscal year 2014. In fiscal year 2013,
$15,533,000 was available, post-sequestration, for Heritage Partnership
Commissions and Grants, or nearly twice as much as planned for fiscal
year 2014. Due to the significantly higher level of overall funding,
direct comparisons of the allocations between the 2 years are not very
descriptive, but overall the individual allocations ranged between
$150,000 and $628,000. The draft fiscal year 2014 allocation is
predicated on each of the 48 coordinating entities receiving
authorization through fiscal year 2014 and obtaining eligibility for
tier 1 funding. A subset of the NHAs is expected to have approved
management plans in place and thus be eligible for tier 2 funding.
These NHAs would be funded at $170,872.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2014
National Heritage Areas Enacted (Post- President's Budget
Sequestration) Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area........................ $150,000 $170,872
America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership (Silos)........... 628,000 170,872
Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area........................ 288,000 170,872
Atchafalaya National Heritage Area............................ 288,000 170,872
Augusta Canal National Heritage Area.......................... 288,000 170,872
Baltimore National Heritage Area.............................. 150,000 170,872
Blue Ridge National Heritage Area............................. 610,000 170,872
Cache La Poudre River Corridor................................ 150,000 150,000
Cane River National Heritage Area............................. 523,000 170,872
Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership................ 288,000 170,872
Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area.. 288,000 170,872
Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor.................. 540,000 170,872
Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor...................... 627,000 170,872
Essex National Heritage Area.................................. 556,000 170,872
Freedom's Frontier National Heritage Area..................... 288,000 170,872
Freedom's Way National Heritage Area.......................... 150,000 150,000
Great Basin National Heritage Route........................... 150,000 170,872
Gullah/Geechee Heritage Corridor.............................. 150,000 170,872
Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area.................... 435,000 170,872
Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor........ 288,000 170,872
John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage 575,000 170,872
Corridor.....................................................
Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area........ 150,000 150,000
Kenai Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area.................... 150,000 170,872
Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area...................... 378,000 170,872
Mississippi Delta National Heritage Area...................... 150,000 150,000
Mississippi Gulf Coast National Heritage Area................. ....................... 170,872
Mississippi Hills National Heritage Area...................... 150,000 150,000
Mormon Pioneer National Heritage Area......................... 288,000 170,872
MotorCities-Automobile National Heritage Area................. 435,000 170,872
Muscle Shoals National Heritage Area.......................... 150,000 150,000
National Aviation Heritage Area............................... 288,000 170,872
National Coal Heritage Area................................... 288,000 170,872
Niagara Falls National Heritage Area.......................... 288,000 170,872
Northern Plains National Heritage Area........................ 150,000 150,000
Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area.................... 150,000 150,000
Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Area.................... 567,000 170,872
Oil Region National Heritage Area............................. 288,000 170,872
Quinebaug-Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor.. 590,000 170,872
Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area........................ 588,000 170,872
Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area....................... 150,000 170,872
Schuylkill River Heritage Area................................ 435,000 170,872
Shenandoah River Valley Battlefields National Historic 385,000 170,872
District.....................................................
South Carolina National Heritage Corridor..................... 587,000 170,872
South Park National Heritage Area............................. 150,000 170,872
Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area............................. 386,000 170,872
Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area................ 150,000 150,000
Wheeling National Heritage Area............................... 528,000 170,872
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area.......................... 304,000 170,872
-------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 15,533,000 \1\ 8,014,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers may not add due to rounding.
urban parks and recreation recovery program
Question. As member from an urban State, I was encouraged to see
that your budget request includes a $10 million investment to revive
the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program, which has not been
funded in several years. Can you please explain what specific
activities are funded by these grants, and who is eligible? How will
you allocate these funds?
Answer. Established in 1978 by the Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery Act of 1978, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR)
grant program was designed to provide matching grants to a prioritized
list of urban cities and counties that represent the most physically
and economically distressed communities nationwide.
The program provides direct Federal grants to local governments
for:
--Rehabilitation grants, to rehabilitate, expand or developing
existing neighborhood oriented outdoor or indoor recreation
areas and facilities existing indoor and outdoor recreation
facilities;
--Innovation grants, to cover the cost of personnel, facilities,
equipment, supplies or services associated with the development
of innovative, cost-effective ideas, concepts, and approaches
toward improved facility design, operations or programming for
the delivery of recreation services at the local level; and
--Recovery Action Program Planning grants, to develop local Recovery
Action Programs to identify needs, priorities and strategies
for revitalization of the total recreation system.
Grants are available directly to a predetermined list of eligible
urban cities and counties. This list currently includes over 400
jurisdictions and was determined through a comprehensive study and
analysis conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau in conjunction with the
Department of the Interior. If funding is provided by Congress, this
analysis would be updated. Additionally, up to 15 percent of the annual
appropriation is available to cities not on the list but which are in
Census Bureau defined Metropolitan Statistical Areas and meet other
eligibility criteria. In order for jurisdictions to be able to apply
for Rehabilitation or Innovation grants, they must have an National
Park Service approved Recovery Action Program Plan that demonstrates
the jurisdiction's commitment to revitalizing its park and recreation
system.
Rehabilitation and innovation grants are awarded through a national
competition among the detailed project proposals submitted to the NPS.
These are evaluated and ranked by a national panel and recommendations
made to the Director of the National Park Service for selection.
Question. The request proposes funding these urban recreation
grants in lieu of the existing $5 million Stateside Competitive Grant
program, while it continues to fund $40 million for Stateside formula
grants. Can you please explain what is different about this urban parks
program compared to the Stateside competitive grant program? What is
the administration hoping to achieve with this proposal?
Answer. There are a number of key differences between the UPARR
program and the previously proposed, but never enacted, Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) State Competitive program. Chief among them is
that the LWCF State Competitive program proposal focused on the three
core America's Great Outdoors (AGO) priorities which included
increasing and improving recreation access and opportunities in urban
parks and community green spaces, increasing public access to rivers,
and catalyzing large landscape partnership projects. The UPARR program
is consistent with the AGO priorities, but has a more targeted approach
in that it focuses exclusively on rehabilitating existing facilities in
core urban areas. Last, LWCF competitive grants were intended to be
available to States and through States to any local unit of government
whereas UPARR grants are specifically targeted to the most economically
distressed urban cities and counties across the country.
With regard to the goals that the administration hopes to achieve,
the UPARR program is intended to help stimulate the revitalization of
urban park and recreation opportunities by promoting a unified approach
to addressing urban recreation through coordination and partnership
among different levels of government and the private sector. By doing
so the administration hopes to create a robust system of urban parks
that can contribute to the accomplishment of high priority national
goals to improve and encourage health living, redevelop economically
depressed urban cores, and revitalize and create livable urban
communities.
The President's budget request includes $10 million for the UPARR
program; additionally a proposal to fund a portion of recreation grants
from the LWCF as a permanent appropriation will provide an additional
$5 million for UPARR grants. The budget also requests $40 million for
the Stateside program with an additional $20 million included in the
permanent LWCF appropriation proposal. Competitive Stateside grants are
not proposed for funding in the President's budget request.
sequestration
Question. Secretary Jewell, can you give us more detail about what
visitors to the parks and other Federal lands should expect this summer
as a result of sequestration? What are some specific examples of the
tough choices that you have already been forced to make?
Answer. As a result of the sequester, many parks are not filling
vacancies and are retaining fewer seasonal employees. Consequently,
these parks will experience reduced visitor services and hours of
operation, shortened seasons, and closing of park areas when there is
insufficient staff to ensure the protection of visitors, employees,
resources and Government assets. Some specific examples include:
--Great Smoky Mountains National Park (NP) will close three remote
campgrounds and two picnic areas, affecting 54,000 visitors;
--Mount Rainier NP will close the Ohanapecosh Visitor Center,
affecting 60,000-85,000 visitors;
--Catoctin Mountain Park will close its only visitor center 50
percent of the time;
--Blue Ridge Parkway will cut 21 seasonal interpretive ranger
positions, affecting 584,000 visitors and resulting in the
closure of 10 developed areas, which is nearly a third of its
developed areas and creates a 50-mile distance between open
facilities which limits contacts with park staff;
--Jewel Cave National Monument and Wind Cave NP, both located in
southwestern South Dakota, will each discontinue approximately
35 percent of cave tours daily in the high season;
--Natchez Trace Parkway will close 14 comfort stations two days per
week, and four comfort stations for the entire 2013 season,
affecting more than 200,000 visitors. Colbert Ferry Visitor
Center and Rocky Springs Visitor Center will remain closed for
the 2013 season; and
--Yosemite NP will do less frequent trash pickup, have fewer
campground staff, and place a reduced focus on food storage
violations, all of which contribute to visitor safety concerns
and increased bear mortality rates. This will reverse the
progress the park has made since 2000 to reduce bear incidents
by 90 percent as well as the cost of damage from bear incidents
by 42 percent.
ellis island
Question. The National Park Service has announced that the Statue
of Liberty will reopen on July 4 this year, but it does not appear that
the Service has established any timeframes for the reopening of Ellis
Island. Does the National Park Service have a specific plan, including
a timetable, for the public reopening of Ellis Island National
Monument? If so, will you please share that plan with the committee and
please tell the committee whether or not the public has access to the
plan? If the Service has not yet settled on a plan, when will such a
plan be developed? When will the public be able to participate in its
development?
Answer. Plans to reopen Ellis Island to the pre-Sandy visitor
experience depends upon the re-establishment of utilities, primarily
electricity, and replacement of building systems, including HVAC,
plumbing, telecommunications, as well as the re-installation of
artifacts in exhibits at Immigration hall. Engineers have been
developing plans to provide a sustainable long term solution for
utilities that are vulnerable to flooding and water damage from future
storm events. We anticipate concepts of the engineering plans to be
complete within the next month; when the engineering plans are final, a
firm timetable to re-open Ellis Island to visitors can be considered.
Question. Complicating the matter for both the Statue of Liberty
and Ellis Island is the issue of security. The main security screening
facility, which was located in Battery Park in Manhattan, was lost in
the hurricane. I understand that there is some discussion of erecting a
``temporary'' facility on Ellis Island, similar to the ``temporary''
facility that was used in Battery Park for a decade. Does the Service
currently have a plan for building a security screening facility on
Ellis Island? If so, please tell the committee the location and nature
of the structure. If such facility is considered temporary, what is the
Service's current thinking is with respect to a long-term option for
security screening at the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island?
Answer. Earlier plans to conduct security screening on Ellis Island
have been superseded by new plans to return security screening to
temporary facilities at both Battery Park and Liberty State Park. The
National Park Service continues to work with our partners to find and
commit to a long term, permanent option for security screening.
Question. Will any of the Ellis Island funding provided in the
recent Sandy supplemental bill (113-6) be used to re-stabilize the
buildings on the ``south side''? If so, please provide the details of
those expenditures.
Answer. Supplemental funding will be used to repair and
rehabilitate all visitor facilities that were operating prior to
Superstorm Sandy. The NPS has planned $75.5 million for projects at the
Statue of Liberty National Monument, which includes Ellis Island. The
specific projects, and the individual cost estimates, are included in
the table below. Funding levels for projects will be refined as
planning and design gets underway and sequestration reductions are
applied.
HURRICANE SANDY NPS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Statue of Liberty National Monument
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount ($ in
Project Title millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demolish Three Houses and Rehabilitate Two Structures 0.6
for Mission Critical Support Requirements..............
Remove Estimated 3.3 Tons of Hazardous Debris from the 3.1
Main Buildings.........................................
Repair Storm Damage at Liberty Island Dock, Pier and 22.3
Ferry Slip.............................................
Restore Concrete Foundation for Office Trailer Marina 0.1
Unit for Park Police...................................
Repair Flood Damage in Basement at Concession Building 1.7
#38....................................................
Repair Damage to Heat, Utilities, Mechanical, and 19.2
Electrical Systems at Main Immigration Building........
Repair Storm Damage to Liberty Island Temporary Retail 0.2
Pavilion...............................................
Repair Storm Damage to Heat and Utilities at Liberty 4.6
Island.................................................
Ellis Island Emergency and Long Term Museum Collections 1.7
Protection Conservation and Storage....................
Replace Destroyed Administrative Equipment, Furnishings 0.5
and Data Systems.......................................
Repair Storm Damages on Ellis Island and to the Statue 0.1
Mall and Plaza.........................................
Repair Sections of Brick Paved Walkway, Handrail System 2.7
and Granite Seawall at Liberty Island..................
Repair Damages to the Administrative, Maintenance and 3.7
Support Buildings......................................
Replace Flood Destroyed Equipment and Security Screening 9.3
Tents With Temporary Facilities at Ellis Island.......
Replace Diesel Generators and Restore Interim Emergency 1.8
Utility and Heating System.............................
Replace Equipment and Ancillary Attachments............. 0.8
Replace Damaged Fuel Oil System With Natural Gas Main at 3.1
Liberty Island.........................................
---------------
Total............................................. 75.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Does the Service currently have any plans to open the
assets on the south side of Ellis Island to the public?
Answer. The buildings and grounds on the south side of Ellis Island
are not suitable for public visitation due to their condition. The
National Park Service continues to work with its partners to produce a
long term plan for the rehabilitation of the south side and access by
the visiting public.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
fire funding
Question. It is my understanding that the President's fiscal year
2014 budget request for Hazardous Fuels Reduction for the Department of
the Interior (DOI) Office of Wildland Fire is reduced by $88.9 million.
This is a 48 percent cut in funding for the program. The DOI Office of
Wildland Fire supports fire programs within the Bureau of Land
Management, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Bureau of Indian Affairs, which represent a huge amount of Federal
lands across the country.
Could I get some examples or description as to how the four bureaus
successfully used this funding in previous years?
Answer. Hazardous Fuels Reduction (HFR) funding is used to plan,
implement, and monitor fuels reduction treatments and conduct community
assistance activities. Hazardous fuels treatments remove or modify
wildland fuels (both living and dead vegetation) to reduce the risk of
wildfire to communities and their values. Community assistance is
provided in the form of community education, collaborative planning,
and activities to reduce human-caused ignitions.
From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2012, DOI treated on
average approximately 1.3 million acres of hazardous fuels annually
across the four Bureaus. The Bureaus design and implement fuels
treatment activities that are aimed at reducing fire severity,
modifying fire behavior, and/or restoring ecosystem health. Examples of
treatments that have achieved one or more of these objectives are
numerous and evident across the Nation.
Below are some specific examples and recent activities:
--Between 2002 and 2009, the Bureau of Indian Affairs implemented a
series of prescribed fire treatments located on the boundary of
the Fort Apache Indian Reservation that proved effective in
controlling the spread of the 2011 Wallow Fire.
--Fuel breaks established since 2005 have either stopped or helped
suppress several past large fires in southeastern Oregon,
particularly around the towns of Rome and Arock.
--In fall 2012, fire crews completed the 22-acre Lodge prescribed
fire adjacent to the John Muir Lodge in Sequoia-Kings Canyon
National Park. The project provided critical fuels reduction
next to the lodge and for the Grant Grove area.
--Nevada Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) recently completed the
1,080-acre Upper Colony II Fuels Treatment Project, on the
eastern slope of the Pine Nut Mountains, moderated fire
intensity and slowed the rate-of-spread of the 2012 Burbank
fire.
--In 2012, the Tract G Fuel Break prevented community and wildfire
risks by stopping a wildfire from burning on to refuge land and
neighboring private property in the vicinity of the Sacramento
National Wildlife Refuge.
--Also in 2012, two prescribed fires at the Grand Canyon National
Park reduced the heavy build-up of dead and down vegetation in
both burn units, decreasing the risk of extreme fire behavior
in the future, especially along Highway 67, the North Rim's
primary exit route.
Question. Will this reduction in funding for Hazardous Fuels
Reduction make communities more at risk?
Answer. The Department's commitment to fully fund the 10-year
suppression average, which required a $205.1 million increase over the
2012 enacted level, and other priority investments, impacted the
funding available for other important programs. The Department's 2014
budget decisions were made in the context of a challenging fiscal
environment.
The Wildland Fire Management program's primary objective is to
protect life and property, and this is achieved by fully funding the
suppression 10-year average and maintaining our initial and extended
attack firefighting capability at current levels. The 2014 request does
this by funding Preparedness at the 2012 enacted level, as adjusted for
fixed costs.
The planned Hazardous Fuels Reduction program for fiscal year 2014
represents the most effective use of available funds. High priority
projects will be completed in high priority areas with the goal of
mitigating wildfire risks to communities.
land and water conservation fund
Question. I want to commend your administration's continued
commitment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and to
ensuring that it is used for its intended purposes. I applaud you and
the President for your foresight and strong support for LWCF funding in
the fiscal year 2014 budget.
In New Mexico, our experience is that our public lands are enormous
economic engines with substantial local community support. LWCF plays a
key role in ensuring the viability of our public lands--by securing
access to hunting, fishing and other recreation lands, protecting
important historic and cultural sites, and ensuring water supply and
watershed restoration.
As you seek to address the many pressing needs of the Department of
the Interior, how do you see the role of LWCF funds in supporting local
economic needs, in addressing agency management challenges, and in
providing a conservation solution to community needs?
Answer. The 2014 budget represents an unprecedented commitment to
America's natural heritage by proposing $200 million in mandatory funds
out of $600 million overall for LWCF programs in 2014. Starting in
2015, the budget proposes $900 million annually in mandatory funding,
which is equal to the amount of oil and gas receipts deposited in the
LWCF each year. This funding will provide stability needed for agencies
and States to make strategic, long-term investments in our natural
infrastructure and outdoor economy to support jobs, preserve natural
and cultural resources, bolster outdoor recreation opportunities, and
protect wildlife. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is an important
tool for supporting conservation and recreation priorities in
communities throughout the country. Through direct Federal investments
and grants to States and local governments, LWCF supports a wide range
of community needs related to conservation, recreation, and strong
rural economies and working lands. The fund also enables bureaus to
address land management challenges through strategic acquisition of
inholdings or parcels that solve resource management challenges. The
Department's LWCF programs work in cooperation with local governments
and communities, rely on willing sellers for acquisitions, and maximize
opportunities to partner with private landowners on conservation
easements. The Department and bureaus use rigorous merit-based
selection processes to identify projects that will make the greatest
contribution to meeting outcome-based goals. All of these factors help
ensure that LWCF funds are targeted to high priority projects and are
aligned with and supportive of community priorities, including local
economic needs.
A total of $243.8 million, 41 percent of the administration's 2014
LWCF request, would fund grants to States for conservation and
recreation through grant programs run by the Forest Service, the
National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The LWCF
State Grants Program provides matching grants to States and local
governments for the acquisition and development of public outdoor
recreation areas and facilities. The program helps to create and
maintain a nationwide legacy of high quality recreation areas and
facilities and to stimulate non-Federal investments in the protection
and maintenance of recreation resources across the country. The
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) grants provide
funds to States to work with private landowners, conservation
organizations, and other partners to protect and conserve the habitat
of threatened and endangered species. The Urban Park Recreation and
Recovery Program (UPARR) provides matching grants to select physically
and economically distressed urban communities to revitalize and improve
recreation opportunities.
A total of $356.2 million, accounting for the other 59 percent of
the administration's LWCF request, would support land acquisition. Land
acquisition funds are used to secure access for the American public to
their Federal lands. These funds invest in acquisitions to better meet
recreation access needs by working with willing landowners to secure
rights-of-way, easements or fee simple lands that provide access or
consolidate Federal ownership so that the public has unbroken spaces to
hike, hunt, and fish. The administration's highly strategic approach to
using LWCF land acquisition funds includes the Collaborative LWCF
initiative. This new program brings Federal agency staff together with
local stakeholders to identify opportunities where LWCF funds can be
used to achieve the most important shared conservation outcome goals in
the highest priority landscapes. Conserving large scale landscapes
provides multiple resource and economic benefits to the public
including cleaner drinking water, recreational opportunities, reduced
wildlife risks, protected habitat for at-risk and game species and jobs
generated on and off these lands. The Collaborative LWCF program seeks
to fund the best opportunities to leverage other Federal resources,
along with those of non-Federal partners, to support conservation goals
driven by the best science and a shared community vision for the
landscape.
The Department has worked to identify LWCF investments which would:
support simpler, more efficient land management; create access for
hunters and anglers; create long-term cost savings; address urgent
threats to some of America's most special places; and support
conservation priorities that are set at the State and local level.
Reduced Costs for Land Management
LWCF funds would be used to acquire parcels that make it easier and
less costly to manage existing public lands. Far from raising operating
costs, the acquisition of inholdings can reduce maintenance and
manpower costs by reducing boundary conflicts, simplifying resource
management activities, and easing access to and through public lands
for agency employees and the public.
Access for Hunting and Fishing and Recreation
Participants in the America's Great Outdoors listening sessions
made it clear that access to our Nation's lands for all kinds of
recreation--in particular hunting and angling--is a national priority.
This LWCF request would fund strategic acquisitions that improve access
to public lands for sportsmen and women.
Economic Benefits for Communities
Investing in healthy ecosystems pays off for the Federal
Government, local communities and taxpayers. Timely acquisition of
important natural areas today can help avoid much higher costs to
taxpayers in future years by protecting water supplies, important
species habitat, recreational and cultural sites, and other natural
resources with economic value to the public.
Protection From Urgent Threats
LWCF funds are used to acquire lands that are in imminent danger
from industrial or residential development. Civil War and Revolutionary
War battlefields, for example, are the hallowed ground of our Nation's
history; preserving these lands as parks for the American public
prevents an irreparable loss.
Supporting Local Priorities
Federal acquisition projects are planned collaboratively with local
stakeholders, and often depend on significant support of State or local
government, or of locally based nonprofit partners. These partners
sometimes act as intermediary landowners, holding land temporarily to
protect it from development until the Federal Government can secure the
funds to assume ownership.
price's dairy (valle del oro national wildlife refuge)
Question. I know that you are a strong advocate of ensuring that
residents of our cities and urbanized counties have access to outdoor
recreation close to home and opportunities for healthy lifestyle.
With that in mind, I wanted to make sure you are aware of an
ongoing Departmental priority project underway in the Albuquerque area
that hits all those marks. I am referring to the Price's Dairy project
at Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge, the first urban refuge in the
Fish and Wildlife Service's southwest region and one of the 50-State
America's Great Outdoors (AGO) projects. This is a highly leveraged,
truly locally driven project--one that the community has been working
on for over 10 years. I am very pleased that the final funding needed
to complete this project is included as part of the Department's fiscal
year 2014 budget proposal. However, I would note that the landowner
agreement expires in July 2014, so it is absolutely critical that the
Department work with us to ensure that this project is completed along
that timeline. I note that last year the project was ranked #5 on the
agency's priority list, but this year it is ranked last at #18.
Hopefully that is not an indication of flagging enthusiasm or lack of
desire to get this project done.
Will you work with me to ensure this AGO project is completed this
year?
Answer. Completion of the last phase of the Valle de Oro National
Wildlife Refuge acquisition remains a Departmental priority project,
and it is our intention to complete the project providing Congress
appropriates enough funding for this acquisition. Funds would be used
to acquire fee title to the final portion of this 570-acre refuge
located along the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic
Trail, just a few miles from downtown Albuquerque.
The Valle de Oro refuge has received a huge outpouring of community
support and the Service has maintained its support for the acquisition.
To honor commitments made to the landowner, the community, and
partners, the budget request includes $6 million of Federal funds as
part of the Collaborative Landscape Planning initiative to complete the
project in fiscal year 2014.
blm pilot offices
Question. In March I visited the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
office in Carlsbad, New Mexico, to learn about the importance of their
status as a ``Pilot Office.'' As you know, the 2005 Energy bill
designated several pilot offices to receive extra resources to expedite
permit processing and conduct much-needed environmental oversight.
These offices are already understaffed and overworked, so I committed
to ensure that this program would be reauthorized in 2015 when it
expires. I am pleased to see in your budget proposal that you are
proposing to reauthorize this successful authority. I am also pleased
that you are proposing to build in more flexibility--for example, the
ability to shift resources to offices like Carlsbad that are in the
middle of a boom would be helpful. We'd want to be sure that the
flexibility is fair, but I appreciate this option.
Can you provide any more details on what you expect to do and how
we can work to ensure this happens?
Answer. The BLM would like to work with the Congress on language
that would allow greater flexibilities nationwide to adjust permitting
resources based on demand. There are many BLM field offices that are
not part of the pilot project, but are receiving hundreds of
Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) per year. Of the 10 field
offices that received the most APDs during fiscal year 2012, only 5 are
currently designated as pilot project offices. For example, in fiscal
year 2012, the Pinedale Field Office in Pinedale, Wyoming, received 325
APDs; the Bakersfield Field Office in Bakersfield, California, received
286 APDs; and the Oklahoma Field Office in Tulsa, Oklahoma, received
157 APDs. Although these offices have received high volumes of APDs,
none are currently designated as pilot project offices. At the same
time, some of the currently designated pilot project offices have
received relatively few APDs in recent years; for example, the Miles
City, Montana, Field Office received only 55 APDs in fiscal year 2012.
parks and river management
Question. The Bureau of Reclamation's ``Colorado River Basin Water
Demand and Supply Study'' does an excellent job of describing the
challenges in meeting water supply needs, but it does very little to
describe or assess the needs of the National Park Service to meet its
obligations to protect its river ecosystems.
Most park units in the Colorado River basin and other river basins
lack protection for the waters flowing through park boundaries and that
in most cases, park units in the Colorado River basin and other river
basins do not have management plans to provide for sound management of
water resources within parks.
Is it possible to create a planning effort to ensure that the
National Park Service (NPS) can substantively participate in policy
discussions about water management that may have profound impact on
national park resources?
Answer. The Office of the Secretary works collaboratively with the
bureaus to ensure that water management planning is effective. The NPS
has made recent strides in this arena in the past few years, but many
challenges remain to address the major concerns facing the Colorado
River.
The NPS provides technical expertise through its Water Resources
Division (WRD) to park units on water issues. WRD has been instrumental
in conducting scientific studies and monitoring, participating in
processes related to dam operations, negotiating tribal water issues,
and working with States to protect flows in places such as Black Canyon
of the Gunnison National Park. The NPS also has been active in
multiagency processes such as the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery Program. In 2001, the NPS created the Colorado River Basin
Parks Program to better ensure effective coordination and active
participation in multiagency and multistate efforts to protect park
resources. These collaborative, multi-stakeholder efforts are overseen
by a Steering Committee, Technical Committee, and a Colorado River
Coordinator.
Currently, the NPS is working to address the scientific information
gaps, strategic planning needs, and targeted issues within the basin
such as aquatic invasive species.
The NPS regularly engages in planning efforts, such as invasive
aquatic species management in Lake Mead and Glen Canyon National
Recreation Areas, partnerships for flow management for Grand Canyon
National Park, and monitoring of headwaters in Rocky Mountain National
Park, which are designed to protect natural and cultural resources
throughout the Colorado River basin, and to ensure continued outdoor
recreational opportunities that are important to local and regional
economies in the Western States. Though these plans were sufficient to
respond to more localized past challenges, they lack the system-wide
integration and detailed scientific data needed to effectively respond
to more widespread current challenges. The Colorado River Basin Parks
Program Steering Committee has identified research needs related to
stream gaging, sediment transport, riparian vegetation, and aquatic
communities necessary to inform management decisions that address many
of these issues. Some of this data collection has begun and other
projects will be instated as funds become available.
Question. How can the Department of the Interior ensure that the
National Park Service is an active partner in water management
decisions that impact Park Service resources?
Answer. The NPS has established itself well in the last several
years as a collaborative partner and an active participant in several
ongoing multiagency processes, including the WaterSMART program, which
was established in 2010. WaterSMART allows all bureaus within the
Department to work with States, Tribes, local governments, and non-
governmental organizations to pursue a sustainable water supply for the
Nation by establishing a framework to provide Federal leadership and
assistance on the efficient use of water, integrating water and energy
policies to support the sustainable use of all natural resources.
The NPS participates in on-going collaborative efforts regarding
dam operations, including the development process of the Glen Canyon
Dam Long Term Experimental and Management Plan, for which it is a co-
lead with the Bureau of Reclamation. In developing the plan, the NPS
and Bureau of Reclamation are re-operating the dam to achieve better
compliance with the Grand Canyon Protection Act. The NPS also works
with the coordination and healthy flows teams to support follow-up
actions for the Colorado River Basin Water Demand and Supply Study.
This active participation has worked best when NPS staff has been
engaged in discussions at the local level as well as at the
Departmental level. For example, in the High Flow Experiment Planning
for Glen Canyon Dam in 2010-2011, discussions were successful because
of input and involvement of both the Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science, and the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
In addition, NPS is an active partner at both the local and Department
level with respect to aquatic invasive species that impact both park
resources and water management. As discussed in the response to the
previous question, the NPS has a Division of Water Resources within the
Natural Resource Stewardship and Science directorate, which includes
technical experts on hydrology, wetlands, water rights, and water
quality. These water resource professionals collaborate with the
Department and its bureaus to ensure water management decisions include
protection of National Park resources.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
king cove road
Question. I worked with Secretary Salazar on the agreement
involving the King Cove road reflected in the Secretary's memorandum of
March 21. The Department, led by the Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs, will take a second look at a land exchange in Izembek National
Wildlife Refuge with the community of King Cove and the State of
Alaska. Approval of the land exchange would allow a one-lane, gravel
road to connect King Cove with the all-weather airport in Cold Bay.
Under this agreement, the Interior Department will look at whether the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by the Fish and Wildlife Service
adequately considered the importance of protecting the human health and
safety of the residents of King Cove. The review will also include an
evaluation of the Department's trust responsibilities, and Government-
to-government consultations with local Aleut groups.
What is the status of this review?
Answer. Tribal consultation was held in King Cove on Friday, June
28, 2013, from 5:00-7:00 p.m. at the King Cove Community Center. Kevin
Washburn, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, toured the King
Cove area to assess the medical evacuation benefits of the proposed
road and will provide the Secretary, following consultation with other
Federal partners, with a written report that addresses the medical
evacuation benefits of the proposed road as well as whether and to what
extent the road is needed to meet the medical emergency requirements of
King Cove.
Question. I am glad that you will visit King Cove prior to a final
decision on this issue. I understand Assistant Secretary Washburn will
be visiting comparatively soon. Can you tell me when you expect to
reach a decision?
Answer. No specific time has been set for the Secretary to issue a
final decision on the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, Land Exchange/
Road Corridor. The full Departmental record will be considered in
rendering a final decision. The Secretary's final decision will be
informed by:
--The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Environmental Impact Statement;
--The Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs' written report to the
Secretary that addresses the medical evacuation benefits and
whether and to what extent the proposed road is needed to meet
the medical emergency requirements of King Cove; and
--A site visit to King Cove by Secretary Jewell which is expected
later this year.
bureau of ocean energy management/bureau of safety and environmental
enforcement new arctic regulations
Question. I understand that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM) is in the process of developing Arctic-specific regulations for
the exploration and development of Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) oil and gas resources. As you know, exploration has been delayed
in large part because of the regulatory uncertainty surrounding oil and
gas projects in the Arctic OCS.
What is the timeline for the development of these regulations?
Answer. The Department of the Interior (DOI), Assistant Secretary,
Land and Minerals Management, directed BOEM and the Bureau of Safety
and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) to form a team of subject matter
experts to improve safety standards for exploration, development, and
production operations occurring in the Alaska OCS. The Department's
goal is to have proposed Alaska OCS regulations published in the
Federal Register by the end of 2013.
Question. Is it your intent to have these regulations in place in
time for a 2014 drilling season?
Answer. We intend to have the regulations finalized before the 2014
drilling season. As part of the process, DOI held Listening Sessions to
obtain public comments in Anchorage and Barrow, Alaska, on June 6 and
7, respectively. We anticipate developing a performance-based approach
that will fully inform BOEM and BSEE how lessees plan to achieve safe
operations under the operating conditions likely to be experienced
while drilling and while transporting equipment into and out of the
Alaska operating theater.
Question. Though ConocoPhillips and Statoil have announced that
they will not pursue exploration programs in 2014, Shell has not made a
similar announcement. How do you intend the new regulations to impact
and/or be incorporated into Exploration Plans and Oil Spill Response
Plans for 2014?
Answer. The focus of the new regulations is to improve safety
planning early in the process of developing Exploration Plans (EPs) and
Development and Production Plans (DPPs). In accordance with 30 CFR
550.202(b), EPs and DPPs must demonstrate the lessees have planned and
are prepared to conduct proposed activities in a manner that is safe.
The regulations will emphasize the need for an integrated, overarching
safety plan as a condition for approval of Alaska OCS operations. Each
lessee will need to show BOEM and BSEE they are fully prepared to
conduct the proposed activities, including mobilization and
demobilization operations, in a manner that is safe and protective of
the environment.
Question. I also understand that the Department is updating its
regulations for the oil and gas air quality program to incorporate
their new authority over the Arctic contained in the fiscal year 2012
Interior Appropriations bill, so I will ask the same questions as I did
for the pending Arctic-specific regulations.
What is the timeline for the development of these regulations? Is
it your intent to have these regulations in place in time for a 2014
drilling season? How will these regulations impact 2014 Exploration
Plans?
Answer. BOEM and BSEE are already engaged in the development of the
proposed Alaska OCS regulations. Public outreach efforts in the form of
Listening Sessions were held in Anchorage and Barrow, on June 6 and 7,
respectively. Public comments are also being accepted through
Regulations.gov (docket number BOEM-2013-0035). BOEM and BSEE held more
detailed meetings with industry, non-governmental organizations, the
State of Alaska, local government, and Native Alaskans and Tribes in
Anchorage on June 17 through 19. The purpose of these follow-up
meetings was to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of concerns
and criteria for consideration in the proposed rules. Comments will be
used to develop the scope of the Alaska OCS regulations and identify
appropriate issues applicable for BOEM and BSEE oversight to ensure
safe and responsible oil and gas exploration, development, and
production on the Alaskan OCS.
BOEM and BSEE will develop draft regulation language that addresses
issues and goals identified during the comment period. The proposed
Alaska OCS regulations will be published in the Federal Register, and
stakeholder input will again be solicited. It is anticipated the draft
rules will be published by the end of the year.
Question. How will the new regulations differ from the existing
regulations? Will there be any difference in how the Department
regulates air quality in the Gulf of Mexico versus in Alaska? If yes,
why and how will the programs differ?
Answer. At this time, BOEM is still obtaining stakeholder input and
reviewing existing regulations. Until this analysis is complete, it is
not clear what, if any, differences in regulations between the regions
will be needed. The bureau can provide more details as the draft rule
is developed.
national marine fisheries--arctic ocs eis
Question. BOEM has worked with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) on the EIS for the impacts of oil and gas activities in
the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. I continue to believe there are major
problems with this document, including development alternatives that
are not realistic and the lack of participation from relevant agencies.
The Fish and Wildlife Service expressly declined to participate in
the EIS, yet the EIS still analyzes impacts to polar bears and Pacific
walruses--species the Service has trust responsibility over. Why was
this approach taken? Will these species be removed from the next draft?
If not, please explain why not.
Answer. The Service declined to be a cooperating agency on the
Arctic EIS in 2010 because it had recently completed an Environmental
Assessment (EA) on the effects of oil and gas activities in the Chukchi
and Beaufort Seas on polar bears and Pacific walruses in conjunction
with issuing Marine Mammal Protection Act Incidental Take Regulations
(ITRs). The potential effects of oil and gas activities on polar bears
and Pacific walruses had been adequately addressed in the ITRs and
effectively considered in the EAs. Additionally, other existing program
commitments precluded the degree to which the Service could be
involved. Instead, the Service offered to provide copies of these EAs
and informal review and comment on the Draft EIS. Since then, the
Beaufort Sea EA was updated in 2012 and the Chukchi Sea EA was recently
updated in conjunction with finalization of the 5-year Chukchi Sea ITRs
that are to be published in the Federal Register in the near future.
These EAs are made publically available. In addition, the Service is
currently reviewing the Draft EIS and, as appropriate, will provide
feedback to National Marine Fisheries Service.
Although the Service cannot speak on behalf of NMFS, the National
Environmental Policy Act's procedures are intended to ensure that
information about potential environmental impacts of an agency's
proposed and alternative actions are made available and considered in
the decisionmaking process and both the polar bear and Pacific walrus
occur in the area of the Arctic EIS.
Question. The new draft also appears to cap each company to one
drilling rig at a time per sea. This is inconsistent with Exploration
Plans previously submitted and approved by BOEM. Is it BOEM's intent to
limit exploration in this way? If it is, what is BOEM's rationale for
the change of course? (This would be extremely problematic given the
short exploration season and would, at best, severely delay/restrict
exploration and, at worst, lead to project abandonment.) If it isn't,
will BOEM clarify this point in the next draft?
Answer. NMFS served as the lead agency for preparation of the Draft
Supplemental EIS (SEIS), with BOEM as a formal cooperating agency,
along with the North Slope Borough of Alaska. The purpose of the Draft
SEIS is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of seismic and
exploration activities for the purpose of informing NMFS's decisions
regarding authorizations for the incidental take of marine mammals
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
As for BOEM's intended use of the Draft SEIS, the information will
be used, as appropriate, for environmental analyses to inform BOEM's
own decisions for specific projects, just as other relevant information
contained in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents is
considered. Moreover, it is important to note that a NEPA document is
not a decision document; it is merely an analysis of potential
environmental impacts associated with particular activities.
The alternatives included in the Draft SEIS were prepared based on
the best information available at the time for recent Federal and State
lease planning, and recent industry plans, for both seismic surveys and
exploratory drilling programs in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The
seismic and exploration activities analyzed in the Draft SEIS are not
limited to one drilling unit at a time per company. The alternatives
analyzed in the Draft SEIS consider up to four drilling ``programs''
operating in each sea at one time. For analysis in the EIS, one
``program'' entails however many surveys or exploration wells a
particular company is planning for that season. Each ``program'' would
use only one source vessel (or two source vessels working in tandem) or
drilling unit (i.e. drillship, jackup rig, SDC, etc.) to conduct the
program and would not survey multiple sites or drill multiple wells
concurrently.
Question. I was also surprised to see that the new draft appears to
have no timeline--for example, the last draft covered a 5-year period,
this draft does not. Is there precedent for an ``infinite''
environmental document? What was the rationale for an open-ended
document? What would be the result if more operators pursue their
leases than the alternative selected analyzes? How do you plan to
ensure that this document is not a back door way to limit exploration
in the Arctic?
Answer. A timeline is not relevant to the purpose of the document,
which is to provide an analysis of the potential environmental impacts
of a reasonable range of OCS activities.
Based upon past lease sales, geological and geophysical (G&G)
permits, ancillary activity notices, exploration drilling exploration
activities, and requests for incidental take authorizations, NMFS and
BOEM have determined a reasonable range and level of activities for
which permits and authorizations may be requested in the foreseeable
future. While the level of activity proposed may vary from 1 year to
the next, the action alternatives represent a reasonable range of
exploration activities for which permits and authorizations may be
expected. Also, the Draft Supplemental EIS does not serve as a decision
document but rather is used to analyze possible environmental impacts
associated with particular activities.
oil/gas development public lands
Question. The budget request includes what it calls ``Federal Oil
and Gas Reforms.'' These consist of a host of changes in three areas--
royalties, development of oil/gas leases, and improving the revenue
collection process. They all share one thing in common--they will make
our Federal lands less competitive to industry, which increasingly has
other alternatives on State and private lands here in the United
States, or globally. For example, you are proposing a $6 per acre fee
on nonproducing leases even though it takes years to bring leases to
production--usually because of permit or other regulatory delays caused
by the Federal Government. You also propose ``adjusting royalty rates''
which I can only imagine means increasing them since you claim that
these ``reforms'' will generate $2.5 billion over the next 10 years for
the Treasury.
On April 17 the House Resources Committee held a hearing comparing
oil/gas production on State lands vs. Federal lands. One of the major
differences they found was that it takes the BLM 307 days on average to
approve a drilling permit--nearly double the time it took in 2005. On
State lands, processing times are 12-15 days.
Won't increasing royalties, charging new inspection fees on top of
the fee that you already charge for processing a permit, and a new fee
on so-called ``non-producing leases'' only make our Federal lands less
competitive compared to the States?
Answer. Federal oil and gas production is an important component in
fulfilling our Nation's energy needs and the Department has an
obligation to the public to ensure a fair return on that production.
The Department deems the proposed changes necessary to ensure this fair
return and do not believe they will make Federal lands less competitive
compared to the States. Onshore Federal oil and gas royalty rates,
which are currently 12.5 percent, are lower than most States' royalty
rates. For example, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado all have a
royalty rate of 16.67 percent for State leases. North Dakota has an
18.75 percent royalty rate, and New Mexico has various rates that are
as high as 20 percent.
The administration believes that American taxpayers should get a
fair return on the development of energy resources on their public
lands. We feel industry should pay the cost of inspecting and
monitoring oil and gas activities, as is the case for other industries,
including offshore oil and gas. This is consistent with the principle
that the users of the public lands should pay for the cost of both
authorizing and oversight activities.
The Department's intent behind the proposed fee on non-producing
leases is to encourage more timely development of Federal lands. The
fee will provide an incentive for oil and gas companies to either put
their leases into production or relinquish them so the Department can
re-lease those tracts to companies who want to develop them. Many
States also have similar fees (e.g., escalating rental rates) to
encourage development. Therefore, the Department does not believe the
proposed changes will make Federal lands less competitive compared to
the States.
Question. The Hill newspaper published an article on March 5 of
this year where they cited a Congressional Research Service study that
determined that while overall U.S. oil production has increased since
2007, oil development on Federal lands has dropped by 7 percent. For
natural gas, overall U.S. production has increased by 20 percent
between 2008 and 2012, but on Federal lands it has fallen by one-third.
Instead of a host of new fees, shouldn't the Department be looking at
ways to attract companies to Federal lands for oil/gas production? This
would generate significant revenues to both the States and Federal
Government.
Answer. The Congressional Research Service study shows that Federal
onshore oil production increased by 16.3 percent from 284,900 barrels
per day in 2008 to 331,500 barrels per day in 2012. Federal onshore gas
production decreased slightly during that same period. The decrease in
gas production was a result of lower gas prices and rising supplies of
natural gas due to the development of unconventional shale gas. The
largest unconventional shale gas discoveries are primarily on non-
Federal land and are attracting a significant portion of new investment
for natural gas development. This does not mean that Federal lands are
no longer competitive for natural gas development. Indeed, companies
continue to acquire thousands of Federal leases and permits annually
for new natural gas production projects on Federal lands.
The Department has an obligation to the public to ensure a fair
return on Federal oil and gas production. Even with the proposed
changes, Federal leases will remain competitive with State leases and
should not result in any significant reduction in interest and
development of oil and gas on Federal lands. The proposed onshore and
offshore reforms will generate roughly $2.5 billion in net revenue to
the Treasury over 10 years. Many States will also benefit from higher
Federal revenue sharing payments as a result of these reforms.
national wildlife refuge fund/payments in lieu of taxes
Question. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund provides funds to local
counties to offset the loss of tax receipts from Federal land
ownership. Again this year, your fiscal year 2014 budget proposed to
eliminate this $14 million discretionary amount available to local
governments across the country.
It seems to me that we should be creating fiscal certainty for
local governments instead of cutting payments to them at a time when
your Department has placed such a large emphasis on increasing Federal
land ownership through LWCF.
I understand that the mandatory portion of this program will
continue to go to local counties, but why are you proposing to
eliminate the discretionary portion of the program again this year?
Answer. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, as amended, authorizes
revenues and direct appropriations to be deposited into a special fund,
the National Wildlife Refuge Fund (NWRF), and used for payments to
counties in which lands are acquired in fee (fee title) or reserved
from the public domain (reserved land) and managed by the Service.
These revenues are derived from the sale or disposition of (1) products
(e.g., timber and gravel); (2) other privileges (e.g., right-of-way and
grazing permits); and/or (3) leases for public accommodations or
facilities (e.g., oil and gas exploration and development) incidental
to, and not in conflict with, refuge purposes.
Refuges have been found to generate tax revenue for communities far
in excess of that which was lost with Federal acquisition of the land.
In addition, Refuge lands provide many public services and place few
demands on local infrastructure such as schools, fire, and police
services when compared to development that is more intensive. National
Wildlife Refuges bring a multitude of visitors to nearby communities
and so provide substantial economic benefits to these communities.
The Refuge System welcomed more than 47 million visitors in fiscal
year 2012, according to the Service's Refuge Annual Performance Plan.
Hunters, birdwatchers, beach goers and others who spend time on refuges
also bring money into local economies when they stay in local hotels,
dine at local restaurants, and make purchases from local stores.
Recreational spending on refuges generates millions of dollars in tax
revenue at the local, county, State and Federal level. According to a
report titled Department of the Interior Economic Contributions Fiscal
Year 2011, in 2011 national wildlife refuges generated more than $4.2
billion in economic activity and created more than 34,500 private
sector jobs nationwide. In addition, property values surrounding
refuges are higher than equivalent properties elsewhere. Importantly,
in an increasingly urban world, these sanctuaries of natural beauty
offer Americans priceless opportunities to connect with nature.
Question. Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) payments, which
compensate States and counties with large amounts of non-taxable
Federal land, expire at the end of this fiscal year. While your budget
proposes to extend the mandatory payments by a year, it does not
identify any offset. Shouldn't we identify a concrete way to pay for
this important program?
Answer. The President's budget proposes an extensive number of
legislative proposals that result in savings in the next 10 years. Any
of these proposals could be considered for potential offsets to extend
the PILT program for fiscal year 2014. These proposals are identified
on page 200 of the Mandatory and Receipts Proposals section (S-9) of
the President's budget and a narrative explanation is provided by the
Department of the Interior. Please refer to the following website
links: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/
assets/tables.pdf and on page DO-20 http://www.doi.gov/budget/
appropriations/2014/highlights/upload/overview.pdf.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. Increased production, particularly on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico, would likely reduce our
reliance on foreign oil and create much needed jobs.
What is the Department doing to make Federal offshore land
available for exploration and development?
Answer. President Obama's call for a sustained, all-of-the-above
energy strategy includes the expansion of responsible production of our
domestic oil and gas supplies, including Federal lands. Since the
President took office, America's dependence on foreign oil has
decreased every year, and domestic oil and natural gas production has
risen every year. In 2012, American oil production reached the highest
level in two decades and natural gas production reached an all-time
high. Combined with recent declines in oil consumption, foreign oil
imports now account for less than half of the oil consumed in America.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) held the first two
sales of the Five Year Program in the Gulf of Mexico in November 2012
and March 2013, which resulted in over $1.3 billion in high bids on 436
new leases. A third lease sale, scheduled for this August, will offer
21 million acres offshore Texas, making all unleased acreage in the
Western Gulf of Mexico available for leasing. BOEM's lease terms
encourage prompt development and production and ensure that the
American public receives fair market value for these shared resources.
Lease sales conducted under the program include a modified minimum bid
structure that BOEM has developed, after rigorous economic analysis, to
encourage operators to invest in the OCS acreage that is most likely to
lead to discoveries and production and reduce the amount of leased
acreage that sits idle. BOEM will continue to use lease terms that
incentivize industry to diligently and promptly operate their leases.
Question. National Fish Hatcheries across the Southeast generate
millions of dollars in economic benefits through warm water fish
production. In my State, we have the Private John Allen National Fish
Hatchery, located in Tupelo, Mississippi, which is one of eight warm
water fish hatcheries managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Despite the large contribution warm water fisheries have on national
restoration efforts, the budget for fisheries located in the Southeast
continues to decline. I have concerns about funding for warm water
hatcheries.
What is your plan for these hatcheries in the future? Will a
disproportionate amount of funding go to cool water fisheries at their
expense?
Answer. To meet the needs of the American people in a changing
social and economic climate, the National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS)
has been proactive in implementing creative strategies for assessing,
deploying, and managing its workforce to answer these types and other
important and pressing questions. In December 2012, the Service
initiated a review of 70 production hatcheries within the NFHS to
ensure the Service is positioned to address the current and future
aquatic resource needs of the United States.
--Geoffrey Haskett, the Service's Alaska Regional Director and former
Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), led the
review. He previously oversaw a similar exercise that helped
the NWRS improve workforce and financial management.
--The NFHS review was precipitated, in part, by staffing and budget
challenges at various hatcheries. With tight budgets, the
Service must establish production goals for the highest
priority species; determine the optimal number of hatcheries
and employees to achieve those goals; and strive for a more
balanced ratio of payroll to operational costs to achieve NFHS
goals and support collaborative recovery and restoration
programs.
--The review team is comprised of Fisheries Program leadership from
all Service Regions and Headquarters. The team has collected
and examined information about species produced, staffing
levels and needs, organizational structure, operational
budgets, and assets. The team used data gathered through
previous programmatic reviews as the baseline for collecting
up-to-date and comparable information.
--The review team is developing a report with funding scenarios and
operations options that is expected to be complete by August
2013. The Service will use this information to make informed
decisions about where to focus efforts given current,
declining, or increasing budgets, and where operations would be
reduced or expanded accordingly. The review will also help
inform an evaluation of the Service's vision for the future of
its fisheries activities that the Sport Fishing and Boating
Partnership Council is conducting. The Service will use the
review team's report and the Council's recommendations to
produce a strategic plan for the future.
--The Service strongly believes the steps taken now--together as an
agency and with our partners--will help focus its efforts, make
strategic investments, and better address current and future
challenges. Above all, these steps will position the Service to
proudly continue America's fisheries legacy.
Last year, in response to a question I submitted for the record,
the Department stated that most States and Tribes currently use the
majority of their Historic Preservation Fund grant funds to carry out
non-discretionary activities mandated by the National Historic
Preservation Act.
Do you believe that the preservation and conservation activities
previously carried out by the Save America's Treasures (SAT) program
were an important part of ensuring the protection of our Nation's
cultural heritage?
Answer. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) states that
it is the policy of the Federal Government to ``contribute to the
preservation of [ . . . ] prehistoric and historic resources and give
maximum encouragement to organizations and individuals undertaking
preservation by private means.'' (16 U.S.C. 470-1). There are numerous
ways in which the Federal Government can contribute to historic
preservation, and the Save America's Treasures program was one of these
tools.
From 1999 to 2010, $319.1 million was appropriated resulting in
1,287 grant awards. Matched dollar-for-dollar, these funds have
leveraged approximately $380 million in non-Federal investment and
added over 16,000 jobs to local and States' economies.
The SAT grants assisted 295 National Historic Landmarks (NHL), 28
properties located in and contributing to NHL Districts, over 250
buildings individually listed in the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP), over 70 properties located in and contributing to NRHP-
listed historic districts, and 24 properties eligible for NRHP listing,
as well as hundreds of nationally significant museum collections.
Question. Given that most States and Tribes have little funding
from Historic Preservation Fund grants remaining after completing
mandated activities, what is the Department doing to support bricks and
mortar projects to preserve and protect nationally significant historic
sites?
Answer. The grants-in-aid to States and Territories and grants-in-
aid to Tribes funded through the NPS Historic Preservation Fund (HPF)
account can be used for brick and mortar projects, and a small number
of States do use a portion of the HPF allocation for this. A small
amount of funding goes to bricks and mortar projects through the Tribal
Heritage grant program and Japanese-American World War II Confinement
Site Preservation program. Additionally, through the NPS's Technical
Preservation Services office, the NPS develops historic preservation
policy and guidance on preserving and rehabilitating historic
buildings, administers the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives
Program for rehabilitating historic buildings, and sets the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
Question. Which States, if any, do you believe do not have laws or
rules regulating hydraulic fracturing?
Answer. States are free to regulate hydraulic fracturing as
appropriate, with the exception that State regulations must meet the
minimum requirements of any applicable Federal regulations. Some States
have specific rules related to hydraulic fracturing, while others
regulate the process solely under their general oil and gas permitting
requirements.
States are not legally required to meet the stewardship standards
applying to public lands and do not have trust responsibilities for
Indian lands under Federal laws. The States that have regulated
hydraulic fracturing do not uniformly require measures that would
uphold the BLM's responsibilities for federally managed public
resources, to protect the environment and human health and safety on
Federal and Indian lands, and to prevent unnecessary or undue
degradation of the public lands.
We would note that BLM is not an expert on the regulatory
requirements of each State, and we understand that many States are in
the process of reevaluating their regulatory requirements regarding
hydraulic fracturing; thus, we recommend that the committee follow up
with appropriate State officials for the latest information on their
particular regulatory requirements and standards.
However, after conducting a search through regulations of various
States, the BLM believes that the following States do not currently
have specific hydraulic fracturing regulations in place: Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin.
In addition, our understanding is that the following States have
banned the practice of hydraulic fracturing: New Jersey, New York, and
Vermont.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Murkowski. With that, we stand recessed. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m., Tuesday, May 7, 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 2014
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:31 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Reed, Feinstein, Tester, Udall, Merkley,
Begich, and Murkowski.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
United States Forest Service
STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Let me call the hearing to order. And as the
first order of business, let me wish Senator Murkowski a happy
21st birthday.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Happy birthday.
I want to welcome all of our witnesses and my colleagues to
the fiscal year 2014 hearing on the budget to the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS). And on behalf of the subcommittee, let me
particularly welcome Tom Tidwell, the Chief of the USFS. Thank
you, Chief. You have been a great leader at the agency and
someone we have enjoyed working with immensely.
I'd also like to welcome Barbara Cooper, the USFS acting
Budget Director. Ms. Cooper, thank you very much for being here
also.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for USFS
programs totals $4.84 billion in discretionary spending. The
request is $62 million, or a 1-percent increase, more than the
fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
Chief Tidwell, in reviewing your budget request, it's clear
that there's a theme: making tough choices so that the agency
can continue to fight wildland fires. The fire budget, as we
spoke, seems to drive so much of the USFS.
Within the total amount provided, the budget request does
include an increase of $79 million for wildland fire
management, for a total of $2.046 billion, an increase of 3.5
percent.
In addition, the request provides level funding for the
FLAME Fund, at $315 million. However, that amount doesn't fully
cover the increases that are needed within the fire program,
including a $65 million increase to fully fund the 10-year
rolling average for fire suppression and a $50 million increase
to fund next-generation air tanker contracts to replace the 6-
year-old P2 aircraft.
That means that your budget sustains some tough reduction
to programs like Hazardous Fuels Reduction and State Fire
Assistance.
I'm very concerned, as I know you are, Chief Tidwell, about
the precedent that's been set with the fire budget. As the 10-
year average goes up every year budgets are shrinking and the
need to fight wildland fires is crowding out many worthy
programs within your budget, as well as the budgets of other
agencies in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
bill. Indeed, I note that under the President's fiscal year
2014 budget proposal, funding for USFS wildland fire programs
alone exceeds the investment in clean water and drinking water
infrastructure by more than $450 million.
As critical as your fire programs are, it is a challenge to
explain in my parts of the country, and my State included, why
fighting these fires requires so much resources that takes away
from desperately needed improvements and jobs in infrastructure
all across the country.
We also need a much better strategy for paying for the cost
of fires that exceed the 10-year average, something that has
happened 9 out of the last 10 years. In the past, the Congress
has been able, on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, to provide
emergency supplemental funds to pay for disasters like
wildfires in a timely way.
This past year, however, our colleagues in the House chose
to add funds to pay for firefighting shortfalls within the
overall discretionary appropriations cap rather than fund those
needs as emergency spending. All told, we appropriated $423
million to pay for these additional firefighting needs. And
that's $423 million that you have to find in other parts of
your budget or we have to find in other parts of other agency
budgets. These funds are important, but ultimately, as I
suggest, other discretionary programs must pay for them.
How to improve our capacity to budget for catastrophic
fires and other disasters is a theme that we'll be grappling
with during this year's appropriation process and something
I've discussed with Chairwoman Mikulski and something, Chief,
that I'm sure we will talk together, along with the ranking
member, to try to come up with a better way to proceed.
We cannot allow our obligations, and we do have to fight
these fires and we do have to support local communities, to
erode other investments that are equally important to the
nation.
STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY
I would also like to discuss a proposal of the State and
Private Forestry Programs, programs that are important to all
States, including my home State. Overall, the request also
includes a 5 percent cut to State and Private Forestry
Programs, for a total of $240 million. Within that amount, the
budget does propose to allow States to compete for a new $20
million landscape scale restoration program. However, it does
include a number of cuts to specific grant programs, including
a $7 million cut to the Urban Forestry Program, without
offering a concrete vision of what States like Rhode Island,
New York, New Jersey, and other urban areas have to do not only
to participate, but also to get a more reasonable share of
resources.
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
The budget also requests $1.56 billion for operations of
the National Forest, which is a 1.5-percent increase more than
the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. Within that amount, the
administration is again proposing a major budget restructuring,
consolidating three major programs to create a new $757 million
Integrated Resource Restoration Program.
As you know, Chief, the subcommittee has allowed you to
move forward with a pilot program in three USFS regions to test
this new restoration program. And my colleagues and I will all
want to hear more about the progress that you're making on the
ground as we consider your request to implement this program on
a national scale. I expect we'll also want to hear more about
the budget tradeoffs that you're making to implement this
proposal, including steep reductions to other operating
programs like law enforcement and recreation, as well as other
reductions to capital improvement projects.
Finally, there are a few other bright spots in the request
that are worth noting. The budget does include a $15 million
investment to boost forestry research, for a total of $310
million. We talked about that, and that's absolutely important.
And the request includes a total of $118 million for land
acquisition, the Forest Legacy project, as part of the
President's $400 million proposal for discretionary Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) programs. That amount is an 11-
percent increase more than fiscal year 2013.
As my remarks suggest, Chief, we have a lot to discuss this
morning. Thank you for being here, and let me now recognize my
ranking member. I won't say ``the birthday girl.''
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
Chief. It's good to see you back here. We had a chance to talk
during your testimony before the Energy Committee last month,
so this is kind of a follow-on to that.
SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS
This morning, I'm going to focus my opening statement on an
issue that stems from last year's Forest Service budget, and
that's your decision in March to retroactively claw back these
payments made to 41 States receiving Secure Rural Schools
payments, including Alaska, because of the sequester.
I believe that this situation teaches a larger lesson about
the failures of the agency's current forest management policy
and how that is then reflected in your fiscal year 2014 budget.
On March 19, you sent the State of Alaska a letter
demanding the repayment of $826,000 in Secure Rural Schools
funding. In response, our Governor Parnell sent a letter to you
on April 28 refusing to pay back the funds, citing the lack of
any legal authority offered by the USFS. And, Mr. Chairman, I
have a copy of the Governor's letter that I would like to be
included in the record.
Senator Reed. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate, Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: Thank you for your letter of April 24,
2013, cosigned by Senator Ron Wyden, regarding the impact of
sequestration on payments under the Secure Rural Schools Act.
To fulfill our commitment to rural communities, Secure Rural
Schools payments were made on time in early January 2013, while the
sequestration debate continued in Congress. Subsequently, the
sequestration took effect, and agencies were required to implement it.
The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
(BBEDCA), as amended, requires that sequestration be taken at the
budget account level, and applied equally to each program, project, and
activity (PPA) in those accounts. In the case of Secure Rural Schools,
the relevant account is the Forest Service Permanent Appropriations
account, which includes two PPAs for Secure Rural Schools: one
comprising the fiscal year 2013 budget authority from receipts in
fiscal year 2012 (the ``receipts PPA''), and the other comprising
additional fiscal year 2013 budget authority provided from the U.S.
Department of the Treasury to cover the shortfall in receipts necessary
to make the full Secure Rural Schools payments (the ``Treasury payments
PPA''). While funding for Secure Rural Schools payments is based on the
level of receipts collected in fiscal year 2012, section 102(e) of the
statute directs that the funds be paid after the end of the fiscal
year. Therefore, it is budget authority for fiscal year 2013 subject to
sequestration under BBEDCA.
In calculating the sequestered amount, BBEDCA repeatedly refers to
the amounts for a ``fiscal year'' or ``that year'' (2 U.S.C. 901a).
Thus, consistent with the application of sequestration across programs
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and across the Government
as a whole, the amount of the sequestration is based upon the full
budgetary authority in the receipts PPA and the Treasury payments PPA
for the entire fiscal year, not on the amount remaining available as of
March 1, 2013, the date of the sequestration order.
Secure Rural Schools payments are made from both PPAs. The funding
sources are not tied to a particular title, so for purposes of
sequestration, it does not matter which title's funding stream is cut
in order to meet the full sequestered amount, as long as the required
reductions are taken from each PPA. USDA's goals in implementing
sequestration have been to administer reductions in the most equitable
and least disruptive manner possible. In this instance, USDA has
determined that in order to ensure equity in the treatment of States,
each State should take the same percentage reduction to Secure Rural
Schools payments.
States can pay back the mandated sequestered amounts from their
title I and title III money, or reduce title II allocations by the
requisite amount where applicable. This approach best ensures equity
and uniformity in the implementation of the reductions, as it applies
the same percentage reduction to the payments for each State. We
encourage the States that have the option to elect to have the Forest
Service use title II funds to cover the sequestered amount, and thus
avoid impacts to their schools and road funding and eliminate the need
for repayment.
Regarding the assessment of interest, penalties, and administrative
costs, the Forest Service will utilize existing Federal and Agency
guidelines to waive these costs, where applicable. We are committed to
working with you to mitigate the impacts of these actions on States and
counties.
Again, thank you for your writing. A similar response is being sent
to Senator Wyden.
Sincerely,
Thomas L. Tidwell,
Chief.
______
State of Alaska,
Juneau, AK, April 28, 2013.
Mr. Thomas Tidwell, Chief,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Tidwell: In a letter dated March 19, 2013, you advised
that the mandated Federal budget reductions (sequester) apply to
revenue generated in 2012 and paid in 2013 under titles I and III of
the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. Since
the United States Forest Service has already made its payment to
Alaska, you are seeking a repayment of the sequester percentage of 5.1
percent, which amounts to $707,795.40 under titles I and III, as well
as a withholding of $118,536.50 (or 5.1 percent) of title II funds not
yet allocated. You gave Alaska the option of having the total amount of
$826,331.90 reduced from the State's title II funds or having that sum
collected from funds already disbursed under titles I and III.
On behalf of the proud forest communities that received fiscal year
2012 Secure Rural Schools aid in January of 2013, I maintain that
neither the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
as amended by the Budget Control Act of 2011, nor the Anti-Deficiency
Act, authorize you to request repayment of title I and title III
outlays. As such, I will not request the Alaska State Legislature
consider such an appropriation.
Additionally, your letter cites no authority for the reduction of
title II funds. The titles I and III funds have been allocated and used
in accordance with the Federal law that authorized their disbursement.
You have cited no valid authority for your retroactive efforts to have
those funds repaid or offset.
This sequester dilemma highlights the continued failure of the
United States Forest Service to successfully manage the nation's
forests, especially the Tongass. I stand ready to discuss solutions to
allow our forests to once again support healthy communities--not
impoverish them.
Sincerely,
Sean Parnell,
Governor.
Senator Murkowski. The Governors of Alabama and Wyoming
have since joined Governor Parnell for similar reasons.
I'd like to repeat, Chief, what I stated last month when we
were in the Energy Committee. You have got to find a different
path here that does not punish these struggling rural
communities for the agency's failure to manage our Nation's
forests. I'm going to be asking you today how you plan to
respond to Governor Parnell and to the other States that have
refused to pay.
Now, some might ask, ``Why are you so upset? $826,000, when
you compare it to the millions, and really billions, that we're
usually talking about here in Washington, the numbers seem
relatively insignificant.'' But for me, this is pretty simple:
I just can't go back to the superintendent of the schools in
Wrangell, Alaska, because for him, these few thousands of
dollars mean everything to him and his budget.
I think that this decision by the agency represents the
latest in a long line of misguided Forest Service actions that
have had a crippling impact on Southeast Alaska. Back in 1990,
the region had more than 4,500 timber jobs, a vibrant wood
products industry. Local communities at that time received 25
percent of the revenue generated from timber sales on the
Tongass National Forest, and they used this appropriately for
roads and schools. And there was no need for Secure Rural
Schools funding.
TIMBER MANAGEMENT
Now, because of USFS policies, there are only about 300
logging jobs left, and the region must rely in part on
mandatory payments from the Federal Government to operate its
schools. And sadly, just as Alaskans have learned that we can't
rely on the USFS to provide a stable timber supply, now we
can't even rely on the agency to send us the check that we're
due and not demand part of that money back.
It's almost as though we're watching ``Groundhog Day'' all
over again. Every year, you come before the Energy Committee.
You come before this subcommittee. We pledge that we're going
to work together on things. We're going to improve the timber
sale program on the Tongass so we avoid losing what remains of
the industry. I always describe it as folks just kind of
hanging on by their fingernails. You agree. You know.
But then we come back, and it's a year later, and we're
having the same conversation again. I think sometimes the
script changes a little bit. Some years, it's litigation that's
to blame. Other years, it's poor timber markets. This year,
it's probably going to be tight budgets we're talking about or
the impact of the sequester.
But one thing never changes. And that is the declining
harvest in the Tongass. In 2008, at the beginning of this
administration, the level was only 28 million board-feet. Last
year, it was 21 million board-feet, near the all-time low of 19
million in 2007.
We talked, again, about the agency's plan for transitioning
to second growth. And you know that I'm skeptical there. It's
going to be years before these trees are mature and can support
an annual sales program.
So I'm not encouraged by this year's budget request, which
sets 2.4 billion board-feet as a target for the timber program
nationally, when just last year you testified about ramping up
to 3 billion board-feet as part of the agency's restoration
strategy.
On May 2, I sent a bipartisan letter with 12 of my
colleagues to the President, asking for him to reconsider these
timber programs. And I know my colleague from Montana was
involved with that.
So I want to be clear. I do support the agency's many
programs that deal with recreation and with wildlife. But these
objectives within that aspect of the Forest Service shouldn't
come at the expense of managing our forests in a way that not
only provides jobs, but lowers the fire risks that the chairman
was talking about and really creates a more resilient
environment. I think that's what your multiple-use mandate
requires.
So I hope today that you can give me a reason to believe
that we're not going to be sitting here again next year at
these hearings with you talking about lack of timber supply on
the Tongass and with an industry that is just barely able to
get by. I want this year to be different. You've indicated that
we're going to have an opportunity to visit with one another in
Alaska. I look forward to that. But I think you and I would
agree that we have some more business to be done.
I look forward to your answers here this morning and
appreciate the courtesy of the Chair.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator. And if anyone
else would like to make a brief statement? Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Real quick, if I might. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, ranking member.
First of all, thank you for being here, Chief Tidwell. I
appreciate the job that you do. You oftentimes are dealt a very
tough hand, and you play the cards reasonably well, from my
perspective. So, thank you for that.
Look. I don't need to tell you how important the USFS is in
a State like Montana. You've been there, you've done that. The
fact is we lost 1.3 million acres to fire last year, another
million acres to beetle kill. We've got some issues as far as
mitigation of catastrophic wildfires, as the chairman talked
about, and how we're going to deal with that in the short term
and the long term. I look forward to fleshing that out more as
the questions go.
And I also look forward to working with you to give the
USFS more tools, more tools to be able to manage these forests,
manage them in a reasonable way, getting folks to work together
from the ground up, making sure that the industry and
environmentalists and the USFS and the Congress are all on the
same page.
Thank you for your work. I look forward to the questions.
Senator Reed. Any of my other colleagues? Senator Merkley,
please.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'll expand
during the question period. But we had a fire the size of Rhode
Island last year in Oregon. We had the worst fire season, you
know, in 100 years. We lost a lot of rangeland, a tremendous
amount of timber. And we're in a situation where the same time
that's going on, and largely because of the buildup of
hazardous fuels, we're looking at a proposed budget that cuts
the hazardous fuels reduction in half.
Yet everyone after these fires said, ``We've got to get in
there and get more of these hazardous fuels out. We've got to
operate on a 15-year cycle to be ahead of the 20-year fire
cycle, not a 30-year cycle.'' And instead we're looking at a
60-year cycle.
The fires that start on public lands then move onto private
land create an intolerable situation for our private landowners
and huge damage to the public-trusted lands. So it's extremely
troubling, the budget as it's laid out. I know that you're
operating with limited resources and that it's a huge
challenge. But somehow, we've got to figure out a way not to
just be trying to mop up fires after they happen, but to manage
the forests well on the front end.
Senator Reed. I believe no more of my colleagues have
opening statements. If that's the case, Chief Tidwell, please,
your statement.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
it's a privilege to be here again today to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Forest
Service. I cannot thank you enough for the support from the
subcommittee over the years. I continue to look forward to
working with you to do what we can to provide what the public
wants and needs from their National Forests and Grasslands.
The President's budget reflects our commitment to strategic
investments that are needed to grow the economy while
exercising fiscal restraint. The budget does make some very
difficult tradeoffs between key programs. It does this by
focusing on the economic growth for rural America, including
the 450,000 jobs that are supported from activities on our
National Forests and Grasslands.
Now, through three key objectives, I believe this budget
request is a good investment for the economic growth in rural
America. The first part of that is it will get us back on track
with our accelerated restoration strategy to restore and
sustain our national forests and to be focused on 65 million to
82 million acres that need some form of restoration.
It will do this by requesting full funding through our
collaborative forest restoration fund. It will also request
permanent authorization for stewardship contracting that is a
tool that provides certainty so that private entities can
invest in the wood products industry. It also will allow us to
expand the use of landscape scale analysis so we can look at
hundreds of thousands of acres at one time, determine the
restoration activities that need to occur, and be able to cover
that analysis with one EIS.
It also asks for an additional $13 million in research that
is dedicated to increasing the markets for wood through USDA
Green Building Initiative, our Wood Energy Initiative, and also
our research into nanotechnology.
The second key objective deals with fire. This budget
request provides a level of preparedness that will continue our
success to suppress 98 percent of wildland fires during initial
attack. It does also request an increase from fiscal year 2012
to what we're requesting of $138 million in suppression to
fulfill our agreement to meet the 10-year average.
It also will continue to reduce the threat of wildfires to
homes and communities by reducing hazardous fuels on
approximately 685,000 acres of the highest priority acres in
the wildland-urban interface. And, it also requests an
additional $50 million to modernize our large airtanker fleet.
The third objective is to continue with our focus on
America's Great Outdoors Initiative, which will help support
community-based conservation, provide opportunities for
economic expansion to retain and create jobs by first providing
the recreational opportunities that support the 166 million
people that visit the National Forests and Grasslands. And it's
through their activities, their economic activities that
support more than 200,000 jobs.
Also, we want to focus on getting more volunteers out to be
connected to help us to do the work, but also to increase their
connection with the outdoors and also expand our Youth
Conservation Corps to provide more opportunities for employment
with our youth to be outdoors, understanding the benefits of
working in conservation.
It also requests an increase in LWCF funding. This is based
on what we hear from the public throughout this country about
the strong support for the need for us to acquire those small
parcels of land that are critical in-holdings to make sure that
we're providing the habitat that is necessary to support
species, but to provide recreational access. In every case
where we're acquiring land, it always reduces our
administrative costs of managing that part of the National
Forest.
STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY
Now, we're going to continue to work with the States
through our State and Private Forestry Programs to promote
conservation and to keep private forests forested. We also will
encourage biomass utilization and other renewable energy
opportunities while working to process oil and gas permit
applications and energy transmission proposals much more
effectively and efficiently.
SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS
Our budget request also proposes a framework for
reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act. In addition to
these three key objectives, we're going to continue our focus
on reducing our administrative costs by increasing our
operational efficiencies. So over fiscal year 2013 and fiscal
year 2014, we're going to reduce our overhead costs by another
$100 million. We're going to continue to focus on creating
efficiencies in our processes.
For instance, when it comes to doing the environmental
analysis and sale preparation for timber sales, since 1998,
funding has been reduced by $185 million when it's adjusted for
inflation. Our staff has been reduced by 49 percent. But during
the same time, we have reduced the unit cost by 23 percent.
The other thing we'll continue to focus on is doing the
best job we can to deal with wildfire. Where we will continue
to have 98 percent success on initial attack, for those large
fires that escape initial attack we're going to continue to use
our science, our experience, and our expertise to reduce those
suppression actions that are unnecessary and not effective. By
doing this last year, we reduced costs by avoiding unnecessary
risks by $377 million.
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
Our goal is to increase the collaborative efforts to
encourage greater public involvement and management of the
public National Forests and Grasslands. To maintain and restore
healthy landscapes, we need to take care of the ecosystems. We
also need to support healthy, thriving communities and provide
jobs in rural areas.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
address this subcommittee, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Tidwell
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me here today to testify on the President's budget request for
the United States Forest Service (USFS) for fiscal year 2014. I
appreciate the support this subcommittee has shown for USFS in the
past, and I look forward to continuing to work together with members of
the subcommittee to ensure that stewardship of our Nation's forests and
grasslands continues to meet the desires and expectations of the
American people. I am confident that this budget will allow the Forest
Service to meet this goal while demonstrating both fiscal restraint and
efficient, cost-effective spending.
Our Nation can and should take steps to make Government more
effective and more efficient in the 21st century. The fiscal year 2014
budget that the President is proposing reflects the difficult choices
we need to make to reduce spending while investing in long-term
economic growth and job creation. To make the strategic investments
needed to grow the economy while exercising fiscal restraint, this
budget makes difficult tradeoffs between programs. It also reflects
efficiency and improvements to reduce our administrative costs. It is
designed to appropriately fund many of the programs that matter to
Americans.
value of the united states forest service
Our mission at USFS is to sustain the health, diversity, and
productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs
of present and future generations. The mission includes helping
Americans use and enjoy the lands and waters that belong to them as
citizens of the United States. USFS manages a system of national
forests and grasslands on an area almost twice the size of California--
193 million acres in 44 States and Puerto Rico. These lands entrusted
to our care provide some of the richest resources and most breathtaking
scenery in the Nation, as well as drinking water for millions of
Americans.
As the Nation's leading forestry organization, we also serve
Americans in other ways. USFS was founded in 1905 to stop the
degradation of watersheds and manage the lands for the benefit of all
Americans. To that end, in addition to the National Forest System,
agency programs support the sustainable stewardship of more than 600
million acres of forest land across the Nation, including 423 million
acres of private forest land, 68 million acres of State forest land, 18
million acres of Tribal forests, and 100 million acres of urban and
community forests.
In addition, we maintain the largest forestry research organization
in the world, with more than a century of discoveries in such areas as
wood and forest products, fire behavior and management, and sustainable
forest management. In an age of global interconnectedness, we also
support the sustainable stewardship of forests around the world; we
have served people in more than 80 countries, which have direct
benefits to the American forestry economy through marketing American
forest products and invasive species prevention.
America's forests, grasslands, and other open spaces are integral
to the social, ecological, and economic well-being of the Nation. The
benefits from Forest Service programs and activities include jobs and
economic activity, especially in rural areas where other sources of
employment and economic growth might be few. In fiscal year 2011, for
example, the various activities on the National Forest System
contributed more than $36 billion to America's gross domestic product,
supporting nearly 450,000 jobs.
The most popular uses of the national forests and grasslands are
associated with outdoor recreation. Our increasingly diverse visitor
population engages in activities such as camping, picnicking,
snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, equestrian use, firewood and forest
product gathering, all-terrain vehicle riding, skiing, snowboarding,
hunting, fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing, driving for pleasure, and
visiting cultural sites and visitor centers. The national forests and
grasslands attract about 166 million visits per year, supporting about
205,000 jobs and contributing $13.6 billion to the Nation's gross
domestic product each year. Fifty-five percent of our visitors engage
in a strenuous physical activity, contributing to their health and
well-being.
Noncommercial uses of forest and grasslands also provide vital
benefits to the American people. For example, more than one-half of our
Nation's freshwater flows from public and private forest land, and
about 60 million Americans rely on drinking water that originates on
the National Forest System. Forest Service land management, combined
with USFS assistance to private landowners, helps protect the single
greatest source of drinking water in the Nation.
USFS's creation of jobs and economic opportunities is not limited
to rural areas. Through Job Corps and other programs, we provide
training and employment for America's urban youth, and we help veterans
transition to civilian life. Our Urban and Community Forestry Program
has also provided jobs and career-training opportunities for
underemployed adults and at-risk youth through activities such as tree
care and riparian corridor restoration.
We also engage a wide range of partners who contribute to
investments in land management projects and activities. In fiscal year
2012, we entered into more than 7,700 grants and agreements with
partners who contributed a total of about $535 million in cash and non-
cash (in-kind) contributions. Combined with our own contribution of
nearly $779 million, the total value of these partnerships was over
$1.3 billion. The growing value of grants and agreements demonstrates
the increasing importance of partnerships in fulfilling the USFS
mission.
Forest landowners of all kinds benefit from our forest-related
research, as does anyone who buys products made from wood. For example,
USFS scientists have developed a free software application that helps
people identify invasive plants and provides control recommendations.
Our research and development bring all kinds of benefits to the
American people, improving their quality of life.
More than 50 percent of the Nation's forests--more than 420 million
acres--are privately owned. Working with the State Foresters, we help
State forest managers and private forest landowners manage America's
working forests sustainably. Through our Forest Health Management
program, for example, we monitor and assess forest health conditions on
all lands nationwide, both public and private, tracking outbreaks of
insects and disease and providing funds for treating areas at risk.
In February 2011, President Barack Obama launched the America's
Great Outdoors Initiative, setting forth a comprehensive agenda for
conservation and outdoor recreation in the 21st century. The initiative
challenges the American people to work together to find lasting
conservation solutions, based on the premise that protecting America's
natural heritage is a goal shared by all. In tandem with the
President's initiative, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack outlined
an all-lands vision for conservation. He called for partnerships and
collaboration to reach shared goals for restoring healthy, resilient
forested landscapes across all landownerships nationwide.
Our fiscal year 2014 budget request is accordingly designed to help
us work with partners across borders and boundaries to invest in
America's green infrastructure at a landscape scale. 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 of
Agriculture's priority goal of enhancing water resources. Our goal at
USFS is to ensure the ability of our Nation's forests and grasslands to
deliver a full range of jobs and benefits, both now and for generations
to come.
challenges to conservation
Our Nation's ability to protect its forest and grassland resources
is now at risk due to drought, invasive species, and
uncharacteristically severe wildfires and outbreaks of insects and
diseases. Such stresses and disturbances are affecting America's
forests, grasslands, and watersheds on an unprecedented scale. Twenty-
seven percent of all forest-associated plants and animals in the United
States, a total of 4,005 species, are at risk of extinction. Habitat
degradation is the main reason--affecting 85 percent of all imperiled
species. Many species are also threatened by nonnative invasive
species, which affect 49 percent of all imperiled species.
Although biodiversity is exceptionally high on the national forests
and grasslands, habitat degradation and invasive species remain serious
threats. We estimate that watershed functionality is impaired or at
risk on 48 percent of the watersheds on National Forest System lands.
Severe outbreaks of western forest pests have affected 32 million acres
on the national forests alone. Between 65 million and 82 million acres
are in need of fuels and forest health treatments--up to 42 percent of
the entire National Forest System.
Part of the problem is severe drought, resulting in extreme fire
weather, very large fires and longer fire seasons. Since 2000, at least
10 States have had their largest fires on record, and some have had
their records broken more than once. In 2000, for the first time since
the 1950s, more than 7 million acres burned nationwide; and in 2012,
more than 9 million acres burned.
The spread of homes and communities into areas prone to wildfire is
an increasing management challenge. From 2000 to 2030, we expect to see
substantial increases in housing density on 44 million acres of private
forest land nationwide, an area larger than North and South Carolina
combined. More than 70,000 communities are now at risk from wildfire,
and less than 15,000 have a community wildfire protection plan or an
equivalent plan.
A growing proportion of the USFS budget has been needed for fire-
related activities of all kinds. In fiscal year 1991, for example,
fire-related activities accounted for about 13 percent of our total
budget; by fiscal year 2012, it was 40 percent. That has left a smaller
amount of funding for nonfire purposes (watersheds, wildlife,
recreation, and other benefits and services). With increasingly limited
funding, we need to approach our work differently.
budget request and focus areas
The fiscal year 2014 President's budget request is designed to meet
the challenges we face. The President's proposed overall budget for
discretionary funding for the Forest Service in fiscal year 2014 is
$4.9 billion. It shifts $62 million from key programs to meet the
requirement to fund the 10-year rolling average of fire suppression
costs.
In response to the challenges we face, we are focusing our efforts
on three key areas:
--restoring ecosystems;
--strengthening communities while providing jobs; and
--managing wildland fires.
In these tough economic times, our proposed budget balances
spending on priorities in each of these three focus areas against
measures to decrease costs. Through strategic partnerships, we will
continue to leverage our funds to accomplish more work, yielding more
benefits for the people we serve while also sustaining forest and
grassland ecosystems for future generations.
restoring ecosystems
Our approach to ecological degradation is to accelerate ecological
restoration. USFS is restoring the ability of forest and grassland
ecosystems to resist climate-related stresses, recover from climate-
related disturbances, and continue to deliver the values and benefits
that Americans want and need. Reforestation, habitat enhancements,
invasive species control, hazardous fuels treatments, and other
measures can help to make an ecosystem more resilient and more capable
of delivering benefits, such as protecting water supplies and
supporting native fish and wildlife. Our budget request for fiscal year
2014 is specifically designed to support integrated restoration efforts
across USFS.
Through Integrated Resource Restoration, land managers are
accelerating the pace of restoration and job creation, in part by using
USFS's Watershed Condition Framework to identify high-priority
watersheds for treatment. Managers use Integrated Resource Restoration
to integrate activities such as hazardous fuels reduction, road
decommissioning, and removal of barriers to fish passage. Outcomes
include reducing risk from fire, insects, and diseases; maintaining
clean drinking water for communities; and supporting more local jobs
and economic opportunities. For example, in fiscal year 2012 through
our overall efforts we treated almost 2.6 million acres to sustain or
restore watershed function and resilience. Under the pilot program,
through restoration activities we treated almost 800,000 acres. We
propose fully implementing Integrated Resource Restoration across USFS
in fiscal year 2014.
The growing need for restoration-related work and investments on
the National Forest System is providing jobs and community benefits.
The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program was created in
2009 to restore high-priority forested landscapes, improve forest
health, promote job stability, create a reliable wood supply, and
reduce firefighting costs across the United States. After the program
was created, the Secretary of Agriculture evaluated collaboratively
developed project proposals, selecting 20 large-scale projects for 10-
year funding, along with three additional high-priority projects for
funding from other sources. They support an array of restoration
activities, including reducing hazardous fuels, restoring watershed
function and resilience, and improving forest vegetation and wildlife
habitat. Continued implementation of these projects is a high priority
in our fiscal year 2014 budget request. For example, the 23 projects
under this program have created or maintained approximately 7,500 jobs
over the last 2 years and generated almost $272 million in labor
income. They have also reduced the danger of fire on more than 600,000
acres near communities and enhanced clean water supplies by remediating
or decommissioning 6,000 miles of roads.
USFS is creating partnerships across the country to help protect
water by reducing the risk of fire in municipal watersheds that provide
communities with water for drinking and other uses, such as irrigation,
fisheries, and recreation. To help leverage our funding, we are
proposing a new program for Restoration Partnerships in fiscal year
2014. The program will foster some of the most advanced public-private
partnership initiatives in the Federal Government, leveraging new
outside resources to support USFS's restoration efforts. Most funding
under the new program will go to support cost-share projects that will
be competed for at the national level to attract matching financial
support from partners.
Another USFS program with a restoration emphasis is Forest Health
Management. Under the program, we conduct risk mapping and surveys to
identify the areas at greatest risk from insects and disease, including
invasive species such as emerald ash borer and white pine blister rust.
In identifying the areas at greatest risk and deciding on how to
respond, we work with the States, in part by utilizing the State Forest
Action Plans to help inform response decisions.
USFS is finalizing directives for implementing the new National
Forest System Land Management Planning Rule governing how land
management plans are written for the national forests and grasslands.
Half of all units on the National Forest System have plans that are
more than 15 years old. Successful forest plan revisions are key to
meeting the Forest Service's contemporary land management challenges.
The new 2012 Planning Rule will help land managers focus on
collaborative watershed restoration while promoting jobs and economic
opportunities in rural communities.
In concert with the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative
and Secretary Vilsack's all-lands vision for conservation, the Forest
Service has launched an initiative to accelerate restoration across
shared landscapes. The Accelerated Restoration Initiative builds on
Integrated Resource Restoration, the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program, the Watershed Condition Framework, the 2012
Planning Rule, and other restoration-related programs and initiatives
to increase the pace of ecological restoration while creating more jobs
in rural communities.
USFS is supporting accelerated restoration through our programs in
Research and Development. We have seven high-priority research areas,
including Watershed Management and Restoration, which is designed to
support our focus on protecting and enhancing water resources. In our
Bioenergy and Biobased Products research area, we are developing
technology to sustainably produce woody biomass and convert it into
liquid fuels, chemicals, and other high-value products. In partnership
with the wood products industry, we are also developing science to
commercialize nanocellulosic technologies to generate new high-value
products such as durable composites and paper that is stronger and
lighter. This will revolutionize technology to create new jobs and
revenues and help restore America's economy through industrial
development and expansion.
We are also pursuing longer term strategic research. For example,
sustainable forest management is predicated on decades of data on
forest conditions collected through our Forest Inventory and Analysis
program. We conduct long-term research in such areas as forest
disturbances, the effects of climate change, fire and fuels, invasive
species, wildlife and fish, and resource management and use to meet
local needs. In all of our research, we are committed to delivering new
knowledge and technologies to support sustainable forest and grassland
management.
strengthening communities and providing jobs
Our fiscal year 2014 budget request emphasizes the role that
communities play in sustaining the forests and grasslands around them
and the benefits they provide. Working with State and local partners,
we are focusing on landscape-scale outcomes through cross-boundary
actions including forestry projects identified through the State Forest
Action Plans. Accordingly, we propose building on our State and Private
Forestry Deputy Area Redesign initiative through a new program called
Landscape Scale Restoration. Our new program will capitalize on the
State Forest Action Plans to target the forested areas most in need of
restoration treatments while leveraging partner funds.
We also work with the States through our Forest Legacy Program to
identify forests critical for wildlife habitat and rural jobs. Through
the program, we provide working forests with permanent protection by
purchasing conservation easements from willing private landowners.
In a similar vein, and supporting the President's America's Great
Outdoors Initiative, our Land Acquisition program is designed to
protect critical ecosystems and prevent habitat fragmentation by
acquiring inholdings on the National Forest System and other lands
where we can improve public access. We are working in collaboration
with the Department of the Interior to leverage our joint investments
by coordinating our efforts to protect intact, functioning ecosystems
across entire landscapes. We propose transferring $177 million in
discretionary and mandatory funding from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund to support these goals.
The Forest Service also engages urban communities in protecting and
restoring America's 100 million acres of urban and community forests.
For example, we are working with 10 other Federal agencies in the Urban
Waters Federal Partnership, designed to restore watersheds in urban
areas. Through our Urban and Community Forestry program, we are
benefiting communities by helping them to plant trees, especially
through demonstration projects. Through our Conservation Education
programs, we are engaging millions of children and their families in
outdoor experiences.
In addition, we are helping communities acquire local landscapes
for public recreation and watershed benefits through our Community
Forestry and Open Space program. Our goal is to help create a Nation of
citizen stewards committed to restoring the forests around them to
health.
Our community focus supports the President's America's Great
Outdoors Initiative to achieve landscape-scale restoration objectives,
connect more people to the outdoors, and support opportunities for
outdoor recreation while providing jobs and income for rural
communities. Building on existing partnerships, establishing a 21st
century Conservation Corps will help us to increase the number of work
and training opportunities for young people and veterans through high-
priority conservation and restoration work on public lands. To engage
communities in conserving the lands around them, the Forest Service is
building public-private partnerships that leverage new resources to
support USFS's restoration goals. Our new Restoration Partnerships
program features national competitive grants to support local
restoration projects, with matching funds from partners.
We are also building public-private partnerships through our
Sustainable Recreation Framework. Many economic opportunities and other
community benefits generated on the national forests and grasslands are
associated with outdoor recreation. Through the Sustainable Recreation
Framework, we are engaging communities to protect and increase
recreational access as well as jobs, benefits, and opportunities
associated with outdoor recreation.
Our associated Trails program designates trails for multiple uses,
consistent with our travel management rule, while building partnerships
in trail stewardship. Our Roads program is designed to maintain forest
roads and bridges to protect public safety and water quality while
meeting access needs for both resource stewardship and the recreating
public. Our Facilities program promotes the safe and energy-efficient
use of agency infrastructure while emphasizing cost-effectiveness and a
smaller environmental footprint through the use of green building
techniques and materials.
managing wildland fires
Our restoration efforts are partly in response to growing fire
season severity, one of the greatest challenges facing the Forest
Service. We continue to suppress in initial attack at very small sizes
up to 98 percent of the fires we fight. However, the few fires that
escape initial attack tend to get much larger much faster. Extreme fire
behavior has become far more common. Firefighters are largely limited
to protecting certain points around homes and communities.
In 2009, the Congress passed the Federal Land Assistance,
Management, and Enhancement (FLAME) Act, calling on Federal land
managers to develop a joint wildland fire management strategy. Working
with the Department of the Interior, USFS took the opportunity to
involve the entire wildland fire community in developing a joint long-
term National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy.
This strategy is the product of a collaborative effort between
wildland fire organizations, land managers, and policy making officials
representing Federal, State, and local governments; Tribal interests;
and nongovernmental organizations that builds on the successes of the
National Fire Plan and other foundational documents. Phase I was
completed in 2011 and outlines the national strategy to address
wildland fire issues across the Nation. Phase II was completed in 2012
and provides a risk based framework for evaluating local, regional, and
national alternatives for wildfire response and preparedness at a mix
of different temporal and geographic scales.
Our new strategy has three components:
--Restoring Fire-Adapted Ecosystems.--More than 1,000 postfire
assessments show that fuels and forest health treatments are
effective in reducing wildfire severity. Accordingly, our fuels
treatments have grown; from 2001 to 2011, USFS treated about
27.6 million acres, an area larger than Virginia. We focus our
treatments on high-priority areas in the wildland/urban
interface, particularly near communities that are taking steps
to become safer from wildfire, such as adopting the national
Firewise program or developing community wildfire protection
plans.
--Building fire-adapted human communities.--With more than 70,000
communities at risk from wildfire, USFS is working through
cross-jurisdictional partnerships to help communities become
safer from wildfires, for example by developing community
wildfire protection plans. Through the Firewise program, the
number of designated Firewise communities--communities able to
survive a wildfire without outside intervention--rose from 400
in 2008 to more than 700 in 2012.
--Responding appropriately to wildfire.--Most of America's landscapes
are adapted to fire; wildland fire plays a natural and
beneficial role in many forest types. Where suppression is
needed to protect homes and property, we focus on deploying the
right resources in the right place at the right time. Using
decision support tools, fire managers are making risk-based
assessments to decide when and where to suppress a fire--and
when and where to use fire to achieve management goals for
long-term ecosystem health and resilience.
Hazardous fuels reduction is an important part of protecting
communities and infrastructure in the wildland/urban interface, and the
materials removed can often be utilized as biofuels. Our Hazardous
Fuels program therefore supports grants and other forms of assistance
for wood-to-energy initiatives. We fund business plans and feasibility
studies that help make a project more competitive for other sources of
funding; we provide technical assistance to support project development
or improve air quality, and we help develop financially viable
approaches for building and sustaining facilities that convert wood to
energy.
In fiscal year 2014, USFS will work with municipal water providers
and electrical service utilities to leverage our funds for fuels and
forest health treatments. For example, our new Restoration Partnerships
program will support public-private partnerships for investing in
projects to protect water supplies on the Colorado Front Range and
elsewhere. Our Hazardous Fuels program complements activities conducted
through Integrated Resource Restoration and the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Program to reduce fuels, protect communities, and
restore forested landscapes. Contracted services for fuels reduction
provides jobs, as do the forest products and woody biomass utilization
activities that result from fuels reduction and removal.
Our budget request for fiscal year 2014, taking the Suppression and
FLAME line items together, fully covers the 10-year rolling average of
annual amounts spent on suppression. Taken together with the
Preparedness line item, our budget request reflects our emphasis on
assessing strategic risks and improving operational decisionmaking for
responding to wildland fires, including using fire, where appropriate,
for resource benefits. Our efforts are expected to result in more
effective and efficient use of Forest Service resources as well as the
resources of our partners.
Airtankers are a critical part of an appropriate response to
wildfire, but USFS's fleet of large airtankers is old, with an average
age of more than 50 years. The cost of maintaining them is growing, as
are the risks associated with using them. USFS is implementing a Large
Airtanker Modernization Strategy to replace our aging fleet with next-
generation airtankers. Our fiscal year 2014 budget request includes $50
million to pay for the increased costs of modernizing the firefighting
airtanker fleet. This is in addition to the $24 million requested in
the fiscal year 2013 budget for a total of $74 million proposed over
the last 2 years to further enhance the agency's ability to fight
wildland fire.
cost savings
Since 2011, USFS has conducted more than a thousand postfire
assessments in areas where wildfires burned into previously treated
sites. In 94 percent of the cases, our fuels and forest health
treatments were determined to have changed fire behavior and/or helped
firefighters control the fire.
The Forest Service is also taking steps in other areas to cut our
operating costs. For example:
--Taking advantage of new technologies, we have streamlined and
centralized our financial, information technology, and human
resources operations to gain efficiencies and reduce costs. We
will continue to work together with other USDA agencies under
the Blueprint for Stronger Services to develop strategies for
key business areas to provide efficiencies.
--For the same reasons, we have integrated work across our deputy
areas for National Forest System, State and Private Forestry,
and Research and Development. For example, all three deputy
areas have collaborated to develop the Southern Forest Futures
project--the first comprehensive analysis of the future of
Southern forests over the next 50 years.
--In fiscal year 2012, we began implementing a new Planning Rule that
will reduce the length of time it takes to revise management
plans, saving costs. We are also saving costs by streamlining
our environmental review process under the National
Environmental Policy Act.
--We are implementing measures to achieve $100 million in cost pool
savings in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 combined.
--We have adopted new public-private partnership strategies for
leveraging restoration funding. For example, over 10 years the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program is expected
to leverage $152.3 million in partner funding, about 62 cents
for every Federal dollar spent.
--We also signed an agreement to use municipal funds to restore fire-
damaged national forest land in the municipal watershed of
Denver, Colorado. Over 5 years, Denver Water is matching the
Forest Service's own $16.5 million investment in watershed
restoration. We have signed similar agreements with Santa Fe,
New Mexico, and with other cities on the Front Range in
Colorado, including Aurora and Colorado Springs.
--We are proposing a number of changes in our budget line items for
fiscal year 2014 to better integrate accomplishments, to
increase efficiencies in administration, and to make our
program delivery more transparent. For example, combing the
State and Volunteer Fire Assistance programs under Wildland
Fire Management will improve program management, reduce
administrative complexity, and will assist with improved
performance management.
--In accordance with sustainability and efficiency mandates, we are
working to reduce our environmental footprint. We are acquiring
more energy-efficient vehicles and using the latest
technologies to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and cut our
electricity and natural gas costs at facilities.
future outlook
Our budget request focuses accordingly on America's highest
priorities for restoring ecosystems, strengthening communities and
providing jobs, and managing wildland fire. We are developing a kind of
land and resource management that efficiently and effectively addresses
the growing extent and magnitude of the challenges we face, as well as
the mix of values and benefits that Americans expect from their forests
and grasslands. We will continue to lead the way in improving our
administrative operations for greater efficiency and effectiveness in
mission delivery. Our research will continue to solve complex problems
by creating innovative science and technology for the protection,
sustainable management, and use of all forests, both public and
private, for the benefit of the American people. Moreover, we are
working ever more effectively to optimize our response to cross-cutting
issues by integrating our programs and activities.
The key to future success is to work through partnerships and
collaboration. Our budget priorities highlight the need to strengthen
service through cooperation, collaboration, and public-private
partnerships that leverage our investments to reach shared goals.
Through this approach, we can accomplish more work while also providing
more benefits for all Americans, for the sake of generations to come.
This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer
any questions that you or the subcommittee members have for me.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Chief.
Senator Udall has joined us. Tom, we've offered everybody a
chance to say a minute or so if you want to make a comment.
Senator Udall. I first just want to wish our ranking member
happy birthday. I know she was just out in the hall. Her two
sons were calling her from Alaska. They were out on a boat. And
so we're very happy that she's here with us today.
SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS
And just briefly just to mention, Chief, Secure Rural
Schools. I know Senator Murkowski is probably going to focus on
this, too. But I'm just very worried about the funding in our
rural communities. And as you realize, in the Southwest we're
concerned about the state of the environment, the ecosystems,
and what's happening with those schools.
I think you've seen a number of letters from Governors and
many participant State land commissioners, and others trying to
urge you to find a way, and let's try to make sure that in our
rural counties we're able to keep the schools there.
So with that, thank you very much, and really appreciate
being here today.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
All right. Chief, as we mentioned, the fire budget seems to
drive everything that you do or don't do. At this point, can
you give us sort of a sense of, will we have another record
fire year? We've already had some activity in southern
California. Should we be anticipating another year? And which
leads to the question of, if every year is a record year, then
we've got to sort of recalibrate and think of different ways to
fund these programs.
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, we've been fortunate to have a
slow start to this fire season because of the moisture we're
receiving in the Eastern part of the country. Our predictive
services once again show that we are set up to have another
very active fire season, especially throughout the West,
California, Oregon, and Washington then moving into Idaho and
Montana.
So based on those predictions, we're anticipating a fire
season similar to last year's.
Senator Reed. Which is a significant cost to the
Government, and we could in fact run over the program's
budgeted allocation. Then again, to get into that situation,
we'll need extra money?
Mr. Tidwell. That's correct. Unless we are fortunate to
have just a very light fire season this year, even with a
moderate fire season, the expenses will exceed what we
currently have in the budget for this year.
Senator Reed. Well, again, I think both the ranking members
are concerned, and we have to come up with a mechanism. In the
past, as I indicated, there was emergency funding available to
cover true emergencies like this. We have to be thoughtful and
creative. And we'll be working with you on that.
AIRTANKERS
One of the major capital programs you have, obviously, is
your air fleet. You are now starting the next generation of
tankers in terms of your making them available. Also, in the
National Defense Authorization Act, the Air Force was given
permission to transfer seven C-27Js to you.
Can you give us an overview of where things stand with
respect to the aviation fleet? Will you have adequate aircraft
this fire season? Also, longer-term plans in terms of the
fleet, including your acceptance or rejection of the Air Force
aircraft.
Mr. Tidwell. We will have an adequate airtanker fleet this
year, anticipating between 24 and 26 planes will be available.
We currently have nine aircraft under what we call our legacy
aircraft, which is seven P2s, plus two BAE-14As that are
currently on contract.
We are in the process of awarding contracts for seven more
aircraft, what we call our next-generation, which is the
faster, the planes that we're trying to move forward to carry
larger payloads. In addition to that, we continue to work with
the Air Force and Air Force Reserve to make sure that the
modular airborne firefighting system (MAFFS) units, the C-130Js
and Hs are available again this year as a backup. We've also
taken steps to be able to work with Alaska and Canada to bring
down their Convair 580s if we need those aircraft.
So based on everything we're moving forward with this year,
I feel confident we will have a set of aircraft that we can
respond.
In addition, we are anxious to see what the Air Force, the
decision that they make, if the C-27Js are surplused and they
become available. We would definitely like to have seven more
of those aircraft to be part of our overall fleet. They would
be Government owned, but contractor operated. We're moving
forward to actually look at what it would take for our MAFFS
units and modify those so that they can fit into the C-27Js so
if those planes become available we'll be able to move as
quickly as we can to build those MAFFS units for those C-27Js.
Senator Reed. Just two quick follow-up questions in this
regard. One is, the next-generation contracting process is
still not completed. Are you confident that you'll have these
aircraft under contract and useful this fire season?
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, we're working through the
process of the contract for the next generation. We have
received a protest, and we will work through that protest. I do
have the authority to override the protest. As we go through
the process, I'll make that determination to ensure we have the
aircraft we need to be able to respond to fires this year.
Senator Reed. Let me ask again a related question. And that
is that the next-generation funding level, in last year's
budget it was $24 million. In this year's budget, it's $50
million. But that begs the question, What's the overall amount
of money that you feel you have to commit to get this next
generation of aircraft in service?
And then with respect to the C-27J, have the costs of
modifications been built into any budget yet? Because I would
presume that's not going to be a trivial cost, at least
initially.
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, that $50 million that we have
requested would help offset the additional cost for the next-
generation aircraft, plus the additional cost for the legacy
aircraft. The legacy aircraft with the new contract, the
expenses have gone up, as expected. It also would help us deal
with the cancellation charges that we have to have set up in
our budget.
As far as the C-27Js, if those become available, we would
probably then use part of this $50 million to be able to do the
work we'd have to do on those to be able to fly with our
mission. We estimate for the C-27Js, it would cost about $3
million per aircraft to build the MAFFS units and then to make
some changes on that aircraft to make them usable for our
mission and take some of the military equipment, some of the
armor, off of those aircraft that's no longer needed for our
mission.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Chief.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS
Chief, let's talk a little bit about where we are with
Secure Rural Schools. I indicated that as far as I know, the
Governor has not yet received a response to his letter. I
received your response on Monday the 20th. And in your
response, you provide the agency's rationale for why you
believe the sequester applies to the Secure Rural Schools
payments.
But putting aside the legal arguments, the letter indicates
that you made these payments in January, but the sequester was
going to be the law of the land on March 1, or you certainly
should have had every reason to anticipate that it would be.
Did you analyze the impact of whether or not the sequester
would apply to these payments before you sent them out? I'm
having a real difficult time trying to just justify how
communities that have for decades now received these payments
from the Government now receive the payment, and then they get
the letter in the mail saying, ``We want it back.'' It just
doesn't work.
So what kind of consideration was made before you sent out
these payments? We know that the Department of the Interior
withheld funds prior to sending out their Secure Rural Schools
payments. They did it one way; you did it another. What was the
rationale there?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, my rationale was based on two things.
The first is at that time, and it was actually in December when
we made the decision to issue those payments, I thought at that
time there would be some options that would be found for the
sequester and it wouldn't happen.
Second of all, I was still having ongoing discussions with
our legal staff as to if the sequester would apply to the
Secure Rural Schools payments. I personally had some questions
on that. After a couple of meetings, the attorneys convinced me
that they would apply.
The other thing that drove that decision is what you've
mentioned. I know these communities, these counties, they rely
on these funds for their schools and roads programs. So I had
to make a call either to hold that money back or send it out.
Based on my personal experience living in those communities, I
made the call to go ahead and send it out, with an
understanding also, with the title II funds that many of the
States receive, which are funds that actually just go to
project work on the National Forest, that we'd be able to use
that money to be able to offset the sequestered amounts so that
there wouldn't be an impact to community schools and roads
programs.
That's the option that we've provided the States, to do
what we can to minimize the impact on schools and roads,
realizing that those title II funds, they're also important,
because it creates jobs, it gets work done.
So, Senator, I regret the situation that we're in. When I
think back through it, probably it would have been better to
hold back maybe 5 percent at the very start instead of being in
a situation where most of the States have the option to use
title II or take it out of their schools and roads fund. But
that's where we are. I regret that we've had to do this.
Senator Murkowski. If the State of Alaska and Alabama and
Wyoming refuse to pay, as the Governor's letter certainly
suggests, I mean, what do you do? Are you going to, do you sue
them for it? In your letter, it looks to me like you're kind of
taking late fees and penalties off the table, which is a darn
good thing, because you'd really have a fight on your hands
there.
Mr. Tidwell. I understand.
Senator Murkowski. Your words are a little bit wiggly here
in terms of being able to waive costs where applicable. I would
certainly hope that at a bare minimum there is no effort to
collect late fees and penalties.
And quite honestly, trying to sue the States, too, to
collect the monies I don't think is a good option either. So
again, we need to figure out how, you need to figure out,
working with us, how we deal with this.
Let me ask a more, perhaps even more local issue than
Secure Rural Schools. In the energy committee, when we visited
last time, we had a lot of discussion about the USFS mandate of
multiple use. We all recognize that it's all multiple use. And
in that hearing, you suggested that some of what we need to
look to in the Tongass is the recreational activities, the
tourism activities.
TOURISM
And I agree. And it wasn't more than a week later from that
hearing that I was in Ketchikan and sat down with a group of
about a dozen air taxi operators that are fit to be tied.
Because here they are trying to provide for a level of tourism
within the Misty Fjords and Traitors Cove. They take their
little floatplanes. Everyone wants to see the wilderness area.
They get, the air taxi operators get permits to just land in
these lakes, just land. Not go on the land, but just land.
And what the air taxi operators are telling me is that
their permits coming from the USFS are being cut by some as
little as 20 percent, some as much as 40 to 45 percent. One air
taxi company has seen its permits cut from 300 to 165, another
one from 500 to 298. When you're to provide for a level of
tourism, when you can't take the tourists who are coming off
the cruise ship out to do a quick floatplane trip, land in one
of the lakes in Misty Fjords or Traitors Cove, it's kind of
tough.
So I called Forrest Cole and talked with him. He was going
to be meeting with everybody. And that's to be applauded. But I
guess I'm trying to figure out, you're telling me on the one
hand, ``Tell the people who live in the Tongass to move toward
tourism, utilize the forest in that way.'' And then your agency
is limiting, dramatically limiting their ability to provide for
those tourism opportunities.
So can you explain to me what it is that we're going to do
in that particular situation in one community in Southeast?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, I don't have all the details
into the forest decision, but it's my understanding that they
reduced some of the flights based on the concern from the
public with the amount of noise that was created from the
floatplanes, and at the same time increased the number of
permits into Traitors Cove.
I will follow up with the forest and find out more
specifics as to why the decision was being made, and then also
what they're doing to actually mitigate. If it's something as
just the noise, is there a way that they could land in a
different place, maybe at a different time, but other ways to
be able to deal with the concern from the public?
[The information follows:]
Air Taxi Service on the Tongass National Forest
Due to concerns that limiting the amount and location of outfitter
and guide use may not adequately provide for industry stability and
growth, the Record of Decision for the Ketchikan-Misty Fjords Outfitter
and Guide Management Plan allocated 53,997 service days annually to
outfitters and guides. The highest actual use reported by outfitters
and guides between 2005 and 2009 was 24,245 service days. Thus, the
decision allows outfitter and guide use across the Ketchikan-Misty
Fjords District to increase over 100 percent from the reported highest
use levels.
The Forest Service also met with commercial air service providers
on May 6, 2013 in Ketchikan, Alaska to discuss the issues you have
raised, to explain what was in the actual decision, and to discuss the
new permit allocations. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Forest
Service committed to meet again with the air service providers at the
end of the season to review actual use versus permitted use. The
Ketchikan-Misty Outfitter and Guide Management Plan includes an
adaptive management strategy to allow changes to be made if experience
shows they are needed.
Accordingly, by doubling the outfitter guide use across the
District, and by incorporating a flexible adaptive management strategy
to incorporate changes as needed in the future, the Ketchikan-Misty
Fjords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan will facilitate growth of
the industry while maintaining quality visitor experiences.
The Forest Service does not have reliable information about
unguided visitor use numbers for Misty Fjords. Most unguided visitors
access Misty Fjords National Monument Wilderness via motorized boat or
sea kayak. Many of these visits are by local residents via privately
owned boats. There is no practical way to know how many such visits are
made.
The Forest Service has always been concerned about the economic
health of rural communities throughout Southeast Alaska. The Alaska
Region has made significant investment in a wide variety of resource
areas to expand business opportunities across the Tongass. In this
particular case, the Tongass National Forest limited the amount of
outfitter guide use in one area to maintain its wilderness character
and quality visitor experiences, while allowing for growth in other
areas of the Ketchikan Misty Ranger District.
Senator Murkowski. Well, this would be one opportunity for
you to view for yourself. When you live in a place like
Ketchikan that is on the water, you've got a lot of
floatplanes. That's just the nature of the business. And how we
provide for recreational tourism operations in a place like the
Tongass, you've got to be flying.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. So, let's work on this.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
We will have a second round, just for the information of
the members. My list has Senator Merkley as the first to
arrive.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And thank
you for your testimony.
I first wanted to ask about, we have a mill in John Day
that has been at high risk of closing. And the regional
forester has been working very hard to lay out a 10-year
stewardship contract to ensure accessible supplies so that
essentially the infrastructure in the plant can be renovated,
be competitive, and that the mill knows it's going to be able
to access wood for long enough to make that work. Otherwise,
the mill shuts down. And we were this close, and I'm afraid
we're this close today.
Last week, the regional forester got a letter from Leslie
Weldon. It said, ``We can't figure it out. We can't do it.'' It
notes that we'll work to design a new contracting structure. My
concern is that it's been 6 months in which a new contracting
structure could have been identified. We could be wrestling
with that now if it didn't take legal changes, which it doesn't
appear it will take, from this letter. It could be in place
now.
We don't want to lose this mill. Last month we lost the
mill in Cave Junction, the Rough & Ready mill. It is the heart
of the economy in that small town. This is the heart of the
economy in John Day.
How can--what can we do to create the sense of urgency
about designing the necessary structures so we don't lose this
mill?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, of course we share your concern about
that mill for the community, the jobs, but also to have the
facility to be able to do the restoration work on the National
Forest.
Since our staff sent that letter out, I personally have
taken another look at this to see if there isn't some other
options that we can do prior to getting stewardship contracting
reauthorized. I'm optimistic that there's a different approach
that we can take, that we're working currently with the region
and forest on, to be able to move forward with a 10-year
stewardship contract.
I have to stress, though, that without reauthorization of
stewardship contracting, it is really--well, it will be the end
of the program, the program that has provided a lot of
certainty, that gives us this kind of flexibility to do these
long-term contracts. And it's one of the reasons why it becomes
one of our highest priorities this year to be able to get that
reauthorized.
So I will get back with you as soon as we have finalized
our approach that we're going to take. But I'm confident that
we'll be able to find a different way to be able to move
forward.
[The information follows:]
Stewardship Contract
The Malheur National Forest is preparing a 10-year Integrated
Resource Service Contract (IRSC), Indefinite Delivery, and Indefinite
Quantity (IDIQ) to provide timber volume and service work. This
contract should be available for companies to bid on this summer. The
contract will provide a major share of the Malheur's program for the
next 10 years.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. And are you satisfied with the
stewardship contracting reauthorization as structured in the
Senate farm bill?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Merkley. Okay. So we anticipate getting that done,
and hopefully, we'll get it arranged through the House.
Mr. Tidwell. Thank you.
Senator Merkley. And I appreciate that you've taken special
attention, personal attention to this issue.
We have other situations where 10-year contracts will
either make or break whether or not there is a biomass plant
established, which means the difference between basically
utilizing some of the forest woody mass versus having it burned
on the floor of the forest.
It makes a lot of sense to try to make these things work,
but there has to be a framework in what has been a very
uncertain world that provides much more certainty. I know you
understand. But thank you for your personal attention on it.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
I wanted to turn to the LWCF and Forest Legacy. And I
really appreciate the administration's support for the LWCF.
And I was especially pleased to see the top-ranked project in
the country was Gilchrist Forest in Oregon.
We were anticipating that there was a chance that the
Gilchrist Forest and the Blue Mountains Forest Legacy could be
funded in fiscal year 2013. And I think we're still waiting for
announcements. I think we thought those were coming out in
April. Are those on the--are we likely to hear on some of these
projects fairly soon?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes. We should be able to get to you, I think,
within the next week.
[The information follows:]
LWCF Gilchrist Forest Update
Currently the project is held by The Conservation Fund. This was
done at the request of the State and is in compliance with Forest
Service Program Implementation Guidelines. The project will add nearly
26,000 acres to the 42,000 acre Gilchrist State Forest. The Gilchrist
State Forest is the newest State forest in Oregon and was acquired with
$15 million of State funding. This project is important not only
because of its contribution to the local forest products industry, but
also for recreation and preventing conversion from open space, which
will reduce fire risk and suppression costs. The State goal is to close
on the Gilchrist land acquisition in this calendar year, though that
may be closer to early in the following year to allow for the required
due diligence actions for acquisitions funded by the Forest Legacy
Program.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. And I do appreciate the
advocacy for funding. This has been a key, key set of programs.
HAZARDOUS FUELS
I wanted to turn to the issue of hazardous fuels reduction.
The frustration of fighting these forests on the back end is
just enormous. And after the fires last summer, everyone,
whether it be inside the USFS, with the private landowners,
with our local electeds, the scientists said, ``We've got to do
more on the front end. We've interrupted the natural fires of
the past that were smaller fires that cleaned out this
debris.''
And so it comes as a shock to us to see that that funding
was cut by, I think, $116 million. I fought hard for us to get
funding to replace the surplus funds that were going to be
diverted into fighting the fires, which I realize the huge
challenge; you've got to fight fires when they occur. But how
do we responsibly address forest health if we can't have a
robust fuels reduction program on the front end?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, that reduction in the hazardous
fuels funding in our request is just part of the difficult
tradeoffs we have to make. When we have to continue to put so
much more of our budget into suppression and also in
preparedness, there has to be changes made in reductions.
With the funding that we are requesting, we'll focus on the
wildland-urban interface with the hazardous fuels reduction.
And then in the backcountry, or outside of, away from the
communities, when we do our restoration work, when we do our
timber harvest, our timber thinning, we're also reducing
hazardous fuels. And so we'll be accomplishing that hazardous
fuels reduction through our integrated resource restoration
work, through our timber sales.
But there's just no question with that level of reduction,
there's going to be less fuels work done, there's going to be
less hazardous fuels accomplished.
Senator Merkley. Well, I'll keep talking with you about it,
because I realize there's no easy answer. But with the changing
or the more extensive droughts, we're going to see that this
problem of accumulated fuels becomes of more and more dreaded
effect. And somehow we have to figure it out. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, we've got to
break the cycle. We're spending money on fighting fires when it
would be much better to cut some wood and get us a permanent
supply. We'll get into forest jobs maybe later.
AIRTANKERS
First I want to talk about airtankers, next-generation
airtankers. As we well know, there's an intent to award
contracts for seven of them. Fire season has already started in
Montana and across the West, quite frankly. And while my staff
was initially told that these planes would be ready to fly, I'm
talking about the ones that were the seven that were
contracted, awards were given. Well, my staff was initially
told that these would be ready to fly this fire season.
We've received conflicting information from--even before
the protests. And so I understand there might be some actions
you can take to resolve this. But I have larger concerns
regarding how these competitions are being run. You and I have
known each other for a long time. You've been up front with me.
I'm going to be up front with you.
After two protested competitions, I have serious questions
as to whether the USFS is getting the best value for the
dollar. So, Chief, can you tell me when these planes will be
ready? I'm talking about the seven that the contracts have been
awarded for.
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, once we work through the protests and
we actually award the contracts, it's our expectation that
those contractors that have the new contract awards will have
their planes ready to go within 60 days for testing.
Senator Tester. Okay, how about, that's for testing. Does
that mean--okay, 60 days. We're middle of May, June, July. I
hope we're not, but chances are, you know well, there's going
to be a lot of smoke in here by the middle of July. Will the
planes, they're ready for testing in 2 months. Are they going
to be ready to fly in 2 months?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, it's our expectation that after they
complete the tests, they will be able to fly. The aircraft that
are being considered, they are all FAA certified already. So
there isn't a problem we have to deal with. So it's just to get
their tanking systems and then to be able to meet our
performance tests. And they'll be able to fly.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Chief. Can you tell me if
that was taken into consideration as far as the contracting,
whether--how quickly the planes could be up in the air? Because
quite frankly, I really hate to say this, but you know very
well we'll either be flooded out in June or there will be fires
in June. There's going to be no happy medium here.
Mr. Tidwell. It was factored into the decision on which
contracts were awarded or would be awarded as to their
capability based on what they provided, their capability to be
able to have the aircraft that would perform to our standards
and to be able to be operational within 60 days. There's no
guarantee that they will be, but this is the process that we
have to go through.
It's why we are also setting up contingency plans to bring
the 580s down from Canada and Alaska if we need to, and then of
course to have the MAFFS units on ready.
Senator Tester. Look. You're probably frustrated with it,
too. I'm a little frustrated with this whole thing because,
quite frankly, I've seen what's happened in Montana's forests
for a long time now. I live in eastern Montana, 200-300 miles
from where the forest is. And we are covered in smoke most
summers.
And it goes to a bigger issue that Senator Merkley was
talking about. But if we're going to fight these fires and if
you want to use next-generation as being the plane that's
really going to get the job done much more efficiently and cost
effectively, I honest to goodness can't figure out why the
award was made how it was. That's just a dirt farmer talking.
Because quite frankly, we haven't been able to get an answer
from your staff as to when these planes are going to be up in
the air, and I'm not sure I've gotten one from you as to
whether these planes can be up in the air in 60 days.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, that's the requirement in the
contract, that once the contract is awarded, is that they need
to be available to test within 60 days. That's the contract----
Senator Tester. But if they don't pass the test, what
happens?
Mr. Tidwell. If they don't pass the test, then they don't
fly. So those aircraft are not available. We have to then go
back to the aircraft that are available, plus we can use the
580s.
Senator Tester. The Canadians.
Mr. Tidwell. Plus we can use the call-when-needed.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Mr. Tidwell. I want to point out this is the problem.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Tidwell. This is one of the reasons why we've been
asking for the C-27Js. So we at least have part of our fleet
that is Government owned so that there is some guarantee that
we're going to have aircraft.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Tidwell. So this just could have been an ongoing
problem with these contracted aircraft.
Senator Tester. My problem is not with the contracted
aircraft per se. And I'm not for privatizing Government. But my
problem is that there were better options on the table to be
taken up by the Forest Service, from my perspective. And they
didn't do it. And you know exactly what I'm saying in all that.
Mr. Tidwell. We have a set of procedures that we follow
when we award contracts. I can guarantee you there is a high
level of oversight that is provided. Through the process of
being able to protest, on another additional level of review,
and so that's the process that we have to follow.
Because of that, our folks go to great lengths to be able
to make sure that we are making the right decision based on
what the contractors provided us. We have to make our best
decision.
Senator Tester. I understand that. And I know there's going
to be a second round. I would just say that, and I know you
can't do anything about it because the contract has already
been awarded--well, I guess you can. But the bottom line is
that we need to get the biggest bang for the buck. And I'm not
sure that, because of the fact that we don't know if these
planes are going to be operational or not, whether we got the
bang for the buck.
I appreciate your service, and I don't mean to be critical.
But I'll stick around for the second round.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Begich.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Chief, for being here.
Let me just ask a quick question on Senator Tester's issue
there. The protest has been filed, right? How long before
that's resolved?
Mr. Tidwell. I'm hoping that the attorneys are actually
working today to begin the discussions to address that protest.
Senator Begich. So, I don't mean to interrupt you. But so
they've started the review, but the protest has an amount of
time that the individual has, correct?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Begich. What is that time?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, they've submitted the protest. The next
step is for us to provide the information that both sides are
requesting. Then eventually, it would go in front of, in this
case, the judge.
In the meantime, I have to look at where we're going to be,
how much it's going to take, and make the decision whether to
override the protest or not.
Senator Begich. Got you.
Mr. Tidwell. That's one of the decisions that I'm going to
have to make here probably within the next week or so.
Senator Begich. That's the question I was trying to get to.
So you have about a 2-week window that you'll determine if the
protest, in your mind, is valid? Probably not the right word,
but that there is full merit to it? But also, you'll weigh the
fire issue that you have to deal with this summer; is that
correct?
Mr. Tidwell. That's correct. I have the authority based on
the emergency situations of having airtankers to be able to
override the protest.
Senator Begich. Very good. I just wanted to add that little
context to the schedule there.
ROADLESS RULE
I want to talk to you about the Roadless Rule, which of
course you know that the Alaska delegation is totally opposed
to on many fronts. But, and I want to say your Alaska region
has done a good job working with us in regards to mining issues
in trying to make sure that some of those mines can continue to
move forward.
We've been told and assured that the Federal Power Act will
trump the Roadless Rule on development. So let me go to one
area specifically. And that's the area of hydroelectric power.
As you know, in Southeast, it is what operates.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Begich. And also important for some projects that
are moving forward. We have heard from individual operators, as
well as the industry group, that it's not clear how this will
work. For example, will they be forced to use helicopter
maintenance as an issue versus accessing it, obviously, through
roads? Which of course, just adds huge costs to the ability to
move power.
I guess what I'm looking for, because there's so much
uncertainty here, will you commit to meet with the industry
groups to get this clarity on how hydropower can be utilized
within the roadless areas? Two, how can we maintain a
constructed, meaning the power itself and transmission lines
and generation? Is that--because we keep hearing they're just
not sure. And of course, if you start going to helicopter
maintenance, very expensive.
Is that something you would commit to to make sure we can
move forward in trying to get this figured out?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, I will make that commitment to be
able to bring the right folks together to have a clearer
understanding about what we need to do to move forward to make
sure that the proponents for these hydroelectric facilities
understand how they're going to need to operate. So make it
very clear. So I will make that commitment to bring the right
people together to clarify this.
Senator Begich. Very good. And on generation and on
transmission?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Begich. Okay. Because, obviously, generation may be
a piece, you know, resolvable. But if you have lines that you
can't get to and it costs a lot of money, the project may not
happen. And if you could give us feedback as you move forward
on that, it would be great.
AIRTANKERS
I want to just quickly follow up on the C-27s that were
brought up by the chairman. And that is, let's assume for a
moment DoD and the authorizing bill does it. They say they got
seven surplus. They say, ``Here you go.'' Are you willing to
take those, and/or are you willing--tell me what your step will
be if those are presented to you or available to you. Are you
willing to take those? And if the answer is yes, do you have
within your budget resources to do the things that the chairman
asked for? One is retrofitted in, but also to maintain them and
operate them.
I understand they're going to be contracted, operational,
but owned by the feds. But can you tell me?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes. If those seven aircraft are made
available, we will receive those aircraft, and we'd expect that
the earliest that would occur is toward the end of this fiscal
year, probably in September at the earliest. Our budget request
for fiscal year 2014 would provide us with the additional
resources to move forward to modify those aircraft so they'd be
available for our mission.
SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS
Senator Begich. Fantastic. Let me also just associate my
comments with Senator Murkowski in regard to the secure school
funding issue, obviously a big concern there. But I wanted to
get to a higher level.
I mean, your position where you're at, and I kind of heard
it through some of your testimony that, I mean, you're just
getting squeezed from all ends. And you're just trying to
figure out where to reduce the budget, and this is one of the
areas that you looked at. And now you're kind of rethinking,
maybe it wasn't the wisest thing to do to do it all at that
point, giving them all the money, then trying to claw it back.
Let's assume for a moment the sequester continues. Because
it's a 10-year deal. It's not a 1-year deal. Are you going to
look at this in how are you going to allow or transfer that
money to schools and hold back any next cycle? Or what's your
thinking now that you've gone through this experience that
still is not over yet?
Mr. Tidwell. The 25 percent funds will go out as collected
for next year. If there is continuation on extension of Secure
Rural Schools payments, we will know what we're up against
right at the start so it will be the amount of money that will
be made available for schools and roads so that we will not
have this issue ever again.
Senator Begich. Okay. And are you starting to--I'm
assuming, I know you don't want to do it too early because
school is still in session this session. But as you move toward
next session, will you be working with the affected schools'
districts to make sure they understand, if we don't resolve the
sequester, what the impacts are going to be?
Mr. Tidwell. We will be working through the States to be
able to inform them what we'd expect under the 25 percent fund
if there isn't an extension of Secure Rural Schools. If there
is an extension that is made available, then we will also work
with the States to share that information.
TIMBER MANAGEMENT
Senator Begich. Great. Last question. Just for the record,
maybe, if you could get to me, I'd be interested in maybe the
last 10 or 15 years on a chart that shows on timber sales the
amount of time it takes you from the initial stage to actual in
production. I want to kind of see what it looks like over the
last 10-15 years. Has it improved? Has it decreased? And if you
wouldn't mind putting in there what your staffing levels and
resources have been allocated to that effort corresponding to
those years. Does that make sense?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Begich. You see where I'm driving to. I just want
to kind of see what the connection is if there is one.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator, we can provide you that. It's
the information that supports what I've already shared about
the 49 percent reduction in staffing over the last 14 years,
but at the same time a reduction in our unit costs by 23
percent. We'll also show basically the average amount of time
it takes from when we initiate a project to when we actually
sell the contract.
[The information follows:]
History of Timber Sales and Timeframes From Beginning to Production
The following are estimated timeframes for the various parts of the
timber sale preparation process. The first step (Gate 1) is developing
a project proposal. This typically will take 1 week to 1 year depending
on the size and complexity of the project. The next step (Gate 2) is
project analysis and design. This second step is when NEPA analysis is
completed. This is the longest timeframe and varies based on the size
of the area and the complexity of the proposal; it can range from 6
months to 2 plus years. This excludes the appeal and litigation
processes if they occur. The third step (Gate 3) involves marking the
areas on the ground, measurements, contract preparation, and appraisal.
It varies from 3 months to 1\1/2\ years, depending on the size and
complexity of the project. The sale package, bid opening and sale award
(Gates 4, 5, and 6) vary from 2 months to 6 months. Altogether the
process can range from 1 year on a very simple, small sale to 5 years
for a large complex project. There is also variation in the timeframes
in different regions of the country. Our perspective is that these time
periods have not changed much, if at all, over the past decade.
The history of timber sales for the past 15 years is provided in
the table below.
[In million board feet]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Volume Offered Volume Sold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.................................... 3,415 2,955
1999.................................... 2,300 2,200
2000.................................... 1,714 1,745
2001.................................... 2,015 1,534
2002.................................... 1,785 1,621
2003.................................... 2,070 1,638
2004.................................... 2,467 2,164
2005.................................... 2,531 2,400
2006.................................... 2,639 2,863
2007.................................... 2,731 2,499
2008.................................... 2,830 2,484
2009.................................... 2,508 2,227
2010.................................... 2,671 2,592
2011.................................... 2,579 2,533
2012.................................... 2,616 2,644
2013 est \1\............................ 2,800 2,800
2014 est \1\............................ 2,380 2,380
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sold value was estimate based on calculated 2012 unit value.
timber staff levels
The table below shows staff levels for the years 1998 to 2012.
These numbers include FTEs from the Forest Products budget line item
and the Timber Salvage Sales and Cooperative Work Knutson-Vandenburg
funds.
TIMBER PROGRAM STAFF LEVELS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998....................................................... 6,453
1999....................................................... 4,065
2000....................................................... 3,445
2001....................................................... 3,342
2002....................................................... 4,659
2003....................................................... 3,822
2004....................................................... 4,128
2005....................................................... 4,054
2006....................................................... 3,268
2007....................................................... 3,792
2008....................................................... 3,210
2009....................................................... 3,263
2010....................................................... 3,101
2011....................................................... 3,027
2012....................................................... 3,282
------------
Percent change 1998 to 2012................................ 49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Begich. That would be great. I'd love to see that.
I think the window is 10-year--I think you used 1998 as your
start point in your testimony.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Begich. So maybe take it from that point, move
forward.
Mr. Tidwell. Okay.
Senator Begich. Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. And
welcome, Chief. It's good to see you again.
AIRTANKERS
At an earlier hearing of the Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee on Appropriations, David Hayes indicated that
California was going to have its worst drought in history this
year. In terms of what that means, it's one water and two fire.
We won't have the water, and we will have the fire. And that
presents a very real problem.
I don't want to go into all the details which have been
discussed of the holdup in contracts, of the contracting of the
C-27s. But I want to express to you my view that this is life
or death to California. If we have a number of lightning
strikes, which we can have and have had 2,000 of an afternoon
that started 1,000 wildfires, these tankers are critical.
I also want to take this opportunity to invite you to
attend a summit on Lake Tahoe, where three National Forests
sort of converge, on August 19. This is a bi-State summit with
Nevada, Senator Reid handles it this year, and California. We
alternate years when we do the summit. And we have the regional
foresters there, which are just great.
I think it would be very helpful for you to come out and
see the work that they have done. And it's one of the things
that I try to get there every year to see the trails of burning
that's gone on, the trails that are being cleared, and some of
the foresting that's being done. So I want to extend that
invitation to you personally, and also if you can, to say a few
words at the summit.
I am really concerned by fire and would like to just urge
you to do your utmost to get rid of those contract problems and
move those planes, because they are going to be just vital to
the California fire areas.
QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP
As you may know, many years ago, with Wally Herger in the
House, I proposed legislation called the Quincy Library Group.
And this was when environmentalists and lumber people and
others up in the northern California area got together. And
they went to the Quincy Library because it was the only place
they couldn't yell at each other. And they forged a plan to be
able to prudently forest some of the forests in that area,
particularly to mitigate fire.
The project's authority expired in September 2012. I can't
do a bill to renew it because it's now an earmark. But what I
want you to know, and hope, is that you continue your
significant fuels treatment within the 1.5 million acres of
forestlands covered by Quincy Library Group in the next few
years.
Now, you'll have reduced funding. And you'll have existing
authorities. Can you tell me a little bit about what the Forest
Service plans to do within that 1.5 million acres?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, we're going to continue to build on
the good work that you started with Quincy Library Group. And
out of that, we've also been able to release some of our
scientific reports that also support that type of work to
continue in the forest, which is helping to build more and more
support for it. So we're looking at expanding that type of
work.
We do have the challenges with reduced funding. But by
looking at larger areas than we have in the past, we're finding
greater efficiencies by doing the analysis for hundreds of
thousands of acres at a time versus those small projects, which
is increasing the efficiency.
Also with the programs we have going on there in the State,
where there's the incentives for biomass, that's also going to
be very helpful. We want to make sure that we can demonstrate
that the work we're doing on the forest also supports what the
State is doing.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I'm a strong supporter of both of
those. And if you need help, please call. I very much fear this
next fire system. As you know, the Santa Anas blew in May, of
all things. And that started a huge fire. So it's really fire,
and urging you to keep an eye particularly on California in
this regard. And anything I can do to help, please let me know.
I want to help.
If you can come to Tahoe, it will be on the Nevada side, on
August 19. I think that would be very, very helpful. You've got
a great team up there. And they work very hard. So it would, I
think, be very welcome.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's it for me.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
You know, Chief, we've been going back and forth, I think,
very productively. But certainly the critical issue of the fire
season, the cost of fires, whether you're prepared or not,
aviation, ground crews, et cetera, and then I think the ranking
member and I are very concerned because, from what you've said,
we're probably going to meet or exceed last year's very
expensive fire operation, which takes away from discretionary
spending.
And one of the things that we will pursue, and we'd like
your support in this pursuit, is that at some point we're going
to have to declare emergencies for these fires. Is that a
position that you would support?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, I would. We need to have a better
solution than what we've had in the past when we do have these
very active fire seasons that go way beyond the budget that's
been prepared for it. So I would appreciate your support there.
LANDSCAPE SCALE RESTORATION
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Chief. You've made
many proposals, and let me discuss one of them. This is the
Landscape Scale Restoration Program, which is you're trying to
reorganize programs. Can you tell us what you would like to
accomplish with this proposal? And how States with
predominantly State or privately owned, not National Forests,
but State or privately owned forests, and Rhode Island is one
of those States, can participate and will benefit from this
program? It seems just on the surface to be directing resources
more exclusively to the National Forests.
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, this proposal is kind of built
off of the concept of the integrated resource restoration, but
would allow our State foresters to be able to look at their
landscapes, their mix of private land and State lands, and be
able to determine what type of work needs to occur on that
landscape, instead of being focused on individual programs
within that landscape.
So for States like yours, with their statewide plans that
your State foresters put together, it actually supports that
type of an approach, to be able to look at these larger
landscapes, to be able to do all the work that needs to be done
versus focus in on this program on this acre, another program
on another acre.
So we feel that for a State like Rhode Island, it will
actually support the work that they've been doing. It will
also, we believe, create some more efficiencies and increase
the overall amount of work that can be done to be able to
support our private land forests.
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION PROGRAM
Senator Reed. Well, thank you, Chief. Another proposal is
the Integrated Resource Restoration Program. We authorized and
provided resources for a pilot program. I know you have the
results for 2012. Now you want to go scale up nationally, even
though it's a 3-year pilot. Can you share with us the results,
the findings of the first year of the pilot? Presumably, that
influenced you in your decision to seek a nationwide program.
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you for the
pilot authority. Our first-year results show that in almost
every category, we met or exceeded the targets that were set
up. The only area where we did not meet those targets was in
our northern region when it came to biomass timber sale
productions. That was driven by some litigation that occurred.
That shortfall would have occurred with or without the
integrated resource restoration.
With the pilot, we recognize it's going to take 2 to 3
years for us to be able to have the information to show you
that this is a better way. We're committed to the pilot. I'll
keep asking for the full authority just because based on my
previous experiences, I think it's a better approach. We're
going to focus on doing the pilot work and then be able to come
in here 2 to 3 years from now and make a strong case as to why
this is a better approach.
LAND ACQUISITION
Senator Reed. Thank you, Chief. My final question is that
the land acquisition component is about $57.9 million. That's
an increase of $5.5 million. And I think we all support land
acquisition. You indicated in your opening statement it's a
very smart and efficient way to conduct your operations.
But the bulk of the money is targeted to six to eight, six
projects where I presume that there are nationwide sort of
demands for these funds. And can you sort of explain the
rationale of so tightly focusing these resources rather than
using them in a more dispersed basis?
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, over the years we had taken the
approach of working the highest priority projects across the
country without ever looking at what actually needs to get done
in certain parts of the country. So working with the Department
of the Interior a couple of years ago, we took a step back to
really look at some key landscapes in the country where, by
working together, we can complete the acquisition that needs to
be done and actually be able to say, ``Okay, we're completed
there,'' and then be able to move on to other parts of the
country.
So it helps us to be able to focus not only the funds that
we request, but also from the Department of the Interior to be
able to accomplish the overall goals for acquisition in that
part of the country. So it does require a larger investment in
any 1 year in a certain part of the country. But by doing that,
it will allow us to complete that work and then move on to the
next higher priority.
At the same time, we also have a list of what we call our
core projects that we need to move forward with that are the
highest priority, that are time sensitive. And we're going to
continue to be able to do both.
Senator Reed. Just, and you might provide this for the
record.
[The information follows:]
Land Acquisition Projects
The table below provides the status of Land Acquisition projects.
U.S. FOREST SERVICE LWCF PROJECTS FISCAL YEAR 2013 AND BEYOND
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Fiscal Year 2013 Plan To Complete Phases Complete Proposed Fiscal Year 2014 Projected Fiscal Year 2015 and
Service Project Name State National Forest Funding Amount/ in Fiscal Year Prior to Fiscal President's Budget Phase Beyond Phases in Dollars/Acres \4\;
Region Acres 2013/Phased \1\ Year 2013 \2\ \3\ Total Acres Upon Completion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1CLP Crown of the Continent MT....... Lolo/Flathead.......... $12,400,000..... Phased.......... 2................. $31,000,000............... Projected complete in fiscal year
Northern Rockies: MT 4,500 acres 24,313 acres 2015 with additional $5,000,000
Legacy Completion \5\ for 1,200 acres
Project total over 5 years = 35,700
acres
1Tenderfoot MT....... Lewis & Clark.......... $3,000,000...... Phased.......... 3................. $3,200,000................
2,360 acres 2,280 acres
Complete
Total acres over 4 years =
8,220.
2Ophir Valley CO....... Uncompahgre............ $1,000,000...... 4............... 5................. $1,470,000................
40 acres 59 acres
Complete
Total acres over 5 years =
1,113.
3Miranda Canyon NM....... Carson................. $2,656,000...... Phased.......... 1................. $2,170,000................ Projected complete in fiscal year
965 acres 2015 with additional $2,568,000
for 1,142 acres
Project total over 4 years = 5,000
acres
4Salmon-Selway Initiative ID....... Salmon-Challis and $340,000........ Phased.......... 1................. .......................... Ongoing phases through 2020. Need
Area: Morgan Ranch & Sawtooth National 237 acres $8,243,000 for 908 acres
Pardoe Rodeo Grounds Recreation Area.
4CLP Crown of the WY/ID.... Bridger-Teton/Caribou- $3,200,000...... Phased.......... Multiple.......... $2,000,000................ Ongoing phases through 2020. Need
Continent: Greater Targhee. 350 acres 320 acres additional $14,800,000 for 398
Yellowstone acres
Project total by 2020 = 18,500
acres
5Hurdygurdy CA....... Six Rivers............. $1,300,000...... Phased.......... 1................. .......................... Projected complete in fiscal year
1,678 acres 2016. Need additional $3,320,000/
2,388 acres
Project total over 4 years = 5,284
acres
5Leech Lake Mountain CA....... Mendocino.............. $1,000,000...... Plan to complete .................. .......................... ...................................
640 acres in fiscal year
2013.
5/6Pacific Crest National CA/OR/WA. Several................ $650,000........ Phased.......... Multiple.......... $3,100,000................ Multiple phases beyond 2020
Scenic Trail 160 acres Total need = $141,685,300
6John Day River Head-waters OR....... Malheur................ $2,040,000...... Phased.......... .................. .......................... Projected completion 2017 with
2,040 acres additional $10,464,000/10,464
acres
Project total over 4 years = 12,504
acres
8CLP Florida/Georgia FL....... Apalachicola/Osceola... $5,300,000...... Phased.......... Multiple.......... .......................... Multiple phases through 2020. Need
Longleaf Pine 4,000 acres $21,000,000/25,000 acres
8NC Threatened Treasures NC....... Pisgah................. $1,150,000...... Phased.......... 2................. $1,250,000................ Projected completion 2016. Need
176 acres 177 acres $3,500,000/200 acres
Project total over 6 years = 900
acres
9Great Lakes Northwoods MN/MI/WI. Superior, Ottawa, $1,745,000...... Phased.......... 4................. $1,400,000................ Multiple phases through 2020. Need
Chequamegon-Nicolet. 617 acres 241 acres $38,443,000/32,610 acres
9Grey Towers PA....... Grey Towers National $1,000,000...... Phased.......... .................. .......................... Projected completion 2016. Need
Historic Site. 21.5 acres additional $1,750,000/181 acres
Project total over 4 years = 202.5
acres
10Whitewater Bay, Admiralty AK....... Tongass................ $980,000........ Plan to complete .................. .......................... ...................................
NM 160 acres in fiscal year
2013.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Phasing lets the Agency divide a project into smaller portions to allow for portioned acquisition subject to annual appropriation limits.
\2\ The fiscal year 2014 planned acquisitions are based on the competitive LWCF prioritization process, but the amounts awarded to each project are subject to change based on
appropriations. Projects might also be added or removed based on urgency of a particular project and market factors subject to congressional reprogramming guidelines.
\3\ The fiscal year 2014 President's budget includes projects not displayed on this fiscal year 2013 list.
\4\ Fiscal year 2015 and beyond assumes the appropriation named in the fiscal year 2014 President's budget and are subject to future appropriations. Future phases may change due to
updated appraisal values and continued participation of willing sellers.
\5\ This is a Collaborative Landscape Planning (CLP) LWCF project.
Senator Reed. Do you have sort of a list of those projects
that are fully completed? You're indicating on your strategy,
because there's always--and again, this is a good thing.
There's always sort of a notion that, ``Well, we've really
consolidated a lot of territory around the national, and
there's just one or two more pieces that we could do, where
success leads to additional incentives.''
So it would be helpful, I think, to us to have a notion of,
you know, if there is finality in this process and also to look
closely at those high priority, because you're talking about
areas of the country where it is time sensitive. You could lose
the land to either public use--private use, rather, or many
other reasons if they're not immediately acquired. So we would
like that information if you could get it.
With that, let me recognize Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
INTEGRATED RESOURCE RESTORATION
Chief, I appreciate that you've clarified, I think, the
agency's position with the budget request for the integrated
resource restoration. I think it is important that we are able
to really look at some concrete results that demonstrate
improved performance, that really allow us to determine whether
or not this IRR proposal lowers the costs and achieves better
results on the ground.
So what I heard you say to the chairman was that you
appreciate the pilot program, you're going to continue with the
pilot. It's probably going to take several years before you can
get exactly that kind of evidence so that we as a subcommittee
can then weigh that and make a determination as to whether or
not it should be made permanent.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Senator Murkowski. So I appreciate that clarification.
Let me ask you a question on the LWCF. The plan calls for
partial mandatory funding for LWCF in fiscal year 2014, then
shifts to full mandatory funding of $900 million a year
beginning in fiscal year 2015. And then within your own
budget--that was the President's budget. Within your own budget
proposal, $59 million is included on the mandatory side for
LWCF in fiscal year 2014.
And I guess I'm looking at this and saying, we all have our
priorities most clearly here. I have questioned that at a time
where budgets are very, very tight, we would be purchasing more
land when we're not able to adequately care for, maintain,
provide the resources for what it is that we have. And then
discussions like we're having here this morning about fire
season that I think scares us all, and a recognition that we
simply won't have the resources that we need to deal with that,
have to move towards disaster funding.
So I guess it just begs the question here, when you move
something to mandatory funding, we're basically on autopilot.
And we are then in a situation where one program receives
somewhat preferential treatment. If you're on autopilot, it's
not subject to the same critical review, I think, that we go
through with all of these very important programs, whether it
is firefighting, whether it's dealing with hazardous fuels,
whether it's dealing with our timber harvest programs.
So I guess a very direct question is, Why does LWCF deserve
to be put on a higher plane, a higher priority than some of
these other very critical budget areas?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, the LWCF proposal for mandatory
funding is based on the Department of the Interior's proposals
to generate additional revenues to cover the cost of that. I
want to assure you that the only way this could be successful
is if there is adequate input and oversight from Congress and
from this committee so that it reflects the type of projects
you want to see go forward.
I want to reassure you it has to be part of this, to be
able to put a system in place so that you have the level of
input and oversight that's necessary to make sure that it is
successful.
Once again, it is driven by what we hear across this
country about the need to acquire these key parcels of land,
whether it's for the critical habitat that can assure that
we're able to recover species and be able to do more active
management, or those key access points to make sure that folks
can continue to access the National Forests and Grasslands, or
in key areas to be able to provide the conservation easements
so that a private landowner can keep working his land or her
land so that she can still be able to manage that land as an
active forest versus having to give it up to some form of
development.
That's what really is driving this. Like I said earlier,
when it comes to the acquisition, in every case that I've dealt
with during my career, by acquiring those key parcels it
actually reduces our overall administrative costs and gives us
more flexibility to be able to manage these landscapes.
Senator Murkowski. Well, you mentioned the role of the
committee in terms of determining that priority. I think that
oversight role is important. And I worry that we might lose
some aspect of that oversight with this expansion that we're
talking about.
TIMBER HARVEST
In my last minute, I'd like to bring up the question that
you know that I'm going to ask. I don't want to disappoint you
here. But this is relating to the timber harvest in the
Tongass.
I asked my staff to get the official agency timber harvest
for the last 10 years in the Tongass. The high-water mark was
2003. There were 51 million board-feet. We've gone downhill
since then to 21 million board-feet last year. We talk about
the situation every year.
What can you provide for me today in terms of assurances
that we're going to see the numbers improve within the Tongass?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, last year we sold, I think, right
around 50 million to 51 million, which is basically our 10-year
average of timber sold. Harvest has been less than that, based
mostly on market conditions. That's the way it is.
Senator Murkowski. When you say ``less,'' would you agree
that it was 21 million board-feet last year?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, as far as the harvest numbers, I'll have
to get back to you.
[The information follows:]
Timber Sales, Harvest, and Staffing in Region 10
The numbers shown between 1998 and 2008 are best estimates for
timber sale activity and staffing in Region 10.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timber Timber
Fiscal Year Number of Sold Harvested FTEs
Sales (MMBF) (MMBF)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998........................ 81 24 120 330
1999........................ 46 61 146 310
2000........................ 67 170 147 \1\ 300
2001........................ 40 50 48 280
2002........................ 58 24 34 240
2003........................ 35 36 51 230
2004........................ 54 87 46 200
2005........................ 70 65 50 180
2006........................ 63 85 43 158
2007........................ 41 30 19 130
2008........................ 48 5 28 120
2009........................ 181 23 28 110
2010........................ 146 46 36 107
2011........................ 38 37 33 107
2012........................ 159 53 21 107
-------------------------------------------
15-year average............. 75 53 57 186
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2000 marked the last harvest from the Long term
Contracts and the beginning of the Tongass ``unification'' effort
which converted three separate ``Areas,'' essentially separate
National Forest sized entities, into a single large forest
organization. (Three fully staffed organizations down to one.)
Source: Timber Cut and Sold Reports and Periodic Timber Sale
Accomplishment Report.
Senator Murkowski. That's what your agency says.
Mr. Tidwell. Okay. So based on the market we've seen across
the country our harvest levels have dropped, even though we've
been able to maintain or actually increase what we're selling.
That's how it works. The purchasers need to play the market as
to when they can move forward to be able to do that. Our
contract allows them the flexibility to decide what year to
move forward with the harvest.
But as far as reassurances, we're ready to move forward
with the Big Thorne project this year that will have a
significant amount of volume. And at the same time, we have
plans for the Wrangell project that will be coming up, I think
next year. Then the other part of this is that we're going to
move forward with our second growth, to be able to have that
second-growth transition.
I think it is our best chance to ensure that we have an
integrated wood products industry in Southeast Alaska, to be
able to provide the wood that's needed in the sawmills, and at
the same time be able to actually implement projects. It's one
of those things that I think, through a stewardship contract,
especially over a lengthy period like 10 years will provide
that certainty so that private entities can make the
investments in their mills. And that is the path forward.
So we're going to need your help in a couple of areas.
There's another issue I want to talk to you about in the
future. And that is if we could use the export values in our
appraisal process, that would also help us to be able to put
more of our timber, more sales, forward. And it's something
that I'd like to be able to sit down with you in the future and
discuss to see if we can get your support on that.
But I do believe that the sales that we have lined up, plus
our focus on moving forward with the transition to second
growth, is going to give us the best path forward to be able to
continue to build on a level of timber sales that we've been
putting up over the last couple of years.
Senator Murkowski. Well, Chief, you know that I am happy to
talk with you. I'm happy to work with you, because I'm trying
to keep some of these small Southeastern communities alive. And
the one thing that I can't do is, I can't make these trees grow
any faster.
And so when we talk about the transition, I've said it
before, I will repeat again in this committee, I worry that we
don't have our operators who are able to hold on until we can
transition to that second growth, that you have situations just
exactly as Senator Merkley has described in Oregon, where they
had the Rough & Ready go down a few weeks ago, and now they've
got another one going down. At some point in time, there is
nobody left to deal with this transition.
And so I've pressed you to know whether or not the agency
has a plan B, because I'm not sure that plan A, which is to
transition to second growth, is one that is viable in an area
where you have just 300 jobs remaining in the whole region. And
it's getting skinnier every day.
So, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired right now. But I do
think that this is something, again, we have this conversation
every single year. And we're just not seeing things improve in
the Tongass. So we've got to look at a different approach and
one that will hopefully deliver some results for these
communities.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Tester.
AIRTANKERS
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Real quickly, to
follow up on the contracted next-gen, just real quick just for
clarification purposes. My notes say that you said that these
planes, these contracted next-gen planes, will have FAA
clearance to fly as airtankers. They have that now?
Mr. Tidwell. It's my understanding that all except one
aircraft, I think, still needs FAA certification. But the other
aircraft have been used for other purposes, for passenger
planes or cargo planes in the past. So we expect to have the
FAA certifications.
But I can follow up with that, Senator.
[The information follows:]
Next Generation Large Air Tanker FAA Certification
Six of the seven next generation large airtankers proposed in the
intent to award are FAA approved with a FAA Type Certificate.
Senator Tester. Yes. Well, the question is, Do they have it
or do you expect that they will have it?
Mr. Tidwell. It's my understanding that these aircraft do
have it, except there is one that made a modification with the
airframe and they've been working on getting that
certification.
Senator Tester. Sure.
Mr. Tidwell. I can check on that.
Senator Tester. If you could check on it and get back to
us, that would be very much appreciated.
I want to talk a little bit about this C-27Js. The chairman
talked about it a little bit. You talked about it in your
statement. Could you give me an idea, is the transfer in
process of the seven C-27Js?
Mr. Tidwell. It's my understanding the Air Force is doing
the study to determine if these aircraft are surplus or not.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Mr. Tidwell. We're hoping that will be completed later this
year, hopefully by September. If they determine that they're
surplus, it's my understanding that seven of those aircraft
will be offered to the USFS.
Senator Tester. And what's the timeline for acceptance?
Mr. Tidwell. I think once they're offered, we will accept
them as quickly as we can and then move forward to make the
modifications on those aircraft so that they can be retardant
planes.
Senator Tester. Okay. Is there a system available, a
retardant delivery system available for that plane?
Mr. Tidwell. Not today. We are moving forward with our
current MAFFS units and to be able to create one that would fit
into the C-27J. We're working on the design of that. Then once
we have that design completed, we'd be able to quickly move
forward to have these units built.
Senator Tester. Okay. And not being a pilot myself, I would
assume that these planes would also have to be cleared by the
FAA to be tanker planes to fight fires?
Mr. Tidwell. These planes do meet all the airworthy
criteria, so it would be up to us to determine that they meet
our airworthiness standards and that they would be able to
deliver the mission. But based on the success we've had with
the C-130s, we expect the C-27Js will work just fine. They just
carry a smaller payload than the C-130s.
Senator Tester. Do you know what their payload is?
Mr. Tidwell. We anticipate that the payload would probably
be about 1,800 gallons. So these would be medium airtankers.
Senator Tester. The reason I ask that is because at one
point in time they were going to put C-27s at the Air National
Guard in Great Falls, Montana. And I don't know this for a
fact, but it seemed to me like their payload was 2,000 pounds.
But we can visit about that. We're not to a point where that
becomes an issue yet.
What about service and maintenance? Will that be contracted
out?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Tester. Do you anticipate there being issues there?
Mr. Tidwell. No. We expect that probably some of our
current operators would be glad to have a contract and be able
to maintain and operate those aircraft.
Senator Tester. Okay. And then you'd mentioned in a
previous question or maybe in your opening statement that you
thought it would be about $3 million per aircraft to adapt the
aircraft and place the delivery system in that aircraft. Is
that based off of--what's that based off of? Have you guys done
some studies on that, or what?
Mr. Tidwell. It's based on our past experience with
building MAFFS units. That's part of it. And then also
realizing that we'd have to spend some money in order to remove
some of the military equipment and, like I said earlier, some
of the armoring that's on these aircraft. It's not necessary
for our mission, and we would look at removing some of that
excess weight that wouldn't be necessary.
Senator Tester. Okay. Overall, by the time you get done,
let's just assume the military makes the transfer. You get
seven of these babies. Are you looking at a $21 million
expenditure to make the adaptation and have them up in the air?
Or have you done any projections on what it would cost to get
them up?
Mr. Tidwell. It will be probably be $21 million and maybe
$26 million is what it will take.
Senator Tester. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks for
that. Just curious to see where we're at.
COLLABORATION
Look, as a regional forester in Region 1, the most
important region, right? No, you don't have to answer that. You
did some great collaboration. You did some great collaboration.
And it really shows what can happen when you do collaboration
versus what happens when both sides dig in. Everybody loses,
including the forest.
And so are you looking to expand upon collaborative
projects? I mean, look. Senator Merkley talked about it. Both
the chairman and the ranking member talked about it. If we lose
the infrastructure that's out there because we don't have
predictable supply, then it all falls on the taxpayers, it all
falls on your budget. Is there some work being done
collaboratively in different regions of the country that we can
point to that say, ``Yes, we're making progress here,'' as far
as stopping the folks who don't want to cut one single tree?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator. Throughout the country, we've
had significant progress that's been made. The collaborative
forest landscape project is just one example. There is an
understanding and recognition across this country that there is
a need for us to manage these forests and to reduce not only
the hazardous fuels, but to make them more resistant, more
resilient to the changing climate they have to deal with.
So there is recognition, and we're seeing it almost
everywhere. We still have some issues in your State of Montana
where we've lost a little ground recently. But we're going to
keep working there to be able to show folks, this is the right
work that needs to be done at the right time.
Senator Tester. Well, not to put pressure on the ranking
member of this subcommittee, because she's the ranking member
of another very important committee. But if we can get her out,
maybe we can show her collaboration in Montana that does work.
Thank you, Chief.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
Just for the record, we will keep the record open until May
29. So you may get additional questions from my colleagues, and
additional statements could be provided. That's next Wednesday.
But I know Senator Murkowski has a request. And before I
adjourn, let me recognize Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very
briefly.
Chief, you have provided us with the timber offered over
the past 10 years in the Tongass and the Chugach; I appreciate
that. We'd also asked for the number of employees and the
breakdown between the Chugach and the Tongass so we have them,
those positions that are approved, those that are currently
filled.
Can your folks get us the breakdown then on the number of
jobs then within the Tongass that are focused on forest
management, just kind of give us that breakdown, if you will,
when you respond?
[The information follows:]
Tongass National Forest, Forest Management Staff
There are 112 positions in Forest Management in the Tongass
National Forest Supervisor's Office and Ranger Districts.
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, FOREST MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location/ Number of
Series Series Name Positions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supervisor's Office:
0460 Forester 9
0462 Forestry Technician 3
0807 Landscape Architect 3
1315 Geologist 2
0193 Archeologist 1
0401 Recreation 1
1101 NEPA Coordinator 2
1082 Writer/Editor 1
0408 Ecologist 3
1035 Public Affairs 1
0802 Engineering Tech 2
0810 Engineer/Transportation Planner 2
1315 Hydrologist 1
0482 Fish Biologist 1
0470 Soils 2
2210 GIS 5
0301 NEPA Planner 2
0486 Wildlife Biologist 1
Ranger District Offices:
0460 Forester 24
0462 Forestry Technician 17
0404 Fish Technician 2
0193 Archeologist 5
0401 Natural Resource 6
1101 Specialist (NEPA, IDT Leader) NEPA 2
Coordinator
1082 Writer/Editor 3
0408 Ecologist 1
1315 Hydrologist 2
0482 Fish Biologist 3
0470 Soils 1
0301 NEPA Planner 1
0486 Wildlife Biologist 3
--------------
Total Number of Positions 112
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Murkowski. And then in the Energy Committee, I had
mentioned the Anan Creek facility. And I think we're working on
a proposed solution for that. I understand that there's been
some engineering work that has advanced. So hopefully, when we
get you up to the State, we can see some good news there, as
well.
But I look forward to visiting with you a little bit more
and welcoming you north.
So, appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Reed. Thank you. There are no further questions.
Let me thank you, Chief, and thank you, Ms. Cooper, for your
testimony today. And we look forward to working with you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
forest and rangeland research
Question. What initiatives are you planning for next year that
account for the $15 million increase in Forest and Rangeland Research?
Answer. To be successful in our restoration efforts, Forest Service
Research and Development (R&D) will play a critical role. Our R&D
priorities are integral investments in science as a foundation for
restoration activities. One avenue that we will take is to accelerate
opportunities to develop new public/private partnerships to
commercialize nanocellulose technologies. This will revolutionize
technology, creating new jobs and revenues while simultaneously
restoring our forests, thus strengthening America's economy through
industrial development and expansion.
Forest Service R&D is investing in a Vibrant Cities program which
will direct research efforts in selected urban areas to provide new
information and tools to help in sustainability planning. Forest
Service R&D will accelerate its urban research program on urban forest
health and management, ecosystem services and values, watershed
rehabilitation, human health and experiences, green infrastructure, and
green building. This effort is aligned with the Vibrant Cities & Urban
Forests National Call to Action initiative.
We will also invest more in our Localized Needs Research Priority
Area, as directed by Congress in House Report 112-331, page 1080.
state and private forestry
Question. What do you hope to accomplish with the new, $20 million
Landscape Scale Restoration proposal?
Answer. The goal of the proposed Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR)
Program is to focus and prioritize State and Private Forestry (SPF)
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 is an evolution
of the successful SPF ``Redesign'' effort, formalizing a process
already in place by establishing a specific Budget Line Item (BLI),
rather than combining funds from specific BLIs. This will provide
increased flexibility for States to focus on the priorities identified
in their Forest Action Plans without the limitation of a predetermined
mix of programmatic funding. The work under this BLI will continue to
identify the greatest threats to forest sustainability and accomplish
meaningful change in priority landscapes. As a competitive grant
program, it will provide flexible opportunities to fund innovative
projects across boundaries that focus on States' priorities.
Question. How are States with predominately State or privately
owned forests but smaller ``landscape,'' such as Rhode Island, likely
to compete?
Answer. The increased focus on ``All Lands'' projects brings
particular attention to implementation of the priorities identified in
State Forest Action Plans, formerly called ``Statewide Assessments.''
Landscapes will be defined broadly in this competitive grant program,
focused on cross-boundary work between not only States and the Forest
Service, but between States, between States and private landowners,
between States and Tribes, etc. As such, States with large amounts of
State and private land, such as Rhode Island, are expected to compete
just as successfully as States with more Federal land. Over the past 5
years, Rhode Island has been successful in receiving project funding
through the competitive ``Redesign'' process, and it is expected that
success will continue under the LSR program, especially with Rhode
Island's record of bringing partners, such as universities and
nonprofits, into their competitive project process.
Question. Will this year's $7 million reduction in Urban Forestry
all go to Landscape Scale Restoration? Please detail the estimated
State allocations vis-a-vis fiscal year 2013.
Answer. The Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) program estimates
that State allocations in fiscal year 2014 will be largely the same as
in fiscal year 2013 and the U&CF program will continue to support
landscape scale restoration efforts. In recent years, the U&CF program
has contributed roughly 15 percent of fiscal net available dollars to
``Redesign'' projects, and similar levels are anticipated for future
landscape scale restoration projects that can include urban areas. Of
the total proposed reduction to the U&CF program, approximately $3.6
million is the estimated contribution to ``Redesign'' or what will
essentially be the LSR BLI. The U&CF program plans to make reductions
in areas such as national partnerships and initiatives (e.g. Urban
Waters Federal Partnership) to maintain the U&CF community assistance
activities carried out primarily through State forestry agencies with
the State allocations.
national forest system
integrated resource restoration
Question. Please outline the findings for the first year of the
Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) pilot and what improvements you
are making this year with that knowledge.
Answer. The pilot regions reported several advantages of the IRR
program:
--Increased flexibility to fund multiple priorities, integrate
planning efforts, leverage IRR funds to support Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration projects, and to achieve priority
integrated restoration work.
--Increased coordination across program areas and increased
integrated planning.
--Implementing high-priority projects is easier without multiple
budget line items because it provides more flexibility.
--Focused investments in landscape-level projects allowed restoration
actions to be funded in a single year that would otherwise be
piecemealed over many years.
--The focused, integrated effort made setting goals and priorities
easier.
Regions also identified challenges with the IRR program, including:
--The Forest Service manages a number of programs that may not
directly contribute to restoration activities in IRR under the
previous separate programs, presenting challenges in how we
manage these base programs and how they fit in the context of a
restoration program.
--Not all restoration priorities will align with traditional targets
as allocated from previous years with IRR authority.
--The consolidated nature of IRR does not lend itself easily to
breaking out the cost of specific restoration activities to
estimate trends in unit costs.
We are addressing the challenges going into fiscal year 2014
through improved program direction and continuing communication between
the Washington office and the three regions under the pilot authority.
An agreement was entered into with Colorado State University and
the University of Oregon to accomplish third-party monitoring and
evaluate the effectiveness of the IRR program. Surveys will be
conducted with key Forest Service individuals at all levels and case
studies will be evaluated within the pilot regions. Findings from these
activities will ultimately help the Agency better manage the program.
Question. Why does the budget propose full implementation in fiscal
year 2014, when the pilot project has not concluded?
Answer. The IRR pilot regions met or exceeded allocated targets in
all areas except for timber volume sold, which was 82 percent of the
target volume. Factors unrelated to IRR caused this shortfall, such as
litigation on projects with significant portions of acres to be
treated, no bids received on timber sales, and impacts from a demanding
fire season. The IRR pilot authority has provided a valuable learning
opportunity for the Agency. The flexibility provided by IRR facilitates
focused investments on expediting the completion of on landscape-level
restoration projects that would otherwise be split over the course of
many years. It allows the Agency to leverage funds across multiple
programs to increase efficiency in planning and in achieving
restoration outcomes. The flexibility given to Line Officers and
program managers has proven beneficial in helping with prioritizing
restoration treatments. To fully realize the flexibility created
through IRR, it must be expanded to a full Agency-wide authority. In
doing so, the Agency can focus resources on integrated ecosystem
restoration across the country.
The Forest Service will continue to monitor and report the
performance results from the three regions under the IRR pilot
authority to demonstrate the advantages of the program.
restoration partnerships
Question. What is the split between grants and ``partnership
development'' in the $10 million proposed for Restoration Partnerships?
Answer. This new authority is not a grant program. We propose a new
$10 million program to create and build partnerships for improving
municipal and beneficial-use watersheds, reduce risks from wildfire to
public utilities and infrastructure, and reduce biomass to sustain
landscape fuel reduction and watershed investments. All of the funding
would be used to support on the ground partnership work, a portion of
which will fund staff work for those projects at a rate to be
determined by the specific projects selected. Within Restoration
Partnerships, funding will be allocated to a cost-share program and to
partnership development with municipalities, public utilities, and
other organizations. Partnership development will enable regions and
forests to act on innovative partner supported ideas, with diverse
partners including nongovernmental entities, municipal partners, and a
variety of public service utilities.
Question. What match will be required from non-Federal partners?
Answer. There is no required match in Restoration Partnerships, but
our target for fiscal year 2014 is to leverage $11 million in partner
funding for the $10 million in requested Federal funding. In fiscal
year 2012, the Forest Service entered into more than 7,700 grants and
agreements with partners, who contributed $535 million, which was
leveraged by nearly $779 million in Forest Service funding. However,
Restoration Partnerships emphasizes the critical role of non-Forest
Service resources across projects diverse in scope and duration. The
Restoration Partnerships program will enable regions and forests to
work with diverse partners to implement innovative projects that will
expand the success of smaller scale projects to much larger landscapes.
They will grow the circle of partners to include an increased number
and broader array of municipal, utility, and nongovernmental
organization partners. We will track the total value of resources,
expressed as a ratio, leveraged through partnerships with States and
other partners to assess performance in this newly proposed program.
Question. Do you anticipate National Forests in the East to
participate?
Answer. Yes, all Forest Service regions will be able to respond
affirmatively to partner sponsored projects to protect critical
infrastructure such as electrical transmission lines, by reducing
accumulated fuels, implementing municipal watershed restoration, and
protecting and enhancing water quality and quantity.
administrative grazing fee
Question. What percentage of the Forest Service's Grazing program
costs will the new $1 administrative fee cover?
Answer. We estimate that the proposed $1 fee would generate
approximately $5 million per year, approximately 6.2 percent of the
grazing program costs in fiscal year 2012. The total grazing program
costs in fiscal year 2012 were $80.9 million, with $55.4 million
covered by the Grazing Management BLI, $2.3 million from the Range
Betterment Fund, and the remaining $23.2 million coming from Vegetation
& Watershed Management and Integrated Resource Restoration BLIs.
Question. How much will this $1 fee add to the total cost per
animal?
Answer. Changes in the total cost per animal with an added $1 fee
per head month are shown below (Western States National Forest).
On average (based on the Agency's 2012 Grazing Statistical Report
authorized use data):
--This additional $1 fee would add $1 per cow/horse per month.
Combined with the current fees, ($1.35 per head month for
cattle), this would make the total cost $2.35 per cow per
month.
--This additional $1 fee would add $.20 per sheep per month (one-
fifth of a head month). Combined with the current fees ($.27
per sheep per month), this would make the total cost $.47 per
sheep per month.
Question. What are the comparisons for Forest Service fees to State
and private lands?
Answer. The grazing fee for the Forest Service and the Bureau of
Land Management are identical in the western States. The National
Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) provides both agencies three
indices that are used in the fee calculation formula. This amount is
restricted to plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year's fee. The
regulations also established a minimum fee of $1.35.
The NASS calculates the average private grazing land lease rate per
animal unit month (AUM) by State, which can be found on the following
website: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/
Economics_and_Prices/index.asp.
These values are shown below. For comparison, the Forest Service
cattle grazing in Western States fee is $1.35 per head month (HM) for
2013. There are adjustment factors for type (species) of animal.
The Western States vary considerably in the fees charged for
grazing on State lands and the methods used to set those fees. The GAO
report titled ``Livestock Grazing, Federal Expenditures and Receipts
Vary, Depending on the Agency and the Purpose of the Fee Charged,
2005'' provides the last data on State land grazing fees. Generally,
States charge a fee per AUM. In fiscal year 2004, the Western States
charged grazing fees ranging from a low of $1.35 per AUM for some lands
in California to $80 per AUM in parts of Montana.
Below is a comparison of grazing fees on National Forest System
lands, State managed lands, and privately owned lands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference
$/AUM NFS & Difference
Western Average $/ Private Average $/ NFS & State
State States AUM Private lands AUM State lands
National Land grazing Land grazing
Forest fees fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ............................................. 1.35 9.00 7.65 2.23 0.88
CA............................................. 1.35 17.30 15.95 1.35-12.50 0.00-11.15
CO............................................. 1.35 15.30 13.95 6.65-8.91 5.30-7.56
ID............................................. 1.35 14.50 13.15 5.15 3.80
MT............................................. 1.35 19.40 18.05 5.48-80.00 4.13-78.65
ND............................................. 1.35 18.00 16.65 1.73-19.69 0.38-18.34
NE............................................. 1.35 27.30 25.95 16.00-28.00 14.65-26.65
NM............................................. 1.35 13.00 11.65 0.17-10.15 -1.18-8.80
NV............................................. 1.35 13.00 11.65 N/A N/A
OK............................................. 1.35 11.00 9.65 7.00-16.00 5.56-14.65
OR............................................. 1.35 14.80 13.45 4.32 2.97
SD............................................. 1.35 24.20 22.85 3.00-56.00 1.65-54.65
UT............................................. 1.35 13.20 11.85 1.43 or 0.08 or
2.35 1.00
WA............................................. 1.35 12.00 10.65 5.41 or 4.06 or
7.76 6.41
WY............................................. 1.35 17.60 16.25 4.13 2.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUM = Animal Unit Month = Head Month.
land acquisition
Question. The first project on the Forest Service Land Acquisition
list is $31 million. Why does the budget place such a high funding
priority on one project in fiscal year 2014? Is $31 million all that is
required to complete the project?
Answer. This request is part of the multi-Agency, public-private
``Montana Legacy'' collaborative. These investments directly fulfill
the intent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Collaborative
Landscape Planning Initiative and address the requests of members of
Congress and our private partners for a portion of Federal land
acquisition to invest in the most ecologically important landscapes and
in projects with clear strategies for reaching shared goals grounded in
science-based planning. Through Collaborative LWCF, the Forest Service
and the Department of the Interior bureaus jointly direct funds to
projects that will achieve the highest return on Federal investments,
and coordinate land acquisition planning with Government and local
community partners.
In this Montana Legacy project, this collaborative land acquisition
effort leverages millions in private investments such as a 110,000-acre
donation to the Flathead and Lolo National Forests by the Nature
Conservancy in 2010 and is resulting in the consolidation of tens of
thousands of acres of the highest quality wildlife habitat and working
lands in the northern Rockies. Eliminating the historic
``checkerboard'' lands will allow us to move toward completion and
protection of this globally important ecosystem by 2015 instead of
attempting it piecemeal over the next 10 or 20 years during which time
parcels would be developed and lost, and it will result in improved
management, reduced administrative costs and increased recreational
opportunities.
Question. What should we expect from this Collaborative Landscape
Planning program long-term? Will the same landscapes continue to be in
the budget until they are completed, or will we see different focus
areas next year?
Answer. In an era of constrained budgets, it is more important than
ever that conservation investments deliver measurable returns, and rely
on best available science and strong partnerships to target investments
to critical needs. The administration's intention is for the Forest
Service to continue to participate in the Collaborative Landscape
Planning (CLP) program. The collaborative approach is successful
because it allows LWCF funds to leverage other Federal resources, along
with those of non-Federal partners, to achieve the most important
shared conservation outcomes in the highest priority landscapes. An
important objective of this program is to stabilize large landscapes in
a short timeframe before they can be further fragmented and become more
expensive if not impossible to protect. At the same time, the Forest
Service recognizes the valuable role of protecting individual tracts of
land with other LWCF components including Forest Legacy, and
collaborative LWCF is not intended to replace the role of those
programs in meeting individual conservation objectives.
Collaborative LWCF enables the Forest Service to continue its long
held focus on conserving large-scale landscapes that provide multiple
resource and economic benefits to the public including cleaner drinking
water, increased recreational opportunities, improved and protected
habitat for at-risk and game species, and a greater number of jobs
generated on and off these lands. This approach also produces direct
long-term benefits for the taxpayer by simplifying land management,
creating public access, reducing operating and maintenance costs,
reducing boundary conflicts, and protecting areas from urgent threats
like wildfire and invasive species. Throughout this process, the Forest
Service will continue to use its rigorous merit-based evaluation
process to prioritize projects for funding for Forest Legacy, core and
the multi-Agency CLP LWCF programs.
The investments needed in any particular collaborative landscape
will be unique to that landscape's needs and resources. As part of the
application process, landscape proponents are requested to identify
future acquisition needs; to date, most projects are designed to take 2
to 3 years to complete, whether in the core competition or the CLP.
Question. For the Crown of the Continent, Longleaf Pine, and Desert
Southwest Collaborative Landscapes, please provide a list of Forest
Service projects within those Landscapes, designating completed and
incomplete projects.
Answer. None of the Collaborative Landscapes are complete because
only 1 year of funding has been disbursed. They are conceived as 2- to
3-year projects. Fiscal year 2013 is the first year of the
Collaborative Landscape Planning Program. The first round of
Collaborative Landscape Projects were selected in 2012, and announced
in the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request. The Crown of
the Continent and Longleaf Pine projects areas were initiated in 2013.
The Crown of the Continent initially included two sub-landscapes, which
were the Montana Legacy Completion project and the Greater Yellowstone
project. In 2014, these two projects were de-coupled and only the
Montana Legacy Completion project received a funding recommendation.
The Greater Yellowstone project will compete again in the fiscal year
2015 process.
The Desert Southwest Landscape was not proposed until fiscal year
2014. The Desert Southwest Collaborative is in the President's budget
request to Congress for fiscal year 2014 for the first time therefore
it is also not complete, as the fiscal year 2014 appropriations are not
finalized.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2014
Fiscal Year 2013: FS President's
Funded Budget Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crown of the Continent:
Montana Legacy: Lolo/ $12,400,000 $31,000,000
Flathead NF.
Greater Yellowstone Area: 3,200,000 Proposed for
Bridger-Teton/Caribou- $2,000,000 by
Targhee. Forest Service,
but not a CLP
project.
Longleaf Pine Collaborative:
Florida/Georgia Longleaf 5,300,000 Not included in
Initiative: Osceola NF. CLP.
South Carolina Longleaf \1\ 1,000,000 $6,700,000
Partnership: Francis Marion
NF.
Desert Southwest:
California Desert 10,390,000 $10,390,000
Southwest: San
Bernardino NF, Santa
Rosa & San Jacinto NM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Core LWCF funding.
wildland fire management
Question. Do you agree that the ability to provide emergency
firefighting funds is critical? Will you support efforts to provide an
emergency or disaster designation for funds appropriated to pay for
emergency firefighting needs?
Answer. In the past few years, fire seasons have become longer and
more intense with historical fires in several Western States. Funding
the rolling 10-year average with both the FLAME and Suppression funds
is insufficient in some years which results in detrimental transfers.
In addition, continued growth of the 10-year average adds increasing
pressure on already tight discretionary funding. We would like to work
with the committee to explore long-term solutions to this problem.
Question. How does fire borrowing negatively impact your other
programs, even if Congress does provide a partial or full repayment at
a later date?
Answer. When funding is transferred from other programs to support
fire suppression operations, these programs are impacted because they
are unable to accomplish priority work and achieve the overall mission
of the Agency. Often this priority work mitigates wildland fire hazard
in future years. The ability of programs to achieve established targets
is impacted and projects are often put on hold or canceled. This not
only impacts the ability of the Agency to fulfill its mission
responsibilities, but is an inefficient use of taxpayer resources. A
significant amount of money can be wasted if all of the pre-work for a
contract has been completed and then it is canceled due to transfers.
In addition, transfers negatively impact local businesses and
economies, costing people jobs and income because projects are delayed
or canceled. Examples of deferred or canceled activities include
contracts not awarded for various priority restoration projects, such
as our Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration projects, and ceased
activity for land acquisition.
Question. The budget request recounts the accomplishments and
benefits of programs that assist in reducing the incidence of
catastrophic fire, yet these programs are proposed for decreases in
fiscal year 2014 (hazardous fuels reduction, State and volunteer fire
assistance, forest health management of pests and disease, and fire
science). Aren't these reductions counter-productive to forest health
and the Forest Service's stated goals of restoration, jobs and managing
wildfires?
Answer. The budget reductions will result in lower targets and
lower accomplishments. However, in times of reduced budgets,
prioritization becomes even more important. Firefighter and public
safety will remain our number one priority during the 2014 fire season.
The Forest Service will continue to prioritize work to accomplish the
most important projects in all of our programs. Specifically, the
highest priority projects are focused where the threat is high, we can
make a difference, and we have community partners.
Question. How much of the $116 million decrease in Hazardous Fuels
is transferred to the Integrated Resource proposal?
Answer. The fiscal year 2014 President's budget proposes
$201,228,000 for Hazardous Fuels, which reflects a funding decrease of
$115,848,000 from fiscal year 2013 including--a shift of $76 million to
IRR. Funds that may have been spent on hazardous fuels reduction
outside the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) in previous years will now
be part of IRR to support integrated restoration of National Forest
System lands. We will continue to focus on the highest priority areas
in the WUI to protect communities and create defensible space for
firefighters to work in.
Question. With such a dramatic decrease for Hazardous Fuels within
Wildland Fire, how are you planning to set priorities for where work is
performed?
Answer. The Forest Service 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 developed by the Forest Service (the Hazardous
Fuels Priority Allocation System, or HFPAS) to assist in making
allocation decisions, rather than relying primarily on historical
funding patterns and professional judgment. HFPAS uses data from
various sources and considers wildfire potential, negative consequences
of wildfire, program performance with prior years' 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. The Forest Service also directs its
regional offices to use a similar process and finer scale information.
Additionally, we have directed the regions and field units to focus on
projects where the threat is high, we can make a difference, and we
have community partners.
Question. In your testimony, you disclose that almost half of the
Forest Service budget is dedicated to fire-related activities. What
solutions are you pursuing to make firefighting cost less? How do we
tackle this problem so that Fire doesn't overtake other Forest Service
functions and priorities?
Answer. We have made significant strides in implementing risk
management for fire suppression efforts, to ensure we have an
appropriate, risk informed, and effective response to all fires. Cost
is one outcome of our decisions. By utilizing risk management
techniques we are successful in having positive financial outcomes on
our suppression operations. Based on analysis performed by Forest
Service researchers, in fiscal year 2012, we spent nearly $377 million
less than we would have in previous years, had they had similar fire
seasons, due to applying risk management principles.
Question. Sequestration will reduce your firefighting assets by at
least 100 fire engines and 500 fire crew members. Are those figures
still correct and what are the consequences for fighting fire this
year?
Answer. Yes, we anticipate reductions at approximately this level
(although the engines may be subject to a reduction of 50-100).
However, we will ensure that there are adequate resources available to
meet the demands of fire activity through the use of contracted assets
as well as by managing the levels and location of seasonal employees
available nationally.
Question. We currently use a 10-year average of suppression costs
to predict the funding necessary for the next fiscal year. The fact
that we have spent more than the 10-year average in 9 of the last 10
years, it is evident that this model is not reliable. Are you working
on a different model, and what are the options?
Answer. We have only overspent the 10-year average in 7 of the last
10 years. Fire costs are dependent on several factors, primarily
weather, that are extremely difficult to predict 2 years out, as is
necessary to meet budget formulation timelines. We have explored
several methods, including multi-equation regression models that
include weather and climate data, to more accurately predict future
costs and fire activity and have had some success. We will continue to
work to develop these methodologies and would like to work with the
committee to explore other options.
fire aviation
Question. Last year's budget included $24 million to pay for
increases in tanker contract costs for the Next Gen aircraft. The
President's budget request for fiscal year 2014 has an additional $50
million, but there is not a total specified in the budget for aviation.
What is the total amount you are proposing to spend, in both
Preparedness and Suppression, on firefighting aviation?
Answer. Total aviation expenditures are hard to predict given that
a large portion of our costs are associated with actual flight hours
for flying suppression operations. We do expect to spend between $160
million and $200 million on fixed availability costs for all aviation
assets (this includes not only large airtankers, but other assets like
helicopters and water scoopers) from the preparedness account. In
addition, on average, we spend $150 million to $200 million on flight
costs, which are paid from suppression. The additional funding will
support the contract acquisition costs of the continued phasing in of
modernized aircraft.
Question. Are we going to see similar increases every year for this
activity due to the increasing number of aircraft? What are the
estimates of how much additional funding new aircraft will cost in
future years?
Answer. As we continue to modernize our airtanker fleet, we will
evaluate the needs for fiscal year 2015 and beyond to determine if we
will continue to ask for specific increased funding for this purpose,
weighing our other funding needs within the Agency.
Question. Congress has given you the opportunity to obtain 7 C-
27Js. If you do receive them, they will not be immediately ready as
tankers. What are you able to do now to prepare for the transfer?
Answer. A working group, made up of the following Aviation staff
groups, Operations, Business Operations, Airworthiness, Pilot
Standardization, and Strategic Planning--as well as Budget and Planning
and Acquisition Management--has been formed within the Agency to
facilitate the transfer, ownership, and eventual operation of these
aircraft. Solicitations are being prepared for the design and
manufacture of a retardant delivery system, maintenance services, and
pilot services. The Forest Service is also working with the U.S. Army
Prototype Integration Facility to assist us with the design of the
retardant delivery system. The Forest Service is currently in
discussions with the Department of Defense regarding the divesture of
the C-27Js. The Forest Service has also intensified interaction and
coordination with potential inter-Agency partners to ensure contracts
and other logistical requirements will be in place as soon as possible
after receiving the aircraft.
Question. Do you have an estimate of how long it would take to
convert the C-27Js to tankers after a transfer?
Answer. The Forest Service estimates it may take up to 18 months
from the award of the retardant delivery system contract to complete
the design, manufacture and testing. The retardant delivery system is
the most complicated of the conversion tasks, because it involves
engineering analysis, design and airworthiness, and engineering
approval of the aircraft after modifications required to accept the
delivery system and the actual installation of the delivery system have
occurred.
Question. What assurances can you provide that these C-27J aircraft
will actually perform as well as other firefighting aircraft?
Answer. The C-27J was designed for combat purposes, which are a
similar flight environment to the wildland firefighting airtanker
mission. It has a demonstrated ability to meet Agency and Federal
Aviation Administration airworthiness and safety requirements. The C-
27J is a multi-role aircraft capable of operating as an airtanker, as
well as performing other missions such as firefighter transport,
smokejumper deployment, and cargo delivery.
Question. If you acquire the C-27Js, the Forest Service must
maintain ownership of these aircraft, which is not your current model.
What type of contract do you plan to use, and how much will the C-27Js
cost to operate?
Answer. The Forest Service would retain ownership when the aircraft
are transferred. The only contracts would be for pilot and maintenance
services from private industry. We are still analyzing the potential
operating costs.
Question. How do you propose to pay for the C-27Js, taking into
account the continuing costs of the Legacy and Next Generation
contracts?
Answer. The Forest Service would pay for C-27Js within our
requested budget by implementing programmatic efficiencies and
identifying firefighter resource allocation changes and reduction that
will decrease our costs and maintain our operational capability.
Programmatic efficiencies include implementation of optimized
dispatching analysis, streamlining of our IT investments through the
Wildland Fire IT initiative, and a decrease in programmatic overhead
costs.
Question. The Air Tanker Modernization Strategy called for 18 to 28
large airtankers with at least a 3,000-gallon capacity, which is not
possible for the C-27Js. Does that mean that you also plan to pursue
other contract aircraft that meet the requirements set in your
modernization strategy?
Answer. The C-27Js would be considered medium airtankers, but would
meet most of the other requirements to be considered a Next Generation
Airtanker. In effect, two C-27Js would equal one large airtanker
referenced in the Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy. We will
continue to contract for airtankers from private industry. Seven
contracts have been awarded for the Next Generation Large Airtanker
services which will continue this model, providing aircraft that fit
within the Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy.
community wildfire protection plans
Question. You also stated in your testimony that there are now
70,000 communities across the country at risk due to forest fires, but
only 15,000 of those communities have wildfire protection plans. What
incentives does this budget propose to improve that statistic?
Answer. The Forest Service prioritizes treatments identified in a
Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPPs) or equivalent plan and works
in close coordination with communities at risk in the Wildland Urban
Interface. This includes providing funding for development of CWPPs and
providing technical assistance directly to communities when they are
undergoing preparation of a CWPP. However, there is no requirement for
communities, counties or States to develop CWPPs.
Question. Why aren't more communities working on Fire Plans?
Answer. Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) are most
prevalent in the western United States, where significant portions of
counties are covered by Forest Service or Department of the Interior
lands. The eastern and southern portions of the country, however, often
use tools other than a CWPP to prepare for wildland fire (and other
hazards) and to identify priority acres for treatment. A CWPP may not
be the right tool in communities that are not close in proximity to
Federal lands or in communities focused more broadly on multiple types
of hazards, such as hurricanes.
Question. Other than the clear risk of fire, are there consequences
for communities that do not want to create Fire Plans?
Answer. Community Wildfire Protection Plans are an important tool
in helping communities prepare for wildland fire. The Forest Service
prioritizes treatments identified in a CWPP or equivalent plan and
works in close coordination with communities at risk in the Wildland
Urban Interface (WUI). This coordinates with funding for the
development of CWPPs and providing technical assistance directly to
communities while they prepare a CWPP. However, there is no requirement
for communities, counties or States to develop CWPPs. Therefore, not
all National Forest System lands in the WUI are identified in a CWPP.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
Question. Within the next 2 weeks, Chief Tidwell will decide
whether or not to override the next-generation large airtanker contract
intent to award protest. Can you provide a status update?
Answer. On June 7, 2013, Neptune withdrew their protest. The Forest
Service moved forward to award the remaining four line items in the
next-generation large airtanker contract that same day.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
Question. Chief, as you know my State of New Mexico has experienced
devastating wildfires the past 2 years, and we are now in our third
year of extreme drought. I am concerned that the President's fiscal
year 2014 budget request has a substantial reduction for the hazardous
fuels program.
I realize that a direct budget comparison for your requested
funding for hazardous fuels is complicated by the budget restructuring
you request for the ``Integrated Resources Restoration'' (IRR)
activity, but I understand that your request is about a 20 percent
reduction from the current fiscal year 2013 level. (That assumes your
hazardous fuels program budget of $300 million for the current year,
after the sequestration, and a request for fiscal year 2014 of $201
million, plus perhaps $40 million or so within the Integrated Resources
Restoration account for hazardous fuels type projects.)
What do you expect the impacts to be if this reduction in hazardous
fuels funding are maintained?
Answer. This reduction is just one of many difficult tradeoffs that
had to be made, while fulfilling our commitment to request funding for
the 10-year average for suppression funding.
The reduction in fuels funding will result in fewer acres of
hazardous fuels treated, but still allows us to treat 685,000 of the
highest priority acres each year. We will continue to focus on the
highest priority areas in the WUI to protect communities and create
defensible space for firefighters to work in. Funds that may have been
spent outside the WUI in previous years will now be part of IRR to
support integrated restoration of National Forest System lands.
Question. Will this reduction in funding for dealing with Hazardous
Fuels make communities more at risk?
Answer. Firefighter and public safety will remain our number one
priority. The Forest Service will continue to prioritize our work to
accomplish the most important hazardous fuels projects. The highest
priority projects are focused where the threat is high, where we can
make a difference, and where we have community partners.
Scientific analysis and our monitoring have shown a strong
correlation between hazardous fuel treatments and reduced wildfire
behavior when a wildfire burns through a treated area. The treatments
are also beneficial to fire suppression forces. We know these outcomes
reduce risk to communities. However, because of the random nature of
wildfires it is impossible to quantify the impacts of this reduction in
terms of hypothetical increased risk or potentially less effective
wildfire suppression.
Question. Chief Tidwell, it is my understanding that the
President's fiscal year 2014 budget removes the Valles Caldera National
Preserve line item, but that the Service intends to fund the Preserve
through other Budget Line Items. The Valles Caldera National Preserve
is very important to New Mexicans and we are very concerned that the
Preserve continues to be well managed.
What kind of assurance can you give folks in my State that the
elimination of this line Item would NOT impact the continued funding of
the preserve?
Answer. While the fiscal year 2014 President's budget does not
propose a separate funding level for management of the Valles Caldera
National Preserve, the Forest Service will continue to fund the Valles
Caldera National Preserve through a variety of budget lines that are
directly relevant to the work being completed. These fiscal year 2014
funds would support the integrated program management objectives of the
Preserve.
The Preserve could expect to receive funding from the relevant
budget line items (BLI) in the range of its historic appropriations
under the former BLI, which would be approximately $3 million at the
fiscal year 2014 President's budget level.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
cube cove acquisition
Question. This is in regards to continuing discussions regarding
the Forest Service's potential acquisition of Shee Atika Incorporated's
lands at Cube Cove on Admiralty Island. While it is my understanding
there has been no final response, I have been told that the Forest
Service staff has stated an intention to deny Shee Atika request for a
``mutually agreeable'' appraiser. Shee Atika believes that such a
process is allowed by Forest Service Regulations.
What is the status of this request?
Answer. The Forest Service has looked further into completing an
appraisal for the Cube Cove lands on Admiralty Island that could meet
Government requirements that might be agreeable to Shee Atika. In our
May 3, 2013 response to them, we indicated that under the Federal
Acquisition Regulations (FAR), activities related to the development of
contract requirements and the source selection process for a Federal
Government contract are inherently governmental and may only be
performed by Federal employees.
Question. How does the Forest Service intend to move forward with
Shee Atika in a manner that protects the value and promise to Shee
Atika of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, while also protecting
the interests of the Forest Service?
Answer. Since Shee Atika has expressed desire to have an active
participatory role in the selection of the appraisal firm, the Forest
Service has offered to appoint someone acceptable to Shee Atika to be a
temporary, uncompensated ``special Government employee'' (SGE). The SGE
would have access to contractor and source selection information and
could participate in the evaluation and source selection process to the
extent permitted by the Forest Service. The Forest Service will need a
willing seller letter from Shee Atika prior to moving ahead with the
contract acquisition process for the appraisal.
Shee Atika wrote Chief Tidwell on May 10, 2013 respectfully
requesting a meeting with him as soon as possible to further discuss
the appraisal process. This meeting has not yet been scheduled. The
Forest Service is also evaluating the mineral potential of the area to
assess the risks of acquiring a split estate (surface only).
air tour operations
Question. I am hearing a great deal from my constituents in
Ketchikan that the Forest Service's reduction of permit allocations in
Misty Fjords National Monument and Traitors Cove in the Tongass will
push air taxi businesses to the brink of financial collapse. As you
know, tourism is becoming the predominant industry in Ketchikan, and
your own budget puts a greater emphasis on the importance of outdoor
recreation on our national forests to the national and local economies.
The monument is accessible only by water and air, so any reductions to
air permit allocations directly limits visitor access and the tourism
dollars it generates. There is little evidence that the monument is
threatened by visitor overuse. One air taxi company has seen its
permits cut from 300 to 165; another from 1,600 to 1,191; and another
from 500 to 298. These are real businesses providing jobs for real
people. I don't know of many operators that can survive with a 45
percent cut to their business.
What are the other ``uses'' that the USFS is concerned that the air
tour operators are negatively impacting?
Answer. We are concerned about the effects of motorized floatplane
traffic on the wilderness character of Misty Fjords National Monument,
the impacts of outfitters and guides on wildlife resources in the area,
and conflicts between guided visitors and unguided public recreational
use of the area.
In January 2012, the Ketchikan-Misty Fjords Outfitter and Guide
Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record
of Decision (ROD) were completed which reduce commercial visitor use in
the Misty Core Lakes. This decision established seasonal visitor
capacities and outfitter and guide allocations for 28 Recreation Use
Areas on the District. There is a perception that the decision reduced
commercial visitor use at the Margaret Creek Wildlife Observation Site
at Traitors Cove but this is not the case.
--The Ketchikan-Misty Fjords Outfitter and Guide (O/G) Management
Plan EIS and ROD reduced commercial visitor use in the Misty
Core Lakes area of the Misty Fjords National Monument
Wilderness by about 27 percent.
--Contrary to public perception, the ROD allows for a 49 percent
increase in
O/G use at the Margaret Creek Wildlife Observation Site in
Traitors Cove.
Question. What steps can be taken to help mitigate the current
situation?
Answer. Due to concerns that limiting the amount and location of
outfitter and guide use may not adequately provide for industry
stability and growth, the Record of Decision for the Ketchikan-Misty
Fjords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan allocated 53,997 service
days annually to outfitters and guides. The highest actual use reported
by outfitters and guides between 2005 and 2009 was 24,245 service days.
Thus, the decision allows outfitter and guide use across the Ketchikan-
Misty Fjords District to increase over 100 percent from the reported
highest use levels.
The Forest Service also met with commercial air service providers
on May 6, 2013 in Ketchikan, Alaska, to discuss the issues you have
raised, to explain what was in the actual decision, and to discuss the
new permit allocations. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Forest
Service committed to meet again with the air service providers at the
end of the season to review actual use versus permitted use. The
Ketchikan-Misty Outfitter and Guide Management Plan include an adaptive
management strategy to allow changes to be made if experience shows
they are needed.
Accordingly, by doubling the outfitter guide use across the
District, and by incorporating a flexible adaptive management strategy
to incorporate changes as needed in the future, the Ketchikan-Misty
Fjords Outfitter and Guide Management Plan will facilitate growth of
the industry while maintaining quality visitor experiences.
Question. How many non-air visits are made to Misty Fjords each
year?
Answer. The Forest Service does not have reliable information about
unguided visitor use numbers for Misty Fjords. Most unguided visitors
access Misty Fjords National Monument Wilderness via motorized boat or
sea kayak. Many of these visits are by local residents via privately
owned boats. There is no practical way to know how many such visits are
made.
Question. Is the USFS concerned that a number of these businesses
will be put out of business if the current allocation numbers hold?
What suggestions do you have, Chief, to help me resolve these
disagreements?
Answer. The Forest Service has always been concerned about the
economic health of rural communities throughout Southeast Alaska. The
Alaska Region has made significant investment in a wide variety of
resource areas to expand business opportunities across the Tongass. In
this particular case, the Tongass National Forest limited the amount of
outfitter guide use in one area to maintain its Wilderness character
and quality visitor experiences, while allowing for growth in other
areas of the Ketchikan Misty Ranger District.
timber budget nationally
Question. I, along with 12 of my colleagues, signed a bipartisan
letter on May 2 to the President asking him to reconsider the reduction
of national timber targets by 15 percent.
I understand that you are working with tight budgets, but can you
explain to me why you reduced the timber targets so drastically when
just last year you testified about the need to ramp up to 3 billion
board feet as part of the agency's restoration strategy?
Answer. Continuing to increase the Agency's targets is challenging
and will be slowed during the effort to reduce Federal deficits and the
national debt. Based on the Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR)
funding level proposed in the fiscal year 2014 President's budget, the
expected output is approximately 2.38 billion board feet of timber
volume sold. This budget request provides for continued strategic
investments in the highest priority activities while also constraining
spending in other activities to contribute to budget savings at the
national level.
Approximately 51 percent of the funding for forest products is
directed at preparing, offering, and selling new sales which is the
basis for the output of timber volume sold. The remaining funding pays
for administering the harvest of timber sales already under contract
and handling ``walk-in'' business from citizens for firewood permits
and special forest products. The Agency is contractually obligated to
administer existing contracts and will continue to provide personal use
permits for firewood and other special forest products. Thus, a 5
percent reduction in the total forest products program is actually a 10
percent reduction in funding available to prepare and sell new timber
volume.
In addition, timber volume is not related to a single funding line
item, but is a result of multiple National Forest System BLIs, Capital
Improvement and Maintenance BLIs, permanent authorities, and trust
funds. All of these funds were reduced by the sequestration and will
continue to be constrained as we do our part to contribute to budget
savings at a national level.
The fiscal year 2014 President's budget proposes a wide variety of
management activities associated with IRR and is designed to balance
the needs to maintain, enhance, or restore watersheds at the landscape
level, and meet statutory requirements needed for sound resource
management. We will also continue providing the public fuel wood
program out of the decreased funds. The Forest Service continues to
explore ways to increase efficiencies to increase the pace of
restoration through such things as NEPA efficiencies, stewardship
contracting, and large scale projects.
Question. I note that you have increased your request for land
acquisition by $76 million--a 75 percent increase.
With 75 million to 80 million acres in need of restoration
treatments, couldn't you reduce part of this request to keep on a path
toward the 3 billion board foot goal? I would view taking care of what
we already have as more important than adding more land that we can't
take care of.
Answer. Land acquisitions are in response to public demand, as
outlined in the America's Great Outdoors Initiative. The fiscal year
2014 program targets include new measures for acres acquired or donated
using mandatory funds and high-priority acres acquired or donated using
mandatory funds. For Land Acquisition, we propose a little more than
$58 million in discretionary funding; an increase of around $8.2
million from fiscal year 2013 enacted levels after sequestration. We
also propose almost $34 million in mandatory funding, from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, for a combined total of $92 million. All Land
Acquisition projects are within National Forest boundaries and
acquiring them will reduce confusion and costs associated with boundary
management, landscape-scale conservation and fire suppression, as well
as costs to communities providing services to remote and fragmented
land ownership. Acquiring these proposed land acquisition projects will
reduce overall management costs.
The Forest Legacy program is also important because funds are used
to permanently protect working forests from development, helping to
create and maintain rural jobs, conserve air and water quality, and
provide habitat for threatened or endangered wildlife or fish. The
increase is a key component of the President's America's Great Outdoors
Initiative to conserve important landscapes and reconnect Americans to
the outdoors. For the Forest Legacy Program, we propose $60 million in
discretionary funding; an increase of around $9.5 million from fiscal
year 2013 enacted levels after sequestration. We also are requesting
$24.8 million in mandatory funds, from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, for a total of $84.8 million.
Question. Chief Tidwell stated that he would like to work with
Congress on using ``export'' values in timber appraisals. What is this
referring to exactly?
Answer. Current Region 10 policy uses export values for 50 percent
of the spruce and hemlock volume in a timber sale appraisal, consistent
with the volume we allow to be exported, and that has helped the
program significantly since its inception. The Region could increase
the percentage of exportable volume to 75 or 100 percent for spruce and
hemlock and appraise accordingly with export values and might very well
have more positive value sales available for offer. However, the result
might be unacceptable in that mill jobs could be lost while logging and
export processing jobs increased.
fire and aviation
Question. I'm very concerned about the current state of our fixed
wing airtanker fleet. You have included a request for $50 million for
airtanker modernization but there is virtually no indication of how
these funds will be spent in your budget justification.
If these funds are provided, how exactly will they be expended?
Answer. The $50 million that we have requested would help offset
the additional cost for the next generation aircraft, plus the
additional cost for the legacy aircraft. As anticipated, legacy
aircraft expenses have gone up with the new contract. Additionally, the
funds would help cover cancellation charges for which we are required
to budget.
Question. The agency recently awarded a contract for ``next
generation'' air tankers but it was reported last week that one company
already plans to file a bid protest.
Can you tell us how long will it take to resolve the bid protest?
Answer. Neptune Aviation has withdrawn their protest as of Friday,
June 7, 2013. Three of the line items from the next generation large
airtanker contract were awarded on May 31, 2013. The remaining four
were awarded on June 7, 2013 following Neptune Aviation's decision to
withdraw their protest.
Question. Neptune Aviation, the company filing the bid protest, has
met with my staff and claims that even if they had not filed a protest
the ``next generation'' aircraft would not be ready to be in the air
for several months. How do you respond to that claim?
Answer. One airtanker awarded on May 31 is currently approved and
operating under the next generation contract. The other six aircraft
are scheduled for retardant tank testing and we expect them to meet the
timeline of operating 60 to 90 days after the award.
Question. Without these new tankers, how many airtankers will you
have at your disposal?
Answer. We do expect to have the new next generation large
airtankers in operation this fire season, however without them we
should have 16 to 18 airtankers on current or potential exclusive use
or call when needed contract.
Last year's Defense Authorization bill included language concerning
surplus C-27J aircraft operated by the military. The language gave the
Forest Service the opportunity to possibly obtain some of these
aircraft if the military declared them as surplus. I also understand
the Coast Guard and National Guard have an interest in these aircraft.
Question. How many of these C-27Js may be declared surplus by the
military and what can you tell us about the likelihood of the Forest
Service obtaining these planes compared to the other agencies?
Answer. The C-27J aircraft being excessed by the Department of
Defense would be available through the National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA), which allowed for up to seven aircraft to be transferred to
the Forest Service. The NDAA gives right of first refusal to the
Secretary of Agriculture.
Question. Even if you obtain these aircraft, how long will it take
to get them ready to drop retardant? It is my understanding that the
interior tanks (``MAFFS'' units) have not been designed yet for these
planes.
Answer. The transfer timeline of the C-27Js is dependent on the
Department of Defense. The Forest Service is ready to take ownership of
these aircraft. Long-term plans will depend on interest from the U.S.
Coast Guard and other Federal agencies in the C-27J. None of the MAFFS
systems will fit into the C-27J. A new design will need to be created
which incorporates the latest in technology and lighter weight
components. In order for these aircraft to be used as medium
airtankers, the Forest Service will have to solicit for contract
services to design and manufacture retardant delivery systems, which is
expected to take up to 18 months. If the Forest Service receives the
aircraft sooner rather than later, one or more might be configured for
general fire support missions such as firefighter or cargo transport
later this fire season.
integrated resource restoration
Question. For the past 3 years, the agency's budget request
consolidates several programs including timber, wildlife, and planning
into one line item called ``Integrated Resource Restoration.''
Currently, you have authority to operate a pilot for this program in
Regions 1, 3, and 4. I personally believe we need to see concrete
results that demonstrate improved performance before we can approve
such an approach for all Regions on a permanent basis.
My staff has told me that they have been briefed by the agency and
there is still not sufficient information to determine whether the IRR
lowers costs and achieves better results on the ground.
Why does the agency continue to propose this consolidation when the
information the committee needs to make an informed decision is simply
not available?
Answer. The flexibility provided by the Integrated Resource
Restoration program (IRR) has allowed focused investment on landscape-
level restoration projects that otherwise have been split into several
projects over the course of many years. To fully realize the
flexibility of budget line items created through IRR, it must be
expanded to a full Agency-wide authority. In doing so, the Agency can
focus resources on integrated ecosystem restoration across the country.
The Forest Service issued a progress report on April 15, 2013,
describing the results of the IRR pilot program for fiscal year 2012.
In 2012 the IRR pilot program exceeded or met its targets for moving
watersheds to an improved condition class, acres treated to sustain or
restore watershed function and resilience, miles of stream habitat
restored or enhanced, and miles of road decommissioned. The pilot
regions achieved over 80 percent of their target for timber volume; the
shortfall was due to litigation in the pilot region independent of the
IRR authority. The Forest Service will continue to monitor and report
the performance results of the IRR pilot regions.
The fiscal year 2014 President's budget continues to emphasize
Integrated Resource Restoration as the leading approach to accomplish
on-the-ground restoration. This work will lead to improved forest and
grassland health and resilience using landscape scale restoration to
recover watershed health and improve water and create or maintain local
economic opportunities and jobs.
Question. When do you anticipate having comprehensive quantitative
measures by which the committee can decide whether moving to the IRR is
a better approach than the current budget structure?
Answer. The Forest Service issued a progress report on April 15,
2013, describing the results of the IRR pilot program for 2012. The
Agency has initiated a third-party monitoring of IRR with Colorado
State University and the University of Oregon; it will begin June 2013
and be completed by March 2015. While we can already provide
quantitative measures on outputs and outcomes as provided in response
to the prior question, we will continue to work with the committee to
provide needed information.
The IRR accomplishments for Regions 1, 3, and 4 are presented below
for fiscal years 2008 to 2012 as are the accomplishments for non-IRR
regions for comparison. The regions began implementation of the IRR
pilot authority in fiscal year 2012 with passage of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2012.
IRR PILOT REGIONS 1, 3, AND 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1:
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced.... 297 420 657 396 426
Miles of roads decommissioned................... 346 363 561 257 383
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore .......... .......... .......... 246,695 307,420
watershed function and resilience..............
Number of watersheds moved to an improved .......... .......... .......... .......... 2
condition class................................
Volume of timber sold (million board feet)...... 240.2 293.1 256.9 210.6 206.1
Region 3:
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced.... 121 177 127 151 162
Miles of roads decommissioned................... 46 103 25 57 69
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore .......... .......... .......... 296,944 198,574
watershed function and resilience..............
Number of watersheds moved to an improved .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
condition class................................
Volume of timber sold (million board feet)...... 123.5 111.9 138.6 131.9 124.4
Region 4:
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced.... 232 296 355 238 346
Miles of roads decommissioned................... 162 320 792 325 286
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore .......... .......... .......... 222,789 283,795
watershed function and resilience..............
Number of watersheds moved to an improved .......... .......... .......... 3 1
condition class................................
Volume of timber sold (million board feet)...... 117.0 103.5 112.9 118.7 110.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of watersheds moved to an improved condition class and
acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed function and
resilience were both new performance measures in fiscal year 2011.
There are no prior data for these two measures.
Volume of timber sold, miles of roads decommissioned, and miles of
stream habitat restored or enhanced are traditional accomplishments,
but because fiscal year 2012 was the first official year for IRR, it is
difficult to establish valid IRR related trends at this time. We began
implementation of the Watershed Condition Framework in fiscal year 2011
and it takes 3 to 7 years to restore a watershed. Therefore, we expect
the number of watersheds moved to an improved condition class to show
an in increasing trend in future years.
Regions not included in the IRR pilot program below are the IRR
corollary accomplishments for Regions 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 for fiscal
years 2008 to 2012.
REGIONS NOT IN THE IRR PILOT
[Regions 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 2:
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced.... 90 140 108 142 222
Miles of roads decommissioned................... 354 287 290 254 300
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore .......... .......... .......... 216,956 214,430
watershed function and resilience..............
Number of watersheds moved to an improved .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
condition class................................
Volume of timber sold (million board feet)...... 259.9 243.4 222.3 204.7 241.3
Region 5:
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced.... 281 1,163 426 449 465
Miles of roads decommissioned................... 51 94 83 249 274
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore .......... .......... .......... 164,183 249,641
watershed function and resilience..............
Number of watersheds moved to an improved .......... .......... .......... .......... 3
condition class................................
Volume of timber sold (million board feet)...... 202.8 310.3 335.6 311.4 299.8
Region 6:
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced.... 369 373 702 696 773
Miles of roads decommissioned................... 151 347 372 198 208
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore .......... .......... .......... 302,055 464,793
watershed function and resilience..............
Number of watersheds moved to an improved .......... .......... .......... .......... 1
condition class................................
Volume of timber sold (million board feet)...... 628.0 584.4 576.7 547.6 605.6
Region 8:
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced.... 509 486 551 756 670
Miles of roads decommissioned................... 93 104 204 81 337
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore .......... .......... .......... 925,362 556,688
watershed function and resilience..............
Number of watersheds moved to an improved .......... .......... .......... .......... 2
condition class................................
Volume of timber sold (million board feet)...... 515.2 466.9 502.1 542.4 557.2
Region 9:
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced.... 382 353 476 969 554
Miles of roads decommissioned................... 81 144 193 103 223
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore .......... .......... .......... 211,227 246,116
watershed function and resilience..............
Number of watersheds moved to an improved .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
condition class................................
Volume of timber sold (million board feet)...... 391.7 371.5 400.7 421.4 446.6
Region 10:
Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced.... 67 91 173 81 87
Miles of roads decommissioned................... 7 15 29 17 23
Acres treated annually to sustain or restore .......... .......... .......... 37,805 40,907
watershed function and resilience..............
Number of watersheds moved to an improved .......... .......... .......... 1 ..........
condition class................................
Volume of timber sold (million board feet)...... 5.4 22.9 45.9 44.2 52.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
anan creek float dock status
Question. Anan Creek, located 30 miles southeast of Wrangell,
Alaska, in the Tongass National Forest, is home to one of the largest
pink salmon runs in Southeast Alaska, making it an ideal spot to watch
black and brown bears, bald eagles and sea lions. The Forest Service
maintains an observation platform for visitors. However, the area is
only accessible by floatplane or boat.
Several air charter service companies offer trips to Anan from
local communities, especially Wrangell and Ketchikan. However, the
current docking system in Anan Bay is only suitable for ideal weather
conditions usually encountered during the summer months.
I understand that a new docking facility is needed, as the current
situation has become a safety hazard, leading to sunken and damaged
boats and planes. This issue was raised at public meetings with the
Forest Service earlier this year and I understand the Forest Service
has done some preliminary engineering work there.
Chief, I mentioned this issue to you in our ENR hearing last month
and wanted to ask if you had a chance to look into it and give us a
status update on the situation.
Answer. Access from the beach to the existing Anan Trailhead has
been a management concern since we began allowing commercial use. Some
type of dock, or other mooring, has been identified as a need. Although
it has been identified as a need, available funding has been allocated
to higher priority safety and health concerns, such as minimizing bear-
human encounters and proper handling of human waste at the site.
Some work has been completed on a long-term solution for improving
safety and accessibility of the bear viewing facilities. Conceptual
designs have identified several options; the most practical option is a
floating dock that could be beached in the off season. One potential
site is at the head of the cove near the Forest Service cabin. This
would complement the existing small float, but it may conflict with use
of the cabin.
Another site being evaluated is in the cove where the Anan
Administrative Facility is anchored. Integrating the dock into that
floating facility has advantages. Connecting the floating dock to a
staircase would make it more difficult to ensure an accessible
facility, however. Finally, it may be difficult to construct accessible
trails from the dock to the current trailhead.
In short, the Tongass National Forest is aware of the issues and is
evaluating the best way to resolve them. Further NEPA analysis will be
necessary before a dock or mooring facility can be built.
number of forest service employees in se
Question. The State of Alaska has a large percentage of Federal
employees living in our State. These Alaskans are paid good wages and
are important contributors to our economy, especially in many rural
places throughout the State. These folks are our little league coaches,
neighbors and community leaders.
I'm concerned about the downturn of timber harvesting and the loss
of related jobs on the Tongass. And I hear you saying that one of the
reasons for this downturn is tight resources. I understand that you
have over 350 employees working on the Tongass.
While I understand that the Tongass is expansive with several
Ranger Districts working 17 million acres of land, I want to make sure
you have enough people working on arguably the most important mission
priority of the Service--one that promotes private sector jobs in these
rural areas.
How many employees do you have working on timber?
Answer. There are 112 positions in Forest Management in the Tongass
National Forest Supervisor's Office and Ranger Districts.
TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, FOREST MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Series Series Name Positions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supervisor's Office:
0460 Forester 9
0462 Forestry Technician 3
0807 Landscape Architect 3
1315 Geologist 2
0193 Archeologist 1
0401 Recreation 1
1101 NEPA Coordinator 2
1082 Writer/Editor 1
0408 Ecologist 3
1035 Public Affairs 1
0802 Engineering Tech 2
0810 Engineer/Transportation Planner 2
1315 Hydrologist 1
0482 Fish Biologist 1
0470 Soils 2
2210 GIS 5
0301 NEPA Planner 2
0486 Wildlife Biologist 1
Ranger District Offices:
0460 Forester 24
0462 Forestry Technician 17
0404 Fish Technician 2
0193 Archeologist 5
0401 Natural Resource 6
1101 Specialist (NEPA, IDT Leader) NEPA 2
Coordinator
1082 Writer/Editor 3
0408 Ecologist 1
1315 Hydrologist 2
0482 Fish Biologist 3
0470 Soils 1
0301 NEPA Planner 1
0486 Wildlife Biologist 3
--------------
Total Employees Tongass National Forest 112
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Reed. With that, the hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., the hearings were concluded, and
the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call
of the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and
letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Fish Veterinarians
Dear Chairman Reed and members of the subcommittee: We are writing
in support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) Aquatic Animal Drug
Approval Partnership (AADAP) program. Current proposed budget cuts will
effectively eliminate the critical services that AADAP provides to all
fisheries professionals and the aquaculture industry in the United
States. The American Association of Fish Veterinarians (AAFV) is an
association of licensed veterinarians that works in the area of aquatic
animal medicine. A central function of our organization is to advance
the quality and stature of clinical fish veterinary practice and
provide safe and effective treatments for fish. We rely heavily upon
the AADAP program to assist in the approval process for new animal
drugs used in the various aspects of fish medicine and the aquaculture
industry. We respectfully request through this letter that current
levels of funding at $1,790,000 and current full-time equivalents
(FTEs) of the staff be maintained to continue AADAP's mission.
The AADAP program works in a unique partnership with Federal,
State, and private enterprise to provide safe and efficacious drugs and
other tools used to work with fisheries resources in the United States.
In the early 1990s, the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
announced that all fisheries drugs would need to go through the same
approval process that is required of other animal species. The aquatic
animal industry is small in comparison to terrestrial animal species
production and thus it does not attract investment by private drug
companies as the investment returns are limited. Fisheries
professionals have had to step up to the challenge and take on the drug
registration process on their own. The development and approval of new
animal drugs is quite complicated and expensive. The New Animal Drug
Application (NADA) process has six study sections that must be
completed favorably to FDA standards prior to approval which takes many
years of research to complete and considerable investment of time and
financial resources. Although we all participate in this process, the
AADAP program has taken up the lead in coordinating the National
Investigational New Animal Drug (INAD) Program (NIP). Through the
years, the NIP has allowed for a wealth of important ancillary efficacy
and target animal safety data to be generated and this has been used in
supporting new animal drug approvals for drugs and therapeutants that
we can use.
Many species of fish are produced by the U.S. aquaculture industry
which includes the FWS, State, and private fish hatcheries. These fish
are used for recreational and commercial fishing and for private sales
with one commonality, most of these fish like other veterinary species
are considered a food animal. The food animal classification carries a
special stigma with the FDA and the general public which requires these
fish to be produced in safe and unadulterated manner. People want to
know that the fish they caught or the one they bought in the grocery
store is safe. This health and human safety issue is a huge
responsibility for aquatic animal veterinarians who diagnose disease
and prescribe drug treatments and for those involved with aquaculture.
There must be adequate numbers of drugs available for treatments that
are efficacious so that misuse or overuse of any individual drug does
not promote antimicrobial resistance that could affect efficacy of
human drug treatments. (Currently, we work with a very limited
armamentarium of approved drugs/therapeutants.) We must know withdrawal
times to ensure that there is no drug residue or adulteration of the
human food supply. Drugs must also be safe for the target animal and
for the people who administer them. AAFV feels that the human health
and safety concern would be magnified tremendously if the AADAP program
is defunded or eliminated and it would have far reaching deleterious
effects on fish veterinary practice and for fisheries biologists
collecting data in the field.
We understand that tough decisions must be made in difficult budget
times but the AADAP program is money well spent. The aquaculture
industry has a significant impact on the American economy providing
jobs and billions of dollars to local economies. It is estimated that
33 million Americans fish recreationally, and saltwater fishing alone
generates $73 billion in economic impact. Do we want to defund a
program that helps protect an industry that has this much of an
economic impact which essentially pays for itself over and over in new
tax revenue? We believe that this would be a mistake. On behalf of the
AAFV and its membership we encourage the Senate Appropriations
Committee to maintain the AADAP program at its current funding level of
$1,790,000. We welcome contact to answer any questions or concerns you
may have over this issue and thank you for your consideration of our
proposal.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Art Museum Directors
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record
regarding fiscal year 2014 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.
In a statement submitted last year, we provided information about
an upcoming exhibition--Children of the Plumed Serpent: The Legacy of
Quetzalcoatl in Ancient Mexico--that had received support from both the
NEA and the NEH. Now that the exhibition has run its course, we thought
that members of the subcommittee might be interested in its impact.
During its 3-month run at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art
(LACMA), 83,162 people attended. In addition:
--310 K-12 teachers attended ``Evenings for Educators,'' which
present strategies to incorporate the visual arts into the
classroom. The programs included a lecture, gallery tours and
activities, and hands-on workshops. Educators received
curriculum materials containing a thematic essay on the
exhibition, color prints, lesson plans, and a CD of additional
resources. All programs were interdisciplinary and aligned with
California State content standards.
--37 school groups were given tours led by docents.
--2,800 people attended four Sunday afternoon programs for children
and their families focusing on the exhibition. Families enjoyed
dance and art workshops and learned how artists in ancient
southern Mexico were inspired by the ancient Plumed Serpent
god, Quetzalcoatl. A musical performance was held on the BP
Grand Entrance featuring La Banda Filarmonica Maqueos.
Bilingual gallery tours (Spanish/English) were led by Education
Gallery Teachers. Like Evenings for Educators, Family Sundays
are privately supported.
--Seven buses were provided for families from communities throughout
Los Angeles County, including Cypress, Glendale, North
Hollywood, Pacoima, and south-central Los Angeles, to attend
the four programs; approximately 450 participated. Outreach and
transportation are privately supported.
--In conjunction with the exhibition, LACMA worked with the nonprofit
organization 826LA to design a series of writing workshops. The
final workshop included a visit to LACMA and a curator-led tour
of the exhibition. LACMA provided two free buses and free
admission for students and their families to visit the museum.
--More than 1,000 people participated in other public programs
including lectures, panel discussions, and a teen event.
After closing in Los Angeles, Children of the Plumed Serpent
traveled to the Dallas Museum of Art, where total attendance was
34,953. As at LACMA, the museum in Dallas also built significant
programming around the exhibition.
This exhibition, which received grants from both the NEA and NEH,
is merely one example of the great work that both agencies support, and
that directly benefits large numbers of people across the country.
As mentioned in last year's statement, the exhibition also received
Federal support through the arts indemnity program.
Offered by the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities and
administered by the NEA, the indemnity program has played a vital role
in many of the most important traveling exhibitions in this country
since it was established in 1975. Without it, many objects would not be
able to travel to and within the United States.
That some exhibitions may not go forward without indemnity was
proved to the subcommittee's satisfaction in 2007, when it expanded the
program to cover purely U.S. exhibitions (previously the program only
covered exhibitions with a substantial foreign component). At that
time, subsequent to Hurricane Katrina, insurance companies had
recalculated their loss estimates, and insurance became much more
expensive and difficult to obtain, especially in zones prone to events
such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes. Important exhibitions had
either been curtailed or cancelled purely because of the rise in
insurance costs. The private insurance industry supported our request
to extend indemnity to domestic exhibitions, because it benefits from
being able to insure part of an exhibition rather than none if the
exhibition does not go forward at all.
The amount that museums save in insurance fees far surpasses the
total direct grants that NEA makes to museums. Last year, the savings
was about $30 million, according to AAMD's 2013 Statistical Report.
Over the 38 years of the program, it has extended indemnity to about
1,200 major exhibitions and saved museums about $375 million in
insurance payments. Over the same period there have been just two
claims because the program has very rigorous requirements regarding
what it will insure and what procedures must be followed in terms of
packing, shipping, and guarding works of art. The two claims together
came to just $104,700.
The total dollar amount of indemnity agreements for international
exhibitions that can be in effect at any one time is $10 billion. The
corresponding figure for purely domestic exhibitions is $5 billion.
While these numbers sound large, two important facts must be noted.
First, they do not represent actual outlays by the U.S. Government; and
second, individual objects can be exceedingly valuable, sometimes
running into the scores of millions of dollars. As the market continues
its seeming inexorable rise, the value of exhibitions rises as well.
Last year, the international indemnity program received requests to
cover exhibitions worth nearly $16 billion, while the amount requested
for domestic exhibitions was nearly $6.3 billion. Because not all
exhibitions are going to be up at the same time, the program has been
able to grant all qualified requests without exceeding the respective
caps of $10 billion for international and $5 billion for domestic, but
in some cases not at the full amount requested, meaning that some
museums had to find private insurance or curtail their exhibitions.
Over the life of the program, Congress has consistently raised the
international cap at intervals of as little as 2 years and as many as
8. It is now 8 years since either cap was raised and we suggest that
the statistics show that the time is approaching for another
adjustment.
We suggest as well that the subcommittee look into the possible
benefit of lowering the threshold value of exhibitions that can be
covered.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony for the
record.
association of art museum directors
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 has been a grantee of the
NEA in the past.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
To the chair and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for this
opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the American Association
of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) about the importance of the geological
programs conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
AAPG is the world's largest scientific and professional geological
association. The purpose of the association is to advance the science
of geology, foster scientific research, and promote technology. AAPG
has more than 38,000 members around the world, with roughly two-thirds
living and working in the United States. These are the professional
geoscientists in industry, government, and academia who practice,
regulate, and teach the science and process of finding and producing
energy resources from the Earth.
AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial role that
the geosciences, and particularly petroleum geology, play in our
society. The USGS is crucial to meeting these societal needs, and
several of its programs deserve special attention by the subcommittee.
hydraulic fracturing
Multiple Programs
As part of the effort to improve America's energy security, save
consumers money, and maintain United States leadership in emerging
energy technologies, the USGS, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have developed an interagency
plan that aims to understand the potential environmental, health, and
safety impacts of hydraulically fractured oil and gas resources.
AAPG would like to emphasize that while hydraulic fracturing
technology continues to evolve, it is not a new technology and we have
substantial knowledge about its impacts as well as evidence of its
long-term safety. This should form the basis for any new research. The
AAPG supports the USGS budget increase in fiscal year 2014 that will
support research efforts that include resource assessments and
characterization; water quality; water availability; ecological
impacts; effects on people and their communities; and induced
seismicity.
geologic resource assessments
Energy Resources Program
The USGS Energy Resources Program (ERP) conducts both basic and
applied geoscience research focused on geologic energy resources (both
domestic and international), including oil, natural gas, coal, coalbed
methane, gas hydrates, geothermal, oil shale, and bitumen and heavy
oil.
An urgent problem addressed through the ERP is the preservation of
geological and geophysical data. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT
2005, Public Law 109-58) includes section 351, Preservation of
Geological and Geophysical Data. This program is helping to preserve
geological, geophysical data, and engineering data, maps, well logs,
and samples. It includes development of a national catalog of this
archival material, and providing technical and financial assistance
related to the samples and materials. As the act stipulated, the USGS
created the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation
Program (NGGDPP). Since the beginning of this program, however, it has
received insufficient funding to accomplish all of the objectives set
out in the authorizing language.
Why is preservation important? Responsible management and efficient
development of natural resources require access to the best available
scientific information. Over many years industry, such as petroleum and
mining companies, has invested billions of dollars to acquire
geological and geophysical data. Because of changing company focus and
economic conditions this data may no longer have value to the company
that acquired it, and is in jeopardy of being discarded.
But this data still has value to society. The data is valuable for
further natural resources exploration and development, and can be
applied to basic and applied Earth systems research, environmental
remediation, and natural-hazard mitigation. It is the type of data that
will enable future generations of scientists and policymakers to
address the Nation's energy, environmental, and natural hazard
challenges of the 21st century.
For example, this data has been essential to the development of oil
and gas from shales. Geoscientists require previously acquired
subsurface cores and samples to identify prospective natural gas
deposits that were bypassed before new technology made shale resources
economically producible.
The NGGDPP was authorized at $30 million annually in EPACT 2005.
Historical allocations for this program have ranged from $750,000 to $1
million per year. These funding levels are inadequate to achieve the
program's objectives.
AAPG supports President Obama's fiscal year 2014 request to fund
the Energy Resources Program activities at $31 million, and asks the
subcommittee to additionally appropriate $30 million in fiscal year
2014 for the preservation of geological and geophysical data, bringing
the total Energy Resource Program budget to $61 million.
Mineral Resources Program
The United States is the world's largest consumer of mineral
commodities. They form the building blocks of our economy.
It is therefore essential to the Nation's economic and national
security that the Federal Government understands both the domestic and
international supply and demand for minerals and mineral materials.
This data is used throughout Government (Departments of Commerce,
Interior, Defense, and State; the Central Intelligence Agency; the
Federal Reserve) and the private sector.
The USGS Mineral Resources Program (MRP) is the only Federal and
publicly available source for comprehensive information and analysis of
mineral commodities and mineral materials.
AAPG supports greater funding than the $46.4 million in President
Obama's fiscal year 2014 request for the Mineral Resources Program, and
urges the subcommittee to appropriate a level at least even with the
fiscal year 2012 request of $48.76 million.
geologic landscape and coastal assessments
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program
AAPG supports the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program
(NCGMP). This unique partnership between the Federal and State
governments and the university community further demonstrates the
importance of geoscience to society. The geologic maps produced by this
program are used for natural resource management, natural hazard
mitigation, water resource management, environmental conservation and
remediation, and land-use planning.
NCGMP deserves special commendation for its EDMAP initiative. This
university partnership enables students, working in a close mentoring
relationship with faculty, to produce maps while learning essential
mapping skills. As such, the program delivers an immediate return on
the Federal investment in terms of beneficial maps, as well as a future
return in the form of a trained and competent next generation
workforce.
AAPG applauds President Obama's support for the National
Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program and his increased funding request
of $28.3 million. However, this is essentially the amount authorized
for fiscal year 1999. Authorizing legislation envisaged annual
increases up to $64 million in appropriated funds. AAPG urges the
subcommittee to fund NCGMP at a level higher than the President's
request level in fiscal year 2014.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee. In addition, thank you for your leadership and support
for the geosciences. As you deliberate appropriate funding levels for
these USGS programs, please consider the important public policy
implications these choices entail.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Bird Conservancy
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
grants program, Joint Ventures, 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 one in five Americans--48
million people--engages in bird watching, and about 42 percent travel
away from home to go birding. Birding activities also generate about
$4.4 billion in Federal tax revenues. Birds also naturally provide
billions of dollars' worth of pest control each year benefiting farmers
and consumers alike.
American Bird Conservancy's report, Saving Migratory Birds for
Future Generations: The Success of the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act found that of our 341 species that are neotropical
migrants--meaning birds that breed in the United States and Canada and
winter in Latin America and the Caribbean--127 are in decline. Sixty of
those species, including 29 songbirds, are in severe decline having
lost 45 percent or more of their population in the past 40 years. If
these trends continue, future generations of Americans may never be
able to see a bright blue Cerulean Warbler, Bell's Vireo, or Black-
chinned Sparrow.
This trend can be seen all throughout the country. Here in
Washington, DC for example an annual census of birds in Rock Creek Park
that started in the 1940s, found that the number of migratory songbirds
breeding there has dropped by 70 percent over the past half century.
Three species of warbler (Black-and-white, Hooded, and Kentucky) no
longer breed there at all. The main reasons for these precipitous
declines are well established and reported in the 2009 State of the
Birds Report: The largest source of bird mortality is due to habitat
loss through conversion for human uses. Resource extraction and a
growing human population have resulted in more development and land
conversion for suburban sprawl so there are simply fewer and fewer
large blocks of unbroken habitat for our native birds.
The second major impact is from habitat degradation from
ecologically harmful land uses, such as unsustainable forestry or
destruction of grasslands to create farm land. Deforestation,
especially in Latin America, is accelerating at an alarming rate,
driven by the needs of the rapidly expanding human population, which
has tripled from 1950-2000. Estimates of the percentage of remaining
forests that are lost each year in the Neotropics are between 1-2
percent.
neotropical migratory bird conservation act (nmbca)
To address these two problems--habitat loss and degradation, both
of which are rapidly increasing south of our border--ABC respectfully
suggests that Congress act to help mitigate their impact by continuing
to fund the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act grants program
at the highest level possible. As the subcommittee knows, the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act 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 2012, the
program supported 395 projects, coordinated by partners in 48 U.S.
States/territories and 35 countries. More than $43 million from NMBCA
grants has leveraged over $166 million in matching funds. Projects
involving land conservation have affected more than 3 million acres of
bird habitat. While there are over 100 worthy proposals 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 over $4 in partner
contributions for every one that we spend. ABC respectfully requests
that NMBCA be funded at the President's request which is $3.78 million
for fiscal year 2014.
joint ventures
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.
Joint Ventures have a long history of success in implementing bird
conservation initiatives mandated by 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 dollar appropriated for Joint
Ventures leveraged more than $36 in non-Federal partner funds. ABC
respectfully requests that JVs be funded at the highest level of
funding possible and urges the committee to support $15.5 million for
this vital program for fiscal year 2014.
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 over $4 and $30 respectively in
partner contributions for each one that the taxpayers spend.
north american wetlands conservation act (nawca)
The 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. From 1990 to
2012, the program has assisted in funding over 2,216 wetland
conservation projects affecting over 26 million acres of essential
wildlife habitat. NAWCA grants totaling more than $1 billion have
leveraged approximately $3.4 billion in matching partner funds. 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 dollar of money invested in the program, an
average of $3.20 is raised to match the Federal share by non-Federal
entities.
As an organization that works with migratory birds, which by
definition cross international borders during their migration patterns,
we know that protection and restoration of wetland and upland habitat
must occur across the continent if the goal is to protect the species.
As a result ABC respectfully requests that NAWCA be funded at the
President's request which is $39.425 million for fiscal year 2014.
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 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 Forest Foundation
Investments in the U.S. Forest Service Forest Stewardship Program
and the U.S. Forest Service Forest Health Management Program 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 U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and
Analysis and overall Forest Service Research and Development programs
are improved and maintained, so these programs continue to provide the
information and technical resources for landowners to make informed
decisions about America's 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 family owned forests, don't face
additional costs for these goods and services.
The American Forest Foundation (AFF) urges the subcommittee to
maintain fiscal year 2012 funding for the above mentioned programs and
the fiscal year 2013 funding recommendation for the Forest Inventory
and Analysis Program, that support improved 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 believe these programs should
at a minimum be maintained so we don't lose ground in efforts to
conserve and manage America's family owned forests.
Family forest owners are facing a ``perfect storm'' of threats.
Wildfires, forest pests, pathogens and invasive species, pressures from
development, and declining forest products markets make it harder than
ever to keep America's family owned forests healthy and productive. At
the same time, less than 5 percent of family forest owners are taking
an active role in the stewardship of their forests. Many are under the
impression that leaving their woods ``alone'' is the best option,
meaning few have sought out the advice needed to address these pending
threats. 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 is a nonprofit conservation
organization that works on the ground with the more than 10 million
family woodland owners, through a variety of programs including the
American Tree Farm System and our focused place-based projects
designed to achieve specific ecological or economic outcomes in
priority places. Our mission is to help these families be good stewards
and keep their forests healthy for future generations.
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. Those who actively manage
their land, likely received some technical or financial help or got
their start by getting support from a consultant, an agency forester,
or an industry forester. Most families have not sought out this help,
and many don't even know they need it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA, May 2008, Who Owns America's Forests?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
forest health investments needed
The threats are daunting. For example, close to 500 species of
tree-damaging pests from other countries have become established in the
country, and a new one is introduced, on average, every 2 to 3 years.
At least 28 new tree-killing pests have been detected in the United
States in just the last decade. Some of these will cause enormous
damage; for example, thousand cankers disease threatens black walnut,
with an estimated growing stock of $539 billion, across the eastern
United States. The USFS Forest Health Management (FHM) Program is a
critical resource supporting efforts to prevent, contain, and eradicate
dangerous pests and pathogens affecting trees and forests. The program
provides critical assistance to other Federal agencies, State agencies,
local agencies and private landowners.
In fiscal year 2012, the FHM Program helped combat native and
invasive pests on more than 351,000 acres of Federal lands and over
615,000 acres of Cooperative lands--an impressive figure, but still
nearly 150,000 fewer Cooperative land acres treated, compared with 2011
totals. Any further cuts to this program will necessitate deeper
reductions in support for communities already facing outbreaks and
expose more of the Nation's family owned forests to the devastating and
costly effects of the Asian Longhorned Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer,
Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, Thousand Cankers Disease, Western Bark Beetle
and other pests.
invest in a more focused, impactful forest stewardship program
Over the last few years, there have been significant cut backs in
outreach and technical assistance provided to woodland owners, as
agency budgets have shrunk, and industry has cut back or eliminated
their outreach foresters. This greatly concerned woodland owners across
the country that AFF works with, who rely on programs like the Forest
Stewardship Program and State forest agency service foresters. The
Forest Stewardship Program has been the backbone of the American Tree
Farm System, providing the support to woodland owners to ensure they
have management plans and can therefore be certified and access
certified wood products markets.
These cuts are also of great concern because of the growing number
of ``unengaged'' woodland owners--those 95 percent of woodland owners
who are not actively managing their land, and therefore have forests
that are more susceptible to the threats mentioned above.
To address some of this loss AFF is currently piloting, together
with several State forest agencies, conservation groups, and industry
partners, a number of innovative landowner outreach tools, using micro-
targeting and social marketing strategies, to more efficiently and
effectively engage ``unengaged'' woodland owners. To date, we've seen a
12 percent response rate--woodland owners who are saying ``yes'' to
being engaged--compared with a 3-4 percent response rate that forest
agencies, extension agents, and organizations typically see.
Tools like these, combined with a more focused Forest Stewardship
Program that concentrates on landowner outreach and assistance in
priority areas like those identified in each State's Forest Action
Plan, have significant potential to leverage the Forest Stewardship
Program further and lead to even greater impact on the ground.
It's because of this work underway to improve the impact of the
Forest Stewardship Program, we ask that you maintain this program's
funding.
maintaining essential information for forest management of family owned
woodlands
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 the U.S. Forest Service's Forest
Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program and the Research and Development
Programs (R&D) come in. These programs provide irreplaceable data about
our forests and give landowners the tools to know how to manage the
growing threats they face.
As our Nation's forest census, the FIA program provides critical
updates on forest health and market trends--better equipping forest
owners nationwide to mitigate the impact of impending threats and
concerns. FIA also provides a census of the trends in family forest
ownership, demographics, and trends, so we can better understand how to
work with this significant ownership group, most of whom, as mentioned
above are ``unengaged'' in active forest management.
In particular, the USFS Research and Development Program provides
the science to help manage invasive species in urban and rural forests.
AFF believes it is vitally important to conduct research aimed at
improving detection and control methods for the Emerald Ash Borer,
Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Sudden Oak Death, Thousand Cankers Disease,
Gold-spotted Oak Borer and other non-native forests pests and diseases.
USFS research scientists have had the leading role in developing
detection traps and evaluating treatments that make walnut lumber safe
to continue moving in commerce. We urge this work to continue, and look
forward to more progress on genetic restoration of impacted tree
species, among other projects.
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, which can help create new
markets for products from family owned woodlands. This information
helps position wood in growing markets, like green building markets,
where understanding the environmental impacts of building materials is
key. We urge the subcommittee to call on R&D to invest an additional $6
million in green building research through the Forest Products
Laboratory to continue this important work.
To conclude, AFF recognizes the subcommittee must find areas to
reduce spending. We ask the subcommittee to consider the impact these
reductions will have on the country's nearly 11 million family forest
owners and every American who benefits daily from the positive
externalities of well-managed, working forests. We urge the
subcommittee to work to maintain fiscal year 2012 funding levels for
the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Stewardship Program, Forest Health
Management Program, Research and Development Program, and the fiscal
year 2013 funding recommendation of $72 million for the Forest
Inventory and Analysis Program.
I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide some
insight on these programs and appreciate consideration of my testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association
Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: The American
Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) is the national trade association of
the forest products industry, representing pulp, paper, packaging and
wood products manufacturers, and forest landowners. Our companies make
products essential for everyday life from renewable and recyclable
resources that sustain the environment. The forest products industry
accounts for approximately 5 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing
GDP. Industry companies produce about $190 billion in products annually
and employ nearly 900,000 men and women, exceeding employment levels in
the automotive, chemicals, and plastics industries. The industry meets
a payroll of approximately $50 billion annually and is among the top 10
manufacturing sector employers in 47 States.
Actions are needed to restore Federal timber harvests to help
ensure adequate fiber supply and address forest health priorities on
both Federal and private lands. Within the jurisdiction of this
committee, we urge you to direct the United States Forest Service
(USFS) to help sustain the forest products industry and the vital jobs
it supports. Specific recommendations follow.
forest and rangeland research
Forest Inventory and Analysis.--Targeted research and data
collection is needed to support forest productivity, forest health, and
economic utilization of fiber. The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
program within USFS Research and Development (R&D) is the backbone of
our knowledge about the Nation's forests, and is a vital technical
resource that allows assessment of the sustainability, health, and
availability of the forest resource. FIA is utilized by a large swath
of stakeholders interested in the state of America's forests: forest
resource managers at mills, land managers, conservation groups, and
State and Federal agencies all look to the program for data about our
Nation's forests. We are concerned by the cuts to this program over the
recent years. With an increased focus on utilizing woody biomass for
renewable energy and other products, the program that allows managers
to determine sustainability and availability of the forest resource
should not be reduced, but rather increased. We oppose cuts to this
valuable program.
AF&PA requests funding levels of at least $72 million for the FIA
program, which would allow the USFS to cover the majority of U.S.
forest lands, expedite data availability and analysis, and support our
growing data needs in the areas of bioenergy and climate mitigation.
We also recommend increased funding within the USFS R&D program in
support of the Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance. Working in partnership
with universities and the private sector, USFS funding for the Agenda
2020 program supports research to develop and deploy wood production
systems that are ecologically sustainable, socially acceptable, and
economically viable to enhance forest conservation and the global
competitiveness of forest product manufacturing and biorefinery
operations in the United States. In particular, we encourage greater
support for research on forest productivity and utilization at the
Forest Products Lab and Research Stations. Innovative wood and fiber
utilization research, including nanotechnology research, contributes to
conservation and productivity of the forest resource. The development
of new forest products and important research on the efficient use of
wood fiber directly address the forest health problem through
exploration of small diameter wood use and bioenergy production.
national forest system, forest products
To create forest industry jobs, more Federal timber should be made
available for sale, AF&PA requests restoring funding of the Forest
Products program to at least $336 million to put people back to work in
our rural communities while improving the health and reducing the fire
risk of forest ecosystems. The 15 percent reduction in timber sales
from the National Forests as a result of the sequester will have a
devastating effect on those communities dependent on Federal timber and
must be restored.
national forest system, hazardous fuels reduction
Hazardous fuels reduction is essential to the Federal forest health
restoration effort and AF&PA supports maintaining this vital program at
the fiscal year 2011 level ($339 million). We also urge the
subcommittee to instruct the USFS to implement these projects in
forested stands, using mechanical treatments that produce merchantable
wood fiber for utilization by local mills. Prescribed burns and debris
removal will not solve the hazardous fuel overload by themselves. The
forest products industry can and does play a key role in reducing
hazardous fuels from Federal lands as evidenced by the fact that
mechanical hazardous fuel reduction costs are frequently significantly
lower in regions with a substantial forest products industry presence.
The agency must take advantage of these synergies.
state and private forestry
AF&PA applauds the subcommittee's sustained support for USFS State
and Private Forestry programs. With ongoing droughts, invasive species
infestations, and significant forest health problems, private forest
resources remain vulnerable to damage from threats that do not respect
public/private boundary lines.
As you know, private forests provide the bulk of the Nation's wood
fiber supply, while also sequestering huge amounts of carbon from the
atmosphere, providing millions of acres of wildlife habitat, and
supplying clean drinking water for millions of Americans. USFS State
and Private Forestry programs protect these resources from threats
beyond the capability of small landowners to combat effectively.
Therefore, we urge funding at no less than their fiscal year 2012
enacted levels of $86 million for State Fire Assistance, $112 million
for Forest Health Management, and $29 million for Forest Stewardship.
international forestry
AF&PA believes that full and effective implementation and
enforcement of the 2008 Lacey Act amendments will reduce the
destructive effects of illegal logging on tropical forests, enable
American forest product companies to compete on a level playing field,
and contribute to cutting of global greenhouse gas emissions through
reduced deforestation and sustainable forest management practices. A
2004 AF&PA report on illegal logging found that up to 10 percent of
global timber production could be of suspicious origin and that illegal
logging depresses world prices for legally harvested wood by 7 to 16
percent on average. The report also calculated that the economic cost
of global illegal logging to the U.S. industry is approximately $1
billion per year in lost exports and depressed domestic prices.
The USFS International Forestry program lends critical technical
assistance for Lacey Act implementation and to improve sustainable
forest management practices in developing countries, which helps reduce
illegal logging overseas. AF&PA believes cuts to the International
Forestry accounts could be detrimental to full Lacey Act compliance and
enforcement efforts, and advocates funding the International Forestry
program at fiscal year 2012 levels ($8 million).
______
Prepared Statement of the American Fisheries Society
The American Fisheries Society (AFS) would like to express our
concern over language in the fiscal year 2014 President's budget that
proposes a $400,000 reduction in funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership (AADAP)
program.
Our Nation's fisheries and aquatic resources have significant
economic, ecological, and cultural value to all Americans. Commercial
fishing supports approximately 1 million full- and part-time jobs and
generates more than $100 billion in sales impacts. \1\ More than 33
million Americans fish recreationally \2\, and saltwater angling alone
generates an additional $73 billion in economic impact and supports
over 327,000 more jobs \3\. On behalf of the 9,000+ AFS members, we
support programs like AADAP that work to conserve our Nation's
fisheries and aquatic resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NMFS NOAA. 2009. Fisheries economics of the United States.
Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/
fisheries_economics_2009.html.
\2\ USFWS. 2011. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-
associated recreation. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/
2012pubs/fhw11-nat.pdf.
\3\ NMFS NOAA. 2009. Fisheries economics of the United States.
Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/
fisheries_economics_2009.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many fisheries activities require the use of drugs including
therapeutants needed to maintain health and fitness of hatchery fish,
as well as sedatives and marking agents that facilitate field-based
monitoring and research. As described in a recent AFS Policy Statement,
the absence of suitable drugs, ``jeopardizes fishes, fisheries, fish
culture, research, and poses considerable risk to those involved in
these activities.'' Without access to these compounds, the ability of
fisheries professionals to deliver on conservation commitments to the
American public is constrained. Legal liabilities related to the use of
unapproved drugs in fisheries and aquatic resource conservation are
also a concern.
Leveraging partnerships with Federal, State, tribal, academic, and
private entities, AADAP leads a coordinated national effort to secure
aquatic animal drug approvals from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and provide partners with access to critically needed
drugs and information about their legal and judicious use. USFWS
leadership is critical because the Service itself is a major end-user
of aquatic animal drugs, the need for safe and effective drugs is
nationwide, and economic incentives are insufficient to encourage drug
sponsors to pursue aquatic animal drug approvals in the United States.
We recognize that difficult decisions must be made in light of the
current Federal budget crisis and sequestration. We contend that the
proposed cuts to the AADAP program would eliminate vital elements of a
program that serves the USFWS, its partners, and fisheries and aquatic
resources in essential and unduplicated ways. We encourage the USFWS to
fully support the AADAP program, restore its funding, and ensure the
current and future needs of fisheries professionals are met. Thank you
for your consideration of our view.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Fisheries Society Fish Culture
Section Working Group on Aquaculture Drugs, Chemicals, and Biologics
Dear Chairman Reed and members of the subcommittee: As an educator,
scientist, fisheries professional, and staunch supporter of effective
natural sources management, I am writing to express my concern
regarding the proposed $400,000/three full-time equivalent (FTE)
reduction in support for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership (AADAP) program as described
in the fiscal year 2014 President's budget. Given the importance of
this program and its deliverables to the fisheries and aquaculture
disciplines--particularly to the mission of the FWS itself--I strongly
encourage you to reconsider the ramifications of this reduction, and
fully support the AADAP program with $1,790,000 in base funding and
current FTEs. This figure represents the amount previously dedicated to
the drug approval process in the Department of the Interior budget
(2010 funding levels for AADAP and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
(budget since eliminated entirely), adjusted to fiscal year 2014
dollars. Without this level of support, these unduplicated and
essential activities cannot be completed in a reasonable timeframe, and
fisheries professionals, especially the FWS, will be unable to
effectively deliver on their responsibilities to the American public.
Most fisheries activities requires the use of drugs: whether to
maintain health and fitness of hatchery fish, or facilitate field-based
research and management activities, as described in a recent AFS Policy
Statement,\1\ the absence of suitable drugs, ``jeopardizes fishes,
fisheries, fish culture, research, and poses considerable risk to those
involved in these activities.'' Fish drugs include commonplace
chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide, but it is illegal to use such
products unless they have passed the rigorous Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) animal drug approval process. USFWS leadership is
critical because the Service itself is a major end-user of aquatic
animal drugs, the need for safe and effective drugs is nationwide, and
without public-sector assistance economic incentives are insufficient
to encourage drug sponsors to pursue aquatic animal drug approvals in
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AFS Policy Statement on the Need for Immediate-release
Sedatives in the Fisheries Disciplines. Available at: http://
fisheries.org/docs/policy_statements/policy_34f.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing difficult budgetary decisions must be made, I contend
that the proposed cuts to the AADAP program offer only modest savings
and would eliminate vital elements of a program that serves the FWS,
its partners, and fisheries and aquatic resources in essential and
unduplicated ways. Without access to safe and effective drugs, it is
unclear to me how fisheries professionals, especially FWS staff, will
be able to fulfill their mandates (e.g., rearing and stocking fish,
collecting field data) without misusing the few approved drugs
currently available (e.g., overusing an existing antibiotic because no
other alternatives exist, risking the development of antibiotic-
resistant bacteria) or resorting to the use of unapproved products
(e.g., using innocuous but currently unapproved products, risking
significant legal liability and FDA action). The proposed cuts would
effectively terminate the AADAP research program, and with it, the drug
approval process in the United States. This is not grandstanding or
arm-waving, it is reality: without AADAP, the drug approval process
stops, and without approved drugs, fisheries professionals and
fisheries themselves are put in jeopardy.
I encourage you to fully support the AADAP program at a funding
level of $1,790,000 and ensure the current and future needs of
fisheries and fisheries professionals continue to be met. Thank you for
your consideration of my position on this issue.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Fisheries Society
Dear Chairman Reed and members of the subcommittee: The purpose of
this letter is to express my serious concern with respect to language
in the fiscal year 2014 President's budget proposing a $400,000
reduction in funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Aquatic
Animal Drug Approval Partnership (AADAP) program. AADAP is the Nation's
only program singularly committed to obtaining U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval of aquatic animal drugs needed by fisheries
professionals. AADAP provides many key services to the USFWS and its
partners, including State natural resource agencies and university
fisheries and aquaculture programs, by providing access to needed drugs
and securing drug approvals to ensure safe and effective drugs are
available to treat disease, aid spawning, and facilitate field research
and fisheries management activities. I firmly believe any reduction in
funding for AADAP would have a significant, negative impact on the
ability of the USFWS and State natural resource agencies to accomplish
mandated fish production and field management objectives. I strongly
encourage full support of the AADAP at a level of $1,790,000 in base
funding. This figure represents the amount previously dedicated to the
drug approval process in the Department of the Interior budget (fiscal
year 2010), adjusted to fiscal year 2014 dollars.
Illinois Department of Natural Resources is responsible for
managing fisheries programs throughout the State. Primary activities
include the recovery and restoration of imperiled species, management
of commercial stocks, and providing opportunities for recreational
fishing. Most fisheries activities require the use of drugs: whether to
maintain health and fitness of hatchery fish, or facilitate field-based
research and management activities. For example: multi-institutional
efforts between USFWS, IDNR and Southern Illinois University have been
implemented to control Asian carp populations in the Illinois waterways
and suppress their infestation of the Great Lakes watershed. The
benefits (economic and otherwise) derived from these activities are
clear. USFWS leadership is critical because the Service itself is a
major end-user of aquatic animal drugs, the need for safe and effective
drugs is nationwide, and without public-sector assistance economic
incentives are insufficient to encourage drug sponsors to pursue
aquatic animal drug approvals in the United States.
I am certainly cognizant of the challenging budgets facing all
Federal agencies. However, the AADAP program's dedication to fisheries
conservation, track record of success, and critical deliverables are
recognized by public and private fisheries and aquaculture stakeholders
and conservation authorities as unduplicated and unparalleled; attempts
at cost savings that diminish this program diminish needed Federal
leadership in this area and jeopardize the ability of natural resource
agencies to deliver effective fisheries conservation to the American
public. Illinois Department of Natural Resources as well as Southern
Illinois University Carbondale continues to rely on AADAP to help us
meet critical fisheries management needs along with much needed
research in the field of aquatic sciences. We strongly encourage you to
continue to fully support/fund AADAP. I would also like to thank you in
advance for your consideration of this issue.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geosciences Institute
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geosciences
Institute's perspective on fiscal year 2014 appropriations for
geoscience programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We ask the
subcommittee to support and sustain the critical geoscience work of the
United States Geological Survey (USGS), the National Park Service, and
the Smithsonian Institution. Specifically, we ask support for the
President's request for $1.167 billion for USGS, $246 million for the
National Park Service's Natural Resource Stewardship and Everglades
Restoration activities, and $869 million for the Smithsonian
Institution.
The Earth provides the energy, mineral, water, and soil resources
that are essential for a thriving economy, national security, and a
healthy population and environment. We must understand the Earth system
in order to sustain and improve our quality of life and the quality of
the environment, while reducing risks from natural hazards. The USGS is
the Nation's only natural resource science agency that can provide the
objective data, observations, analyses, assessments, and scientific
solutions to these intersecting Earth-focused needs.
AGI is a nonprofit federation of 48 geoscientific and professional
associations that represent approximately 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.
u.s. geological survey
AGI urges support of USGS at least at the level of the President's
budget request of $1.167 billion. We endorse the use of $18.6 million
for science-based hydraulic fracturing studies that will be coordinated
with other agencies. We strongly urge you to reject proposed cuts of $5
million to the nationally important Mineral Resources Program which has
suffered budget cuts for more than a decade.
USGS addresses a wide range of important problems facing the Nation
including natural hazards, water resources, waste disposal,
environmental change, and energy and mineral resources. USGS plays a
prominent and unique role in providing the impartial geoscience
information needed to grow the economy, build a skilled workforce, and
foster a natural resource-literate public. USGS geoscience data and
understanding should be incorporated more fully into actions for
balanced and sustainable development.
Mineral Resources Program (MRP).--AGI strongly supports the
President's request for an additional $1 million for rare Earth element
research activities and $1.13 million for high priority research on
critical minerals. This work will help to strengthen the economy and
national security. But we are deeply concerned by proposed cuts of $5
million to ongoing MRP activities. The proposed reduction of $1.157
million to minerals information activities is particularly puzzling.
The MRP is the world's leading source of statistical information on
current production and consumption of about 100 mineral commodities,
both domestically and globally, covering approximately 180 countries.
MRP data and analyses 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 to guide economic and strategic decisionmaking.
Additional proposed cuts of $3.8 million to MRP research and assessment
activities will drastically curtail the flow of information on mineral
resources for land planning, economic development, and mineral policy
decisionmaking. There are no alternative public or private sources for
this information. Please reverse all cuts to the Mineral Resources
Program and provide $50 million for minerals information and research
in the national interest.
Hydraulic Fracturing.--AGI supports USGS work to better understand
the scientific aspects of hydraulic fracturing, to reduce potential
impacts, and to provide decision-support information. We are pleased to
note the collaboration between USGS, the Department of Energy, and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We support the allocation of
$18.6 million for scientific research on this economically important
technology.
Water Resources Program.--AGI is pleased to see a modest overall
increase in funding for Water Resources activities at USGS but we are
concerned with the decreased funding in the President's request for
several elements of the program. The USGS is the Nation's premier
Federal water science agency and knowledge about water quality and
quantity is necessary for economic growth and land-use planning.
Eliminating $5.5 million in grants to more than 250 applied research
and information transfer projects under the Water Resource Research Act
Program will affect university water resource education and research
and weaken our future workforce. The Nation needs more information on
the quantity and quality of our water resources; we should be investing
more, not less, in water assessment activities.
We respectfully ask that funding for the Methods Development and
Assessment in the National Water Quality Assessment Program, for
Interpretative Studies/Assessments in the Cooperative Water Program,
and for annual base grants under the Water Resource Research Act
Program be maintained at fiscal year 2013 levels.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) and Other
Natural Hazards.--A key role for the USGS is providing the research,
monitoring, and assessment that are critically needed to better prepare
for and respond to natural hazards. The tragic 2011 Tohoku earthquake
and tsunami in Japan; the deadly 2013 earthquakes and landslides in
Sichuan, China; and the economically damaging disruption of air travel
after the 2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajokyull remind us of the need for
preparation, education, mitigation and rapid response to natural
hazards.
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 2,564 of 7,100 stations
in operation at the end of 2012, 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. Given all of these factors, now
is the time to increase investments in USGS-NEHRP through the
Earthquake Hazards Program. AGI strongly supports reauthorization and
funding of NEHRP in the 113th Congress.
AGI supports robust appropriations of at least the President's
request for the Earthquake Hazards Program ($57.9 million), the Volcano
Hazards Program ($24.7 million) and Landslide Hazards Program ($3.7
million).
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP).--AGI is very
grateful to Congress for passing the re-authorization of the National
Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program in the 2009 public lands omnibus
(Public Law 111-11, sec. 11001). This important 20-year-old 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 thanks the
committee for its previous support for the National Cooperative
Geologic Mapping Program and requests a total of $28.3 million in
fiscal year 2014.
National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program
(NGGDPP).--The data preservation program (Public Law 109-58, sec. 351)
is administered by the U.S. Geological Survey 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 2014 places the
NGGDPP and the Biological Information Management and Delivery Program
within a single subactivity called Science Synthesis, Analysis, and
Research. AGI supports a modest increase of $100,000 over the fiscal
year 2012 estimate for a total appropriation of $2 million.
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 provide steady funding to cutting-edge
Earth science research at the Smithsonian Institution. We support the
President's request of $869 million for the Smithsonian Institution in
fiscal year 2014.
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. The National Park
Service'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
request for $236 million for Natural Resource Stewardship activities
and $10 million for Everglades Restoration so the NPS can adequately
address the treasured geologic and hydrologic resources in the National
Parks.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of American Gold Seafoods
Our company grows, harvests and produces wild fishery and
aquaculture products that supply U.S. seafood markets and helps create
thousands of jobs here in the United States. Our parent company, Icicle
Seafoods, employs thousands of people throughout the Pacific Northwest
and Alaska in both their commercial fishing operations, as well as in
their aquaculture operations. I am writing to express our serious
concern and opposition to the $400,000/3 FTE budget reduction for the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Aquatic Animal Drug Approval
Partnership (AADAP) program that is being proposed in the President's
fiscal year 2014 budget. AADAP is the Nation's only program singularly
committed to obtaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of
aquatic animal drugs needed by fisheries professionals, academic
research programs and both public and private aquaculture production
facilities. AADAP facilitates many key services to the USFWS, other
resource agency partners, supports commercial and recreational fishery
programs, and assists both public and private aquaculture producers.
The AADAP program provides access to necessary new animal drugs and
secures new drug approvals to ensure that safe and effective drugs are
available to treat fish disease, aid spawning, and facilitates field
research and other fisheries management activities. Any reduction in
funding for AADAP would have significant and negative impacts on the
ability of the USFWS and State natural resource agencies to accomplish
their mandated fishery production and field management objectives. This
in turn would be damaging to the commercial and recreational fisheries
of the United States, as well as the continued recovery of endangered
fish stocks. Reductions in the ability, and the measurable progress
that has been made to date by AADAP program could also severely impact
the hundreds of companies in the United States involved in aquaculture.
Because of this, we strongly encourage you to fully support the
AADAP program at a level of $1,200,000 in base funding. This figure
represents the amount previously dedicated to the drug approval process
in the Department of the Interior budget (fiscal year 2010), adjusted
to fiscal year 2014 dollars. This is a level that allows the AADAP
program to continue making improvements to the processes and tools
available for natural resource managers and domestic aquaculture
producers, both key components to our ability to produce seafood in the
United States. The AADAP program coordinates the efforts of numerous
stakeholders to secure aquaculture drug approvals, and aids public and
private fish culture operations by allowing for monitored, legal access
to new aquatic animal drugs that are in development. AADAP is one of
the few Federal programs providing needed support to the unique
challenges related to aquaculture, aquatic animal health and risk
management for fishery managers across the United States. Given the
importance of this program and its deliverables to the fisheries and
aquaculture disciplines, maintaining the current funding level is
vital. Without this level of support, these unduplicated and essential
activities cannot be completed in a reasonable time frame, and
fisheries professionals, especially the USFWS, will be unable to
effectively deliver on their responsibilities to the American public.
The proposed cuts would effectively terminate the AADAP research
program, and with it, the aquatic animal drug approval process in the
United States. Without the AADAP program, the drug approval process
stops, and without approved aquatic animal drugs, fisheries
professionals, aquaculture producers and commercial and recreational
fisheries themselves will unnecessarily be put in jeopardy. I strongly
encourage you to reconsider the President's proposed budget reductions
to the AADAP program and instead would urge your full support of this
important program. Thank you for your consideration of our position.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a nonprofit, nonpartisan
scientific society, appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony
regarding the fiscal year 2014 budget request for the United States
Geological Survey (USGS). The AGU, on behalf of its over 62,000 Earth
and space scientist members, would like to respectfully request
Congress to appropriate at least $1.167 billion for fiscal year 2014,
and to restore critical funding for USGS programs that will enable
implementation of natural hazards warning and monitoring systems that
will reduce risks from floods, earthquakes, severe storms, volcanic
eruptions, and other hazards.
USGS Benefits Every State in the Union.--The USGS is uniquely
positioned to provide information and inform responses to 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 ecosystems and combat invasive species
that can threaten natural and managed environmental systems and public
health.
The U.S. Geological Survey has a national mission that extends
beyond the boundaries of the Nation's public lands to positively impact
the lives of all Americans. The USGS plays a crucial role in protecting
the public from natural hazards, assessing water quality and quantity,
providing geospatial data, and conducting the science necessary to
manage our Nation's living, mineral, and energy resources. Through its
offices across the country, the USGS works with 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 the USGS' valuable work
are provided below.
The Survey collects scientific information on water availability
and quality to inform the public and decisionmakers about the status of
freshwater resources and how they are changing over time. During the
past 130 years, the USGS has collected stream flow data at over 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.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) and Other
Natural Hazards.--The USGS plays an important 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 that are used by aviation officials to
prevent planes from flying into volcanic ash clouds. Data from the USGS
network of stream gages enable the National Weather Service to issue
flood and drought 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. AGU supports the President's request of $142.6
million for Natural Hazards for fiscal year 2014.
Mineral Resources Program.--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.
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, 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 decisionmakers across the country. A major challenge
currently facing the USGS is budget sequestration. Not only has the
agency's budget been cut by $61 million, but the USGS faces further
funding cuts as other Federal agencies scale back reimbursable
activities, which represent roughly $400 million of USGS' annual
operating budget.
Among the sequestration-induced impacts to USGS science:
--In order to prevent the shutdown of 350 stream gauges, USGS will
stop delivering stream flow information. This will hinder
informed decisionmaking, but is less costly than turning off
the stream gauges and losing data altogether.
--Maintenance of real time status of stream gauges and seismic
networks will diminish, potentially resulting in data gaps.
--Decreased monitoring of volcanoes and delayed warnings about
volcanic activity. The Federal Aviation Administration relies
upon this information to route planes safely in Alaska and
elsewhere.
--Fewer early warnings will be issued about emerging wildlife
diseases. This could jeopardize natural resource managers'
abilities to respond to threats in a timely manner.
--Energy assessments will take longer to be completed. These delays
could slow economic development and the Nation's efforts to
utilize more domestic energy.
The USGS has also implemented a hiring freeze, disallowed overtime,
and cancelled all training and nonessential travel. Contracts and
grants are being reviewed internally to determine the feasibility of
delay, re-scoping, or termination. Employee furloughs of up to 9 days
are also possible. The employees of the USGS are hardworking and
committed individuals dedicated to serving the American public. They
routinely work in harsh conditions and with limited resources. Unpaid
furloughs threaten to further diminish employee morale.
In addition, USGS suspended employee attendance at 27 conferences
in February, March, and April. Although this may save money in the
short term, scientists must be able to exchange ideas and information
freely. Scientific conferences are a highly productive mechanism for
the transfer of information among scientists and engineers.
USGS has identified ways to cope with its diminished budget in the
short term, but the agency's ability to deliver science over the long
term is in jeopardy. We are especially concerned about long-term data
sets, as information gaps cannot be filled later.
The AGU is grateful to the Senate Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee for its leadership in restoring past budget cuts and
strengthening the U.S. Geological Survey. We appreciate the opportunity
to submit this testimony to the subcommittee and thank you for your
thoughtful consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ad-Hoc Industry Natural Resource Management
Group
The Ad-Hoc Industry Natural Resource Management Group (Group)
expresses support for the fiscal year 2014 budget request of the
Department of the Interior (DOI) Natural Resource Damage Assessment and
Restoration Program in the amount of $12,539,000. The testimony herein
does not reflect the opinion or views of the industrial member
companies that comprise the Group's membership, individually or
collectively.
The Ad-Hoc Industry Natural Resource Management Group (Group),
founded in 1988, is a group of multinational industrial companies and
is focused exclusively on the interface between natural resources and
industrial operations. The Group has served as resource, facilitator,
educator and catalyst relative to prevention and resolution of natural
resource damage liabilities, as well as identification and
implementation of resource restoration objectives. Over the 25-year
history of the Group, nearly 80 percent of the land restored nationwide
to compensate the public for lost resource use, under the natural
resource damage (NRD) liability regime defined under a number of
Federal laws, has resulted from direct action or funding by the
industrial company members of this Group.
When a company settles a claim for NRD, the funds are to be used
for natural resource restoration, which is most often undertaken by
Government departments and agencies. As such, it is important that
there can be immediate follow through from settlement with industrial
parties to implementation of natural resource restoration. Accordingly,
I support the budget request of the U.S. DOI Natural Resource Damage
Assessment and Restoration Program in the amount of $12,539,000. It is
our understanding that the additional request of funds for fiscal year
2014 is aimed exclusively at getting restoration implemented. DOI has a
very large amount of funds waiting to be dispersed to specific projects
nationwide and it does not currently have the staffing needed to do
this. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that it is imperative that the
full requested fiscal year 2014 budget request be approved in order to
effect these needed actions.
I would be pleased to provide further information or answer
questions, as desired. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input
on this fiscal year 2014 budget request.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates
the opportunity to provide testimony in support of appropriations for
the United States Geological Survey (USGS), United States Forest
Service (USFS), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal
year 2014. AIBS encourages Congress to provide the USGS with at least
$1.167 billion in fiscal year 2014, with at least $180.8 million for
the Ecosystems activity. We further request that Congress provide the
USFS Forest and Rangeland Research program with at least $310.2
million, and EPA's Office of Research and Development with at least
$600 million.
The 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
The USGS provides unbiased, independent research, data, and
assessments that are needed by public and private sector
decisionmakers. Data generated by the USGS save taxpayers money by
reducing economic losses from natural disasters, allowing more
effective management of water and natural resources, and providing
essential geospatial 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. Biological science programs within the USGS
gather long-term data not available from other sources. The knowledge
generated by 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 that
cause billions of dollars in economic losses.
--Study of the impacts of solar energy and other next generation
energy sources on wildlife and endangered species.
The requested fiscal year 2014 budget would support several
important ecosystem science priorities at USGS. The budget would
implement a recommendation by the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology to integrate information on the condition of
U.S. ecosystems. The budget request would also enable the USGS to
develop methodologies to better prevent, detect, and control Asian carp
and other invasive species. USGS would be able to provide enhanced
surveillance and diagnostic tools, and 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.
The request also includes additional funding for water quality
research, including in the areas of fisheries and contaminant biology.
The budget would support development of a new system for access and use
of water budget information. A central part of this new initiative is
streamflow information collected by USGS' national network of
streamgages.
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 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. A modest increase is proposed for fiscal year 2014.
Although the proposed budget supports many USGS priorities, the
requested funding level would result in $36.6 million in cuts to
programs that support agency core missions. The agency proposed these
reductions to offset increases in fixed costs and to attain greater
cost efficiencies.
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. 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
United States Forest Service 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 2014 budget request would support key areas of
scientific research, the outcomes of which will inform sustainable
management of the Nation's forests and rangelands. USFS' research on
wildland fire and fuels evaluates the effectiveness of hazardous fuels
treatments and helps managers as they protect life and property and
restore fire-adapted ecosystems. Research would also continue on
priority invasive species, such as emerald ash borer and hemlock wooly
adelgid, which have caused extensive damage to forests and local
economies.
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 28.5 percent in Gross Domestic Product-indexed dollars since fiscal
year 2004, when it peaked at $646.5 million. ``This long-term decline
has limited and will continue to limit the research that can be
conducted to support the agency's effort to protect human health and
the environment,'' according to the EPA's Science Advisory Board.
``These limitations pose a vulnerability for EPA at a time when the
agency faces significant science questions with long-term implications
for protecting the environment and public health.''
At $554.1 million, the budget request for fiscal year 2014 falls
far short of addressing past and current shortfalls. We ask that
Congress restore funding for ORD to at least the fiscal year 2010
enacted 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 long underfunded, according to the
EPA Science Advisory Board, with a 58 percent budget decline over the
last decade. We ask that 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 Federal agencies.
Two valuable training opportunities for the next generation of
scientists will be removed from EPA as part of a proposed Government-
wide consolidation of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education programs. Funding would be zeroed out for EPA STAR graduate
fellowships and Greater Research Opportunities undergraduate
fellowships. The Science Advisory Board ``considers it a priority to
increase STAR fellowships, if possible, because support for
environmental scientists at an early stage in their careers is a cost-
effective way to advance ORD's strategic goals.'' The National Academy
of Sciences called the fellowship ``a valuable mechanism for enabling a
continuing supply of graduate students in environmental sciences and
engineering.'' We are concerned that the consolidation of these
programs at the National Science Foundation will be detrimental to
preparation of the next generation of environmental scientists and
engineers. We ask for the program to remain at EPA and to be supported
at an adequate funding level.
ORD's Safe and Sustainable Water Resources program supports
research that underpins safe drinking water for society. The program's
research also 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
wetlands.
In conclusion, we urge 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 Indian Higher Education Consortium
request summary
On behalf of the Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs),
which together compose the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
(AIHEC), thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2014
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 2014, TCUs seek $75 million for institutional
operations, an endowment building program, and technical assistance
grants under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities
Assistance Act of 1978 or Tribal College Act; of which, $74.3 million
for titles I and II grants (27 TCUs); $109,000 for title III (endowment
grants), and $600,000 for increasingly needed technical assistance.
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. Despite this trust
responsibility and treaty obligations, the TCUs' primary source of
basic operating funds has never been fully funded. With sequestration
in effect, promising significant annual cuts to this already
underfunded program, the more than 30-year Federal investment in this
solid program will be lost, as some of these institutions may be forced
to close their doors. This path to a bottom line number defies logic.
Even before sequestration cuts, despite modest increases in funding,
the TCUs' basic institutional operations grants have lost ground. Our
fiscal year 2014 request seeks to achieve 75 percent of the authorized
funding level for institutional operating grants, which is based on a
per Indian student allocation, and to retain $600,000 to provide
critically needed ever changing technical assistance.
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 a
request for $9.372 million. There are three additional TCUs funded
under separate authorities and within Interior 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.
Last, AIHEC seeks a one-time appropriation of $17.4 million needed
to forward fund the operations grants of the remaining TCUs that are
not so funded. Five TCUs are the only schools whose operations funding
come from the Department of the Interior that are not forwarded funded.
All other BIE/Interior schools are forward funded and are able to plan
multi-year budgets and start (and end) the school year with dependable
funding. Forward funding does NOT increase the Federal budget over the
long run. It simply allows critical education programs to receive basic
operating funds before each school year begins, which is critically
important when the Federal Government is funded under continuing
resolutions.
tcu shoestring budgets: ``doing so much with so little''
Tribal Colleges and Universities are an essential component of
American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) education. Currently, there are
37 TCUs operating more than 75 campuses and sites in 15 States, within
whose geographic boundaries 80 percent of American Indian reservations
and Federal Indian trust land lie. They serve students from well more
than 250 federally recognized tribes, more than 75 percent of whom are
eligible to receive Federal financial aid. In total, the TCUs annually
serve about 88,000 AIs/ANs through a wide variety of academic and
community-based programs. TCUs are accredited by independent, regional
accreditation agencies and like all U.S. institutions of higher
education must periodically undergo stringent performance reviews to
retain their accreditation status. Each TCU is committed to improving
the lives of its students through higher education and to moving
American Indians toward self-sufficiency.
To do this, TCUs must fulfill additional roles within their
respective reservation communities functioning as community centers,
libraries, tribal archives, career and business centers, economic
development centers, public meeting places, and child and elder care
centers.
The Federal Government, despite its direct trust responsibility and
treaty obligations, has never fully funded the TCUs' institutional
operating budgets, authorized under the Tribally Controlled Colleges
and Universities Assistance Act of 1978. Almost every other U.S.
institution of higher education receives institutional operations
funding based on its entire student body. However, it is important to
note that although about 17 percent of the TCUs' collective enrollments
are non-Indian students living in the local community, TCUs only
receive Federal funding based on Indian students, which are defined as
members of a federally recognized tribe or a biological child of a
tribal member. Currently, the administration requests and Congress
appropriates over $200 million annually, toward the institutional
operations of Howard University (exclusive of its medical school), the
only other MSI that receives institutional operations funding from the
Federal Government. Howard University's current Federal operating
support exceeds $19,000/student. In contrast, most TCUs are receiving
$5,665/Indian Student (ISC) under the Tribal College Act, about 70
percent of the authorized level. TCUs have proven that they need and
have earned an investment equal to--at the very least--the
congressionally authorized level of $8,000/Indian student, which is
only 42 percent of the Federal share now appropriated for operating
Howard University. Please understand that we are by no means suggesting
that our sister MSI, Howard University does not need or deserve the
funding it receives, only that the TCUs also need and deserve adequate
institutional operations funding; however, their operating budgets
remain grossly underfunded.
While many TCUs do seek funding from their respective State
legislatures for their students that are non-Indian State residents
(sometimes referred to as ``non-beneficiary'' students) successes have
been at best inconsistent. TCUs are accredited by the same regional
agencies that accredit mainstream institutions, yet they have to
continually advocate for basic operating support for their non-Indian
State students within their respective State legislatures. If these
non-beneficiary students attended any other public institution in the
State, the State would provide that institution with ongoing funding
toward its day-to-day operations. Given their locations, often hundreds
of miles from another postsecondary institution, TCUs remain open to
all students, Indian and non-Indian, believing that education in
general, and postsecondary education in particular is the silver bullet
to a better economic future for their regions.
further justifications
TCUs provide access to valuable 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. In fact, 7 of the
Nation's 10 poorest counties are home to a TCU. The U.S. Census Bureau,
American Community Survey indicates the annual per capita income of the
U.S. population is $27,100. However, the annual per capita income of
AI/ANs is just $13,300, about half that of the general population. TCUs
offer their students a high level of support and guidance to bolster
their chances of achieving academic success. In addition to serving
their student populations, these tribal institutions offer a variety of
much needed community outreach programs.
TCUs are producing an American Indian workforce that includes
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 and the Nation as a
whole. In contrast to the high rates of unemployment on many
reservations, graduates of TCUs are employed in ``high demand''
occupational areas such as Head Start teachers, elementary and
secondary school teachers, agriculture and land management specialists,
and nurses/healthcare providers. Just as important, the vast majority
of tribal college graduates remains in their tribal communities,
applying their newly acquired skills and knowledge where they are most
needed.
additional facts
A Growing Number of TCUs.--Compounding existing funding disparities
is the fact that although the numbers of TCUs and students enrolled in
them have dramatically increased since they were first funded in 1981,
appropriations have increased at a disproportionately low rate. Since
1981, the number of tribal colleges has more than quadrupled and
continues to grow; Indian student enrollments have risen more than 350
percent. Since fiscal year 2005, five additional TCUs have become
accredited and eligible for funding under title I of the Tribal College
Act, another will be eligible for funding next year, and there are
several more colleges in the pipeline. TCUs are in many ways victims of
their own successes. The growing number of tribally chartered colleges
and universities 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 70 percent.
Gaming and the TCUs.--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 can vary
greatly from year to year. Most reservation casinos are small
businesses that use their 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 their 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 other public colleges or
universities. Some have suggested 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 non-gaming State.
president's budget and appropriations request for fiscal year 2014
As noted earlier, it has been more than 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 at $8,000 per
Indian student, would require an increase of approximately $30 million
over the fiscal year 2013 appropriated 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 2014, but
rather seek to achieve 75 percent of the authorized funding level,
determined by the per Indian student allocation, which requires an
increase of $11.1 million over fiscal year 2013 and $5.2 million over
the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request. Details of the request
are outlined in the Request Summary above.
conclusion
Tribal Colleges and Universities provide quality higher education
to many thousands of American Indians and other reservation residents
who might otherwise not have access to such opportunities. The modest
Federal investment that has been made in TCUs has paid great dividends
in terms of employment, education, and economic development.
Continuation of this investment makes sound moral and fiscal sense.
We greatly appreciate your past and continued support of the
Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities and your serious
consideration of our fiscal year 2014 appropriations requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the All Indian Pueblo Council
Established in 1598, the All Indian Pueblo Council (AIPC) has
served as the political voice of the Pueblos of New Mexico and Texas.
The AIPC is comprised of 20 Pueblos: Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Jemez,
Laguna, Nambe, Ohkay Owingeh, Picuris, Pojoaque, San Felipe, San
Ildefonso, Sandia, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santo Domingo, Taos,
Tesuque, Ysleta del Sur, Zia, and Zuni. Every Pueblo governor carries a
cane from President Abraham Lincoln, which was specifically presented
to the governors 150 years ago to acknowledge our sovereign authority
over our lands and our people. Each cane is a physical embodiment of
the recognition of our status and of the commitment of the United
States to protect and respect our sovereign rights, as well as to
support the well-being of our communities.
It is with the United States' commitments firmly in mind that we
provide testimony to Congress. AIPC asks that the subcommittees:
--Exempt Indian programs from further sequestration;
--Fund Indian programs at a level that keeps pace with inflationary
costs;
--Fully fund Contract Support Costs; and
--Support Carcieri and Patchak Fixes.
Exempt Indian programs from further sequestration.--While the
effects of sequestration are initially becoming apparent in the form of
delayed flights and inconvenienced travelers, we can attest that it
will do much for than inconvenience Indian Country. The Pueblos provide
essential services to our citizens but we cannot do that alone. When
funding for programs is cut, we often have very few other resources to
turn to make up the difference. Unfortunately, the sequestration
applies fully to virtually all Federal Indian programs, even though
many Native communities suffer the worst social and economic statistics
in the country, largely due to Federal action and policies in place
over the last 200 years.
This situation is particularly heartbreaking for Native people when
we see that many low-income programs (such as Child Care Entitlement to
States; Child Health Insurance Fund; Family Support Programs and
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) were exempted from
sequestration but Federal Indian programs were not. It is heartbreaking
for us when we see that the Veterans Administration's hospital system
was exempted from sequestration but the Indian Health Service (IHS) was
not. This puts the life, health and well-being of generations of Native
peoples at risk in a system that already strains to deliver basic
healthcare. The subcommittees can and should fund the IHS at a level
that would offset the sequester amount and in doing so honor our
Nation's commitment to its First Peoples.
Fund Indian programs at a level that keeps pace with inflationary
costs.--When evaluating whether the Federal budget fulfills the Trust
responsibility, AIPC believes that it is critical to take into account
the effects of inflation. From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year
2008, despite annual increases, after taking into account the effect of
inflation, most Federal domestic programs, including the Indian
programs, saw a purchase power decrease of approximately 14 percent.
The large budget increase in fiscal year 2009, including American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, was approximately enough to make
up for this effective cut and bring the purchase power of Indian
programs back to fiscal year 2002 levels, but in the intervening 12
years, Indian Country needs have grown substantially. And, of course,
the fiscal year 2002 levels were inadequate to address the needs of
Indian Country or to fulfill the Federal Government's trust obligation.
In a very real way, the budget of the United States Government
reflects the values of the American people. Courtesy of the National
Congress of American Indians (NCAI), set forth below is a chart that
depicts the percentage of the Federal budget dedicated to funding the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). As you can see, as a percentage of the
overall budget, the BIA budget has declined from 0.115 percent in
fiscal year 1995 to 0.075 percent (correcting chart typo) in fiscal
year 2011, approximately a one-third decline as a percentage of the
overall budget (despite a small bump up in fiscal year 2010). Below
that chart is another which demonstrates that over the last 10 years,
when funding increases have come to the Department of the Interior they
have been greater for other major agencies within the Department than
for the BIA.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
AIPC respectfully asks that the subcommittees support funding
increases for Federal Indian programs that consistently exceed the
relevant rate of inflation in order to achieve real progress in closing
the services gap for Native people. At a minimum, Federal Indian
programs should be held harmless from any reductions coming from
sequestration or similar future draconian cuts. Federal Indian programs
should not be deemed discretionary, but rather mandatory.
Fully Fund Contract Support Costs.--AIPC thanks Congress for
appropriating additional funding for IHS Contract Support Costs (CSC)
necessary to administer Tribal health programs authorized under the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Even so, there
remains an ongoing shortfall of CSC, which continues to impose
significant hardships on our ability to provide adequate health
services to our patients when direct program funds have to be diverted
to pay overhead costs. We urge the subcommittees to continue to push
for full funding of CSC. While it is difficult to estimate the full CSC
need for fiscal year 2014--in part because IHS refuses to release its
CSC distribution data for the last 2 years--the total needed increase
over the administration's request for CSC fiscal year 2014 for
Compacting and Contracting Tribes is estimated to be at least $617
million. BIA Contract Support Costs should also be fully funded; the
estimated increase needed to fully fund CSC is an additional $22.7
million.
Given the progress toward full CSC funding in recent years, we are
dismayed the administration's fiscal year 2014 budget proposed only a
minimal increase for IHS CSC to $477 million. This would force tribes
to absorb almost $140 million in uncompensated costs for allowable and
reasonable administration costs associated with managing Federal
programs. The administration's proposed appropriations act language,
whether intentional or not, attempts to preclude tribes from their
right to recover any of their CSC shortfalls through contract actions,
as ruled by the Supreme Court in the Salazar v. Ramah Navajo decision.
The bill language would incorporate by reference a table identifying
the capped amount as determined by the agency of CSC available to be
paid for every compactor or contractor. This process is being proposed
without Tribal Consultation and is unworkable, therefore we urge that
the committees reject this proposed approach and, instead, fully fund
CSC for both IHS and BIA.
Carcieri and Patchak Fixes.--Although there is no question that the
20 Pueblos were ``under Federal jurisdiction'' in 1934, and thus are
not subject to the immediate harmful effects of the Supreme Court's
decision in Carcieri v. Salazar , it is still important that this
holding be overturned by congressional legislation. This decision has
led to two classes of tribes--those that can take land into trust and
build up their communities and those that cannot. The President has
included Carcieri ``fix'' language in his fiscal year 2014 budget, and
the subcommittees strongly supported ``fix'' language earlier,
including it within the fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill. Passing
this legislation is the right thing to do, and will help prevent
numerous jurisdictional and other uncertainties that would hamper many
of our fellow tribes. AIPC asks that the subcommittees take up the
fight for fair and equal treatment of all Tribal nations and, once
again, advance a Carcieri fix. We also ask that the subcommittees
support a Patchak fix, a ruling which affects every tribe because it
provides that even up to 6 years after land has been taken into trust a
suit can be brought challenging that decision. Both of these holdings
are severely hampering economic development in Indian Country.
conclusion
AIPC's mission is to promote justice and to encourage the common
welfare of the Pueblo citizens. We address governmental policy and
social issues and we strive to revitalize Pueblo culture and to
preserve our Pueblo languages. We are proud of our cultural heritage
and want to ensure that our children and our children's children carry
on our traditions and speak our languages for generations to come. We
ask that the Federal Government uphold its solemn trust responsibility
and we thank the subcommittees for considering our testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Joint Venture Management
Boards
The Association of Joint Venture Management Boards (AJVMB) seeks
continued support for Federal funding of the Migratory Bird Joint
Ventures through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We are
respectfully requesting $15.5 million for the Joint Ventures (JVs).
Joint Ventures bring together Federal and non-Federal partners to
support the implementation of national and international conservation
plans for the benefit of birds, other wildlife and people.
Over the course of their history, Joint Venture partnerships have
leveraged $36 of non-Federal funds for every $1 of Federal funds. That
36:1 leverage has enabled us to conserve 20.5 million acres of critical
habitat and contributed to significant population increases in most
waterfowl populations. Because of the success of the Joint Venture
partnership model, JVs have grown in terms of geographic extent as well
as the species and habitats they support.
Today, 18 habitat Joint Ventures and three species Joint Ventures
have responsibility for the conservation of all migratory bird
populations. Joint Venture efforts include on-the-ground habitat
conservation and restoration projects, biological planning, linking
partners to tools and resources, monitoring and evaluation, and public
outreach.
This year, the Association of Joint Venture Management Boards
undertook an assessment of all of the individual Joint Ventures' needs
for their base operational capacity. This analysis resulted in our
request for $15.5 million for fiscal year 2014 for the program. Our
request of $15.5 million will enable Joint Ventures to continue their
current basic functions, and meet the documented needs for improvements
to conservation design, habitat delivery, communications, biological
monitoring, and research.
The fact sheet accompanying this letter shows how Joint Ventures
have invested the Federal funding entrusted to them by Congress, the
administration and the American public. We believe that the fact sheet
demonstrates that the trust was well placed.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Lung Association
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2014 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science and Technology:
Clean Air and Climate: Federal Vehicles and Fuels $100.4
Standards and Certification........................
Indoor Air and Radiation: Indoor Air Radon Program.. 0.21
Research: Air, Climate and Energy................... 105.7
Environmental Programs and Management:
Clean Air and Climate: Clean Air Allowance Trading 20.5
Program............................................
Clean Air and Climate: Climate Protection Program... 106.1
Clean Air and Climate: Federal Stationary Source 34.1
Regulations........................................
Clean Air and Climate: Federal Support for Air 132.8
Quality Management.................................
Indoor Air and Radiation: Indoor Air Radon Program.. 3.9
Compliance Monitoring............................... 127.5
Enforcement......................................... 267.8
Grants to States:
Diesel Emission Reduction Grant Program............. 20.0
Radon............................................... 8.0
State and Local Air Quality Management.............. 257.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Lung Association is pleased to present our
recommendations for fiscal year 2014 to the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies. 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 committee to ensure that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has the necessary resources to protect
the public health from air pollution, and to adopt a fiscal year 2014
bill free from any policy riders.
Fulfilling the promise of the Clean Air Act to protect public
health and save lives is a tremendous responsibility. Much progress has
been made, but the EPA workload continues to be vast. In 2014, EPA must
implement the health-based air quality standards for PM and ozone among
others; continue implementing rules to clean up toxic pollution from
industrial sources including but not limited to power plants; clean up
toxic pollution from automobile tailpipes; and reduce carbon pollution
from powerplants. In addition, EPA must have the resources needed to
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 and best ways to
prevent and reduce exposure; 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. Inadequate resources will hurt the health of our communities,
families, children and the most vulnerable populations. Below, we have
highlighted key provisions of the President's fiscal year 2014 budget
that deserve your support.
science and technology
Clean Air and Climate: Federal Vehicle Fuels Standards and
Certifications Programs
Congress should provide at least the requested $100.4 million in
support for the EPA Federal Vehicle Fuels Standards and Certifications
Programs. EPA has not been able to keep up with increasing demand
vehicle certification and compliance testing, or the increasing
diversity of technologies. Currently EPA has resources to conduct very
limited testing of small imported engines, but a high fraction of these
engines fail the tests. Additional resources are needed to improve this
important program to protect public health. Additional resources will
also expand EPA's ability to address greenhouse gas emissions from
locomotives, marine craft and aircraft.
We also strongly support EPA's work to strengthen gasoline and
vehicle standards. Cars, light trucks and SUVs are a major source of
pollution that contributes to ozone and particle pollution. These
pollutants trigger asthma attacks, harm heart and lung health, worsen
existing conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(COPD) and diabetes and can even lead to early death. Cleaner gasoline
and vehicle standards will save thousands of lives each year, and
prevent tens of thousands of asthma attacks and related
hospitalizations.
Indoor Air and Radiation
The American Lung Association strongly opposes the $210,000 cut to
the Indoor Air Radon Program for science and technology support for
addressing the threat from radon. 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 science and technology support
from EPA, State programs will struggle to protect the public from the
threat of radon. Please fully restore this funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's Assessment of Risks
from Radon in Homes (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Additionally, 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. We urge Congress to
provide the full $105.7 million as requested in the President's fiscal
year 2014 budget. Continued investment in other areas of research,
especially in climate change and biofuels, is also vital.
environmental programs and management
Clean Air and Climate
Please support the EPA's Clean Air Allowance Trading Program
funding request of $20.5 million, to support development,
implementation, and assessment of, 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) to 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. These are common sense investments in public
health.
We strongly support the requested funding level of $106.1 million
for the Climate Protection Program. EPA has an obligation to address
public health threats associated with climate change. Higher
temperatures can enhance the conditions for ozone formation. Even with
the steps in place to reduce ozone, evidence warns that changes in
climate could increase ozone levels in the future in large parts of the
United States. More ozone means more asthma attacks, which increase the
burden on already vulnerable populations.
We support the President's budget increases to improve air quality
and address climate change. Specifically, we support the President's
budget request of $34.1 million for Federal Stationary Source
Regulation. EPA must have increased resources to meet increased demands
of the Clean Air Act, including the statutory obligation to review
dozens of stationary source air toxics standards due for their 8-year
review in fiscal year 2014. We urge Congress to provide funding needed
to complete the review and revise these standards to protect public
health.
The American Lung Association President's fiscal year 2014 budget
request of $132.8 million, for the Federal Support for Air Quality
Management. 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.
Indoor Air and Radiation: Indoor Air Radon Program
The American Lung Association strongly supports EPA's work to
reduce the risk from radon in Federal housing programs, but EPA's radon
categorical grants also require staff support and oversight which have
been cut from the President's fiscal year 2014 budget. We urge Congress
to provide $3.9 million for the Indoor Air Radon Program (restoring
funding to fiscal year 2012 enacted levels) to ensure EPA can provide
needed support and oversight to the States. EPA must provide basic
oversight and guidance to States as they work to reduce threats from
radon.
Compliance Monitoring & Enforcement
EPA must ensure that air pollution standards and requirements are
being met to protect public health. The American Lung Association
supports EPA's request for compliance monitoring and enforcement
funding to identify and reduce non-compliance, and enforce penalties
when required to deter future non-compliance. In order to effectively
protect the public and promote justice, EPA must have the ability to
enforce penalties for permit violations and respond to civil
enforcement actions authorized by the Clean Air Act. Please fully fund
EPA's Compliance Monitoring request for $127.5 million, and their
Enforcement program request of $267.8 million, in the interests of the
Nation's youngest, oldest, and most economically challenged citizens.
The American public needs a pollution cop on the beat, and they should
be fully prepared and given adequate resources to fulfill their duties.
grants to states
Diesel Emission Reduction Act
The American Lung Association strongly opposes cuts in the
President's budget to the widely supported Diesel Emission Reduction
Act (DERA) program that was reauthorized in late 2010. Please restore
funding to at least $20 million. 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.
Radon
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.
State and Local Air Quality Management
We strongly support the requested $257.2 million for State and
Local Air Quality Management Grants. 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, since they are on
the front lines nationwide in efforts to improve air quality. Yet they
are perennially underfunded. In fiscal year 2014, the States and local
agencies will develop State-specific strategies to implement air
quality standards, including modeling and developing emission
inventories; implement and enforce Federal mercury and air toxics
standards including monitoring, collecting, and analyzing emissions
data; operate and maintain air pollution monitoring network; and much
more. These activities are crucial to ensuring success of the Clean Air
Act.
NOTE: We oppose a provision in the President's fiscal year 2014
budget that would gradually shift PM2.5 monitoring funds
from Clean Air Act, section 103 (where matching funds are not needed)
to section 105, which requires additional matching funds. Federal funds
must be made available for Clean Air Act implementation and
enforcement, especially if State or local funds are lacking.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to present the recommendations of the
American Lung Association. For more than 40 years the Clean Air Act has
directed 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 committee 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 2014 bill free of any policy
riders.
______
Prepared Statement of the Arctic Native Slope Association, Ltd.
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and other distinguished
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the honor and opportunity to
testify before you today regarding the fiscal year 2014 budget for the
Indian Health Service (IHS). My name is Angela Cox. I am an Inupiaq
from the northern most Tribe in the United States, and I am the Vice
President of Administration for the Arctic Slope Native Association
(ASNA). We are an inter-tribal health organization based in Barrow,
Alaska and we are controlled by and serve eight federally recognized
Tribes situated across Alaska's North Slope.
The anchor for all of our services is the IHS Samuel Simmonds
Memorial Hospital in Barrow. Since 1996 we have operated this IHS
facility under a self-governance compact with IHS, now compacted under
title V of the Indian Self-Determination Act. The region we serve is
quite large, equal in size to the State of Minnesota.
I am here to provide testimony about our new IHS hospital, which is
in the final stages of completion. This new 100,000 square foot state-
of-the-art hospital is replacing the 25,000 square foot hospital which
IHS built in 1963. We are excited about our new facility and must pause
to thank this subcommittee for its extraordinary work in providing the
majority of the funds necessary for this project.
I am particularly proud to say that we contracted for the
construction of this hospital under title V, and that we are completing
the project within budget. Next month (May 2013) we will receive our
certificate of beneficial occupancy. In 5 months (September 2013)
actual patient services will begin in the new hospital.
But, a brand new hospital is of little use if it there is no new
staffing. This is one reason why I am here to testify about IHS's
proposed fiscal year 2014 budget. The most significant impacts for ASNA
in that budget are staffing for new facilities and contract support
costs.
New Hospital Staffing.--Our staffing requirements for the new
hospital were developed over the course of several years, and IHS
signed our final staffing package in May 2011. The new IHS hospital is
four times larger than our existing facility and many more services
will be available--assuming we have the staffing--including CT-scan,
physical therapy, and optometry, as well as expansions of existing
services. Many of the new services are currently only available by
flying to Anchorage, which is more than 700 air miles south of Barrow.
Practically speaking, that means only some patients receive this care,
and others simply go without. Providing this care locally will enhance
patient health while producing considerable savings over travel and
lodging costs in Anchorage.
Our existing staffing package for the old hospital is 116 FTEs
(full time equivalent employees). IHS calculated the new hospital
staffing package--granted, only at the standard 85 percent-of-capacity
formula--to be 256 FTEs. That is a 140 FTE increase in staff. (If IHS
were staffing the hospital at the level for which it was designed,
based upon IHS's patient need methodology, the staffing would actually
be 301 FTEs. As I said a moment ago, 256 FTEs is only 85 percent of
full staffing.)
Although we require 140 new FTEs for a total of 256 FTEs, the
fiscal year 2014 budget only requests 49 new FTEs for a total of 165
FTEs. That is only 35 percent of the personnel required to bring the
hospital online at 85 percent capacity. In other words, about half of
the hospital will be empty and unused. (As a matter fact, even though
we are commencing patient services in current fiscal year 2013, ASNA is
not slated to receive any fiscal year 2013 IHS staffing funds.)
It makes little sense for Congress to finance the construction of a
high priority new facility, and then to leave the facility half-staffed
and unable to provide the care for which it was designed. We ask that
the subcommittee take corrective action to staff the Barrow Hospital by
adding 140 new FTEs, not a mere 49 FTEs.
Contract Support Costs.--The underfunding of the staffing package
is compounded by the underfunding of our contract support requirements.
These are the funds which IHS is required, by contract, to pay ASNA for
the cost of operating the Barrow Hospital and outlying village clinics.
ASNA's contract support has been underfunded since 1996. Each year
since then we have had to redirect healthcare monies, including FTE
staffing funds, to cover for IHS's failure to pay these costs in full.
This subcommittee has been heroic in seeking to close the national gap
in funding all tribal contract support cost requirements, and we thank
this subcommittee for its hard work. No one has done more to remedy
this perennial problem than this subcommittee.
We appreciate that it is extremely difficult to find new funds and
to reorder priorities in a ``sequester'' environment. But with all due
respect to the President, the administration, and to Director
Roubideaux, honoring a contract in full is not a choice among
priorities; it is a legal obligation.
I say this from direct experience. The subcommittee is surely
familiar with the recent Supreme Court decision involving BIA contract
underpayments, called Salazar v. Ramah. What may be less well known is
that for 9 years we have been litigating identical claims against IHS.
When the Supreme Court decided the Ramah case, the Supreme Court also
issued an Order reopening our Arctic Slope case. A few weeks later, the
Court of Appeals said we would be able to recover the unpaid portion of
our contracts though the Federal Judgment Fund, just like any other
Government contractor. Just this month, we finally settled our 1999
claim for $1.4 million plus interest.
The proposed budget would prevent us from securing justice on our
contract claims in fiscal year 2014. It would cap contract payments to
ASNA and deprive us of our day in court for any losses. That is its
stated purpose. We are shocked that the agency would propose this,
particularly after having just lost decades of litigation in the
Supreme Court. The answer when you lose a case in the Supreme Court is
to honor the ruling, not look for a way to get around it.
I am particularly disappointed to see IHS call its new proposal a
Supreme Court ``recommendation.'' The Supreme Court never recommended
cutting off our claims. The Supreme Court vindicated our claims. The
agency has turned the Court's words in order to avoid paying our
contracts in the future. The agency and the Department are not
proposing to cut off the contract rights of its many non-Indian
contractors, and it should not treat Indian contractors any
differently.
Worse yet, the administration has done this in secret, without any
consultation whatsoever with the impacted tribes. We understand the
importance of the current fiscal challenges and would like to be part
of the solution; this is the value of supporting tribal consultation.
In short, in the wake of the Ramah and Arctic Slope decisions,
contract support costs should be fully funded at $617 million. However,
regardless of funding levels, no new language should be added that
would cut off our contract rights under the Indian Self-Determination
Act. If any proposal is going to be advanced to alter our contract
rights under the Indian Self-Determination Act, it should be done
through an open and transparent process that is led by the authorizing
committees which wrote the act, beginning with Chairwoman Maria
Cantwell's Committee on Indian Affairs.
In my language we end our public statements by simply saying,
Quyanaqpak, or Thank you very much.
______
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
2014 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget we are requesting full funding
for contract support costs (CSC), currently estimated to be $617
million for fiscal year 2014. ANTHC also requests that the subcommittee
not accept the statutory language proposed by the administration that
would be a statutory ``amendment-by-appropriation'' effectively cutting
off the future contract rights of tribes.
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 non-residual 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.
The best projection available shows that the CSC shortfall for
fiscal year 2014 will be approximately $140 million. Given these
significant shortfalls, IHS's request for only a $6 million increase in
CSC for fiscal year 2014 is extremely disappointing. Our disappointment
is particularly acute when we consider that the BIA has requested near
full funding for 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
over $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 $617 million for IHS CSC reimbursements in
fiscal year 2014.
rejection of administration's proposal to cut off tribal contract
rights
Perhaps more worrisome than the inadequate funding requested by IHS
for CSC in fiscal year 2014 is IHS's proposal to give legal effect to a
table that the Secretary, HHS, would provide to appropriators--the
table would specify the maximum amount that each tribal contractor is
entitled to be paid. Since tribal contracts are ``subject to
appropriations,'' this proposal by the administration could limit the
amount that is ``available'' to tribes to the amount listed in the
table.
This proposal to cap CSC is an unnecessary and unfair overreaction
by the administration to recent Supreme Court decisions that directed
the Federal Government to pay tribes their full CSC. While the
administration seeks to limit CSC payments to tribes by this proposal,
there is no similar proposed limit on the amount of services for which
tribes have to perform under their compacts/contracts with the Federal
Government. This is another example of how tribal contractors are
unfairly singled out from and treated adversely compared to any other
Federal contractors.
If adopted, the administration's proposal would effectively make
tribal contracts second-class contracts. While the Federal Government
would pay all non-tribal contractors in full, this proposal would
direct tribes do carry out their full contract responsibilities, yet
receive less-than-full payment.
I appreciate your consideration of our recommendations to not
accept any new statutory language that would limit the contract right
of tribes for CSC and for additional CSC funding to improve the level,
quality and accessibility of desperately needed health services for AI/
ANs whose health care status continues to lag far behind other
populations in Alaska and in this Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association
Summary.--We are planning for reconstruction of the Unalaska
Hospital and the Atka Island clinic, both of which were destroyed
during World War II. We are working with the Indian Health Service
(IHS) toward staffing and other assistance for these facilities through
our position on the IHS's list for the competitive joint venture
program, and we are looking for non-IHS sources of funding for
reconstruction, including appropriations to support an amendment to the
Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act. We respectfully ask the
subcommittees to support our proposed amendment to the Restitution Act
and appropriate $42.6 million for reconstruction of these two health
facilities.
We also ask that the subcommittees appropriate sufficient Indian
Health Service funds for staffing and operations of new health
facilities so that more tribal joint venture projects may open their
doors to provide healthcare for our underserved patients. We also
request that the subcommittees end the chronic underfunding of Indian
health programs and provide $8.2 million to cover real costs incurred
for Clinics leased under the Village Built Clinics (VBC) program, $617
million in IHS contract support costs (CSC), and to exempt the IHS,
which is already at only 56 percent of needed funding, from future
budget sequestration.
The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA) is a regional
nonprofit tribal organization with members consisting of the 13
federally recognized tribes of the Aleutian Chain and Pribilof Islands
Region of Alaska. APIA provides healthcare services to the Alaska
Natives in six of the tribal communities of this Region through funding
received from the Indian Health Service under title V of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), and also
provides other health-related services to all 13 tribal communities
through various non-IHS grants and agreements.
funding for reconstruction of two healthcare facilities destroyed
during wwii
During World War II, communities within the APIA region suffered
historic losses, not only to their populations due to deaths arising
from inadequate healthcare and poor living conditions during removal by
the U.S. Government to camps in southeast Alaska, but also to two
healthcare facilities that were destroyed and never rebuilt or
accounted for in prior restitution made to the Aleutian and Pribilof
tribal communities.
On June 4, 1942, the Japanese bombed the 24-bed hospital operated
at that time by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Unalaska, Alaska. Since
that time, the closest hospital is located in Anchorage, Alaska--800
air miles away, and not accessible by roads. Ten days later and 350
miles to the east, on June 14, 1942, the residents of Atka Island were
forcibly evacuated from the Island by the United States for their
``safety,'' and the United States Navy burned all of the structures on
the Island to the ground, including the Island's health clinic, to
prevent their use by the Japanese.
Congress passed the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act
in 1988 (Public Law 100-383), which led to creation of the Aleutian and
Pribilof Islands Restitution Trust to administer funds appropriated
under the Restitution Act on behalf of the St. Paul, St. George,
Unalaska, Atka, Akutan, Nikolski, Biorka, Kashega and Makushin
communities. The Restitution Act provided very limited appropriations
to partially address losses suffered by these communities during
evacuations from 1942 to 1945. During that time, the treatment of the
Aleut people in the evacuation camps lacked even the most basic
attention to health and human safety matters, in extremely crowded,
unheated, abandoned buildings with very poor sanitation conditions. Ten
percent of the Aleuts who were evacuated died in the camps. For those
who returned to their communities, many found their homes and community
facilities destroyed, possessions taken, and churches stripped of
religious icons by the U.S. military.
Remarkably, replacement of the core medical facilities serving
these communities was not addressed through the Restitution Act or
other appropriations. While we understand that these are lean economic
times, the United States is currently spending significant funds for
wartime restoration and reconstruction in foreign countries, making the
appropriation of funds for reconstructing the only hospital destroyed
by a foreign country on U.S. soil during wartime, and reconstruction of
a health clinic deliberately burned down by the U.S. Navy, more than
justified.
The time is now to replace the Unalaska hospital and the Atka
Island Clinic. The Aleutian and Pribilof tribal communities are the
most remote within the State of Alaska. The next level of referred
specialty and inpatient care is in Anchorage. The replacement hospital
facility would directly serve the 5,000 year-round residents of Atka,
Dutch Harbor, Nikolski and Unalaska, in addition to the typically
hundreds of seasonal fishery workers requiring immediate emergency or
primary care. Having a hospital would eliminate the need to send
referrals to Anchorage at an average airfare cost of $1,400, not to
mention the cost of lodging, meals and the personal hardship of having
to leave the community for days at a time. Atka lies 350 miles away
from Unalaska, so until its clinic has sufficient capacity to meet
local need, that population is at severe risk due to its isolated,
weather-challenged, location.
Based on inflation-adjusted 2010 projected cost estimates, the
total funding needed for reconstruction of the Unalaska hospital is
$39.1 million. The inflation-adjusted cost for the Atka Island clinic,
based on a 2003 Denali Commission clinic design, is $3.5 million. APIA
thus requests $42.6 million in funding for reconstruction of these
facilities.
APIA is ranked near the top in the IHS's joint venture program,
under section 818(e) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, however
we are unable to move forward without identified construction
resources. For facilities subject to the IHS joint venture program,
construction must be accomplished with non-IHS money. The Restitution
Act offers the best legislative framework for an appropriation from
Congress. We recommend that the Restitution Act be amended to add a new
section 1989C-4(b)(1)(D) to title 50 of the United States Code, to
state as follows: ``(D) One account for the construction, operation,
and maintenance of an inpatient hospital facility in Unalaska and
health clinic in Atka with a direct appropriation of $42,600,000 for
those purposes.'' We ask for the subcommittees' support of such an
amendment and the related appropriation of funds.
If we are to successfully receive this non-IHS construction project
funding, the joint venture program would allow APIA to enter into a no-
cost lease with the IHS for a period of 20 years; the IHS would in turn
provide staff, equipment and supplies for the operations and
maintenance of the facilities. The joint venture program is a
competitive program and funding is limited. According to the IHS's
budget justification for fiscal year 2013, the IHS signed 16 agreements
for joint ventures between 2001 and 2011, but received 55 ``positive
responses'' to a solicitation for joint ventures during the fiscal
years 2010-2012 cycle. Yet, the IHS has indicated it does not have
adequate resources to fund even those programs ranked highest on its
list of joint venture projects, such as APIA's Unalaska Hospital.
Tribes in Alaska support the IHS joint venture program as one of the
best solutions to immediately address critical healthcare needs in our
communities. We ask that the subcommittees appropriate additional funds
for staffing and operations of new facilities; doing so will allow IHS
to partner with Tribes like APIA whom are anxious to move forward their
projects under this successful Joint Venture model in fiscal year 2014.
apia seeks an end to chronic underfunding of village built clinics and
csc
Village Built Clinic Leases.--As we stated in our 2012 testimony,
the inability of the IHS to adequately fund the Village Built Clinics
leases causes a significant, adverse impact on APIA's ability to ensure
delivery of safe, quality healthcare services at our three Community
Health Aide Program-staffed clinics and two mid-level provider-staffed
health centers. For the 2014 appropriations, we support the Alaska
Tribes' request that an additional $8.2 million be appropriated within
the Hospitals and Clinics budget line to help fully fund all Alaska VBC
leases in fiscal year 2014. It would be helpful if Congress would also
direct the IHS to use its fiscal year 2014 appropriations to fully fund
VBC leases in accordance with section 804 of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act.
IHS Contract Support Costs Shortfall.--APIA thanks Congress for
appropriating additional funding for Contract Support Costs necessary
to administer tribal health programs authorized under the ISDEAA. Even
so, there remains an ongoing shortfall of CSC, which continues to
impose significant hardships our ability to provide adequate health
services to our patients when direct program funds have to be diverted
to pay overhead costs. We urge the subcommittees to continue to push
for full funding of CSC. While it is difficult to estimate the full CSC
need for fiscal year 2014--in part because IHS refuses to release its
CSC distribution data for the last 2 years--we estimate that the total
need in fiscal year 2014 for Compacting and Contracting Tribes to be at
least $617 million.
Given the progress toward full CSC funding in recent years, we are
dismayed the administration's fiscal year 2014 budget proposed only a
minimal increase for IHS CSC to $477 million. This would force Tribes
to absorb almost $140 million in uncompensated costs for allowable and
reasonable administration costs associated with managing Federal
programs. The administration's proposed appropriations act language,
whether intentional or not, attempts to preclude tribes from their
right to recover any of their CSC shortfalls through contract actions,
as ruled by the Supreme Court in the Salazar v. Ramah Navajo decision.
The bill language would incorporate by reference a table identifying
the capped amount as determined by the agency of CSC available to be
paid for every compactor or contractor. This process is being proposed
without tribal consultation and is unworkable, therefore we urge that
the subcommittees reject this proposed approach and, instead, fully
fund CSC for both IHS and BIA.
Sequestration.--APIA is appalled that the American Indian and
Alaska Native patients were subject to a loss of basic healthcare as a
result of the fiscal year 2013 budget sequestration. IHS lost $195
million which directly impacted our patients' access to care.
Specifically for APIA, we will not be filling provider vacancies
including one dentist and one dental health aide and have placed on
hold several clinical support positions. We have seen an increase in
our patient requests for medical travel assistance and are unable to
assist our patients with their access to care issues. In addition, our
referral hospital, the Alaska Native Medical Center, has indicated that
sequester will impact their ability to pay for medical care, further
exacerbating our patients' ability to receive basic healthcare. This
means cancer screens will not get done; necessary care will be deferred
until it becomes an acute emergency, and funds for early screening or
early treatment which could save lives will now be spent down the road
on high cost acute or chronic care services. Our ability to sustain
safe facilities will be compromised as we are forced to defer necessary
maintenance and improvement of health facilities. We are already
struggling to provide adequate care to our patients; the reasonable
approach would be to exempt direct patient care from across-the-board
cuts. Therefore we strongly believe that the IHS budgets should be
exempt from both sequestrations and rescissions and that the cuts
suffered this year should be restored in the fiscal year 2014 budget.
The United States has a trust responsibility for the health of Alaska
Native and American Indian people. We fail to understand why this
responsibility was taken less seriously than the Nation's promises to
provide health to other citizens. Medicaid State grants and Medicare,
other than a 2 percent administration cost, and Veterans Health
Administration (VA) programs were made exempt from the sequester. See
section 255 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
(BBEDCA), as amended by Public Law 111-139 (2010). We thus strongly
urge the subcommittee to support an amendment to the Budget Control Act
to fully exempt the IHS from any future sequestration, just as these
other programs which also provide direct care are exempt.
Thank you for your consideration of our request to support funding
the reconstruction of the Unalaska Hospital and Atka Island Clinic with
associated staffing and operating costs. We are very confident that
these reconstructed facilities will right a huge wrong in our history
and will significantly improve healthcare for the Aleutian and Pribilof
tribal communities. We also appreciate the subcommittees' consideration
of other requests outline in this testimony. On behalf of the Aleutian
Pribilof Islands Association and the people we serve, I am happy to
help provide any additional information desired by the subcommittees.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Public and Land-Grant
Universities
On behalf of the APLU Board on Natural Resources (BNR), we thank
you for your support of science and research programs within the United
States Geological Survey (USGS). We appreciate the opportunity to
provide recommendations for the following programs within USGS: $6.5
million for the Water Resources Research Institutes and $18.566 million
for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units.
APLU BNR requests at least $6.5 million for the Water Resources
Research Institutes (WRRI).--The APLU BNR request is based on the
following: $5,500,000 in base grants for the WRRI as authorized by
section 104(b) of the Water Resources Research Act, including State-
based competitive grants; and $1 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 dollar 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 $18.6 million for the Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Units (CRU).--This program serves to (1) train
the next generation of Fish and Wildlife managers; (2) conduct research
designed to meet the needs of unit cooperators; and (3) 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.
about aplu 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 over 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
The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (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 2014, 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; $1.387 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
their justification follows.
how states use federal funds
Public Health Protection.--States need increased Federal support to
maintain overall public health protection and to support the needs of
the water systems they oversee. 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 utilities 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
in the area of water system security that include working 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--overseen by State drinking water personnel. Firefighting
also relies on potable water from public water systems to ensure public
safety. Even people who have their own private wells will visit other
homes, businesses and institutions 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. Several 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 PWSS Program.--To meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), States have accepted primary enforcement
responsibility for oversight of regulatory compliance and technical
assistance efforts for more than 155,000 public water systems to ensure
potential health-based violations do not occur or are remedied in a
timely manner. More than 90 contaminants are regulated in Federal
drinking water regulations and the pace of regulatory activity has
accelerated in recent years. Beyond the more than 90 contaminants
covered by Federal drinking water regulations, 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 for communities and watersheds; technical assistance
with water treatment and distribution for challenged utilities; 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--and, they perform all of these tasks more
efficiently and cheaply than would be the case if the program were
federally implemented. In short, well supported State programs are a
``good deal'' for America.
The DWSRF Program.--Drinking water in the United States is among
the safest and most reliable in the world, but it is threatened by
aging infrastructure. Through loans provided by the DWSRF, States help
water utilities overcome this threat. The historical payback to the
DWSRF 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. Some 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 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.
why increased funding is urgently needed
State Drinking Water Programs are Hard Pressed and the Funding Gap
Continues to Grow.--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 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. 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 amount needed. $100.5 million was appropriated
for the PWSS program in fiscal year 2013 (but may be further reduced
once the details of the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution, with
sequestered amounts, are known) and the administration requested only
$109.7 million in fiscal year 2014. These amounts are woefully
inadequate for the enormity of the task faced by State drinking water
programs. We believe, based on our assessments of every State's need,
that at least twice that amount is needed. Inadequate Federal funding
for State drinking water programs 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, which is also challenged by the
Agency'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.
State's Drinking Water Infrastructure Investment is Well below
Documented Need.--In 2013, the Association of Civil Engineers gives the
Nation's water infrastructure a D grade and EPA's most recent National
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey (2007) indicated that
drinking water system infrastructure needs total $334.8 billion over
the next 20 years. The American Water Works Association recently
estimated that 20-year need at $1 trillion. Investment is needed for
aging treatment plants, storage tanks, and the pumps that move water
through a water system. The great majority of infrastructure
investment, however, is for the pipes that carry water to our Nation's
homes, businesses and schools. Many States are heavily focused on
efforts to sustainably fund water infrastructure which includes looking
at increased, but still affordable, rates as well as reducing demand
through asset management and other techniques used in the private
sector. States are also looking at State level funding sources to
augment Federal assistance. The DWSRF must continue to be a key part of
the solution to the Nation's infrastructure crisis.
fiscal year 2014 request levels and sdwa program obligations
The PWSS Program.--The number of regulations requiring State
implementation and oversight as well as performance expectations
continue to grow while at the same time, the Federal funding support
necessary to maintain compliance levels and meet expectations has been
essentially ``flat-lined'' or included only meager increases. Inflation
has further eroded these inadequate funding levels. States want to
offer the flexibilities allowed under existing rules/requirements to
local water systems; however, fewer State resources mean less
opportunity to work one-on-one with water systems to meet their
individual needs.
ASDWA respectfully requests that the fiscal year 2014 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. We
further recommend that Congress not allow any Federal funds already
appropriated to State drinking water programs to be rescinded.
The DWSRF 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, $919 million in fiscal year 2012, $853.77 million for fiscal
year 2013 (a figure not seen since 2006), and $817 million requested by
the administration for fiscal year 2014. 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
recent figures, this equals a 177.4 percent return on the Federal
investment. Approximately 72 percent of projects and 38 percent of
assistance have been provided to small communities (serving fewer than
10,000 people). In light of these indicators of success and documented
needs, we believe funding at the $1.387 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 $1.387 billion in fiscal year 2014
funding for the DWSRF program.
Security Responsibilities.--After 7 years of supporting State
security programs through a small grant of approximately $5 million in
EPA's appropriation (fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2008), no
funds have been provided for this purpose since fiscal year 2009 and
none are requested for fiscal year 2014. 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 and the
lessons learned from Hurricane Sandy and other storms as well as
chronic drought throughout many parts of the Nation, 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.
ASDWA respectfully requests $10 million in fiscal year 2014 funding
for the State security initiatives. These funds would be commensurate
with the security tasks State drinking water programs must take on.
conclusion
ASDWA respectfully recommends that the Federal fiscal year 2014
budget needs for States' role in the provision of safe drinking water
be adequately funded by Congress. A strong State 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, infrastructure, and security needs. In 1996, Congress
provided the authority to ensure that the burden would not go
unsupported. For fiscal year 2014, ASDWA asks that the promise of that
support be realized.
______
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 2014 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 37,000 members.
The EPA funds and sustains a broad portfolio of research and
development (R&D) activities that provide tools and knowledge crucial
to decisions on preventing, regulating and reducing environmental
pollution. Adequate funding for the EPA's science and technology
programs is needed to ensure the science based capabilities of EPA
oversight to protect human health and the environment.
The Office of Research and Development (ORD) oversees EPA's
scientific research, managing 14 facilities across the United States
including three national laboratories and four national research
centers. Over the past decade, the budget for ORD has declined by
nearly 30 percent in terms of purchasing power. EPA appropriations
allocate a modest fraction to the agency's science and technology
programs, roughly 10 percent in fiscal year 2013. These funds must
support intramural and extramural R&D efforts, personnel costs,
laboratory purchases and other operating expenses.
EPA actions require frequent testing, updated methodologies, data
management and a thorough understanding of current scientific
knowledge. EPA's science based actions include analyzing environmental
samples, quickly responding to emergencies, enforcing Federal
regulations, providing technical support to non-EPA labs across the
United States and monitoring pollutants and environmental quality. EPA
research contributes new knowledge to the growing field of regulatory
science and external evaluations of EPA science in recent years have
cautioned that EPA's science based capabilities should be strengthened
to lend greater credibility to its regulatory actions.
environmental protection agency funding safeguards communities through
science and technology
The EPA contributes to protecting the Nation's food supply, water
systems and overall environmental health by publishing guidances for
industry, public works departments and other stakeholders. In the case
of safe drinking water, a basic human need, EPA has regulatory
standards for 91 contaminants and is required to identify up to 30
additional contaminants of concern to periodically monitor and evaluate
their significance as health risks.
EPA guidelines, like EPA enforcement actions, must be grounded in
solid science using the best available information and risk assessment
methods. In 2012, EPA updated its regulations on microbial pathogens in
drinking water, impacting approximately 155,000 public water systems in
the United States that serve more than 310 million people. The Revised
Total Coliform Rule strengthens requirements for public drinking water
systems relative to acceptable levels for Escherichia coli and other
standard indicators of possible contamination. In November, the EPA
additionally recommended new recreational water quality criteria.
Though not imposing new rules, the criteria provide States and local
governments with the latest information from recent health and science
studies to better help users evaluate their own waters. Included in the
EPA recommendation is a new rapid testing method to more quickly detect
possible contamination, plus an early alert protocol for public
swimming advisories.
Other examples from the past year include the first ever
comprehensive Microbial Risk Assessment (MRA) Guideline, developed
jointly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which provides
specific guidance on optimal assessments of microbial risk in food and
water. In 2012, EPA scientists at the National Exposure Research
Laboratory published results of their ongoing study of Legionella
bacteria contamination in engineered water systems and improved
detection methods, delineating the interacting factors that can lead to
disease outbreaks.
In addition, EPA directs significant funding each year directly to
State and local governments. This funding both improves surrounding
environments, but also stimulates local economies. Last June, EPA's
Urban Waters program awarded grants to 46 organizations in 32 States
and Puerto Rico to improve urban waters. In September, the agency's
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) distributed 11 grants to
projects in Michigan and Ohio to improve water quality and reduce
excess nutrients that can trigger harmful algal blooms in Great Lakes
watersheds. Preventive practices that will be subsidized with GLRI
funds include replacing failing septic systems, planting cover crops,
improving farm practices and restoring wetlands. First proposed in
2009, GLRI is the most significant investment in improving the Great
Lakes ecosystem in more than 20 years.
environmental protection agency funding supports regulatory science and
workforce development
In response to the 2011 National Academy of Sciences report on
integrating sustainability into EPA decisionmaking, the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) adopted four integrated trans
disciplinary research action plans covering agency responsibilities:
(1) air, climate and energy; (2) safe and sustainable water; (3)
chemical safety and sustainability; and (4) safe and healthy
communities. Within these action plans are systems approaches to
environmental issues and life-cycle assessments in research programs.
Adequate Federal funding levels are essential to ensure the EPA can
respond quickly to outside recommendations, as the agency commits
itself to utilizing the best regulatory science available.
The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program distributes
extramural funding to a range of institutions, supporting research
affecting human health, ecology, engineering, economics and other
fields. Current STAR grant recipients include eight universities in a
joint effort toward new rapid testing methods to assess chemicals
toxicity to people and the environment. In September, three
universities joined another STAR multi institution initiative to
develop cost effective, sustainable drinking water treatment methods.
Each evaluated contaminant removal by ion exchange processes,
reticulated vitreous carbon electrodes or membrane distillation.
EPA contracts awarded to industry encourage innovation in
regulatory science. As part of EPA's ToxCast program, a new 5-year
agreement with a California company will screen chemicals for toxicity
with its proprietary lab method using human cell cultures. The company
will analyze up to 60,000 samples to determine potential toxicity to
humans, and added them to the EPA's catalog of substances and their
predicted toxicity. EPA also supports extramural science and technology
research through its Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program,
which helps companies with fewer than 500 employees commercialize
relevant technologies. Last year, the EPA selected 25 U.S. companies to
participate in Phase I of its annual SBIR awards, including a North
Dakota firm studying solar powered aeration technology that removes
unwanted chemical byproducts of disinfection used to control microbes
in drinking water.
The fiscal year 2013 and 2014 budget shortfalls could threaten the
EPA's important tradition of nurturing the next generation of
environmental scientists and engineers. In 2012, EPA awarded $675,000
through 45 grants to university student teams as part of the agency's
annual People, Prosperity and the Planet (P3) competition to design and
develop sustainable technologies. Among the grant winners are research
and development teams focused on solar disinfection technology to
pasteurize water in developing countries, magnesium oxide aerogels to
capture carbon dioxide at power and chemical plants and 3-D printing
technology applied to sustainable building component design.
Nearly 130 university students nationwide received about $5.3
million this academic year through Greater Research Opportunities (GRO)
undergraduate fellowships or STAR fellowships to masters and doctoral
students. Currently funded student research includes the impacts of
water temperature increases on cyanobacterial blooms and the effects of
a permeable reactive barrier on denitrifying bacteria in Cape Cod bay
waters. The agency regularly distributes grants to K-12 school
districts to build STEM capacity, like last year's grant to a New
Mexico schoolyard program to teach youth about environments of the
Chihuahuan Desert, or the President's Environmental Youth Award for a
high school project in Idaho restoring water quality in the Boise
River. EPA also sponsored a ``water boot camp'' last summer in Missouri
to train high school and college students interested in water quality
careers.
In May 2012, EPA joined the Department of Commerce in launching an
innovation initiative to create American jobs in the environmental
industry, as well as promote American environmental technology,
products and services in the global marketplace. The joint effort's new
Environmental Technologies Export Initiative builds on the
administration's National Export Initiative, which aims to double
United States exports by the end of 2014 and support millions of U.S.
jobs. EPA is also partnering with trade associations, increasing access
for U.S. companies to EPA's S&T and regulatory information. EPA
estimates that the U.S. environmental industry generates about $312
billion in revenues each year, employing nearly 1.7 million people and
sustaining more than 60,000 small businesses. The United States is a
world leader in environmental protection, and EPA has stated its
commitment to accelerating Science and Technology research and
development, to stimulate both economic growth and environmental
protection.
The ASM recommends that Congress restore sequestration cuts for
research budgets and fund EPA research programs at the highest possible
level in fiscal year 2014.
______
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, the ASPCA is the first humane organization established in the
Americas and serves as the Nation's leading voice for animal welfare.
The 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 Wild Horse and Burro Program when making
fiscal year 2014 appropriations.
wild horses
In the 40 years since the Bureau of Land Management (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 blm funding for euthanasia or sale of wild horses as
management methods
In December 2004, 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 mustangs 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.
Last September, published reports revealed that since 2009, the BLM
has sold more than 1,700 captured mustangs--70 percent of the animals
sold during the program--to a single Colorado livestock hauler who has
been a longtime kill buyer for the horse slaughter industry.\1\
Although the BLM has implemented interim measures to prevent such a
large number of horses being sold to one individual, Congress must send
a clear message that the slaughter of our Nation's wild horses and
burros is a gross violation of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros
Act. Congress's opposition to the slaughter of our Nation's wild horses
and burros has been repeatedly stated in past appropriations acts, and
again in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2012, the current
funding vehicle for the Department of the Interior. The President's
fiscal year 2014 budget request includes an administrative provision to
bar appropriations for the euthanasia of healthy horses and the sale to
slaughter. The ASPCA requests that the subcommittee retain the language
in the President's request by adopting the following language:
``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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``All the Missing Horses: What Happened to the Wild Horses Tom
Davis Bought From the Gov't?'' ProPublica: September 28, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. The 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 the same time period, BLM has rounded up and removed
approximately 7,800 horses annually--several thousand above 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. The 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.
The ASPCA realizes that there are situations where population
control is necessary, and we appreciate BLM's public recognition that
fertility control methods 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 EPA and is now commercially
available. In the past, 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. The ASPCA recommends that the subcommittee
encourage BLM to prioritize 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. The 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, the 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, and mares have been driven to the point of physical
exhaustion. BLM recognizes a need to reform its roundup protocol. The
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 horse or burro is 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 Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Reservation
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Thomas ``Stoney'' Anketell and 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 and Chairman Floyd
Azure, I am pleased to present testimony on the President's fiscal year
2014 budget. We are a large, land-based tribe located in northeastern
Montana. The Fort Peck Reservation encompasses 2 million acres. Our
Native American population is more than 8,000 and our tribal enrollment
is more than 12,000 members. Many of our members continue to live in
poverty.
I will focus my testimony on the following tribal priorities:
--Support the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for the BIA
Construction account which includes a $2.3 million increase for
operation and maintenance of the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural
Water System (Other Program Construction);
--Support and increase fiscal year 2014 funding of $1.865 billion for
the Indian Health Service (IHS) services budget for essential
health care to Native Americans;
--Support and increase funding of $365 million for BIA Public Safety
and Justice programs;
--Oppose the administration's unilateral changes to Contract Support
Cost (CSC) policies.
Sequestration.--Before I address these issues, I want to address
the harmful effects that sequestration is having on our Reservation. If
Congress does not find common ground, further reductions to Federal
appropriations will occur in fiscal year 2014, and wipe out any funding
increases Congress may include in the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill. Already, we have begun to see
reductions to our fiscal year 2013 funding, early retirements of BIA
and IHS officials, and the consolidation of agency offices. The
indiscriminate across-the-board cuts and resulting ``streamlining''
efforts by Federal agencies have harmful consequences to our members.
Sequestration as a budget policy does not work. It is a terrible
policy, especially for Indian Country.
The United States has a continuing trust responsibility to
strengthen and empower tribal governments. Efforts to strengthen tribal
governments and grow reservation economies are impeded when the budgets
of the Federal agencies we interact with are cut, when essential
personnel take early retirement and are not replaced, and when the
United States asks tribal governments to subsidize Federal programs or
refuses to honor our contracts and pay us our full amount of funding as
required by law.
Operation and Maintenance of the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water
System.--The High Plains have historically suffered from poor quality
water supplies that have contributed to health problems for Indian
tribes and surrounding communities. To correct this problem and to
ensure an ample supply of municipal and industrial water, Congress
passed the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000, Public
Law 106-382. The act authorized the construction of a rural water
system to serve the Fort Peck Reservation and off-reservation
communities with water from the Missouri River.
Since 2000, the United States has invested more than $130 million
in construction of water intake, pump stations, and a now operational
30,000 square feet Water Treatment Plant, plus hundreds of miles of
pipeline to serve the Fort Peck Reservation and off-reservation Dry
Prairie communities. Under the statute, operation and maintenance of
the Tribal rural water facilities is the obligation of the BIA to fully
fund. Until the fiscal year 2014 budget, the BIA has lagged behind in
requesting adequate operation and maintenance funding to cover the
operation and maintenance costs for our rural water system. As Congress
has appropriated more funding for construction of our system--
appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation--the BIA has not kept pace
and funded our increased operating costs at 100 percent as mandated by
the act.
This year, if the BIA awards us $750,000 in fiscal year 2013
operation and maintenance funds, we still anticipate a $182,000 budget
shortfall before the end of the fiscal year. To date, we have received
about $175,000 in fiscal year 2013 operating funds from the BIA and the
Office of Facilities Management and Construction (OFMC), and only in
the last few weeks. With more than $130 million in Federal
appropriations invested in the project, we ask the subcommittee to
support the President's budget and fund the $2.5 million we require to
properly operate and maintain our rural water system. The President's
request for operations funding is less than 2 percent of the Federal
investment.
BIA operations funding is critical if we are to interconnect the
Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water System this year with the Dry Prairie
Rural Water System, as required under the statute. Furthermore, future
Bureau of Reclamation construction funding is dependent upon our
ability to safely operate and maintain the Water Treatment Plant,
intake, pump stations and existing water lines that we have contracted
to maintain under the ISDA. Our ability to safely deliver municipal and
industrial water to the Fort Peck Reservation and to Dry Prairie is
dependent on operating funds from the BIA Construction account.
Indian Health Service.--Like clean water, the programs and services
of IHS are critical to the health and vitality of our members. The Fort
Peck Tribes appreciates the subcommittee's strong commitment to Indian
health and supporting increases to the IHS budget in recent years. We
support and urge the subcommittee to support the President's request
for additional funding for IHS Services (Hospitals and Health Clinics)
(+$54.6 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount) to
address the urgent healthcare needs of Indian Country which continues
to suffer higher rates of infant mortality, diabetes, heart disease and
substance abuse than the general population.
We also encourage the subcommittee to support an increase in
funding within the IHS Facilities account for Maintenance and
Improvement (unchanged from fiscal year 2012 at $53.7 million), Health
Care Facilities Construction (unchanged from fiscal year 2012 at $85
million), Equipment (unchanged at $22.5 million) and Sanitation
Facilities Construction (increased by $7.7 million to $207 million).
With increases for staffing of health clinics and hospitals, the IHS
Facilities budget must keep up to maintain and expand existing
facilities and add additional equipment to serve tribal communities. As
noted above, without adequate funding, IHS-supported health facilities
will deteriorate more rapidly than they can be replaced.
Fort Peck Dialysis Center.--Our dialysis center is at full capacity
at 41 patients and more than 100 pre-renal patients. We have more than
1,000 diabetics on the Fort Peck Reservation. Our dialysis machines are
old and parts are very expensive. Unless we can expand or build a new
dialysis center on the Reservation, we will have to turn away patients
from this life-giving care. They will need to travel great distances to
reach the nearest dialysis center in Billings, Montana, more than 300
miles away. We ask the subcommittee to support increased appropriations
for equipment and facility expansion and to direct the IHS to provide
the Rocky Mountain Region Indian tribes detailed information on the
dialysis services to Indian patients in the Region.
Purchased/Referred Care (formerly CHS).--The need for Purchased/
Referred Care continues to be of great concern to the Fort Peck Tribes
in light of the fact that so many of our members require additional
healthcare not provided by the IHS or Tribally operated programs. The
Tribes fully support the President's proposal to increase funding for
Purchased/Referred Care $35 million more than the fiscal year 2012
enacted amount of $843.5 million. With rising medical costs, we exhaust
our $5 million CHS allocation long before the fiscal year ends. In too
many instances, tribal members are not referred by IHS officials to
private healthcare treatment because the IHS restricts the use of such
funds to life-threatening illnesses and injuries. Early detection and
prevention can save lives. We urge the subcommittee to support an
increase in fiscal year 2014 funding levels for Hospitals and Clinics
and Purchased/Referred Care so that more preventive care and services
can be provided to detect and treat illnesses before they are life
threatening. This will lower health costs in Indian Country.
Public Safety and Detention.--As the Tribes noted last year, the
need for increased funding for law enforcement and Tribal Courts
remains a continuing priority for the Fort Peck Tribes. We greatly
appreciate the increases Congress has provided for public safety
programs and justice programs. Our detention facility will be completed
in 2014 and the President's budget shows that staffing needs require 46
positions.
We ask the subcommittee to support an increase in funding for
Tribal courts more than the $1 million requested by the administration,
which did not factor into the fiscal year 2014 budget the enactment of
the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). We recommend the subcommittee
also support the $5.5 million amount requested by the administration to
hire additional law enforcement personnel. Our 2 million acre
reservation requires additional personnel to respond to domestic
violence and other crimes. If both the Law Enforcement and Tribal
Courts line items are increased proportionally, Tribal courts would
receive additional funding to properly handle the anticipated increased
case load work as more law enforcement officers patrol the reservation
and enforce tribal laws.
We also support fully funding the programs authorized under VAWA in
fiscal year 2014. Funding should be increased in the Human Services
line item to prevent domestic and child abuse, as well as the BIA's
Public Safety account to permit Indian tribes to exercise the authority
conferred under VAWA through stepped up law enforcement and social
services work to identify at-risk Native American women and families.
The President's budget also includes an increase of $13.4 million
for staffing ``recently constructed'' detention centers. The Fort Peck
Tribes, with a grant from the Justice Department, are constructing a
new adult detention facility. Under the Tribal Law and Order Act, the
BIA, IHS, Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human
Services' Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) are required to work with Tribal governments to facilitate
services to incarcerated tribal members and promote best practices. At
the local level, however, there do not seem to be adequate resources
for BIA and IHS officials to play as active a role in coordinating the
substance abuse, mental health and family counseling, education and
related services.
We further request that the subcommittee urge appropriators to
support adequate operation and maintenance funding to the BIA or Office
of Facilities, Environmental and Cultural Resources Management (OFECRM)
within Indian Affairs, to ensure that tribally constructed facilities,
including those partially financed with Justice Department grants, are
properly maintained. In the Rocky Mountain Region, facilities that are
not properly maintained will deteriorate at a rapid rate. With limited
infrastructure on the Fort Peck Reservation, it is important that
existing and future facilities last in excess of their planned useful
life.
Contract Support Costs.--The Fort Peck Tribes appreciate this
subcommittee's support to fund contract support costs. We strongly
support full funding for contract support costs. The President's
proposed increases will not close the gap in our contract support cost
needs.
We strongly oppose the administration's proposal to alter the
manner in which contract support costs are paid to Indian tribes
beginning in fiscal year 2014. Under the Indian Self-Determination Act,
the United States is required to pay the full amount of contract
support costs Indian tribes require to properly administer ISDA
contracts.
The United States Supreme Court has held that if the BIA or IHS
fails to pay Indian tribes their full contract support cost amount,
tribes may file a claim to recover the underpayment. The BIA and the
IHS propose to cap each Indian tribe's contract support cost payment
for fiscal year 2014 by including a contract-by-contract table in the
appropriations bill. The administration's action would deny us the
ability to bring such claims against the agencies that pay less than
our full contract support cost amount.
The administration's proposal was made without any consultation of
tribal governments, contrary to the agencies' respective Indian
consultation policies and to the President's own statements and
memorandum concerning the importance of government-to-government
consultation. We therefore ask the subcommittee to oppose the
administration's proposal. Congress must fully fund all contract
support costs and direct the agencies to honor the ISDA and the terms
of our contracts and agreements with them.
Thank you for providing the Fort Peck Tribes the opportunity to
share our comments concerning the President's proposed budget for
fiscal year 2014.
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
On behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute, I want to thank Chairman
Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and the distinguished members of the
subcommittee for this opportunity to submit testimony regarding funding
for the activities of the various agencies involved in White-Nose
Syndrome research and management, as well as for other programs of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service.
WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Science Support program $1,500,000
increase) (President's budget).........................
Purpose: Research to address and mitigate White-Nose
Syndrome (WNS) in bats.
U.S. Geological Survey (Ecosystems/Wildlife Program 1,505,000
increase) (President's budget).........................
Purpose: Research to combat WNS in bats.
National Park Service (Park Operations/Resource 3,000,000
Stewardship program increase) (President's budget).....
Purpose: Research, inventory, monitoring,
management, and public education related to WNS;
preserve important cave habitats and bat
populations.
U.S. Forest Service/Research and Development............ 750,000
Purpose: Research to combat WNS, allowing the agency
to continue progress made pursuant to Congress's
fiscal year 2012 direction.
U.S. Forest Service/Forest Systems...................... 250,000
Purpose: Inventory, monitoring, and management
related to WNS, allowing the agency to continue
progress made pursuant to Congress's fiscal year
2012 direction.
Bureau of Land Management............................... 500,000
Purpose: Inventory, monitoring, and management
related to WNS, allowing the agency to continue
progress made pursuant to Congress's fiscal year
2012 direction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitalizing on the investments and progress already made, these
funds would support the agencies' programs addressing White-Nose
Syndrome (WNS), a disease caused by the Geomyces destructans (Gd)
fungus that is decimating U.S. bat populations. So far, nine species,
including the endangered Indiana and gray bats, have been affected by
WNS or the Gd fungus; 25 of the 47 bat species in the United States are
ultimately at risk. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that
WNS, now present in 22 States, has killed at least 5.7 million bats
since its outbreak in 2006. Losses are so severe that FWS is reviewing
three of the impacted species for possible listing under the Endangered
Species Act.
The loss of bats from WNS could have serious implications for our
economy and environment. Bats are primary predators of night-flying
insects, including agricultural pests that attack corn, soybeans,
cotton, and other crops. By eating these pests, bats reduce the need
for pesticides, lower food production costs, and save farmers at least
$3.7 billion a year. Bats also perform ecological services for 66 plant
species that produce timber.
The Federal Government and its State, local, tribal, and nonprofit
partners have responded admirably to the WNS crisis. Their research has
unlocked much of the disease's basic biology and informed initial
management decisions. Now, Federal agencies are poised to apply this
knowledge to more advanced questions, such as environmental factors'
effects on WNS, the feasibility of pharmaceutical interventions, and
the possibility of silencing Gd's harmful genes. In a particularly
exciting recent advance, Forest Service researchers developed a more
sensitive DNA test for Gd, allowing them to identify the presence of
the fungus before disease appears, presenting the opportunity to use
gene silencing as a means for controlling the fungus.
The potential these research findings present cannot be realized
without funding. Moreover, besides dealing with the disease itself, the
effort to save bats has expanded to include protecting the few fragile
WNS survivors, understanding the factors that helped them to survive,
and finding ways to regenerate their populations. Failing to adequately
fund WNS in fiscal year 2014 will stall our hard-won progress toward
understanding this epidemic, jeopardize the application of science to
management, and undermine the impact of private funds leveraged to
combat WNS.
Recognizing the gravity of the crisis facing our bat populations,
we appreciate that Congress has responded by continuing to support the
agencies' work. We recognize the increasingly difficult budget
situation Congress faces but urge you to provide funding at the levels
noted above; we cannot afford to lose ground in our efforts to protect
the Nation's cave-dwelling bats.
fish and wildlife service office of law enforcement
The administration's fiscal year 2014 budget proposes a moderate
increase in funding to the FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), one of
the most important lines of defense for America's wildlife. Currently,
OLE is tasked with enforcing and implementing over a dozen Federal
wildlife and conservation laws that frequently impact both domestic and
global security. Year after year, OLE protects the public against the
illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products--which is third only to
the illicit trade in narcotics and weapons in terms of revenue
generated globally--and the United States remains a source of, or
destination for, much of this contraband. Even those who may not
concern themselves with wildlife are reaping benefits as OLE protects
against smuggling illegal substances and helps to thwart potentially
devastating human health threats. It is critical that OLE receive
adequate funding to fulfill its mission.
Accordingly, AWI requests an allocation of $71.275 million for the
Office of Law Enforcement, an increase of $8.297 million over the
fiscal year 2012 enacted budget. This reflects the President's proposed
increase of $5.297 million plus an additional $3 million for facilities
development at the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory,
which will improve and expand the activities of OLE in its critical
role of combating wildlife crime.
the national fish and wildlife forensics laboratory
The successful outcomes of enforcement cases would not be possible
without the essential work of the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics
Laboratory (NFWFL), used by FWS agents and inspectors to gather hard
evidence in wildlife crime cases. The lab uses state-of-the-art
science, along with years of institutional knowledge, to identify
wildlife products by species, determine the cause of death, and make
other findings critical to a successful legal case. All 50 States and
the 175 Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES) member countries depend on this facility to prosecute wildlife
crimes.
It is heartening that $1.297 million of the proposed $5.297 million
increase to OLE's budget will be allocated to advancing research
involving genetic markers and isotope analysis. This research will
ultimately improve investigators' ability to determine the geographic
origin of animals and animal parts. However, in addition to the
increased research funding, additional support for facilities
development is needed. In order to continue advancing its invaluable
work, the NFWFL must construct a comparison standards warehouse. This
facility will be used to store and maintain the laboratory's more than
40,000 DNA samples from around the world. We request that an additional
$3 million be allocated to the establishment of this facility to
support and expedite its construction.
fish and wildlife service special agents and wildlife inspectors
The Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agents and Wildlife
Inspectors who enforce U.S. wildlife laws play a critical role in
protecting our Nation's wildlife. Special Agents aid in the reduction
of illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products, which continues to
imperil species in the United States and around the world. Wildlife
Inspectors play a similarly valuable role, minimizing illegal
contraband shipments, uncovering smuggled goods and illegal trade rings
at the border, and thwarting national and global health risks by
shielding the American public from the disease and safety risks
associated with importing non-native species.
In fiscal year 2012, FWS Special Agents pursued 12,996
investigations resulting in over $10 million in fines and penalties,
56.9 years of jail time for the perpetrators, and 550.5 years of
probation.\1\ In the same year, FWS Wildlife Inspectors processed
approximately 186,000 declared shipments of wildlife products worth
over $4.4 billion.\2\ This impressive records merits proper funding and
staffing adequate to fulfill OLE's mission. In fiscal year 2012, OLE
employed just 219 Special Agents and 143 Wildlife Inspectors. We
support the President's proposed increase of $3 million (of the total
$5.297 million requested increase) to be allocated toward hiring
Special Agents to investigate international wildlife trafficking and to
support direct partnerships with foreign governments to coordinate
training and monitoring efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement, Law
Enforcement at a Glance (2013).
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
wild free-roaming horses and burros act
The wild horse is as much a symbol of American heritage as the
image of Uncle Sam and baseball. Currently, America's wild horses are
subjected to mistreatment by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which
uses a significant portion of its budget to round up and warehouse wild
horses and burros without credible evidence supporting the need for
such removals. Furthermore, 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--in fact, in recent years, hundreds of
wild horses were sold to at least one known killer-buyer.
In 1971, Congress acted on behalf of these wild animals to protect
their natural habitat and lifestyle. It is now time for Congress to act
again to ensure these animals are neither sent into long-term holding
facilities nor sentenced to slaughter. BLM's proposed budget includes a
program increase of $2 million for Wild Horse and Burro Management.
These funds are to be used ``for new and existing applied research
toward the development of tools intended to improve wild horse and
burro management and rangeland health,'' including research that will
``focus on developing more effective and longer lasting fertility
control agents and techniques for suppressing population growth . . .''
\3\ AWI supports these efforts and requests that any increase in
appropriations under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act be
used solely for implementation of humane, on-the-range management
methods such as immunocontraception, and not unnecessary roundup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management,
Budget Justifications and Performance Information: Fiscal Year 2014
(2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, AWI strongly supports the inclusion of this ``no-kill''
language to ensure that 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.''
national park service lethal management of native wildlife
In recent years, the National Park Service (NPS) has significantly
expanded its lethal control of native ungulates in contravention of its
own legal mandates. During this time, the NPS has initiated lethal
control of ungulates in a number of national parks (e.g., Valley Forge,
Catoctin, Indiana Dunes, and Rock Creek) and is considering similar
efforts in other parks. In each case, the NPS has misapplied its own
statutes and policies and has failed to provide any credible site-
specific data to justify its heavy-handed strategies. Though even the
NPS concedes that ungulates are keystone herbivores, it is unwilling to
allow ungulates to naturally influence ecosystem structure and function
as its own statutes and policies require. Therefore, AWI requests that
the following language, which would save taxpayer dollars, be included
in the Senate Interior Appropriations bill:
``No funds appropriated under this legislation shall be expended by
the National Park Service to lethally control or kill native ungulates
nor shall the National Park Service permit any entity, public or
private, to kill said ungulates.''
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums
Thank you, Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski, for allowing
me to submit written testimony on behalf of the Nation's 212 U.S.
accredited zoos and aquariums. Specifically, I want to express my
support for the inclusion of $9,466,000 for the Multinational Species
Conservation Funds (MSCF) operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and $9.7 million for National Environmental Education Act
programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the fiscal
year 2014 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations
bill.
Founded in 1924, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) is a
nonprofit 501c(3) organization dedicated to the advancement of zoos and
aquariums in the areas of conservation, education, science, and
recreation. Accredited zoos and aquariums annually see more than 182
million visitors, collectively generate more than $16 billion in annual
economic activity, and support more than 142,000 jobs across the
country. Annually, AZA-accredited institutions spend $160 million on
more than 2,650 field conservation projects in 130 countries.
MSCF programs support public-private partnerships that conserve
wild tigers, elephants, rhinos, great apes, and marine turtles in their
native habitats. Through the MSCF programs, the United States
supplements the efforts of developing countries that are struggling to
balance the needs of their human populations and endemic wildlife. MSCF
programs help to sustain wildlife populations, address threats such as
illegal poaching, reduce human-wildlife conflict, and protect essential
habitat. By working with local communities, they also improve people's
livelihoods, contribute to local and regional stability, and support
U.S. security interests in impoverished regions. This Federal program
benefits AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums in their field conservation
efforts and partnerships with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I also encourage you to continue to support the valuable
environmental education initiatives at the EPA. Education programs at
AZA-accredited institutions provide essential learning opportunities,
particularly about science, for schoolchildren in formal and informal
settings. Studies have shown that American schoolchildren are lagging
behind their international peers in certain subjects including science
and math. In the last 10 years, accredited zoos and aquariums formally
trained more than 400,000 teachers, supporting science curricula with
effective teaching materials and hands-on opportunities. School field
trips annually connect more than 12 million students with the natural
world. Increasing access to formal and informal science education
opportunities has never been more important.
Finally, much of the important conservation work at accredited zoos
and aquariums depends on a robust and fully staffed FWS. While I am
aware of the budget challenges facing Congress and the agencies, I
encourage you to ensure that the FWS has sufficient resources to employ
qualified professionals, particularly for the programs handling
permits, which support the science-based conservation breeding and
wildlife education programs that require animals to be moved in an
efficient, timely manner: International Affairs (Management Authority);
Endangered Species; Law Enforcement; and Migratory Birds.
AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums are essential conservation and
education partners at the Federal, State, and local levels domestically
as well as internationally. To ensure that accredited zoos and
aquariums can continue to serve in these important roles, I urge you to
include $9,466,000 for the Multinational Species Conservation Funds
operated by FWS and $9.7 million for National Environmental Education
Act programs at the Environmental Protection Agency in the fiscal year
2014 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation
The requests of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation for the
fiscal year 2014 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows:
--Allocate an additional $7.8 million to the IHS to fully fund
Village Built Clinic (VBC) leases, and direct the IHS to use
its fiscal year 2014 appropriations to fully fund the VBC
leases in accordance with section 804 of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act.
--Appropriate adequate funds for the IHS to fully pay all Contract
Support Costs (CSC) without shortfall. Based on the limited
information available to us, we estimate this would take $617
million for fiscal year 2014. We also ask that the committees
direct the IHS to immediately release the outstanding data on
CSC shortfall for fiscal years 2011 and 2012.
--Exempt the IHS from any future sequestration, as Congress has done
for the Veterans Health Administration programs.
The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) was created in 1973
to provide healthcare services to Alaska Natives of southwest Alaska.
BBAHC began operating and managing the Kanakanak Hospital and the
Bristol Bay Service Unit for the IHS in 1980, and was the first tribal
organization to do so under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (ISDEAA). BBAHC is a co-signer to the Alaska Tribal
Health Compact with the IHS under the ISDEAA and is now responsible for
providing and promoting healthcare to the people of 34 Alaska Native
Villages.
Fully Fund Village Built Clinic Leases.--BBAHC previously submitted
joint testimony to the committees in March 2012, along with the Norton
Sound Health Corporation and the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association,
outlining our concerns about the IHS's chronic underfunding of Village
Built Clinic (VBC) leases. These concerns continue today.
The IHS's decision to continue underfunding the VBCs has
jeopardized the provision of basic healthcare services to Alaska
Natives in their villages. The VBCs are essential for maintaining the
IHS Community Health Aide Program (CHAP) in Alaska, which provides the
only local source of healthcare for many Alaska Native people in rural
areas. The CHAP program is mandated by Congress as the instrument for
providing basic health services in remote Alaska Native villages. The
CHAP program 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 without the use of clinic
facilities.
We believe the IHS has a legal obligation to maintain the VBCs in
good repair. Under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA)
amendments of 1992, Congress required the IHS to ``maintain'' the CHAP,
and in the recent reauthorization of the act, Congress requires the IHS
to ``develop and operate'' the CHAP for Alaska healthcare. 25 U.S.C.
Sec. 1616l(a)(2). IHS cannot fulfill these statutory responsibilities
without keeping the VBCs in good working order through maintenance and
repair.
The IHS has nevertheless, for many years, consistently underfunded
the leases of VBCs even though the IHS has had available appropriations
to fully fund the leases. IHS has made a policy decision to use ``full-
service'' leases, which shift the cost of operation and maintenance of
the VBCs to the villages, even though the IHS has direct leasing
authority under the IHCIA and the ISDEAA. Lease rental amounts for the
VBCs have failed to keep pace with costs--the majority of the leases
for VBCs have not increased since 1989. The IHS has chosen to shift its
statutory responsibilities onto the villages and tribal health
corporations, like BBAHC, which do not have adequate financial
resources to maintain and upgrade the VBCs for CHAP staff. As a result,
some villages in our region have been left without an adequate
healthcare facility and have even had to close the doors of their VBCs.
As we indicated in our joint testimony to the subcommittees last
year, BBAHC and many other tribal organizations in Alaska have
discussed this issue with the IHS on several occasions, and have
proposed solutions that the IHS continues to ignore. IHS continues to
assert that it provides for VBC leases all of the funds that Congress
has appropriated for the program. In our view, the amounts historically
traceable to the VBC leases 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, improvements and equipment, and
includes a sub-activity 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 can also access other IHS discretionary
funds to fully fund its VBC obligations.
For the 2014 appropriations, we thus request that at least an
additional $7.8 million be included in the appropriation specifically
for the purpose of fully funding all VBC leases in 2014. We also ask
that Congress direct the IHS to use existing fiscal year 2014
appropriations to fully fund the VBC leases in accordance with section
804 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
Adequate Appropriations Are Needed To Fully Fund Contract Support
Costs (CSC); IHS Should Be Directed To Release CSC Shortfall Data.--
While Congress has in the past appropriated additional funding for CSC
owed to tribes and tribal organizations under the ISDEAA and Federal
case law, which BBAHC greatly appreciated, those additional
appropriated funds unfortunately are not enough to eliminate the
ongoing shortfall of CSC. As a result, BBAHC continues to endure
significant financial hardships that translate into less healthcare for
its patients. We urge the subcommittees to continue to push for full
funding of CSC so that CSC underfunding is finally resolved. While it
is difficult to estimate the full CSC need for fiscal year 2014--in
part because IHS refuses to release its CSC distribution data for the
last 2 years, as discussed further below--based on projections from
fiscal year 2010 we estimate that the total need in fiscal year 2014 is
$617 million.
Full CSC funding would allow the IHS to resolve the inherent
dilemma placed on the IHS by the appropriations ``caps,'' which
Congress has for years placed on the amount of CSC the IHS can pay for
aggregate CSC. However, section 106(a)(2) of the ISDEAA requires full
payment of CSC, notwithstanding the appropriations ``cap.'' The effect
of the ``cap'' does not limit what the IHS must pay individual tribes
and tribal organizations for CSC under their ISDEAA contracts and
compacts. Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 132 S. Ct. 2181 (2012). In
the Ramah decision, the United States Supreme Court recognizes that
the ISDEAA requires payment of full CSC to all contractors, yet in
every year at issue Congress failed to appropriate enough for the
agencies to do so. We ask that the subcommittee appropriate enough CSC
to eliminate underfunding.
Unfortunately, some in the administration appear to view the Ramah
decision not as a call for full CSC funding but as a roadmap for
shortchanging tribes and leaving them no legal recourse. We found it
surprising that the President's fiscal year 2014 budget, released on
April 10, proposed only a minimal increase for IHS CSC to $477,205,000.
This would force tribes to absorb almost $140 million in uncompensated
costs for overhead and administration of Federal programs. Just as bad,
the administration's proposed appropriations act language attempts to
preclude tribes from recovering any of their CSC shortfalls through
contract actions, which the Supreme Court in Ramah said is currently
their right. The bill language would incorporate by reference a table
identifying the maximum amount of CSC available for every single ISDEAA
agreement. We urge that the subcommittee reject this proposed approach
and, instead, fully fund CSC for both IHS and BIA.
Finally, we would very much like to see the CSC shortfall data for
fiscal years 2011 and 2012, but the IHS has to date failed to provide
that data to tribes and tribal organizations. IHS is required to submit
CSC shortfall reports to Congress no later than May 15 of each year by
section 106(c) of the ISDEAA, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 450j-1(c). BBAHC and other
co-signers to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact, under title V of the
ISDEAA, recently asked the IHS to share the CSC distribution data for
those years with all of the co-signers. Access to the CSC shortfall
data, if not the reports themselves, is critical to our ability to
understand the IHS's view of the scope of CSC underfunding, to evaluate
IHS's allocation of its insufficient past CSC appropriations, and to
pursue full CSC funding moving forward. The IHS has to date refused to
make the reports available, and again refused as recently as the co-
signers' meeting with the IHS Area Lead Negotiator for the Alaska Area
of IHS in March 2013. We thus ask that the committees direct the IHS to
immediately release the CSC shortfall data for fiscal years 2011 and
2012.
Sequestration.--The Office of Management and Budget determined that
the IHS's discretionary appropriation is fully sequestrable, which
resulted in a $220 million cut in funding to the IHS for fiscal year
2013--roughly 5 percent of the IHS's overall budget. IHS lost $195
million for programs like hospitals and health clinics services,
contract health services, dental services, mental health and alcohol
and substance abuse. Impacts are also felt on programs and projects
necessary for maintenance and improvement of health facilities. These
negative effects are then passed down to every ISDEAA contractor,
including BBAHC. BBAHC is already significantly underfunded, resulting
in further cuts to the availability of health services we are able to
provide to our patients, resulting in real consequences for individuals
who have to forego needed care.
We are suffering these reductions and experiencing these new
challenges to providing healthcare for the people of the BBAHC region,
despite the United States' trust responsibility for the health of
Alaska Native and American Indian people. We cannot understand why this
responsibility was taken less seriously than the Nation's promises to
provide health to our veterans. The Veterans Health Administration (VA)
was made fully exempt from the sequester for all programs administered
by the VA. See section 255 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act (BBEDCA), as amended by Public Law 111-139 (2010). Also
exempt are State Medicaid grants and Medicare payments are held
harmless except for a 2 percent reduction for administration of the
program. We thus strongly urge the subcommittee to support amendment of
the BBEDCA to fully exempt the IHS from any future sequestration, just
as the VA's and other health programs are exempt.
Thank you for your consideration of our requests to address the
chronic underfunding of VBCs and CSC and to fully exempt IHS funds from
any future budget sequestration. We will be glad to provide any
additional information the subcommittees may request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Back Country Horsemen of Washington
The Back Country Horsemen of Washington are pack and saddle stock
users who ride on our Nation's public lands in the traditions that date
back to the founders of our public agencies. Part of our purpose is to
provide assistance to the agencies in the form of volunteerism in order
to maintain our public lands' trails systems. We are a support group,
and while we are very proud of our partnership with the agencies,
particularly the U.S. Forest Service, we are also dismayed that they
struggle with inadequate resources to even start to address backlog
trail and road maintenance. Furthermore we find that our own ability to
assist as volunteers is often limited, not by the enthusiasm of our
membership, but by the inability of the agencies to fund the planning
work and issue approvals necessary to accomplish some of the work we
stand prepared to do. Finally, we find that as the agencies turn to
grant sources to fund everything from law enforcement to basic
maintenance, we all find ourselves competing over shrinking pots of
money. There does not seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel. What
we now deal with are not just failed trails, blocked trails, and washed
out roads that seem to take forever to even get approvals to repair,
but we are also seeing a loss of quality of public lands recreation due
to insect infestation and fire, as well as an increased danger to
personal safety from lack of sight distance driving on forest roads
where the brush has turned two lane roads into one.
We therefore ask that for the National Forest trail system, the
House fund the USFS at $85 million for fiscal year 2014 for their
Capital Improvement and Maintenance (CIM) Trails projects and $237
million for CIM Roads. We also ask for $285 million for the USFS
Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness allocation and $46 million for
their Land Management Planning. Let's fix our roads and trails so they
can be used.
We would like our National Scenic Trails to receive sustained
funding, and particularly we ask for $1 million for the Pacific
Northwest National Scenic Trail. This trail has not yet been given a
meaningful appropriation to complete even its comprehensive plan.
Volunteers have been at this for three decades trying to make this
trail a reality. While it did get brought into the National Scenic
Trail system by Senator Maria Cantwell and Representative Norm Dicks,
little congressional investment has been made since to make this trail
a known entity in the Northwestern States.
To help our national scenic trails get completed, please
reauthorize the Federal Lands Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA).
This is a ``land for land'' program that sells Federal lands in order
to acquire more strategic parcels. This is similar to transactions
between State and private entities in Washington State.
With respect to the Legacy Roads and Trails (LRT) allocation, we
feel this is an important fund but that the ``trails'' part of it is
often well overlooked except when discussing the intent of the program.
We ask that this fund be genuinely used equally to repair roads, repair
trails, and decommission truly unstable and unneeded roads. We ask that
LRT be funded at $90 million, and that one-third of this fund go to
trail stabilization, trail infrastructure repair, and trailhead
enhancements.
We would like Secure Rural Schools to be reauthorized so there
remains available revenue for title II grants that so benefit our rural
counties and our National Forests. These revenues fix campgrounds and
trailheads, repair roads, replace culverts, and manage invasive weeds.
Our candid viewpoint on Department of the Interior agencies is that
there has been a trending over years for these departments to limit
public access to their lands beyond the visitors' centers. It is our
feeling that DOI is losing touch with many residents in western States.
If alive today, Teddy Roosevelt, who started the National Refuge
System, would no longer be able to ride his horse on most of them. The
same is true for John Muir with regards to National Parks. The refuge
system now has an Appropriate Use Policy, and apparently rural
residents aren't appropriate users. We do look forward to working with
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell in the hopes that America's Great
Outdoors once again are for all Americans. From past experience with Ms
Jewell, she exemplified the ability to reach out to everyone here in
Washington State. We are optimistic that she will bring this unifying
approach to the other Washington.
With the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) set to
expire, fees will be an important topic in Congress, in the agencies,
and among the user groups. When considering the reauthorization of
FLREA, please include all user groups in the discussions including the
Back Country Horsemen. Following FLREA reauthorization will be changes
to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) legislative policies.
Once again, we ask that we be allowed input in these discussions.
______
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
respectfully request $7,505,000 in fiscal year 2014 funding to address
White-nose Syndrome (WNS), a disease that is decimating North American
bats.
WNS poses the gravest threat ever faced by American 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, called
Geomyces destructans (Gd), that is found on the faces and wings of
infected bats and causes the disease. 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 outside their caves. The disease or its fungus has spread to 24
States and five Canadian provinces in the 7 years since WNS was first
reported in a cave near Albany, New York. The northeastern United
States has borne the brunt of WNS so far, but the disease or Gd has
spread as far south as Alabama and Georgia. It also has spread as far
west as Oklahoma--a location closer to the Pacific Ocean than to the
site where WNS was first found.
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 are considered
at risk. WNS or Gd currently affects nine species, including the
federally endangered Indiana and gray bats, which are at increased risk
of 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--within 14 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 more than half its body weight in insects each
night, consuming vast numbers of pests that damage crops such as corn,
cotton, and soybeans. A study published in 2011 in the journal Science
estimates that the value of bats to the U.S. agriculture industry is
$22.9 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 a few years, with especially significant
impacts to the Midwest and Great Plains. In addition to crop losses,
more pesticides will be required, 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, with far-ranging economic costs. Because of WNS, the Fish and
Wildlife Service is conducting status assessments of the little brown
bat, northern long-eared bat, and eastern small-footed bat. At the
State level, Ohio and Wisconsin have each listed four bat species,
Vermont has listed three, and other States are considering
designations. Bat species affected by WNS have broad geographic
distributions and complex ecological patterns, which would likely
require high recovery costs. Finally, regulations stemming from listing
more bat species could have economic impacts on industries such as
infrastructure, energy, forestry, mining, defense, tourism, and outdoor
recreation.
BCI appreciates the commitment Congress has demonstrated toward
fighting WNS. In fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated $1.9 million
in WNS-related funds to FWS. In the fiscal year 2012 spending package,
Congress directed FWS to spend no less than $4 million on WNS, and
directed BLM and USFS to prioritize WNS activities. We thank Congress
for recognizing not only the gravity of WNS, but also the institutional
and geographic scope of the response that is 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. They are ready to apply this knowledge to management and
conservation measures. Failing to fund WNS this year will negate the
accomplishments of Federal agencies and their partners in the fight
against this devastating epidemic.
BCI therefore supports the requests for WNS funding in the
President's fiscal year 2014 budget, and we urge the subcommittee to
maintain them. If the subcommittee can invest more in fighting WNS to
protect bats and their valuable contributions to the economy,
agriculture, and the environment, we suggest the following outlays:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $1,500,000
We ask the subcommittee to maintain the $1.5 million request for
WNS in the President's fiscal year 2014 budget.
This will fund:
--Research.--Identify priorities for applied research to help combat
WNS and manage its spread, and fund projects that support these
goals.
--State support.--Provide funding for State wildlife agencies to
conduct disease surveillance, monitor bat populations,
implement conservation measures, and conduct research.
U.S. Geological Survey: $1,505,000
We ask the subcommittee to maintain the $1.505 million request for
WNS in the President's fiscal year 2014 budget.
This will support research on topics such as:
--The role of environmental factors in WNS development.
--Non-bat models for studying WNS in the lab, to preclude the taking
of sensitive species.
--Differences between Gd and related, non-pathogenic fungi to
identify harmful genes that could possibly be silenced.
These activities support the goals of the following National Plan
working groups:
--Diagnostics,
--Disease Management,
--Epidemiological and Ecological Research,
--Disease Surveillance, and
--Conservation and Recovery.
National Park Service: $3,000,000
We ask the subcommittee to maintain the $3 million request for WNS
in the President's fiscal year 2014 budget.
This will fund:
--On-the-ground disease surveillance.
--Inventory of bat resources.
--Participation in research to help fight the disease.
--Visitor decontamination and monitoring visitor flow at cave sites,
as needed.
--Managing habitat to increase bat survival.
--Public education about WNS.
These activities support the goals of the following National Plan
working groups:
--Disease Management,
--Conservation and Recovery, and
--Communications and Outreach.
Bureau of Land Management: $500,000
Thanks to Congress's fiscal year 2012 directive for the Bureau of
Land Management to ``prioritize research related to White Nose Syndrome
in bats and the inventory and monitoring of bat resources on Bureau-
administered lands,'' the agency increased money spent on WNS
activities by nearly 250 percent from fiscal year 2011.
These activities included:
--Monitoring of disease presence or absence.
--Inventory of bat, cave, and mine resources.
--Participation in research to help fight the disease.
We ask the subcommittee to provide $500,000 so BLM can continue
these WNS efforts, in support of the goals of the National Plan Disease
Management Working Group.
U.S. Forest Service: $1,000,000
As a result of Congress's fiscal year 2012 directive for the Forest
Service to ``prioritize research related to White Nose Syndrome as well
as inventory and monitoring of bat resources on Forest Service lands,''
the agency developed a WNS science strategy, and expanded WNS
activities on its lands.
So that USFS can continue these efforts, we ask the subcommittee to
provide $1,000,000: $750,000 for Research and Development and $250,000
for the National Forest System.
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.
--Conducting visitor decontamination and monitoring visitor flow at
cave sites, as needed.
--On-the-ground disease surveillance.
--Managing forest habitat to increase bat survival.
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. Preventing WNS spread will
spare businesses the regulatory and other impacts of massive bat die-
offs. Implementing WNS response generates jobs. Finally, conducting WNS
research, management, and prevention now will reduce future expenses to
the U.S. economy from insect-related losses to agriculture and forestry
and the cost of listed-species recovery. In this case, an ounce of
prevention truly is worth a pound of cure.
Thank you for the opportunity to share BCI's position on this
serious matter. We respectfully ask you to consider our urgent request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition Against Forest Pests
The Coalition Against Forest Pests (Alliance for Community Trees,
American Forest & Paper Association, American Forests, American Forest
Foundation, California Forest Pest Council, National Association of
Conservation Districts, National Alliance of Forest Owners, National
Association of State Foresters, National Woodland Owners Association,
Society of American Florists, Society of American Foresters, The Davey
Tree Expert Company, The Nature Conservancy, Vermont Woodlands
Association) consists of nonprofit organizations, for-profit
corporations, landowners, State agencies and academic scholars who have
joined together to improve our Nation's efforts to address this
critical threat to our forests. Our Coalition seeks to create real and
lasting change by advocating for stronger programs and policies that
work to combat this threat, mitigate the existing impacts, and restore
healthy forest ecosystems. We write today in support of the USDA Forest
Service (USFS) Forest Health Management Program which provides critical
assistance to other Federal agencies, State agencies, local agencies
and private landowners in their efforts to protect and improve the
health of America's rural and urban forests. For fiscal year 2014, we
urge the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies to
provide funding for the Forest Service Forest Health Management (FHM)
Program to no less than the fiscal year 2012 level of $112 million (of
which $48 million was directed to cooperative lands) and to provide
research for forest invasive species through the Forest Service
Research Program to the fiscal year 2012 level.
Our Nation's forests and trees, much like other critical
infrastructure, provide numerous benefits. Across both rural and urban
landscapes, forests and trees play an important role in the health of
our environment and our economy--providing clean air and water,
wildlife habitat, enhanced property values, renewable energy sources,
and carbon sequestration. Furthermore, healthy and sustainable forests
drive State and local economies by supporting jobs related to forest
products, recreation, and tourism. The U.S. forest products industry
employs nearly 900,000 people; it is among the top 10 manufacturing
sector employers in 47 States. In Idaho and Virginia alone, the forest
products industry directly employs nearly 10,000 and 28,000 people,
respectively. Wood and paper production ranks in the top 10
manufacturing sectors in both States and generates billions in
shipments of important wood and paper products annually. In Vermont,
the maple sugar industry provides 4,000 seasonal jobs. Visitors to
National Forest System lands generate more than $13 billion of
recreation and other related economic activity. Tourism based on fall
foliage displays attracts 1 million tourists who annually generate $1
billion in revenue in New England.
The importance of the continued health and vitality of our urban
and rural forests cannot be overstated; unfortunately, neither can the
severity of the threats they currently face. The ability of trees and
forests to continue to provide important environmental and
socioeconomic benefits is being threatened by damaging invasive species
that are arriving and spreading at an increasing rate--destroying
habitat and creating voids in cities and towns once populated by
thriving forests and trees.
Close to 500 species of tree-damaging pests from other countries
have become established in the country, and a new one is introduced, on
average, every 2 to 3 years. At least 28 new tree-killing pests have
been detected in the United States in just the last decade. Some of
these are capable of causing enormous damage. For instance, thousand
cankers disease threatens black walnut trees across the East; the value
of walnut growing stock is estimated to be $539 billion.
Already, municipal governments across the country are spending more
than $2 billion each year to remove trees on city property killed by
non-native pests. Homeowners are spending $1 billion to remove and
replace trees on their properties and are absorbing an additional $1.5
billion in reduced property values.
The USFS FHM & Research programs provide critical resources
supporting efforts to prevent, contain, and eradicate dangerous pests
and pathogens affecting trees and forests. USFS funding for many of
these vital pest programs has been cut severely, as the data comparing
funding in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 demonstrate:
--Asian longhorned beetle, cut by 68 percent from fiscal year 2011 to
fiscal year 2012;
--Sudden oak death, cut by 53 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal
year 2012;
--Emerald ash borer, cut by 36 percent from fiscal year 2011 to
fiscal year 2012; and
--Hemlock woolly adelgid, cut by 22 percent from fiscal year 2011 to
fiscal year 2012.
These programs suffered further cuts in fiscal year 2013; the
emerald ash borer program was cut by another 32 percent, reducing it to
only 42 percent of its 2011 level. In the meantime, the APHIS EAB
program has shrunk 74 percent--from $37.2 million to just $9.7 million.
In fiscal year 2012, the FHM Program helped combat native and
invasive pests on over 351,000 acres of Federal lands and over 615,000
acres of Cooperative lands. While these numbers represent a vital
component of our efforts to protect the Nation's forests and trees,
they also represent the real consequences of reductions in funding--
with nearly 150,000 fewer acres treated on Cooperative lands in fiscal
year 2012 (as compared to acres treated in fiscal year 2011). Further,
FHM leads the Federal Government's efforts to counter forest pests
which have become widespread, including gypsy moth, hemlock woolly
adelgid, white pine blister rust, Port-Orford-cedar root disease,
thousand cankers disease, oak wilt, and others. Any further cuts to
this program will necessitate deeper reductions in support for
communities already facing outbreaks and expose more of the Nation's
forests and trees to the pests' devastating and costly effects.
The USFS Research and Development Program provides the science to
help manage invasive species in urban and rural forests. Forest Service
Research (R&D) provides the scientific foundation for developing
effective tools to detect and manage forest pests and the pathways by
which they are introduced and spread. We consider it vitally important
to conduct research aimed at improving detection and control methods
for the Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Sudden Oak Death,
Thousand Cankers Disease, Gold-spotted Oak Borer and other non-native
forests pests and diseases. USFS research scientists have had the
leading role in developing detection traps and evaluating treatments
that make walnut lumber safe to continue moving in commerce.
We ask your support to direct Forest Service research funding
targeted at improving detection and control of these deadly pests and
diseases. The importance of maintaining funding for USFS FHP and R&D
programs on these pests is demonstrated by a brief description of the
threats they pose:
--The Asian longhorned beetle kills trees in 15 botanical families--
especially maples and birches which constitute much of the
forest reaching from Maine to Minnesota and urban trees worth
an estimated $600 billion.
--Emerald ash borer occupies more than 200,000 square miles in 18
States. More than 200 million ash trees in the Plains States
and additional trees in the South are at risk to this pest.
Homeowners and municipalities collectively will pay more than
$10 billion over the next 10 years to remove dead ash trees
that would otherwise fall and cause property damage or even
loss of life.
--Hemlock woolly adelgid has killed up to 90 percent of hemlock trees
in the Appalachians from Georgia to Massachusetts. Loss of
hemlock groves threatens unique ecosystems and watersheds.
--Goldspotted oak borer has killed up to 80,000 California live oak
and black oak trees in San Diego County in less than 15 years.
The insect threatens oaks throughout California, including
close to 300,000 oak trees growing in greater Los Angeles and
trees in Yosemite Valley.
--Sudden Oak Death affects 143 different plant species and continues
to spread in California's 14 impacted counties as well as Curry
County, Oregon. In 2012 alone, nearly 400,000 trees were lost
to Sudden Oak Death in California.
In a time when America's forests and trees faces significant
threats regarding their present and long-term health, USFS must be
provided with adequate funds to support this key program. Accordingly,
we urge you to provide funding to no less than fiscal year 2012 levels
as you consider fiscal year 2014 appropriations for the USFS. We would
be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your
time and consideration of this important request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Arizona Project
On behalf of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
(CAWCD), I encourage you to include $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 the Bureau of
Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water and Air Program in fiscal year
2014. This funding will help protect the water quality of the Colorado
River that is used by approximately 40 million people for municipal and
industrial purposes and used to irrigate approximately 4 million acres
in the United States.
CAWCD manages the Central Arizona Project, a multi-purpose water
resource development and management project that delivers Colorado
River water into central and southern Arizona. The largest supplier of
renewable water in Arizona, CAP diverts an average of over 1.6 million
acre-feet of Arizona's 2.8 million acre-foot Colorado River entitlement
each year to municipal and industrial users, agricultural irrigation
districts, and Indian communities.
Our goal at CAP is to provide an affordable, reliable and
sustainable supply of Colorado River water to a service area that
includes more than 80 percent of Arizona's population.
These renewable water supplies are critical to Arizona's economy
and to the economies of Native American communities throughout the
State. Nearly 90 percent of economic activity in the State of Arizona
occurs within CAP's service area. CAP also helps the State of Arizona
meet its water management and regulatory objectives of reducing
groundwater use and ensuring availability of groundwater as a
supplemental water supply during future droughts. Achieving and
maintaining these water management objectives is critical to the long-
term sustainability of a State as arid as Arizona.
negative impacts of concentrated salts
Natural and man-induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates
environmental and 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
federally owned, much of which is administered by BLM. Human activity,
principally irrigation, adds to salt load of the Colorado River.
Further, natural and human activities concentrate the dissolved salts
in the River.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has estimated the
current quantifiable damages at about $376 million per year to U.S.
users with projections that damages would increase to more than $500
million by 2030 if the program were not to continue. These damages
include:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector,
--increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
disposal for recycling water in the municipal 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, and
--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.
Adequate funding for salinity control will prevent the water
quality of the Colorado River from further degradation and avoid
significant increases in economic damages to municipal, industrial and
irrigation users.
history of the blm colorado river basin salinity control program
In implementing the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of
1974, 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 U.S. 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 users in the United States. This
testimony deals specific with title II efforts. In 1984, 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, 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 increase BLM
efforts in the Colorado River Basin and 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.
The threat of salinity continues to be a concern in both the United
States and Mexico. Most recently, on November 20, 2012, a 5-year
agreement, known as Minute 319, was signed between the United States
and Mexico to guide future management of the Colorado River. Among the
key issues addressed in Minute 319 included an agreement to maintain
current salinity management and existing salinity standards. The CAWCD
and other key water providers are committed to meeting these goals.
conclusion
Implementation of salinity control practices through the BLM
Program has proven to be a very cost effective method of controlling
the salinity of the Colorado River. In fact, the salt load of the
Colorado River has now been reduced by roughly 1.2 million tons
annually, reducing salinity in the Lower Basin by more than 100 ppm.
However, shortfalls in funding levels have led to inefficiencies in the
implementation of the overall Program. Therefore, additional funding is
required in 2014 to meet this goal and prevent further degradation of
the quality of the Colorado River with a commensurate increase in
downstream economic damages.
CAWCD urges the subcommittee to include $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 the Bureau
of Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water and Air Program. 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.
______
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 2014 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. Found in every U.S. State and territory, national wildlife
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 $499 million for the Operations and Maintenance
accounts of the National Wildlife Refuge System for fiscal year 2014.
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
The National Wildlife Refuge System, established by President
Theodore Roosevelt in 1903, protects approximately 150 million acres on
561 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts
across the United States. From the Virgin Islands to Guam and the
Pacific marine national monuments, the Refuge System spans 12 time
zones and protects America's natural heritage in habitats ranging from
arctic tundra to arid desert, boreal forest to sagebrush grassland, and
prairie wetlands to coral reefs. With units in every State and
territory, and within an hour's drive of most metropolitan areas, the
Refuge System attracts a growing number of visitors each year (more
than 47 million in fiscal year 2012) with opportunities for hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, photography, kayaking, and outdoor
education. Together, these visitors generate between $2.1 billion and
$4.2 billion annually to local and regional economies--on average
returning $4 to $8 in economic activity for every $1 appropriated--and
support approximately 35,000 U.S. jobs. In addition, 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. According to a 2011 report by
Southwick Associates, refuges generate more than $32.3 billion in these
ecosystem services each year, a return of more than $65 for every $1
appropriated by Congress.
CARE estimates that the Refuge System needs at least $900 million
in annual operations and maintenance funding to properly carry out its
conservation mission ``for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans,'' as mandated by Congress through the
bipartisan-supported National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997. That entails managing wildlife, restoring habitats, providing
quality recreation programs, and more. At its highest funding level in
fiscal year 2010, the System received $503 million--little more than
half the needed amount. Since that time, congressional appropriations
have been steadily backsliding toward levels that, in real dollars,
have not been seen since fiscal year 2006.
If sequestration cuts continue, CARE estimates that the Refuge
System's fiscal year 2014 appropriation could drop to only about $420
million--a cut of $83 million, or 17 percent, compared with fiscal year
2010. On the ground, however, it will feel more like a $122 million, or
24 percent, cut (see chart). That is because the Refuge System needs an
increase of $8 million to $15 million each year to cover the rising
cost of fuel, utilities, rent, and other fixed expenses.\1\ Because
budgets have not kept pace with rising costs, the gap between the level
of funding needed to maintain the Refuge System's capabilities and the
level of funding appropriated by Congress has widened dramatically. To
begin to bridge that gap, CARE seeks a middle ground and urges Congress
to fund the National Wildlife Refuge System's Operations and
Maintenance accounts at $499 million in fiscal year 2014. This funding
level is essential in order for the Refuge System to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prior to fiscal year 2011, the Refuge System required an annual
increase of $15 million to cover rising costs and maintain management
capabilities; a salary freeze for Federal employees has reduced the
annual need to $8 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Conduct management and restoration activities to provide healthy
habitats that attract wildlife and, in turn, draw visitors.
--Keep refuges open and staffed so that quality recreational
opportunities continue to be offered to the public.
--Maintain facilities and equipment used to serve the public and
manage habitat.
--Provide law enforcement officers needed to keep refuge resources
and the people who come to appreciate them safe.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The effects of sequestration cuts are already being felt on refuges
across the country and, if allowed to continue eating away at the
Refuge System's annual operations and maintenance funding, CARE
anticipates significant impacts both within and outside of refuge
boundaries, including:
--A reduction in the treatment of invasive plant populations, which
will reduce the quality of habitat needed to support wildlife
(both game and nongame) and put private lands at higher risk of
infestations.
--A decrease in the use of prescribed fire, which is used on refuges
both to improve habitat for wildlife that are adapted to fire
and to reduce hazardous fuels that pose a wildfire risk to
nearby communities.
--A decline in the number and quality of visitor programs, with
visitor centers at many refuges operating at reduced hours, and
plans to add or expand hunting programs at as many as 29
refuges being postponed or cut.
--Lost revenue for local communities as visitor numbers drop;
according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) fiscal
year 2013 budget justification, ``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.''
--Elimination of ancillary functions like FWS's operation of
Henderson Field at Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, which
serves as a critical emergency landing site for trans-pacific
flights, as well as the public's only window to the vast marine
national monuments.
The loss of volunteer contributions will exacerbate these impacts.
Currently, refuge Friends groups and volunteers do approximately 20
percent of all work on refuges. In fiscal year 2012, approximately
42,800 people spent nearly 1.6 million hours volunteering on refuges, a
contribution worth an estimated $34.7 million, or the equivalent of 766
full-time employees. This is only possible, however, if the Refuge
System has sufficient staff resources available to train and oversee
these volunteers. Because projected sequestration cuts will leave
vacant staff positions unfilled and may force existing staff to be
reassigned to higher priority duties, refuges are unlikely to retain
the capacity to leverage such significant volunteer contributions in
the years ahead.
Further, while we appreciate the funding that Congress provided for
Hurricane Sandy relief, the Refuge System continues to feel the impacts
of other natural disasters that have occurred over the past several
years. Between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2011, refuges sustained
$693 million in damages from natural disasters including hurricanes,
flooding, tornadoes, fires, a tsunami, and an earthquake. Of that
total, Congress appropriated $254 million in emergency supplemental
funding, but the Refuge System has been left to cope with the remaining
$439 million in damages--approximately 97 percent of its total
Operations and Maintenance funding for fiscal year 2013.
We urge you to fund the Refuge System at $499 million in fiscal
year 2014--a level that serves to bridge the growing gap between what
the System needs and what it receives, and that enables refuges to
continue moving America forward. 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 2014 Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, and we look
forward to meeting with you to discuss our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coeur D'Alene Tribe
On behalf of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe (Tribe), I am pleased to
provide our recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies spending bill. As explained below,
the Tribe recommends that the subcommittee include bill language that
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to invest the $1.9 billion
already appropriated for the Indian land buy-back program and utilize
the supplemental amounts to maximize the resources available under this
program.
background on the coeur d'alene tribe
The Coeur d'Alene Reservation covers 345,000 acres in northern
Idaho, spanning the rich Palouse farm country and the western edge of
the northern Rocky Mountains. The Reservation includes the Coeur
d'Alene and St. Joe Rivers, and Lake Coeur d'Alene, which is considered
one of the most beautiful mountain lakes in the world.
The Tribe's economy is based mostly on agriculture. The Tribe's
6,000-acre farm produces wheat, barley, peas, lentils and canola. The
Reservation includes approximately 180,000 acres of forest and 150,000
acres of farmland, with most of the farmland owned by private farmers.
Reservation land also produces about 30,000 acres of Kentucky Blue
Grass. Logging is another important component of the economy and a
source of revenue for the Tribe.
Most of the trust land on the Coeur d'Alene Reservation is
fractionated. This means ownership of a single parcel is shared by more
than one Indian owner with an undivided interest. Many parcels on the
Reservation have more than 20 owners.
the ``cobell'' settlement and the buy-back program
As the subcommittee is aware, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010
(CRA) provided for the settlement of the Cobell v. Salazar
litigation. As part of the settlement, the CRA appropriated $1.9
billion for the voluntary buy-back and consolidation of fractionated
land interests. This program is administered by the Secretary through
the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations (``Buy-Back'' program).
The intent of the Buy-Back program is to acquire as many as
possible of these small, fractionated interests from willing Indian
sellers to reduce the burden and expense on the Department of the
Interior in administering them and to prevent a future Cobell case.
Under the terms of the settlement, any unspent amounts from the $1.9
billion will revert to the U.S. Treasury after 10 years.
Of the $1.9 billion that Congress has appropriated for the Buy-Back
program, up to 15 percent ($285 million) can be used for administrative
costs and another $60 million is set aside for a scholarship fund. Of
the $1.55 billion available to buy fractionated interests, the
Secretary has tentatively allocated $1,391,569,500 to 40 Indian tribes
that would initially participate in the program.\1\ The rest of the 526
federally recognized Indian tribes in the United States would share the
remaining $163,430,500 to repurchase interests on their respective
reservations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Initial Implementation Plan, Land Buy Back Program for
Tribal Nations (Dec. 12, 2012), at 11, available at http://www.doi.gov/
buybackprogram/upload/Initial-Implementation-Plan-508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coeur d'Alene Tribe is not among the 40 tribes that the
Secretary identified to initially participate in the Buy-Back program.
Based on our analysis of the criteria that the Secretary used to select
these 40 tribes, however, we believe that the Coeur d'Alene Tribe
should have been included in this list and should have been allocated
at least $10 million to repurchase fractionated interests on the Coeur
d'Alene Reservation.
The Tribe has contracted all of the land and realty programs from
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that would be involved in
administering the Buy-Back program. The Tribe has operated these
programs successfully for more than a decade and has developed and
maintained records on its tribal lands that are superior to the BIA's
records. Not only does the Tribe have the capacity to begin purchasing
fractionated interests immediately, but it also has a waiting list of
individuals who wish to sell their fractionated interests to the Tribe.
the secretary cannot maximize the $1.9 billion buy-back appropriation
Somewhat surprisingly, the CRA did not include any language that
allows the Secretary to invest the $1.9 billion and retain the earnings
for the Buy-Back program. A significant portion of the $1.9 billion
will sit in an account for a period of years as the program is rolled
out on reservations across the country. In the current budget climate,
it only makes sense to maximize the amount of funds available to
purchase fractionated interests by allowing the Secretary to invest the
$1.9 billion and to retain the supplemental earned amounts for the Buy-
Back program.
Because the 10-year clock has already begun ticking for the $1.9
billion principal to be spent, every fiscal year that goes by without
this money being invested represents money and opportunity lost.
Assuming that $1.9 billion could be invested and were to earn even 1
percent annually, this would generate an additional $190 million that
could be used to purchase additional fractionated interests. These
additional funds could be used by Coeur d'Alene and other similarly
situated tribes that wish to participate in the Buy-Back program but
were not included on the top 40 tribes list.
The Tribe has had discussions with officials at the Buy-Back
program and staff from the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs regarding
this issue, and they are aware that the Tribe is making this
recommendation to the subcommittee.
Suggested bill language:
``The amounts comprising the Trust Land Consolidation Fund made
available to the Secretary in section 101(e) of Public Law 111-291 may
be transferred and invested by the Secretary in a manner consistent
with the Secretary's investment of tribal trust funds. The Secretary
shall retain the supplemental amounts only for uses consistent with the
Land Consolidation Program for the duration of the Trust Land
Consolidation Fund.''
The above language would allow the Secretary to invest the $1.9
billion in the conservative, federally guaranteed securities that the
Secretary currently invests tribal trust funds in or deposit the
proceeds in private banks. See 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 162a-162c. In 2012,
the Secretary, through the Office of the Special Trustee (OST),
invested $4.4 billion in funds held in trust for the benefit of Indian
tribes. OST has a division that exclusively handles these investments.
The language would also allow the supplemental earnings to be used
by the Department only for the Indian land consolidation program. The
capitalized terms are taken directly from and are defined in the CRA.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this recommendation and
would be happy to provide any additional information that the
subcommittee may require.
______
Prepared Statement of the Children's Environmental Health Network
The Children's Environmental Health Network (CEHN or the Network)
is pleased to have this opportunity to submit testimony on fiscal year
2014 appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
The Network's 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. We recognize that children, in our society, have unique moral
standing.
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, such as obesity, asthma, learning
disabilities, and autism. A child's environment plays a role in these
chronic conditions and contributes to the distressing possibility that
today's children may be the first generation to see a shorter life
expectancy than their parents due to poor health. 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; Children's Environmental Health Research Centers of
Excellence; Office of Research & Development; School and Child Care
Environmental Health; and the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty
Units.
CEHN also urges full funding of all activities that advance healthy
school and childcare environments for all children, including those
supported by ATSDR.
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.
epa
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. The EPA programs of highest importance in the
protection of children are described below.
EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection.--EPA's efforts to
protect children from environmental hazards have been led by the Office
of Children's Health Protection (OCHP) since 1997. Despite an effective
track record, funding for OCHP has been level, at approximately $6
million, since its creation. OCHP focuses on interagency work that
promotes healthy housing and healthy children. These areas show that
environmental interventions result in great cost savings, not to
mention the health problems averted, such as asthma episodes and lead
poisoning cases. The President's budget would add approximately $1.2
million to OCHP and 6.8 full-time staff for coordinating work with
States and districts. CEHN supports this increase in budget and staff.
Children's Environmental Health Research Centers of Excellence.--
The Centers, jointly funded by EPA and NIEHS, play a key role in
providing the scientific basis for protecting children from
environmental hazards. With their modest budgets, which have been
unchanged for more than 10 years, these centers generate valuable
research. EPA's Office of Research & Development has indicated its
commitment to the Centers in the budget language. A unique aspect of
these Centers is the requirement that each Center actively involve 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 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 & Development (ORD).--This office is critical in
efforts to understand environmental impacts on children's health. EPA
has pledged to increase its efforts to provide a safe and healthy
environment for children by ensuring that all EPA regulations,
standards, policies, and risk assessments take into account childhood
vulnerabilities to environmental chemicals. We encourage additional
funds for research on children's issues in the 2014 budget. To truly
raise such research to a priority level, 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 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 children's developing
nervous systems. 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. Much of
the research in this field cannot be conducted in a short time frame
and requires sustained funding if scientists are to conduct research
and measure effectiveness.
School and Child Care Environmental Health.--In America today,
millions of infants, toddlers and preschoolers, often as young as 6
weeks, spend 40-50 hours a week in childcare. Yet, little is known
about the environmental health status of the Nation's child care
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 ATSDR, the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units
(PEHSUs) form a respected network of experts in children's
environmental health, 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.
atsdr
CEHN urges the subcommittee to provide funding at or above the
requested levels for ATSDR activities. ATSDR uses the best science in
taking public health actions, such as site assessments and
toxicological profiles, to prevent harmful exposures and diseases of
communities and individuals related to toxic substances.
ATSDR understands that in communities faced with contamination of
their water, soil, air, or food, infants and children can be more
sensitive to environmental exposure than adults and that assessment,
prevention, and efforts to find remedies for exposures must focus on
children because of their vulnerability and importance to the Nation's
future. We support the full funding of ATSDR and the continuation of
their varied responsibilities.
Children's health and healthy children must be ongoing priorities
for this and every administration
We commend the EPA and ATSDR for their great progress in
recognizing children's unique susceptibilities to environmental
toxicants in the last several decades. Much more remains to be done,
however. The Network urges the subcommittee to direct both agencies to
assure that all of their activities and programs--including
regulations, guidelines, assessments and research--specifically
consider children.
EPA and ATSDR must always assure that children and other vulnerable
subpopulations are protected, especially poor children, minority
children, farmworker children, and others at risk.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on these critical
issues, and thank you for your concern about the environmental health
of children.
______
Prepared Statement of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
On behalf of Chief Gregory E. Pyle, of the Great Choctaw Nation of
Oklahoma, I submit this written testimony on the fiscal year 2014
budgets for the Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Although we are submitting testimony on the fiscal year 2014 budgets,
we must comment on the fiscal year 2013 sequestration of discretionary
programs. The sequester reductions to Tribal programs undermine Indian
treaty rights and obligations--treaties which were ratified under the
Constitution and considered the ``supreme law of the land.'' The
ongoing contribution of tribal nations to the U.S. economy is the land
on which this Nation is built. In exchange for land, the United States
agreed to protect Tribal treaty rights, lands, and resources, including
provision of certain services for American Indian and Alaska Native
Tribes and villages, which is known as the Federal Indian trust
responsibility. Indiscriminate cuts sacrifice not only the trust
obligations, but they thwart Tribes' ability to promote economic growth
or plan for the future of Native children and coming generations.
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.
indian health service budget requests
Fully Fund Contract Support Costs (CSC) Consistent with the 2012 U.S.
Supreme Court decision in the ``Salazar'' v. ``Ramah Navajo
Chapter'' Case--$5.8 million over fiscal year 2012 enacted
While we are supportive of the increase included in the President's
budget, we are gravely alarmed and oppose the administration's
unilateral proposal, in its fiscal year 2014 budget request, to
fundamentally alter the nature of tribal self-governance by
implementing individual statutory tribal caps on the CSC payments. No
change of such a fundamental character should be implemented until
there has been a thorough consultation and study process jointly
undertaken by the Indian Health Service (IHS), the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). At the very least, Congress should maintain in fiscal
year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 the status quo statutory language
enacted in fiscal year 2013 so that tribally developed changes in
contract support cost funding mechanisms, if any, can be included in
the fiscal year 2016 budget. We respectfully request your support of
the $5.8 million increase included in the President's fiscal year 2014
budget; and maintain the CSC status quo statutory language enacted in
fiscal year 2013.
Mandatory Costs--Provide $403 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. If these mandatory
requirements are not funded, Tribes have no choice but to cut health
services, which further reduces the quantity and quality of healthcare
available to American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) people. We strongly
urge full funding of $304 million for Mandatory costs to address these
ongoing fiscal responsibilities to maintain current services.
Indian Health Care Improvement Fund--Provide $10 million increase
Funding for the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund (IHCIF) is a
top Tribal budget priority. The purpose of IHCIF is to address
deficiencies in health status and resources within the Indian health
system and to promote greater equity in health services among Indian
Tribes. The IHCIF directs funding through the Federal Disparity Index
to the lowest funded operating units. The impact of the fiscal year
2010 $45 million appropriation brought all operating units within the
IHS to 45 percent Level Need Funded (LNF). The average Federal
Disparity Index level among all IHS operating units is 55 percent. In
December 2010, IHS estimated that it would cost $217 million to raise
all IHS sites to a minimum Level of Need Funded of 55 percent and $394
million to reach a minimum of 65 percent. We respectfully request and
urge you to provide an increase of $10 million for fiscal year 2014.
Purchased/Referred Care program formerly Contract Health Services
(CHS)--Provide $171.6 million increase
Purchased/Referred Care program funds are used to purchase
essential healthcare services, including inpatient and outpatient care,
routine emergency ambulatory care, transportation and medical support
services. These funds are critical to securing the care needed to treat
injuries, heart disease, digestive diseases and cancer, which are among
the leading causes of death for American Indians/Alaska Natives. We
strongly urge an increase of $171.6 million be provided for these
Purchased/Referred Care services in fiscal year 2014.
Alcohol & Substance Abuse Prevention (ASA) Services--Provide $9.4
million increase
ASAP exists as part of an integrated behavioral health program 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. The ASAP program provides prevention, education, and
treatment services at both the clinic and community levels. Services
are provided in both rural and urban settings, with a focus on holistic
and culturally based approaches. Youth Regional Treatment Center
operations are also funded by this line item. We respectfully request
and urge you to provide an increase of $9.4 million for fiscal year
2014.
Funding for Implementation of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
(IHCIA)
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. Adequate funding for the implementation of
these provisions is needed.
Office of Tribal Self-Governance--Increase $5 million to the IHS Office
of Tribal Self-Governance
In 2003, Congress reduced funding for this office by $4.5 million,
a loss of 43 percent from the previous year. In each subsequent year,
this budget was further reduced due to the applied congressional
rescissions. As of 2013, 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
respectfully request an increase of $5 million for the OTSG.
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 Indians and Alaska Natives. 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 and we 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 the Indian Health Service.
bureau of indian affairs budget requests
We greatly appreciate the work of this subcommittee to provide the
support for Tribal programs. However, we must mention that comparing
budget increases for the six largest agencies in the Department of the
Interior (DOI) between fiscal year 2004 enacted to the fiscal year 2014
Presidents' request shows that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has
received the smallest percentage increase.
Fully Fund Contract Support Costs (CSC) Consistent with the 2012 U.S.
Supreme Court decision in the ``Salazar'' v. ``Ramah Navajo
Chapter'' Case--$9.8 million increase over fiscal year 2012
enacted
While we are supportive of the increase included in the President's
budget, we are gravely alarmed and oppose the administration's
unilateral proposal, in its fiscal year 2014 budget request, to
fundamentally alter the nature of Tribal Self-Governance by
implementing individual statutory Tribal caps on the CSC payments. No
change of such a fundamental character should be implemented until
there has been a thorough consultation and study process jointly
undertaken by the Indian Health Service (IHS), the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). We respectfully request your support of the $9.8 million
increase included in the President's fiscal year 2014 budget; and
maintain the CSC status quo statutory language enacted in fiscal year
2013.
Fully Fund Fixed Costs/Pay Costs--Provide $8 million increase
Most Federal agencies receive annual increases to their Fixed Costs
rates each year to address inflationary costs associated with Fringe
Benefits and Pay Costs. Historically, Tribes have been disadvantaged
because they have never received Fringe Benefit Fixed Cost adjustments.
At an estimated total Tribal salary level of $380,624,156 in fiscal
year 2013, a nominal Pay cost rate of 2 percent would require $7.6
million. The current U.S. inflationary rate is 3.5 percent, and the
cost-of-living-allowance (COLA) level was calculated to be 3.6 percent
in fiscal year 2012. In fiscal year 2014, the Tribal Pay Cost need is
estimated at approximately $8 million to achieve parity with the
general U.S. cost predictions.
Tribal Priority Allocations--Provide $89 million increase (10 percent
over fiscal year 2012 Enacted)
TPA remains one of the most important funding areas for Tribal
governments because it covers such needs as economic development,
general assistance, and natural resource management. However, for two
decades, inadequate funding for Tribal priority allocations has
hindered Tribes from fully exercising their right of Self-Governance.
Severe underfunding has contributed to an array of social injustices in
Tribal communities. We strongly encourage appropriate funding to fully
cover these obligations in the fiscal year 2014 budget.
Law Enforcement
Fully fund all of the provisions of the Tribal Law & Order Act of
2010. Support the $19 million increase in funding in the fiscal year
2014 President's budget for BIA Public Safety and Justice.
Office of Self-Governance (OSG)
Provide increased funding to the OSG to fully staff the office for
the increase in the number of Tribes entering Self-Governance.
In closing, on behalf of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and Chief
Gregory E. Pyle, thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2014 funding for the
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) associated
with the sub-activity that assists title II of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-320). This long-standing
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 (Colorado River Board) is
the State agency charged with protecting California's interests and
rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system.
In this capacity, California 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. The Forum's 2011 Plan of Implementation can be found on
this website: http://www.coloradoriversalinity.org/docs/2011%20REVIEW-
October.pdf. 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.
The 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, 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, 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, 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 sub-activity 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.
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 2012 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 2012 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 29 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 $376 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 $577 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;
--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 2014, 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 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
Waters from the Colorado River are used by nearly 40 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 (Reclamation) has
estimated the current quantifiable damages at about $376 million per
year. 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 Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages would
rise to approximately $577 million by the year 2030 without
continuation of the Program. 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 2014 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 federally owned, much of which is
administered by BLM. In implementing the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act in 1974, 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 U.S. 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 users in the United
States. This testimony deals specific with title II efforts. In 1984,
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, 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
increase BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin and 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.
Concentration of salt in the Colorado River causes approximately
$376 million in quantified damages and significantly more in
unquantified damages in the United States and results in poor water
quality for United States users. Damages occur from:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector;
--increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
disposal for recycling water in the municipal 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; and
--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.
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 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 assist in preventing the water quality of the Colorado
River from further degradation and significant increases in economic
damages to municipal, industrial and irrigation users. A modest
investment in source control pays huge dividends in improved drinking
water quality to nearly 40 million Americans.
______
Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is pleased to share its view on
the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) fiscal
year 2014 budget. We have specifically identified three funding needs
and one request for review:
--$49.5 Million for Rights Protection Implementation--of which $7.7
million is for Columbia River Fisheries Management 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, and $4.8
million for United States/Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty to
implement new obligations under the recent agreement adopted by
the United States and Canada under the Treaty;
--$340 million for Public Safety and Justice, Criminal Investigations
and Police Services--of which $718,00 supports enforcement of
Federal laws at in-lieu and treaty fishing sites on the
Columbia River. This supports the President's Request; and
--$10 million for Cooperative Landscape Conservation to assist tribes
nationwide in climate change adaptation and planning. We
support the President's request.
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 over 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: (1) the Columbia
Basin Fish Accords with Federal action agencies overseeing the Federal
hydro system in the Columbia Basin\2\; (2) a Ten-Year Fisheries
Management Plan with Federal, tribal and State parties under United
States v. Oregon; and (3) a new Chinook Chapter of the Pacific Salmon
Treaty.\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.
united states/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 $4,800,000 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. 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 2014 recommended level for
this program is an increase of $600,000 above 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 above 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.
cooperative landscape conservation
The Treaty Right is feeling the effects of Climate Change. Salmon
run timing, berry and root ripening cycles are shifting. We support the
President's request of $10 million to implement the DOI Climate Change
Policy approved on December 20, 2012 for the tribes, Alaskan Natives
and Native Hawaiians. Specifically, these funds support the BIA Tribal
Climate Change Program which will integrate climate change adaptation
strategies into its policies and planning for support for the tribes,
Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. The BIA needs these resources to
support active engagement of tribes, Alaska Natives and Native
Hawaiians in the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and the Climate
Science Centers and to ensure adequate Government-to-Government
consultation on all issues with climate effects.
a request for review of salmon mass-marking programs
CRITFC endeavors to secure a unified hatchery strategy among
tribal, Federal, and State co-managers. To that end, we seek to build
hatchery programs using the best available science and supported by
adequate, efficient budgets. A congressional requirement, delivered
through prior appropriations language, to visibly mark all salmon
produced in federally funded hatcheries should be reconsidered. We have
requested that Federal mass-marking requirements, and correlated
funding, be reviewed for compatibility with our overall objective of
ESA delisting and with prevailing laws and agreements: United States v.
Oregon, Pacific Salmon Treaty and the Columbia Basin Fish Accords.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Letter from Bruce Jim, Chairman, Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission to U.S. House of Representatives Chairmen Frank Wolf,
Mike Simpson and Doc Hastings, July 11, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salmon managers should be provided the latitude to make case-by-
case decisions whether to mark fish and, if so, in the appropriate
percentages.
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 United States
obligation under treaties, Federal trust responsibility, Federal
statutes, and court orders. We ask for your continued support of our
efforts. We are prepared to provide additional information you may
require on the Department of the Interior's BIA budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission
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 2014 budget. As is everyone, we are aware of the
ongoing economic problems in the United States, and the growing concern
over the Federal deficit. While the Government is trimming its
spending, the Federal Government must still fulfill its legal and
contractual spending obligations. The Bureau of Indian Affairs 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 small Alaska Native villages
located in Prince William Sound and Lower Cook Inlet.
We have reviewed the President's fiscal year 2014 budget and while
we recognize and can appreciate the economic challenges set before you,
we urge you to work together to pass an appropriations bill before the
fiscal year end on September 30, 2013. The CRRC has yet to receive any
of its fiscal year 2013 funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We
are a small Alaska Native nonprofit organization and as such, do not
have the capital to carry the projects in the villages for an extended
period of time. In order to keep the projects running, we had to obtain
a $100,000 line of credit from the bank. Given the time taken to pass a
budget and the Department of the Interior's change to an electronic
financial reporting system, the operations of CRRC projects and those
of other tribal organizations have been placed in jeopardy. The process
currently in place that allows this amount of time to pass before
getting the much needed funding to the tribes must be improved.
We describe first, our specific requests and recommendations on the
budget, and then why these are so important to us and the Alaska Native
Villages and their members who we serve.
budget requests and recommendations
CRRC Funding.--We are once again very pleased that the BIA has
recognized the importance of natural resource funding for CRRC and has
requested $350,000 for CRRC in fiscal year 2014 as part of the Trust-
Natural Resources program, Tribal Management/Development subactivity.
In its fiscal year 2014 budget justification, the BIA recognized CRRC's
role in developing the capabilities of its member Alaska Native
Villages to better facilitate their active participation in resource
use and allocation issues in Alaska. We urge the subcommittee to
include CRRC funding as proposed by the BIA.
BIA Trust-Natural Resources Management.--We support the President's
overall proposal to increase the BIA's Trust-Natural Resources
Management programs, particularly the increases to Fish, Wildlife and
Parks, and funding for projects that engage youth in the natural
sciences. We urge the subcommittee to support this funding and include
it in the final bill.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife.--The President is proposing a significant
increase to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service budget. Currently,
tribes in Alaska manage migratory birds through the Alaska Migratory
Bird Co-Management Council (AMBCC), a regulatory body comprised of
State, Federal and Native representatives who develop regulations for
the spring-summer harvest of migratory birds. The funding for this
management program is provided and administered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; however, this funding is provided by decision of the
Region 7 Regional Director on an annual basis and is financially
inadequate to address all of the migratory bird issues currently being
addressed by the AMBCC. We are requesting that $1 million of the
proposed increase to the USFWS budget be designated to the Alaska
Migratory Bird Co-Management Council.
Contract Support Costs.--In regards to Contract Support Costs
(CSC), the administration is proposing to cap fiscal year 2014 CSC
payments to each Tribe. This action would reverse Supreme Court
victories that directed the United States to honor fully Indian Self-
Determination Act contracts and agreements. We do not support this
proposed cap, nor do we support any amendments to the Indian Self-
Determination through the appropriations process without any advance
consultation with Indian and Alaska Native tribes.
justification for crrc's budget requests
The importance of adequate funding for these programs is based on
the following.
Chugach Regional Resource Commission History and Purpose.--CRRC is
a nonprofit coalition of Alaska Native Villages, organized in 1987 by
the seven Native Villages located in Prince William Sound and Lower
Cook Inlet in South-central 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. The BIA, in its
fiscal year budget justification, summarizes CRRC's work, stating
``Initially, the emphasis of the CRRC natural resource program was
on the development of fisheries projects that would provide either an
economic base for a village or create economic opportunities for tribal
members. In fiscal year 1996, CRRC initiated a natural resource
management program with the objective of establishing natural resource
management capabilities in the villages to facilitate their active
participation in resource use and allocation issues that affect the
tribes and their members. The success of these programs from both an
economic and a social standpoint have made them an integral part of
overall tribal development.''
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 the BIA into almost
$2 million annually to support its several community-based programs.
Specifically, the $350,000 base funding provided through the BIA
appropriation has allowed CRRC to maintain core administrative
operations, and seek specific projects funding from other sources such
as the Administration for Native Americans, the State of Alaska, BIA,
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S.
Department of Education, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council,
the North Pacific Research Board and various foundations. This diverse
funding pool has enabled 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 has developed and implemented
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 have completed 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 statewide 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.
conclusion
We urge Congress to sustain the $350,000 included in the BIA's
fiscal year 2013 budget for CRRC. We further ask the subcommittee to
support the President's requests for increased funding for the BIA's
Trust Natural Resources Management and for the Fish and Wildlife
Service, but to designate $1 million of the proposed increase to the
USFWS budget to the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. We
also urge Congress to reject the administration's proposal to cap CSC.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this important testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of The Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation
On behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
(Colville Tribes or the CCT), I thank you for this opportunity to
provide testimony to the subcommittee. My testimony offers three
recommendations for the subcommittee to consider as it drafts the
fiscal year 2014 spending bill. The first relates to the challenges
that the Colville Tribes and other Indian tribes face in getting
adequate staffing for facilities constructed under the existing
programs administered through the Indian Health Service (IHS). The
second would ensure that the $1.9 billion that has already been
appropriated for the Indian Land Consolidation program as part of the
Cobell v. Salazar settlement can be invested to maximize the number
of fractionated interests that can be acquired over the next 10 years.
The third relates to law enforcement.
The Colville Tribes recommends that the subcommittee:
--include $50 million for the Small Ambulatory Grant Program in the
Indian Health Services, Health Care Facilities Construction
account for fiscal year 2014 and allow for grants for short-
term facility staffing from this program;
--include bill language that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
to invest the $1.9 billion already appropriated for the Indian
land consolidation program and utilize the supplemental amounts
to maximize resources available under that program; and
--increase the Criminal Investigations and Police Services program
(within the Operation of Indian Programs account) to the extent
the subcommittee's allocation allows.
background on the colville tribes
Although now considered a single Indian tribe, the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation is, as the name states, a
confederation of 12 aboriginal tribes and bands from all across the
plateau region of the Northwest and extending into Canada. The present-
day Colville Reservation encompasses approximately 1.4 million acres
and is located in north central Washington State. The Colville Tribes
has more than 9,500 enrolled members, making it one of the largest
Indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest. About half of the CCT's members
live on or near the Colville Reservation. The Colville Reservation has
more than 800,000 acres of forest land and forestry and wood products
have been the CCT's traditional source of revenue.
the small ambulatory facilities grant program and staffing needs at
indian health service facilities
There are currently three paths to constructing a new health
facility under the IHS system. The first is the priority list system,
which has been in effect since the early 1990s and provides funding for
construction of the facilities included on the list as well as 80
percent of the annual staffing costs. The second is the joint venture
(JV) program, which generally requires an Indian tribe to pay the
entire up-front cost of construction of a facility in exchange for IHS
providing a portion of the annual staffing costs. The third is the
Small Ambulatory Grant program (SAP), which is just the opposite of the
joint venture program--IHS pays for the construction costs for the
facility and the tribe is responsible for all staffing costs. The
priority list has been closed since the early 1990s and the JV and SAP
programs have been funded only sporadically during the past decade.
Like many Indian tribes with large service delivery areas, the
Colville Tribes faces a health delivery crisis. The CCT's original IHS
clinic in Nespelem, Washington, was constructed in the 1930s. The CCT
tried in the 1980s and early 1990s to construct a new facility through
the IHS priority list system. We understand that at one point, the
CCT's request for a new clinic in Nespelem was near the top of the
priority list but was removed because of concerns that the facility was
a historical site. That priority list has been locked since 1991 and
some IHS Area Offices, including the Portland Area (of which the CCT is
a part), have never had any facility constructed under the priority
list system.
Because the CCT's need for a new facility was so great and the
priority list had been closed, the tribe ultimately was forced to
utilize a variation of the SAP to construct a new facility. Of a total
contract amount of $4,693,000 for the Nespelem facility, the Tribe
funded $3,324,000 and IHS funded $1,369,000, with no additional
staffing package.
Despite the relatively new facility, the CCT has an ongoing issue
with adequate staffing of the facility. Without sufficient staff the
facility cannot treat patients to its full capacity. With the
reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act more
opportunities exist for tribes to generate additional revenue through
third party reimbursements. Additional staff are required to process
these reimbursements, however, so the promise of additional revenue
becomes a chicken and egg conundrum. With a short term infusion of
funds for staff to maximize reimbursements, tribes would be in a
position to make these reimbursements and accompanying staff self-
sustaining. This would provide opportunities for tribes like the CCT
that have staffing shortages to generate additional revenue from
existing facilities and hire new staff.
The fiscal year 2014 request does not contain any funding for the
SAP in fiscal year 2014. Indian tribes that desperately need new heath
facilities and staffing needs would benefit tremendously if this
funding were made available in fiscal year 2014.
Suggested language:
``Changes to the request include $50 million for the Small
Ambulatory Program (SAP). The Committee directs IHS to provide
eligibility for short term staffing packages for new or existing IHS
facilities in implementing the SAP.''
allow the department of the interior to invest or deposit in private
banks the $1.9 billion already appropriated for the buy-back program
As the subcommittee is aware, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010
(CRA) provided for the settlement of the Cobell v. Salazar
litigation. As part of the settlement the CRA appropriated $1.9 billion
for the voluntary buy-back and consolidation of fractionated land
interests, which is administered by the Department of the Interior
(DOI) through the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations (Buy-Back
program). The intent of the Buy-Back program is to acquire as many of
these small, fractionated interests from willing Indian sellers as
possible to reduce the burden and expense on DOI in administering them
and to prevent a future Cobell case. Under the terms of the settlement
any unspent amounts from the $1.9 billion will revert to the U.S.
Treasury after 10 years.
There has been tremendous interest in Indian country in the Buy-
Back program since DOI unveiled its implementation plan earlier this
year. DOI has identified 40 Indian tribes that would initially be able
to participate in the program and many more not on that list have
expressed interest in participating as well.
Somewhat surprisingly, the CRA did not include any language that
allows DOI to invest the $1.9 billion and retain the earnings for the
Buy-Back program. A significant portion of the $1.9 billion will sit in
an account for a period of years as the program is rolled out on
reservations across the country. It only makes sense to maximize the
amount of funds available to purchase fractionated interests by
allowing DOI to invest these funds and retain the supplemental earned
amounts for the Buy-Back program. Because the 10 year clock has already
begun ticking for the $1.9 billion principal to be spent, every fiscal
year that goes by without this money being invested represents money
and opportunity lost.
Suggested bill language:
``The amounts comprising the Trust Land Consolidation Fund made
available to the Secretary in section 101(e) of Public Law 111-291 may
be transferred and invested by the Secretary in a manner consistent
with the Secretary's investment of tribal trust funds. The Secretary
shall retain the supplemental amounts only for uses consistent with the
Land Consolidation Program for the duration of the Trust Land
Consolidation Fund.''
The above language would allow the Secretary to invest the $1.9
billion in the conservative, federally guaranteed securities that the
Secretary currently invests tribal trust funds in or deposit the
proceeds in private banks. See 25 U.S.C. 162a-162c. In 2012, the
Secretary, through the Office of the Special Trustee (OST), invested
$4.4 billion in funds held in trust for the benefit of Indian tribes.
OST has a division that exclusively handles these investments.
law enforcement
Finally, there is a constant need for additional funding for the
Criminal Investigations and Police Services account within the BIA's
budget. There is a constant need for additional funding for the
Criminal Investigations and Police Services account within the BIA's
budget, which funds tribal and BIA police officer salaries.
There are occasions when there is only a single tribal officer on
duty for the entire 1.4-million-acre Colville Reservation. Repeated
requests by the Colville Tribes to renegotiate its law enforcement 638
contract with the BIA have been rejected because of the lack of
additional base funding, a point raised by Senator Barrasso at the May
29, 2013, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing on the fiscal year
2014 request. Many other tribes are similarly situated.
The much heralded passage this year of the Violence Against Women's
Act reauthorization will provide those tribes with sufficient resources
the ability to prosecute non-Indians for domestic violence offenses.
But for the majority of tribes, this new authority will mean little if
there are not enough police officers on the ground in the first place.
The fiscal year 2014 request includes a $5.5 million increase for
this account but the Colville Tribes encourages the subcommittee
consider a larger increase to help bridge this gap to the extent the
subcommittee's allocation allows.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide these recommendations and
would be happy to provide any additional information that the
subcommittee may require.
______
Prepared Statement of the Civil War Trust
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony. My name is James Lighthizer, and I am
the president of the Civil War Trust. I respectfully request that the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies fund the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program
(CWBPP) at its authorized amount of $10 million.
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 35,000 acres of hallowed ground in 20 States.
CWBPP is an authorized competitive matching grants program that
requires a 1 to 1 Federal/non-Federal match, although on most 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 protect targeted, high
priority Civil War battlegrounds outside National Park Service
boundaries.
battlefield lands are our shared american heritage
Civil War battlefield lands are an irreplaceable part of our shared
national heritage. Preserving these hallowed grounds not only keeps our
history alive, but honors the soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice
to create the country we are today.
However, the living history that these sacred sites represent is
shrinking fast due to development, and we estimate that 30 acres of
battlefield land are lost every day.
When preserved, battlefields serve as outdoor classrooms to educate
current and future generations of Americans about this defining moment
in America's history. Preserved battlefields are also economic drivers
for communities, bringing in tourism dollars that are extremely
important to State and local economies. When these hallowed grounds are
lost, they are lost forever.
This hearing is especially timely because of the ongoing
sesquicentennial commemoration of the Civil War, in which millions will
learn about our Nation's unique history by visiting Civil War sites
around the country.
origins of the program
Since its inception, the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program
has focused on only the most historically significant battlefield
sites, as determined by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission's
(CWSAC) 1993 ``Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields.''
Congressionally authorized funding is for acquisition of properties
outside NPS boundaries from willing sellers only; there is not--and
never has been--any eminent domain authority.
Since the program was first funded in fiscal year 1999, grants have
been used to protect 19,000 acres of hallowed ground in 16 States.
Among the many battlefields that have benefited from this program are:
Antietam, Maryland; Averasboro, North Carolina; Chancellorsville,
Virginia; Chattanooga, Tennessee; Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; Harpers
Ferry, West Virginia; Mill Springs, Kentucky; and Prairie Grove,
Arkansas.
urgent need for funding
We thank the subcommittee for its previous support for this
valuable program. These funds have enabled private sector groups like
the Civil War Trust to preserve many significant sites that would have
been otherwise lost to history. We recognize that these are difficult
economic times and appreciate the constraints on this subcommittee.
However, the current 150th anniversary of the conflict is the most
opportune time to provide robust funding for the Civil War Battlefield
Preservation Program.
We estimate that in the next decade, most unpreserved Civil War
battlefield lands will be either developed or protected. With time
rapidly running out to save these hallowed grounds, full appropriation
of the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program will enable us
protect as many key battlefield lands as possible in the limited time
remaining.
conclusion
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.
Protected battlefields not only honor the memory of our
predecessors, but all of our Nation's brave men and women in uniform.
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. Thank you for the opportunity to address the
committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School
Request Summary.--We, Ervin Chavez, School Board President, and
Faye BlueEyes, Finance Director, are pleased to present the testimony
of the Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community School (DCGS) on the Navajo
Reservation in Bloomfield, New Mexico. We will focus on four areas of
particular concern to our School in the fiscal year 2014 funding
requests for the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in the following
budget categories:
--Oppose $16 million in reductions to the Indian School Equalization
Program Formula Funds account; provide full funding of $431
million.
--Provide $109 million in facilities operations and $76 million in
facilities maintenance as recommended by the National Congress
of American Indians in its budget requests.
--Provide $73 million to fully fund Tribal Grant Support Costs as
recommended by the National Congress of American Indians in its
Budget Requests.
--Restore Replacement School Construction account ($17.8 million in
fiscal year 2012).
background
DCGS is a tribally controlled grant school 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 220 students
currently enrolled in our academic program, and 59 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.
Oppose the $16 million proposed reduction to Indian School
Equalization Formula (ISEF) Funds account.--The fiscal year 2014 budget
request proposes a $16 million (or 4.2 percent) reduction in ISEP
formula funds, monies that are the main source of support for the
academic component of our school. Most distressing is that the
administration proposes to reallocate $15 million of the ISEP reduction
for a new school turnaround demonstration program that would be modeled
on the Department of Education School Turnaround program. The proposed
pilot program would provide grants to an undetermined number of BIE-
funded schools who ``demonstrate the strongest commitment to
substantially raise'' student achievement. Funding priority would be
given to the BIE-funded schools that are in the restructuring category.
The DCGS strongly opposes this plan that would, according to the
BIE estimates, reduce the base per pupil amount we receive from an
estimated $5,342.34 to $5,162. As we have previously testified, we use
the ISEP funds not only for the academic program needs but also to
offset the shortfalls in the nonacademic School Operations costs that
are also seriously underfunded--such as student transportation,
maintenance, and administrative functions.
We urge you to recognize that despite our best efforts to stretch
each and every dollar, such a drastic reduction in ISEP funding may
result in even more schools not being able to provide the quality
academic programs and instruction necessary to meet the adequate yearly
progress requirements. We ask that Congress:
--Ensure the funding for the administration's proposed $15 million
school turnaround pilot program not reduce funding to the BIE-
funded schools; and
--Reaffirm the United States' trust responsibility to Indian students
by fully funding ISEF, which would require at least $431
million.
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. As we previously
testified, our school is, unfortunately, among the poorest-rated
facilities (FCI of 0.4001). Without a significant increase in
facilities maintenance funding, there is little doubt we will not be
able to make much progress in addressing the myriad health and safety
problems at DCGS, which include the closure of the restrooms servicing
our junior high classrooms due to leaking sewer lines and corroded
water lines. The water lines contain so much sediment due to the
corrosion that drinking water must be trucked in for the students (an
additional cost that most public schools do not face). According to the
BIE, it would take at least $7.7 million to fix all that is on the DCGS
deferred maintenance backlog, and the replacement cost of our school
facility would be $19.1 million.
Despite the several years of gross underfunding for the facilities
maintenance program, and aging facilities that require more and more
upkeep, the BIE does not seek funding at a level that would begin to
address the very large BIE-funded schools deferred maintenance backlog
(estimated at $304.4 million in fiscal year 2011). We note that in its
fiscal year 2014 budget justification for eliminating new school
construction account (funded at $17 million in fiscal year 2012), the
BIE claimed the action would enable it to focus on facilities
maintenance and repair at all schools, a strategy that ``recognizes the
importance of a quality school environment to best meet the learning
needs of Indian students.'' However, the fiscal year 2014 Facilities
Maintenance request of $51.1 million is only $441,000 above the fiscal
year 2012 level but the increase is for Fixed Costs. Fixed Costs are
for costs such as employee pay increases, Workers Compensation,
Unemployment Compensation, and rents--not for addressing facility
maintenance needs.
The BIE's fiscal year 2014 Facilities Operations request of $58.7
million (level funding) is for the ongoing operational expenses like
electricity, heating fuels, communications, ground maintenance, refuse
collection, water and sewer service, etc. Considering that the
facilities operation expenses are currently funded at approximately 46
percent of need and that the costs of these essential services continue
to escalate, we believe fiscal year 2014 request is grossly inadequate.
Unless the facilities operations and maintenance costs are funded
at a realistic level in order that we can properly maintain and take
preventive action, we will continue to be unable to provide our
students staff a safe and healthy environment. We urge you to support
the NCAI-recommended: $76 million for facilities maintenance; and $109
million in facilities operation funding.
Funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs in the Amount of $73
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. These costs include payroll, accounting,
insurance, background checks, and other legal, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, including the preparation of required
annual audits. Currently, 125 of the 183 BIE funded schools are
operated by tribes or tribal school boards, with another 3 BIE-operated
schools considering converting to grant status in fiscal year 2014.
In fiscal year 2012, the funding available for TGSC met only 64
percent of the need of the schools, which means that at 100 percent of
TGSC need, DCGS should have received nearly $700,000; instead, we
received only $445,000. For fiscal year 2014, the BIE requests a $2
million increase for a total of $48.2 million, which they estimate will
provide a TGSC rate of 67 percent of need. This is still far below the
91 percent contract support costs that will be provided to non-school
BIA contractors if Congress provides the full $230 million CSC request.
In addition, there is not a separate start-up fund for newly converting
schools (although there may be an additional three conversions in
fiscal year 2014) but for the BIA contractors, $1 million is requested
for the Indian Self Determination Fund, which provides start-up costs
and CSC for the initial year of contract or compact.
Due to the tremendous shortfall, the DCGS has had to consolidate
internal controls, streamline checks and balances, and significantly
scale back in our management staff. Now, our business office has only
two full-time staff to handle all the DCGS business-related functions,
such as processing payroll for 90 on a biweekly basis; completing all
the accounting; completing all tax reporting requirements; processing
account payables-requisitions-purchase orders, and ensure conformance
with all audit requirements.
We urge that Congress fix the inequity between TGSC and CSC funding
by: fully funding TGSC at $73 million for the indirect cost
requirements of current tribally controlled schools, and provide $2
million in start-up funds for newly converting schools.
Restore Replacement School and Replacement Facility Construction
accounts.--The BIE does not request any funds for school construction,
and only $25.2 million of the requested $48.4 million in Facilities
Improvement and Repair to ``correct priority deficiencies in schools
identified in `poor' condition based on the FCI.'' The current state of
facility conditions is that 34 percent of the 183 schools and
dormitories for which BIE is responsible are rated in ``poor''
condition on the Bureau's ``Education Facility Condition Index for
fiscal year 2012'' (FCI). As explained above, the proposed reduction
has been justified as the Department's need to focus on facilities
maintenance and repair at all schools. However, they do not request any
programmatic increases that would substantially address the massive
backlog of maintenance and repair needs. Under the proposed Education
Construction funding, the FIC poor rated facilities would only decrease
to 32 percent by the end of fiscal year 2014. We have already explained
how DCGS facilities rated as ``poor'' by BIE will fare under the
proposed funding levels.
The National Indian Education Association (NIEA), in its fiscal
year 2014 testimony, estimated that it would take $263.4 million to
fully fund facility construction and repair. More importantly, the
House Appropriations Committee advised that the BIE develop a new
replacement school construction priority list and to request fiscal
year 2014 funds for projects on the priority list. (See H. Rept. 112-
589, p. 36.)
The Bureau has a process for evaluating school construction
projects and placing them on a priority list for funding. No new
projects, however, have been added to the list since 2004. Thus DCGS
has not had the opportunity to make its case for a replacement school,
which would be far more cost effective than spending at least $7.7
million on repairs to maintain buildings that are 40+ years old. For
these reasons, we urge Congress to: direct BIE to comply with
congressional advisement to reopen the school construction priority
process; and restore, at a minimum, the $17.8 million to the
Replacement School Construction account.
conclusion
We ask Congress to provide the levels of education funding that
will enable us to provide a quality education in a safe and secure
environment for our students. We are grateful for any assistance you
may provide.
______
Prepared Statement of the Defenders of Wildlife
Mr. Chairman, ranking member and members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record. Founded in
1947, Defenders has more than 1 million members and supporters and is
dedicated to the conservation of wild animals and plants in their
natural communities.
North America is fortunate to have some of the most abundant and
diverse wildlife on Earth, more than 200,000 known species in the
United States alone. This unique and irreplaceable heritage is
treasured by all Americans both for its aesthetic value as well as for
the very tangible benefits it brings as a resource. For example, a
third of our food is pollinated by birds, bats, and insects; wildlife
associated recreation generated $145 billion in economic benefits in
2011 \1\; bats provide at least $3.7 billion to the agricultural
industry in pest control services each year \2\; and the value of
ecosystem services from habitat in the contiguous 48 States is
estimated at $1.6 trillion annually.\3\ Federal programs that protect
wildlife and habitat have been chronically underfunded. The full impact
of sequestration on these programs is not yet known, but it is likely
to be significant. Even worse, continued cuts will likely lead to
irreversible harm to vulnerable species and habitat. Our Nation's
wildlife is a treasure and well worth the investment to properly care
for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife
Associated Recreation, USFWS, 12/12.
\2\ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/
41.summary?sid=853248fd-6760-4341-93d0-2aeeab9ea450.
\3\ The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural
Resources Conservation and Historic Preservation in the United States,
Southwick Associates, 9/29/11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fish and wildlife service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is our Nation's premier
wildlife conservation agency. We were deeply disappointed that the
agency received some of the largest percentage cuts in H.R. 6091, the
fiscal year 2013 House Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. FWS needs robust funding, not cuts, if it is to
recover listed species and protect migratory birds and fish, species of
global conservation concern and other trust species, and stop or
prevent wildlife crimes.
Renewable Energy.--FWS must have robust funding for several
programs to ensure that renewable energy development and associated
transmission are sited in a way that prevents harm to species such as
bald and golden eagles, bats, whooping cranes, California condors,
seabirds, bats and desert tortoise. This includes funding for
consultation in the Endangered Species program, inventory and
monitoring in the Migratory Bird program, and proper enforcement of
needed protections by the Office of Law Enforcement.
Cooperative Recovery.--The FWS has begun a praiseworthy new
initiative to implement recovery actions for species listed under the
Endangered Species Act on National Wildlife Refuges and surrounding
lands. This requires targeted funding for several programs, including
National Wildlife Refuges, Partners for Fish and Wildlife, Fisheries,
Adaptive Science, and Endangered Species Recovery. This initiative
supports more efficient efforts across landscapes to recover threatened
and endangered species.
Endangered Species.--Conservation and recovery of imperiled species
will be impossible without strong funding for the Endangered Species
program. Funding is critically needed to support:
--Under the Listing program, progress in protecting approximately 180
candidates, many of which have awaited protection for years,
including the red knot, Pacific fisher, Pacific walrus, New
England cottontail rabbit, and other species desperately in
need of protection;
--Under the Consultation program, evaluation of tens of thousands of
projects to ensure they can move forward while not
significantly harming listed species, a crushing workload for
agency personnel;
--Under the Recovery program, work to restore more than 1,400 listed
U.S. species so that ESA protection is no longer necessary;
--Under the Candidate Conservation program, development and
implementation of effective measures to stabilize and improve
the status of candidate species;
--Under the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, the work of States
to protect threatened and endangered species.
Defenders also strongly supports reinstatement of the Wolf
Livestock Loss Demonstration Program currently funded through the
Recovery program that assists livestock owners to co-exist with wolves.
This valuable program is intended to both compensate ranchers for
livestock losses due to wolves and to implement proactive, nonlethal
methods to prevent future losses.
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).--Our National Wildlife
Refuge System is the largest land and water system in the world
dedicated to wildlife conservation. Refuges provide enormous benefits
to the American people, generating more than $4.2 billion each year for
regional economies. Many are located along our coasts where they serve
valuable functions in protecting communities from floods and storm
surges. Initial reports on probable sequestration impacts include the
closure of 121 refuges or visitor facilities on weekends, reduced law
enforcement, and the significant reduction or elimination of seasonal
staff that are responsible for vital work such as protecting sea turtle
and bird nests on beaches. The Refuge System deserves robust funding,
not cuts. Even flat funding harms the System--just to maintain the
management capability to operate properly--to fuel refuge vehicles and
pay increasing utility bills, facilities rent, and other costs while
not counting any cost of living increase for personnel--the Refuge
System needs an annual increase of at least $8 million. Moreover, in
recent years, the Refuge System has absorbed about $440 million in
uncompensated funding from natural disasters, nearly the amount of a
full year's funding.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science.--The
increasingly large-scale and complex nature of threats to the
conservation of our natural resources along with decreasing financial
resources has created a need to work more effectively and efficiently
across jurisdictional boundaries. This comprehensive initiative is
helping natural resource management agencies improve landscape-level
coordination of conservation efforts and provide science and technical
capacity to tackle today's complex environmental problems. This program
will also serve a key role in implementing the recently released
National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy, an
effort that was directed by the Appropriations Committee in fiscal year
2009 and fiscal year 2010, that will help public and private
decisionmakers prepare for and reduce the current and future impacts of
climate change on species, habitats, ecosystems, and the people and
economies that depend on them.
International Affairs.--Funding is crucial to sustain vital efforts
to provide crucial capacity building, education, and training for
personnel responsible for priority species and habitats of global
concern and for the increased permitting, research and monitoring
workload for species subject to trade, including native U.S. species
such as sturgeon and freshwater turtles.
Office of Law Enforcement.--The Washington Post recently
highlighted the work of the Office of Law Enforcement in fighting
illegal trade, breaking up smuggling rings, and other criminal
activities that harm wildlife. Without robust funding, the program will
be unable to maintain its highly trained force of special agents,
inspectors, and forensic scientists.
Migratory Bird Management.--U.S. bird populations, including native
Hawaiian birds, ocean birds, coastal shorebirds, and desert, shrubland,
and grassland birds have experienced precipitous declines in recent
years. Continued strong funding is critical to survey and monitor,
reduce hazards, manage permits, and restore habitat for migratory
birds.
Other Key Grant Programs.--Defenders supports continued needed
funding for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, for the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, and for the State and Tribal Wildlife
grants.
forest service and bureau of land management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service
(FS) are essential 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.
FS Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR)/Wildlife and Fisheries
Habitat Management.--We expect that the administration will again
propose merging a number of accounts, including Wildlife and Fisheries
Habitat Management, into an integrated budget. However, Defenders
supports maintaining strong funding for Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat
Management and continuing IRR as a 3-year pilot as directed by 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.
FS Land Management Planning/Inventory and Monitoring.--We also
expect the budget to again propose 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 and urge continued
discrete funding for each.
FS Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP).--We
support full funding of $40 million for this proven cost-effective
program that was established specifically to create job stability,
achieve reliable wood supply, restore forest and watershed health,
improve wildlife habitat, and reduce the costs of fire suppression in
overgrown forests, and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires.
FS Forest and Rangeland Research (FS R&D).--Strong funding for FS
R&D is crucial in providing relevant tools and information to support
sustainable management of National Forest system lands as well as non-
Federal forest lands.
BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy.--We expect that
the administration will again request $15 million in the BLM Wildlife
Management program specifically for sage-grouse conservation planning
in 10 western States, which is an increase over prior years' funding
for amending Resource Management Plans, inventorying, monitoring and
mapping habitat, and conducting restoration. Almost half of all
sagebrush habitat has been destroyed and remaining habitat is
fragmented and degraded. Over 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
reverse this iconic bird's decline.
BLM Renewable Energy.--Robust funding is important to continue
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 conflicts with sensitive wildlife species
such as sage-grouse, eagles, and desert tortoise.
BLM Resource Management Planning.--Maintaining funding for Resource
Management Planning is crucial to address 57 new plans which the agency
expects to complete within the next 3 to 4 years. Since 2000, the BLM
has completed more than 74 RMP revisions and major plan amendments.
BLM Challenge Cost Share.--Defenders continues to support this
program, one of the few sources of BLM funding for proactive wildlife
and habitat conservation projects on the ground.
u.s. geological survey
The U.S. Geological Survey provides the basic science necessary for
conservation of fish, wildlife and habitat. We urge support for robust
funding in the following programs:
Ecosystems.--For crucial scientific information needed to soundly
manage our Nation's biological resources including ongoing research on
White Nose Syndrome that is devastating bat populations and work to
assess impacts to wildlife, especially bats and birds, from the
development and placement of wind energy projects and transmission from
direct strikes, habitat fragmentation, and construction and maintenance
of infrastructure.
Climate and Land Use Change.--Continued funding for the National
Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center/DOI Climate Science Centers
and 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.\4\ Once these lands are lost, they can never be recovered.
Defenders supports continued strong funding for the LWCF. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/coop_across_boundaries.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
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 2014. This testimony is intended to
highlight the importance of the Federal investment in the arts, so
critical to sustaining a vibrant cultural community throughout the
country.
Dance/USA, the national service organization for the professional
dance field, 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 national leadership and services, Dance/USA
enhances the infrastructure for dance creation and distribution,
education, and dissemination of information. To fulfill its mission,
Dance/USA offers a variety of services to the field that fall under the
categories of leadership and learning (conferences and professional
development), information and research, and advocacy and visibility,
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 500 aerial, ballet, modern, ethnic, jazz, and tap
companies, dance service and presenting organizations, individuals, and
related organizations. 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 NEA has helped to
strengthen regional ballet, opera, theater 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 resources, including a budget that has decreased
by almost $30 million since 2010, the NEA awards more than 1,000 grants
annually to nonprofit arts organizations for projects that encourage
artistic creativity and community accessibility. 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
and in every congressional district.
NEA grants are instrumental in leveraging private funding. On
average, each dollar 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 $135.2 billion
annually in economic activity ($61.1 billion by the Nation's nonprofit
arts and culture organizations), supports 4.13 million full-time
equivalent jobs, and returns $22.3 billion in revenue to local, State,
and Federal governments each year. Measured against collective arts
allocations of $4 billion, that's a return of more than five 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.
The return on investment is not only found in dollar matches. The
average city and county reports that nonprofit arts and culture
organizations had 5,215 volunteers who donated 201,719 hours. These
volunteer hours have a value of approximately $4.5 million--a
demonstration that citizens value the arts in their communities.
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. In 2013, the NEA funded or has recommended funding
174 grants, totaling almost $4.1 million, to the dance discipline under
the Art Works funding category. The following are some examples of the
impact of NEA funding on dance programs from the NEA's 2013 Art Works
Program:
AXIS Dance Company, Oakland, California, $10,000
To support Dance Access and Dance/Access KIDS! Education and
outreach programs. These activities will offer a variety of events for
youth and adults with and without disabilities who are based locally
and nationally.
Ballet Austin, Austin, Texas, $10,000
To support the creation and presentation of Snow White,
choreographed by Nelly van Bommel. The one-act ballet will be performed
by Ballet Austin II dancers and will be van Bommel's third work for
Ballet Austin.
Dance Theatre of Harlem, New York, New York, $30,000
To support a national tour of the Dance Theatre of Harlem
professional company. In addition to performances, the company will
offer educational activities such as lecture demonstrations, master
classes, and movement workshops.
Jacob's Pillow, Becket, Massachusetts, $100,000
To support the presentation of artists representing diverse dance
forms including Brazilian hip-hop, classical Indian dance, modern
dance, and ballet, and the Creative Development Residency. Artists will
include Wendy Whelan, Companhia Urbana de Danca, Shantala
Shivelingappa, Dance Theatre of Harlem, and Tere O'Conner Dance, as
well as two artists in the Creative Development Residency.
North Carolina Dance Theatre, Charlotte, North Carolina, $10,000
To support the creation and world premiere of a new work by dancer
and choreographer Jiri Bubenicek. Education and outreach programming
will include presenting excerpts of Bubenicek's work in the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg schools, as well as lecture-demonstrations that tie dance
to core curriculum subjects.
STREB, Brooklyn, New York, $80,000
To support the audience development and access programs Public/
Action New York and Public/Action on Tour, based on Extreme Action, a
method of movement developed by choreographer Elizabeth Streb.
Performances and classes for students will take place at Streb lab for
Action Mechanics (SLAM), the company's home in Brooklyn.
Washington Ballet, Washington, DC, $20,000
To support the Washington Ballet's Community engagement Program.
The company will offer low-cost dance training and free subsidized
professional dance performances to Washington residents at the Town
Hall Education, Arts and Recreation Campus (THE ARC), located east of
the Anacostia River.
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. Over
two-thirds of America's professional dance companies are less than 45
years old; as an established art form with national identity and
presence, dance has burst onto the scene almost entirely within living
memory. And yet, America can boast some of the greatest dance companies
of the world and can take credit for birthing two indigenous dance
styles--tap and modern dance.
One key to this spectacular achievement has been the creation of a
national marketplace for dance. When the National Endowment for the
Arts instituted its Dance Touring Program in the 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 over 13,400 people in a mix of full-time and part-time
positions;
--Paid approximately $334.9 million, or 53 percent of expenses, in
wages and benefits;
--Earned 178.9 million, or 30 percent of their income, from
performances;
--Received $319.2 million, or 49 percent of their income in
contributions (including public support, corporate
contributions, foundation support, and individual donations);
--Generated more than $631.7 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 almost $30 million in the past 2 years, leaving
its programs seriously underfunded. We urge you to continue toward
restoration and reinstate the NEA funding allocation to $155 million
for fiscal year 2014.
On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the 1854 Treaty Authority
1854 treaty authority
The 1854 Treaty Authority (Authority) is a tribal organization
funded by a Public Law 93-638 contract with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs under its Trust-Natural Resources Management-Rights Protection
implementation budget.
--The Authority supports the administration's proposal of $36,722,000
for BIA Rights Protection Implementation and the proposed
allocation of $888,000 for the Authority.
--The Authority supports the full finding of contract support for its
Public Law 93-638, Self-Determination contract. The Authority
believes that at least the $231 million requested by the
administration should be appropriated, but it does not support
the administration's proposal to institute individual statutory
caps on contract support. Not only have those caps been
proposed without the consultation required for significant
policy changes, the Authority has no funding source to make up
for contract support shortfalls.
--The Authority supports funding the EPA Great Lakes Restoration
budget at $300 million.
The Authority is the tribal organization responsible for
protecting, preserving, and regulating the Treaty-reserved hunting,
fishing and gathering rights in the territory ceded to the United
States by the Chippewa in the Treaty of September 30, 1854, 10 Stat.
1109. The Bois Forte Band and the Grand Portage Band created the
authority following Federal court affirmation of the rights in 1988. As
part of a court-approved agreement with the State of Minnesota, the
Bands have obligations to preserve the natural resources in the 5
million acre ceded territory and to regulate the activities of Band
members through a conservation code, enforcement officers, and a court.
Although it has significant responsibilities in a geographic area
the size of Massachusetts, the Authority has only 11 full-time
employees. With those limited resources, the Authority has been able to
collaborate with State, Tribal and Federal agencies to become a
prominent presence in the conservation of resources critical to the
subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering activities of the Chippewa.
However, the successes of the Authority are overshadowed by the
challenges facing the trust resources that are at the heart of the
Treaty right. The Minnesota moose population has declined precipitously
in just a few years and for reasons unknown. Invasive species threaten
the Treaty fishing and wild rice production areas across the ceded
territory, and human activities continue to deplete or displace
wildlife populations.
The Authority urges the committee and the Congress to acknowledge
that the resources we seek to protect are trust resources, reserved in
treaties that the United States has a legal obligation to protect and
preserve.
______
Prepared Statement of the Edison Electric Institute
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) respectfully submits this
written testimony for the record to the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. We
appreciate this opportunity to share our views on some of the fiscal
year 2014 programs for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The U.S. electric generation fleet is facing numerous challenges as
a result of a range of EPA requirements. These EPA regulations include
pending rulemakings on Clean Water Act section 316(b) cooling water
intake structures, coal ash disposal, regional haze, steam-electric
effluent limitation guidelines, and greenhouse gas new source
performance standards, as well as other significant pending Clean Air
Act regulations. These requirements are dramatically affecting
individual utility decisions regarding the construction of new
generation and the retrofitting and retirement of existing plants.
Therefore, I am sharing with you our views on a number of these
proposals that could significantly impact the ability of electric
utilities to ensure an adequate, reliable and affordable supply of
electricity for consumers.
clean water act section 316(b) cooling water structures rule
In April 2011, EPA issued a proposed rule under section 316(b) of
the Clean Water Act. The proposed rule, which EPA must finalize by June
27, 2013, will require changes in ``cooling water intake structures,''
physical structures through which cooling water is withdrawn, for the
vast majority of America's existing steam-electric generating plants
and a wide range of manufacturing and industrial facilities. The
proposed rule focuses on reducing fish and shellfish mortality
attributable to ``impingement'' on intake structure screens and
``entrainment'' into cooling water systems. The proposal will have
significant negative environmental, energy, cost, and local reliability
impacts on a minimum of 650 electric generation facilities across the
country.
Under the proposed rule, some facilities may be compelled to
retrofit cooling towers at a nationwide cost estimated to be as high as
$100 billion. Many facilities will be required to retrofit technology,
the costs of which will far exceed the benefits, potentially making
those generating units uneconomic. The proposed impingement standards
are not achievable at all existing facilities, and there is no valid
environmental or biological justification for precluding site-specific
flexibility for impingement as EPA has proposed for entrainment. The
agency's first Notice of Data Availability (NODA) concerning
impingement mortality proposed a number of changes in the rule to
address these concerns, such as allowing more flexibility and the
inclusion of pre-approved technologies. EEI supports many of these
proposed changes, as well as the proposed rule's site-specific approach
to entrainment reduction, and we continue to oppose any mandate to
retrofit facilities with closed-cycle cooling.
However, EEI is very concerned with EPA's second NODA, which
proposes the use of a public opinion survey as a surrogate for well-
established biological and economic analyses to estimate expected
regulatory benefits. Industry does not believe willingness-to-pay
surveys of this type are an appropriate tool for use in a national or
regional context and should not be used by EPA to justify its final
316(b) rule. Further, the survey that EPA completed was flawed,
misleading and inaccurate. It should therefore not be used to shape or
implement the rule. EEI strongly urges the subcommittee to encourage
EPA not to rely on the willingness-to-pay survey.
coal combustion product regulation
EPA's Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule is currently in proposed
form. The agency has stated it wants to finalize the measure in 2014.
EEI continues to advocate for the non-hazardous regulation of coal ash
and is working to build bipartisan support for enactment of legislation
during the 113th Congress.
In October 2011, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2273, the
Coal Combustion Residuals and Management Act, legislation that would
have established minimum Federal requirements for the management and
disposal of coal ash designed to protect safety, human health and the
environment. The Federal criteria would have been administered by
States through enforceable permits and by EPA if a State failed to meet
the Federal baseline. The House included H.R. 2273 in the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2012. Bipartisan, bicameral compromise
coal ash provisions were developed during the House-Senate conference
on the transportation bill; however, coal ash provisions were not
included in the conference agreement. In August, 24 Senators--12
Democrats and 12 Republicans--introduced S. 3512, a bill virtually
identical to the bipartisan CCR legislative package that was considered
by Congress for inclusion in the transportation legislation. The text
of S. 3512 passed the House in September 2012 as part of a separate
legislative package.
EEI urges subcommittee support for a non-hazardous regulatory
program for CCRs similar to the provisions contained in S. 3512. Such
an approach would build on existing State regulatory programs and
ensure proper disposal of CCRs in a cost-effective manner and without
unintended consequences.
regional haze program
The Clean Air Act's Regional Haze program requires States to design
State implementation plans (SIPs) with the intent of gradually making
``reasonable progress'' toward meeting a national goal of preventing
future, and remedying existing, impairment of visibility in national
parks over the next five decades. In part, States show reasonable
progress toward this goal by requiring major stationary sources of
emissions, like electric generating units, to install the ``best
available retrofit technology'' (BART).
The Clean Air Act requires States to consider several factors when
determining BART for a particular source. In 2005, EPA adopted
guidelines to help States make BART determinations. These guidelines
govern how EPA is to determine BART for a particular source. In cases
where EPA has determined that a SIP does not meet minimum criteria, the
agency may in some cases implement a Federal implementation plan (FIP)
for that State.
EPA continues to take action on State regional haze plans and BART
determinations. EEI and numerous member companies are engaging with the
agency and other administration officials on both a programmatic and
State-by-State basis.
In its implementation of the program, EPA is using outdated
regulatory tools to assess projected air quality improvements and
compliance costs. Last year, the House Appropriations Committee
approved legislative language supported by EEI to address this problem.
It stated that EPA should work with industry and other stakeholders to
quickly update its regional haze tools and refrain from making
important regulatory decisions based on outdated models and manuals.
EEI urges the subcommittee to adopt legislative language like that
included by the full House committee last year requiring EPA to update
its regional haze tools related to modeling air quality and estimating
costs of environmental controls.
effluent limitations guidelines rulemaking
Pursuant to a court order, on April 19, EPA released a proposed
revision to the existing steam electric effluent limitation guidelines
(ELGs), which it must finalize by May 2014. The proposal includes
preferred options that would set strict performance standards that will
force technological and operational changes at existing coal-based,
nuclear, and natural gas-based combined-cycle generation facilities.
Wastewater treatment systems generally cost in the tens to hundreds
of millions of dollars, depending on the size of the facility. The
costs of wastewater treatment under the rule will vary according to the
chosen technology, the volume of wastewater to be treated, and the
level under EPA's revised ELGs of pollutant reduction required. The
rule also could entail significant costs for converting to dry handling
of fly ash at facilities that currently use wet handling. EEI estimates
the cost of wet-to-dry conversion of fly ash handling to be $43 billion
over 20 years.
In addition, EPA is looking at equally stringent and costly
measures for six other waste streams at steam electric facilities. For
example, the rule may require conversion of wet bottom ash handling to
dry bottom ash handling and the physical/chemical biological treatment
of ash landfill leachate. In certain circumstances, the preferred
options may entail other significant costs, including the cost of
treating water used to wash trucks and other equipment at all steam
electric generating facilities as if it were a chemical solvent.
The cumulative cost impact of the effluent guidelines rule could be
in the hundreds of billions of dollars. As a result, EEI requests the
subcommittee to ensure that EPA bases its decisions on credible data
and a full consideration of the economic challenges and obligations of
the industry as a whole.
greenhouse gas new source performance standards
EPA is expected to finalize greenhouse gas (GHG) new source
performance standards (NSPS) for new fossil fuel-based units late in
2013, perhaps after issuing a revised proposal. EEI's 2012 comments on
EPA's proposed standards expressed concern that the NSPS effectively
precludes the building of new coal-based powerplants and that, in many
circumstances, even new natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC) units will
have problems meeting the standard continually under normal, real-world
operating conditions. Among other comments, EEI urged EPA to set a
separate standard for new coal-based powerplants and to raise the
emissions standard for new NGCC units or take other steps to address
NGCC concerns.
Once EPA finalizes the new source standards, it is expected to
develop draft State guidelines for existing (and probably modified and
reconstructed) plants (collectively referred to as ``existing plants'')
under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. It is important that any
rulemaking minimize the impact on existing electric generating units
that are already making significant investments to comply with the
Mercury and Air Toxics (MATS) rule.
______
Prepared Statement of the Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this subcommittee: Thank
you for providing us this opportunity to the people of Enewetak to
describe issues that relate to our ability to live on our homeland of
Enewetak Atoll, which was used as a nuclear test site by the United
States from 1947 to 1958.
As the only people ever resettled on a nuclear test site, we face
many challenges. Life on Enewetak Atoll is made possible through
support provided by the congressionally funded Enewetak Food and
Agriculture Program. That program provides funding for imported food,
an agriculture rehabilitation program, and the operation of a vessel.
Funding is administered by the Department of the Interior. We request
that funding for that program for fiscal year 2014 be increased by the
amount of $500,000, the same amount of increase as provided by Congress
in fiscal year 2013. Also, we hope that this committee will support
continued funding of the health program for the four nuclear affected
atolls of which we are one, and funding for the environmental
monitoring by the Department of Energy of the Runit Island nuclear
waste site which is on our atoll.
Before we discuss the particulars of this request, we would first
like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee, on
behalf of the Enewetak people, for your support in funding the food and
agriculture program for our people in the Compact of Free Association.
We also thank you for your past support in assuring that the Enewetak
Food and Agriculture Program is adequately funded, particularly your
support for the $500,000 increase for fiscal year 2013 and your
approval of our request to purchase a replacement vessel during fiscal
year 2008 from previously appropriated program funds.
As you know, Enewetak Atoll was the site of 43 of the 67 nuclear
tests the United States conducted in the Marshall Islands. We were
removed from our land by the U.S. Government to make that testing
possible. We were exiled from our land for a period of over 33 years--a
period in which we suffered near starvation, poor health, and lack of
education.
In 1980, after a significant cleanup, soil rehabilitation, and
resettlement effort undertaken by the United States, we were able to
return and live on only a part of our land. A large part of our land
and environment remain contaminated making it impossible for us to rely
on our natural food resources and preventing us from developing a
fishing or tourist economy.
We now live on a former nuclear test site. In fact, we are the only
people ever resettled on a nuclear test site. The Enewetak Food and
Agriculture Program makes life on Enewetak possible. And that is why we
are so thankful to you for assuring funding in the minimum amount of
$1.5 million for the program in the Compact.
However, the program was funded at a level of approximately $2
million in fiscal year 2013 and close to that amount for the past
several years. That funding level needs to continue to maintain the
minimum components of the program which include a soil and agriculture
rehabilitation program, the importation of food, and the operation of a
vessel. Therefore, we request your support for the additional $500,000
for the program for fiscal year 2014 so that the components of the
program will be funded in the total amount of $20 million, as has been
the case these past several years.
In 2008 we faced a challenge with regard to the transportation of
food, material, equipment, supplies, and transport of people to and
from our atoll. Our atoll is the most distant atoll from Majuro Atoll,
the capital of the Marshall Islands. In fact, the distance between
Majuro and Enewetak is 600 miles one way. All of our food, material,
supplies, and equipment are sent to Majuro for further transshipment to
Enewetak. Consequently, a reliable vessel is a lifeline for us. The
vessel available to us up to fiscal year 2009 was so old that parts
were difficult if not impossible to find. Therefore, we were in the
market for a replacement vessel that would be even more suitable for
voyages between Enewetak and Majuro than the vessel we had. We found a
suitable vessel and greatly appreciate the approval provided by this
committee to purchase the replacement vessel from previously
appropriated program funds. That vessel was in service as of 2008 and
provides the necessary sea transport to support each of the components
of the program.
A final comment on the Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program: This
program is a true success story. It allows us to live on our homeland
while providing the resources which allow us to attempt to accomplish
some of the rehabilitation required to transform part of the atoll from
a severely damaged nuclear test site to a place that more resembles
home. The additional $500,000 to maintain current funding levels will
ensure the continued success of this program.
Now we would like to briefly address the four atoll healthcare
program. Funding for fiscal year 2014 is necessary to continue the
program. We appreciate the funding for such program provided by the
Congress in the amount of $1 million for fiscal year 2013. However,
continued funding is required to maintain the key elements of the
program which provide for an on-site physician for each of the four
atolls, necessary medicines and supplies, funding for a health aide for
each atoll, and funding for care of the people of the four atolls at
the hospitals in the Marshall Islands when required.
We also need to mention the nuclear waste site on Runit Island.
That site was built by the United States and contains more than 110,000
cubic yards of material including plutonium and other radioactive
debris. This site needs to be monitored to assure the integrity of the
structure and to assure that no health risks from the radioactive waste
site are suffered by us. To effect the foregoing, a long-term
stewardship program of Runit Island needs to be implemented by the
United States.
Finally we need to mention our just compensation claims which have
yet to be addressed by the United States. As you can imagine, Enewetak
was devastated by the 43 nuclear explosions. Over half the atoll
requires radiological remediation. The entire atoll requires
restoration. The Enjebi people need to be resettled on their home
islands in the northern part of the atoll. The United States accepted
responsibility for the damages it caused at Enewetak, and it agreed
that the Nuclear Claims Tribunal was to determine just compensation for
our people. That Tribunal has done so. Now the just compensation award
must be addressed so that we have the resources to remediate our atoll
and to provide our people with the compensation to which they are
entitled for the loss of use of their land. We believe that the best
way for Congress to address the claims of the Enewetak people is to
have the matter referred to the United States Court of Federal Claims
pursuant to the congressional referral process. That process will
enable a body familiar with the type of claims examined and addressed
by the Tribunal to again examine those claims, and the resulting
awards, and provide a recommendation to Congress regarding disposition
of the claims.
Again, Mr. Chairman, we thank you and members of this subcommittee
for your support which makes life possible for us on our home atoll of
Enewetak, and we thank you for your kind consideration of the requests
made in this statement.
______
Prepared Statement of the 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 the opportunity to provide testimony
on fiscal year 2014 appropriations for the Indian programs funded
through the Department of the Interior, Indian Health Service (IHS) and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Fond du Lac Band provides
health, education, social, public safety 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. Because of
this, we wish to express our deep concerns about the adverse impact of
sequestration on our ability to provide these basic governmental
services. We urge Congress to reach solutions on budget matters, and to
fully fund the programs that are so critical to Indian country so that
the most vulnerable communities are not hurt and the Federal Government
fulfills its trust responsibilities to our people.
BIA: Public Safety and Justice and Construction.--We support the
President's proposal to increase BIA funding for law enforcement as
increased funding for law enforcement personnel is essential. We also
urge Congress to increase funding for BIA Construction, as the facility
that houses our Law Enforcement Department is completely inadequate for
that purpose.
Public Safety and Justice.--We continue to face massive unmet needs
for law enforcement. We provide law enforcement with a combination of
tribal and available Federal funds and cooperative agreements with
local law enforcement agencies. But methamphetamine, alcohol, illegal
prescription drug use, and gang-related activity create huge demands on
our Law Enforcement Department. Recently, we have seen a rather large
and fast increase in gang activity. The convictions of several Native
Mob members in March 2013 appear to have left a void in gang leaders,
so, while gang activity has been on the rise over the years, lately
gang activity has intensified with gang members trying to make names
for themselves by whatever means necessary. The increase in crime is
further illustrated by the fact that Fond du Lac had its first homicide
since 2000 last year which, though not directly gang-related involved
gang members and drugs. Another homicide occurred in Carlton County
near the Reservation in 2012 which involved two tribal members and
drugs.
We also face an epidemic in prescription drug abuse. Many of our
elders and others are the victims of assaults and robberies that are
drug related. Our law enforcement officers must respond to a large
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, 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 2012,
our Law Enforcement Department responded to close to 5,100 incidents
and requests for assistance--an increase from 4,900 in 2011.
To address these problems and ensure effective law enforcement
coverage 24/7, we need to increase our law enforcement staff but lack
sufficient funds to do this. We 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 poses 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.
BIA Construction.--Funding should be increased for BIA
Construction. Fond du Lac needs 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 recordkeeping, and a training room for
officers, is essential.
BIE: Education.--We urge Congress to increase funding for Bureau of
Indian Education (BIE) Elementary/Secondary School Programs. We rely on
BIE funding for the operation of the Band's pre-K through grade 12
Ojibwe School which 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, illustrated by the fact that more
than 90 percent of our students qualify for free or reduced rate
lunches. Although the President, in Executive Order 13952 (December 2,
2011) found ``an urgent need'' for Federal agencies to help improve
educational opportunities for American Indian students because there
has been ``little or no progress in closing the achievement gap''
between our students and all other students, funding for the BIE
Elementary/Secondary School Programs is stagnant and seriously
underfunded. The modest funding increases made in fiscal year 2012 have
been lost as a result of sequester. This is illustrated by the
following table:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School School
ISEP Tribal Grant Facility Facility Student
Support Costs Operations Maintenance Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2008.................... ............. 43.373 56.504 50.745 ..............
Fiscal year 2009.................... 375.0 43.373 56.972 50.745 50.5
Fiscal year 2010.................... 391.699 43.373 59.410 50.745 50.808
Fiscal year 2011.................... 391.142 43.373 59.263 50.746 52.798
Fiscal year 2012.................... 392.306 46.373 58.659 50.746 52.739
Fiscal year 2013 w/sequester........ 369.9 45.8 55.7 48.4 50.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applying statute-generated needs formulas, we ask that BIE
Elementary/Secondary School Program funding be increased as follows:
--ISEP.--Increase ISEP to $479,758,000. ISEP is the primary source of
school funding, covering salaries for teachers, teacher aides,
and administrative personnel. ISEP is critical to our ability
to recruit and retain qualified teachers and to cover
shortfalls in other budget areas, such as transportation,
facilities and maintenance.
--Tribal Grant Support Costs.--Increase TGSC to $67,270,000. TGSC
helps pay for accounting, insurance, background checks, legal
and recordkeeping requirements. Inadequate funding of TGSC
forces us to use ISEP and other funds to meet these needs.
--School Facility Operations and School Facility Maintenance.--
Increase School Facility Operations to $61,913,000, and School
Facility Maintenance to $79,137,000. Such funds keep our
building in safe condition, pay for preventative and
unscheduled maintenance, and cover insurance and increasing
utility costs. Past funding has not kept pace with rising costs
or the growing backlog of schools needing repair.
--Student Transportation.--Increase Student Transportation to
$56,212,000. This program has been historically underfunded.
Without increased funding, the costs to maintain, repair, and
replace buses and cover rising fuel costs must be paid from
education program funds which are already over-obligated.
Located in a rural area, Fond du Lac relies on buses to provide
a safe and reliable means to get students safely to and from
school.
--School Construction and Repair.--Provide an additional $20 million
for School Construction above current levels to stay ahead of
BIE's reported $70 million annual deterioration rate. BIE
reports a $3.4 billion school replacement need. Research
studies continue to document a link between inadequate facility
conditions and poor performance by students. Not addressing
these critical infrastructure needs will only jeopardize
student and staff safety.
BIA: Trust--Natural Resources Management.--We very much appreciate
the funding for BIA Natural Resource programs that Congress has
provided in past years and strongly support the proposed increase for
these programs contained in the President's fiscal year 2014 budget.
Natural resources are vitally important to our tribal members. 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.
Base program 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 also request
that Congress provide funding to the BIA Tribal Government account as
recommended in the President's fiscal year 2014 budget. This account
provides Self Governance funding that is vital to the operation of our
Forestry, Fisheries, Wildlife, and Natural Resources Programs.
We urge Congress to increase funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program, and we support the
President's proposed funding for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices
and the EPA Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Finally, as a member of
the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, the Band supports
the Commission's request for BIA Great Lakes Area Management funding of
$7.067 million and EPA funding of $1.2 million to continue its long-
standing treaty rights protection and implementation program on behalf
of its member Tribes.
BIA: Human Services.--We urge Congress to increase funding for
Human Services programs 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.
Indian Health Service.--We fully support the President's proposed
increase in funding for the Indian Health Service and appreciate the
commitment that the administration and 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. All Indian tribes should
receive 100 percent of the Level of Need Formula, which is absolutely
critical for tribes to address the serious and persistent health issues
that confront our communities. The Band serves over 7,000 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. We are especially disappointed with the Pharma-
driven position SAMHSA has followed for the past several years
regarding Methadone Assisted Therapy (MAT). Many poorly administered
MAT programs are pouring unprecedented amounts of cheap, liquid
Methadone into Indian communities with very destructive results. In
2013, two-thirds of the babies delivered by Fond du Lac Nurse-midwives
were born to Methadone dependent mothers. Research has shown that
methadone users are cognitively impaired, but no research has been done
on children born to Methadone users. Meanwhile, thousands of American
Indians are falling victim to the chemical slavery now sponsored by
SAMHSA. 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 Congress to support programs through the IHS or the
BIA that would fund supportive housing for tribes in every area of the
country.
Miigwech. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition
The following testimony is submitted on behalf of the Federal
Forest Resource Coalition on the budget for the USDA Forest Service and
the Bureau of Land Management. The FFRC represents purchasers of
Federal timber in 27 States, with over 650 member companies and
affiliated associations, collectively representing over 350,000 working
men and women around the country.
We make the following specific programmatic recommendations for
fiscal year 2014:
--restore the Forest Products line item to the pre-sequester fiscal
year 2013 level of $337 million;
--restore the Hazardous Fuels line item to the fiscal year 2011 level
of $340 million; and
--restore Forest Roads line item to the fiscal year 2011 level of
$236 million.
We make these recommendations after a cursory review of the
President's budget proposal, which, like you, we only saw last week.
Impacts of Sequester and CR.--While we appreciate the support this
subcommittee has shown for forest management in the past, we must point
out our serious concerns with the priorities established for the Forest
Service as a result of the sequester and subsequent continuing
resolution. While it appears that some regions of the Forest Service
are doing their best to continue offering an expanded timber sale
program, the reductions resulting from the sequester and the continuing
resolution will inevitably result in reduced outputs. Administration
estimates suggest that the sequester will result in a 15 percent
reduction in timber offer levels, which will result in the loss of more
than 7,000 jobs in some of the poorest counties in America.
Our member mills have weathered the worst recession our industry
has seen since the great depression, a recession which is widely
acknowledged to have hit housing harder than any other sector. Although
forest product demand has been slowly increasing for the last 18 to 24
months, the loss of national forest timber volumes will stall this
growth as these mills struggle to find timber to meet this demand.
Moreover, the markets these mills create enable the U.S. Forest Service
to perform the forest health and wildfire prevention so badly needed on
our national forests.
For the sequester to force unnecessary mill closures and further
job losses in our hard hit rural communities is unconscionable. By
further reducing forest management and capital improvement spending in
the continuing resolution, Congress and the President are setting
exactly the wrong priorities for the Forest Service and the Bureau of
Land Management.
The Chief of the Forest Service has testified before Congress that
the agency has between 50 million and 80 million acres in need of
active management, with 45 million acres being decimated by bark
beetles in the Rocky Mountains alone. Further, the agency's budget
presentation states that they have a $6 billion maintenance backlog, up
from $5.3 billion in 2012. This backlog does not just affect the roads
my members depend on to access timber, but the trails, campgrounds, and
visitor centers millions of Americans use for recreation. To cut these
programs further goes right to the heart of the visitor experience and
raises serious questions about the Government's continued commitment to
manage these lands for the greatest good.
Increasing Efficiency in NFS Management.--As an industry, we have
learned how to economize, reducing costs and doing ``more with less.''
We recognize that the Nation's fiscal situation demands austerity, and
we have engaged from day one in a dialogue with the Federal land
managers to find ways to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and this
subcommittee has helped with several of those efforts. For example, you
led the way in replacing a cumbersome administrative appeals process
with a streamlined objection process, and last year proposed expanded
authority to use more effective sale administration techniques to help
reduce costs.
We strongly urge you to continue these efforts by expanding the
relief from administrative appeals to all projects which the agency
finds are categorically excluded from further NEPA review. We urge you
to push the U.S. Senate to agree to provisions allowing designation by
description. However, unless Congress prioritizes land management by
reinvesting in timber management, hazardous fuels reduction, and
maintenance of the basic forest infrastructure, our Federal lands will
continue to deteriorate and our rural communities will remain stuck in
what is becoming an alarmingly durable cycle of poverty.
As noted, we recommend restoring the budgets of the three programs
noted earlier. All told, these restorations would cost the subcommittee
roughly $75 million. Presently, this is far less than is being proposed
for several land acquisition programs within this spending bill. We
stand ready to work with the committee to identify further efficiencies
in the way the Forest Service manages their timber lands. However,
Congress cannot ignore its responsibility to set priorities, and
clearly we have arrived at a point where we must prioritize the
management of the lands and facilities already under Federal ownership.
We recommend the following to expedite management, reduce delays,
and increase accountability:
--direct the Forest Service to meet their forest products output
targets using only commercial products such as sawlogs,
pulpwood, and commercial biomass, not personal use firewood;
--allow and encourage the agency to focus higher yielding forest
management projects on lands designated in existing forest
plans as suitable for timber production; and
--provide expedited authority to conduct needed forest management
projects on lands identified as being at significant risk of
wildfire, either on agency forest health maps or in community
wildfire protection plans.
We were very thankful to the subcommittee for including national
direction to the Forest Service to increase timber outputs from 2.4
billion board feet to 3 billion board feet in 2012. As you are aware,
the Forest Service achieved 2.6 billion board feet, although about 11
percent of that was personal use firewood. We urge the subcommittee to
continue increasing the pace and scale of forest restoration, and set a
goal of 3.5 billion board feet (exclusive of personal use firewood) for
fiscal year 2014.
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 Forest Service is falling short of its own management goals;
including in reacting to the bark 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 above
State averages. Investing in the Forest Service timber program is a
very effective job creator, generating 16.5 new direct and indirect
jobs per million board feet harvested.
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. As noted, these programs were
reduced in the sequester and then cut further by the continuing
resolution. 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 Forest
Service road system.
We appreciate the efforts of the subcommittee to remove the
arbitrary requirements for hazardous fuels reduction work in the
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). A greater percentage of lands in need
of fuels reduction are outside of the WUI, and mechanical thinning
allows the Forest Service to take advantage of the wood products
infrastructure to reduce treatment costs. Extensive Forest Service
research shows that mechanical thinning (which includes removing
useable wood fiber) followed by prescribed fire is the best approach to
significantly reduce threats from wildfire and forest pests.
IRR, CFLRA.--We further recommend that Congress continue to closely
monitor pilot authorities such as the IRR pilot regions, and project
specific authorities such as CFRLA projects, to determine whether these
projects are reducing unit costs, whether the units measured are acres
treated or units of wood produced.
Stewardship Contracting.--We are also concerned that the Forest
Service will lose their current authority to engage in Stewardship
contacting at the close of this fiscal year. Congress must take steps
to expedite an extension of this authority, and we urge this
subcommittee to continue its leadership in this regard.
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 proposed by the
administration be redirected to the land management priorities
recommended above.
BLM Forest Management.--The President's fiscal year 2014 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 over 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 and communities.
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 to
transition to harvesting second growth timber 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 (almost 90 percent of the Tongass is roadless). Local
mills and loggers, along with Governor Sean Parnell, have concluded
that some portion of the Tongass should be converted into State
ownership in order to meet the needs of the local economy. FFRC
strongly supports this effort. FFRC also strongly urges the
subcommittee to make permanent the Red Cedar language which it has
included in previous Interior bills for more than a decade. This
language is absolutely necessary to ensure that USFS sales are not
offered as deficit sales.
conclusion
We are witnessing a renaissance in demand for wood products, both
here at home and abroad. There are two things we know to be true:
first, this demand will be met, whether it comes from our own forests
or from abroad. Second, we know that there is more forest management
work that needs to be done on the National Forests. Only Congress can
decide whether we will help meet that domestic and international demand
using timber from our National Forests, which must be milled
domestically before it can be exported. Only Congress can create
American jobs by using this market upswing to pay for badly needed
forest management work. To paraphrase our favorite bear, only you can
decide to act now, or you can allow the negative trends in forest
health and rural economic distress to continue.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Bon Secour National Wildlife
Refuge
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
Friends of Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge (FBSNWR), thank you for
this opportunity to submit comments on the proposed fiscal year 2014
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. FBSNWR
is a nonprofit volunteer organization formed in 1997 and represents
citizens from throughout the United States who cherish and support the
Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge. Moreover, our members are
concerned about its future and the role it plays in preserving vital
habitat types.
The Bon Secour NWR provides vital habitat for neotropical migratory
birds and nesting habitat for endangered sea turtles. In addition, the
refuge is a component of thriving nature-based tourism along coastal
Alabama. The coastal economy is dependent upon sound stewardship of
natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico, so we believe the development
and sustainment of a strong Bon Secour NWR and National Wildlife Refuge
System is critical to creating a resilient economy in southern Alabama
and the gulf coast.
Within this context, we urge your action on the following:
--Support the President's budget request for fiscal year 2014 of $499
million for Refuge System Operations and Maintenance (O&M).
This restores some of the cuts made over the past few years,
even though this will not cover the annual increases needed
just to maintain management capabilities from year to year. 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.
--Fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900
million and allocate a minimum commitment of $300 million for
the National Wildlife Refuge System. Created in 1964 and
authorized at $900 million per year, these funds are needed to
complete land acquisition for existing and new refuges.
bon secour national wildlife refuge
The Bon Secour NWR incorporates almost 7,000 acres along the coast
of Baldwin County and Mobile County, Alabama and is one of more than
500 National Wildlife Refuges located throughout the United States. Bon
Secour NWR is also part of the gulf coast NWR complex that includes the
Grand Bay NWR (located in Mobile County, Alabama and Jackson County,
Mississippi) and the Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR (located in Jackson
County, Mississippi). The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the Nation's premier system of
public lands and waters set aside to conserve America's fish, wildlife
and plants. Since President Theodore Roosevelt designated Florida's
Pelican Island as the first wildlife refuge in 1903, the System has
grown to more than 150 million acres.
Being a National Wildlife Refuge, the primary mission of the refuge
is to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat. Public use of the refuge
must come secondary to the refuge's wildlife stewardship operations.
Yet, it is clear that Congress intended for the refuge to develop and
implement environmental education. The act which established the refuge
in 1980 stated that the refuge should ``ensure the well-being of these
(nationally endangered and threatened species, such as the brown
pelican, bald eagle, and several species of sea turtles, as well as
many more species identified by the State to be of special concern) and
other species, to serve as a living laboratory for scientists and
students . . .'' The Alabama Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau
has estimated the refuge attracts nearly 100,000 visitors annually,
demonstrating the refuge's significant role in Alabama's coastal
economy.
Bon Secour NWR has persevered through several catastrophic events
over the past decade. The refuge was hit hard by Hurricanes Ivan and
Katrina in 2004 and 2005, forcing the removal of tons of hurricane
debris from sensitive habitats and repairs to roads and trails. Three
years ago, the refuge became a ``poster child'' for threats related to
the gulf oil spill when crude oil washed onto the beaches during the
sea turtle nesting season. The refuge staff has been strained to the
limits to assess damage from these events and direct recovery from the
impacts.
assessment of current budget constraints
We are aware of the intense desire of the Federal Government to
reduce deficit spending. However, addressing deficit spending on the
backs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National
Wildlife Refuge System is not a realistic approach to addressing
deficit spending. The entire budget for civilian agencies represents
less than 20 percent of the entire Federal budget, and we would
speculate that the budget for the entire USFWS represents less than 1
percent of the allocations for civilian agencies. Therefore, slashing
budgets for the NWRS would virtually be undetectable toward reducing
deficits.
The citizens of the United States already have a major financial
investment in these public lands. Continued reductions of operations
and maintenance funds will result in deterioration of these lands and
facilities, requiring additional expenditures for restoration if
refuges and/or their facilities are not properly maintained.
To some degree, the USFWS has weathered recent budget shortfalls
better than some agencies as a result of their tradition of strong
efforts to manage expenditures for salaries and fixed costs. Many
positions throughout the country have remained vacant, and the agency
has been willing to make the tough decisions required to have any hope
of sustaining their primary mission for wildlife stewardship. However,
those efforts can only carry them so far, and we believe that continued
budget shortfalls will force reductions-in-force, suspension of
critical wildlife management functions, and closing visitor service
facilities. It is ironic that the agency may actually be penalized as a
result of their conservative budget management.
Bon Secour NWR presently has a staff of six personnel, although the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the refuge indicates a need for
nine personnel. Retention of these positions will be tenuous if
sequestration and budget shortfalls continue. Moreover, we know that
the USFWS will be reluctant to expand visitor service facilities that
would provide direct contributions to the coastal economy until
operational funding for the refuge system is more stable.
Budget constraints to the fire management program are already
creating a backlog of habitat management needs throughout the Gulf
Coast NWR Complex. My recent inquiries about this year's progress in
prescribed burning indicated that funds simply are not available
support fire operations that often require long days and weekend/
holiday duty. This reduction in prescribed burning operations will
exacerbate the backlog of habitat management needs and significantly
increases the probability of more intense and catastrophic wildfires on
the fire-dependent habitats along the busy I-10 corridor.
land and water conservation fund
All three refuges within the Gulf Coast NWR Complex have inholdings
that detract from the wildlife management mission of the refuges and
interfere with habitat stewardship activities. Bon Secour NWR is
surrounded by development, increasing pressure to assure that the lands
within the designated boundary provide quality habitat for migratory
birds and endangered species. Therefore, the need to complete
acquisition from willing sellers is critical to sustaining healthy
resources associated with coastal Alabama.
conclusion
Funds for the NWRS represent an investment in the health of the
gulf's natural resources and economy of the United States. The
Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 demonstrated for all of us that our
coastal economies are linked to the health of our coastal natural
resources. Investing in the NWRS would sustain our Nation's long
history of success in natural resource stewardship and help restore our
Nation's economy.
Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on this proposed
appropriation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Rachel Carson NWR
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I am Bill
Durkin, President of the Friends of RCNWR in Maine.
I have been a member of the Friends of Rachel Carson NWR for the
past 22 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
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 System. I thank you all for your
consideration.
--We are requesting an overall funding level of $499 million in
fiscal year 2014 for the operations and maintenance budget of
the National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. 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. An investment in the Nation's Refuge System is an
excellent investment in the American economy. Without increased
funding for refuges, wildlife conservation and public
recreation opportunities will be jeopardized. We fully
supported the President's request of $499 million for O&M for
the NWRS.
--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 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 2014
budget, and I support the administration's commitment to fully
funding the program in the near future. I urge a minimal
commitment of $300 million to the National Wildlife Refuge
System. This wise investment in the Land and Water Conservation
Fund is one that will permanently pay dividends to the American
people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund 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 U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Rachel Carson became entranced with Maine's coastal
habitat, leading her to write the international best seller The Sea
Around Us. This landmark study 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 National Wildlife Refuge System and respectfully
request the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee allocate $499 million
for the Refuge System's fiscal year 2014 Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) budget, and fund the LWCF at the $700 million level.
The LWCF request is constant every year, we need Congress to stand
by their commitment that was made in 1964: stabilize the fund.
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 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
2014 Interior, Environment, and Related 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:
--$499 million for Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of the NWRS;
--$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) with a
minimal commitment of $300 million for the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
I will also explain how the sequester cuts have impacted the Upper
Miss Refuge thus far, and how the Refuge would be affected were there
to be an additional cut of 10 percent in 2014.
But to make clear, the National Wildlife Refuge System has endured
several years of austere budgets, the sequester cut has made matters
worse, and this has harmed the people who use the Upper Miss Refuge and
the wildlife that is the reason for the Refuge System's existence.
Additional cuts will have further harmful consequences out of
proportion to any money saved by carrying them out.
the friends of the refuge headwaters
FORH 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 raise funds through other activities.
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 me 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 over four States with over 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.
In other cases lack of funding means the Refuge cannot carry out
its obligations. Currently the Refuge has authorized more than $2
million for land acquisition through the LWCF and has land acquisitions
waiting for appraisals, signed purchase agreements, or final closing to
fulfill its obligations for these funds. Even in the face of a looming
threat such as invasive Asian Carp, which have caused severe harm to
native fish populations and injuries to boaters in areas where they
have proliferated, the Refuge staff has too little money to take more
than token action. 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 sequester cuts for the upper miss refuge
The sequester cuts are affecting all work on the Refuge, whether
it's maintenance, biology, inventory, habitat management, visitor
services, enforcement, or other. In each area, less is being done. I
will give three specific examples. First, seasonal hiring for summer
field work has been reduced by three-fourths. Much fieldwork is not
being done, including control of invasive plants and controlled burns
to improve or restore habitat and lower fire danger. Also, most of
these seasonal employees are young people and now veterans acquiring
experience and skills for future employment. Second, because comp time
has been eliminated, the Refuge has reduced its outreach programs for
the general public during weekends and evenings. The result is less
education, interpretation, and recreation for children and adults,
fewer contacts between Refuge staff and volunteers and local citizens,
and a decrease in tourists who support local economies. Third, sharp
restrictions on overnight travel have meant that Refuge staff are
foregoing some types of training or not taking part in regional or
national gatherings where they share their research findings or
techniques. Both mean that Refuge staff are less able to carry out
their jobs.
consequences of a 10 percent budget reduction for the upper miss refuge
The Refuge is already understaffed and working with an austere
budget. 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 9 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-eights 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 the Friends of the Rappahannock River Valley
National Wildlife Refuge
The Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) has
been affected primarily in three ways by recent budget cuts as well as
sequestration. The first is in personnel. Management is not able to
hire a full-time summer person that they usually put on the staff to
help with the heavy summer maintenance and public use load. Also, all
staff overtime has been cut so many of the weekend and after hours
public events are being curtailed.
The staff cannot reorder basic supplies such as important brochures
and maps that are given to the public. In addition, every requisition
no matter how small requires a series of extra signatures that were not
required in the past. This has the effect of bottlenecking all
purchases and repairs so important machinery often stays inoperable for
a long period of time which increases the maintenance work necessary to
catch up with things such as mowing and more importantly, getting rid
of invasive plant species.
Also, projects that require help from other branches of the Fish
and Wildlife Service such as archeological surveys cannot be completed
because travel expenses have been eliminated.
Further budget cuts would add to the difficulty. A 10 percent
budget cut would devastate our refuge because they are already spread
thin with only 6 staff members covering more than 15 tracts. In order
to achieve a 10 percent cut, personnel would have to be cut since they
are not spending money on anything else that is unnecessary. This is a
refuge that is growing in public recognition and the visitor count is
increasing every year. There is no visitor staff member on this refuge
so a cut would be even more devastating to this growing refuge.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fire Suppression Funding Solutions Partner
Caucus
As the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee considers the fiscal
year 2014 budget for the USDA Forest Service (USFS) and the Department
of the Interior (DOI), we the undersigned representing the Fire
Suppression Funding Solutions Partner Caucus request your support to:
--Fully fund the FLAME accounts created for the USFS and DOI as
intended in the Federal Land Assistance, Management and
Enhancement Act (FLAME Act) separately from and above the 10-
year average used to fund annual wildfire suppression;
--Ensure that any remaining balance in the FLAME accounts at the end
of fiscal year 2013 carry over into fiscal year 2014; and
--Fully fund annual suppression using the 10-year average along with
more predictive modeling based on current weather conditions,
fuel loads and other data that contribute to wildfire risk.
The Partner Caucus is a diverse coalition of organizations brought
together in January 2009 to find a solution to the impacts of
increasing suppression costs on USFS programs. Our coalition includes
national and local environmental organizations, State forestry,
conservationists, outdoor and recreation industry, hunter/angler,
timber industry, local governments and many other groups interested in
Federal lands. Since annual wildfire suppression did not provide enough
funding to avoid transferring funds from other agency programs, the
solution developed in the 111th Congress was intended to change the
funding mechanism for wildfire suppression by establishing two
emergency wildfire accounts funded above annual suppression. In October
2009, the FLAME Act was signed into law with overwhelming bipartisan
support from the House and Senate and should have represented an
important change in the funding mechanism for wildfire suppression.
One of the cornerstones of the FLAME Act was the establishment of
two FLAME accounts, one each for USFS and DOI. In passing the FLAME
Act, Congress intended to fully fund the USFS and DOI's suppression
needs, while avoiding the need to transfer monies from other agency
programs to fund emergency wildfire suppression expenses. Annual
suppression was to be calculated using an improved predictive modeling
that included the 10-year average and other indicators. The FLAME
accounts were to be funded at levels beyond annual suppression and not
at the expense of other agency programs. Additionally, any balances
remaining in the FLAME accounts were to carry over into future years.
fiscal year 2012
Unfortunately, several factors led to the administration
transferring funds from agency non-suppression programs to fund
emergency wildfire suppression in fiscal year 2012. Carry over levels
in the FLAME accounts were rescinded in fiscal year 2012, suppression
was funded below the 10-year average, and the fire season was very
costly, particularly at the end of the fiscal year.
These factors led to the transfer of $440 million from USFS
programs and $23 million from DOI programs at the end of fiscal year
2012. These transfers were restored in the first fiscal year 2013
continuing resolution. However, the transfers have had long lasting
effects on the USFS' and DOI's implementation of impacted programs that
continue to this day.
fiscal year 2013
In the latest administration's FLAME Forecast Report \1\,
predictions indicate another costly fire season in fiscal year 2013,
with median forecasts for suppression costs at levels of $985 million
for USFS and $281 million for DOI. The fiscal year 2013 funding
estimates for suppression and FLAME combined amount to $852 million for
USFS and $369 million for DOI (not including sequester cuts). These
findings, particularly for the USFS, strongly indicate another year of
transferring funds from and disrupting agency programs, including the
forest management programs that would help to reduce wildfire
suppression costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement (FLAME) Act
Suppression Expenditures for Interior and Agriculture Agencies: March
2013 Forecasts for Fiscal Year 2013. February 7, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2014
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget proposes the full 10-year
average, adjusted for inflation, at levels of $996 million \2\ for USFS
and $378 million \3\ for DOI, which is then split between suppression
and FLAME. The USFS budget proposes $681 million for suppression and
$315 million for the USFS FLAME account. The DOI budget proposes $286
million for suppression and $92 million for the DOI FLAME account.
These levels are adjusted for inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Fiscal Year 2014 USDA Forest Service Budget Justification.
\3\ Fiscal Year 2014 Interior Budget in Brief--Department-wide
Programs.
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2014--
-------------------------------
USFS DOI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppression............................. $681 $286
FLAME................................... 315 92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppression and FLAME combined amount to the inflation adjusted 10-year
average level.
We recommend the USFS and DOI FLAME accounts be funded separately
from the 10-year suppression levels in order to avoid transfers in
fiscal year 2014. Additionally, any remaining balance in the FLAME
accounts at the end of fiscal year 2013 is carried over into fiscal
year 2014. Finally, annual suppression levels should be funded using
the 10-year average, along with any added factors that may improve
predictive modeling, including current weather conditions, fuel loads
and other data that contribute to wildland fire risk.
Congress undertook crafting the FLAME Act as a result of a critical
examination of wildfire suppression funding and the importance of
addressing impacts to agency programs. We request that you reaffirm the
commitment to address this important problem and look forward to
working with you to ensure wildfire suppression and FLAME accounts are
funded in a way that reduces impacts to the agency programs that our
organizations support.
Alliance for Community Trees
Amador Fire Safe Council
Amador-Calaveras Consensus Group
American Forests
American Forest Foundation
American Forest Resource Council
American Hiking Society
Appalachian Mountain Club
Applegate Partnership and Watershed Council
Association of Consulting Foresters
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
Black Hills Forest Resource Association
Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition
Blackfoot Challenge
Blue Mountain Forest Partners
California Fire Safe Council
California Forestry Association
California Ski Industry Association
Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council
Choose Outdoors
Clearwater Resource Council
Colorado Forestry Association
Colorado Timber Industry Association
Conservation Northwest
Criley Consulting
Dahl Environmental Services, LLC
Entrepreneurship Northwest
Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics and Ecology (FUSEE)
Foothill Conservancy
Forest Business Network
Forest Energy Corp
Forest Guild--Framing Our Community
Gifford Pinchot Task Force
Grand Canyon Trust
Great Old Broads for Wilderness
Greenpeace
Idaho Conservation League
Idaho Forest Restoration Partnership
Indiana Forestry & Woodland Owners Association
Institute for Culture and Ecology
Intermountain Forest Association
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Association of Wildland Fire
International Code Council
Large Tree Farm
Mainland Planning, Inc.
Malheur Lumber Company
Mid Klamath Watershed Council
Montana Wilderness Association
Mt. Adams Resource Stewards
Mt. Taylor Machine, LLC
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Forest Service Retirees
National Association of State Foresters
National Alliance of Forest Owners
National Association of University Forest Resources Programs
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
National Network of Forest Practitioners
National Ski Areas Association
National Volunteer Fire Council
National Wildfire Institute
National Wild Turkey Federation
National Woodland Owners Association
New Mexico Council of Trout Unlimited
New Mexico Forest Industry Association
Northwest Forest Worker Center
Outdoor Alliance
Ozark Woodlands Owners Association
Pinchot Institute
Public Lands Council
Quail & Upland Wildlife Federation
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Ruffed Grouse Society
Salmon Valley Stewardship
Sierra Club
Siuslaw Institute
Society of American Foresters
Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative
Southern Oregon Timber Industries Association
Southwestern Idaho Woody Utilization Partnership
Spatial Interest, LLC
Sustainable Northwest
Swan Ecosystem Center
The Wilderness Society
The Wildlife Society
Trout Unlimited
University of the South
Vermont Woodlands Association
Watershed Research & Training Center
Western Environmental Law Center
Wildlands CPR
Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association Inc.
Woody Biomass Utilization Partnership
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
Refuges, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the 163
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). 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 at $499 million in fiscal
year 2014.
--Fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million
for fiscal year 2014, including a minimal commitment of $300
million for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
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 increase the NWRS
budget to $499 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 $900
million for fiscal year 2014 with a minimal commitment of $300 million
to the National Wildlife Refuge System. These funds are used for land
acquisition as well as less expensive easements or leases 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 change. 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 $900 million can go much
further in protecting habitats than it can in a higher market. When we
start to lose species due to lack of food, water, shelter, or space, we
are changing the balance of nature. We urge you to fund the LWCF at
$900 million for fiscal year 2014. The LWCF is not funded by taxpayer
money.
The Tampa Bay Refuges are located at the mouth of Tampa Bay on the
west central gulf coast of Florida. The budget increases a few years
ago meant increased management, protection, and restoration of the
refuges and the ability to better meet the Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (CCP) goals. The wildlife on the refuges has done well with the
extra help. Due to those past increases in budget and personnel the
TBRs were able to plan for big picture issues such as erosion and
increased public use. Unfortunately, due to the sequestration and
budget cuts, much of that planning will not be implemented.
The recent budget decrease and sequestration has hurt our refuges.
--The refuge law enforcement (LE) officers will not be able to patrol
Egmont Key as often during the key summer nesting season due to
restrictions in travel and overtime in a shrinking budget. This
leaves the nesting birds open to more intrusions by refuge
visitors and nesting failures.
--It is very difficult to purchase equipment for the LE for emergency
response and public safety due to budget cuts.
--If a staff member leaves, he/she may not be replaced so the refuge
can stay afloat financially for the rest of this fiscal year
because of the sequestration. We have already lost a
maintenance position to keep the equipment, including the boats
used to access the island refuges, in good working order.
--The refuge was able to eradicate exotic plants and predators on the
refuges, but with budget decreases and sequestration, there is
little or no money to monitor and keep up with the work that
has already been done. The result will be degraded habitat for
the refuges and their wildlife, including nesting failures.
--Fire management budgets have been cut and prescribed fires have not
been conducted on Egmont Key as needed. This opens the island,
its historic buildings, and visitor center up to a much higher
catastrophic wildfire risk.
--Simple things like purchasing a GPS for the boat to safely exit a
channel cannot be purchased. The longer, safer route, if you
don't have a GPS, reduces the amount of time staff can dedicate
to refuge management since there is no overtime. Other things
such as the contract for dry storage for the refuge boat, which
includes launching so the boat is ready when staff arrives, is
also being cut. This too wastes trained staff's valuable time
to tow, launch, and ready a boat before getting to the actual
tasks that matter to the refuge.
--The Fort Dade Guardhouse on Egmont Key NWR has been restored and
will become the visitor center. The refuge has grant money to
fund the first phase of the displays, but with the
sequestration and budget cuts staff may not have time to
oversee construction of the center displays or to keep the
center open to the public.
These are just a few of the things impacting the Tampa Bay refuges.
Bottom line, funding cuts hurt the wildlife that the NWRS is mandated
to protect. The refuge system has a very small budget compared to the
whole Federal budget. It is not a big impact to the Federal budget to
give the refuges a little more funding whereas the impact of reduced
funding is devastating. Please consider funding $499 million for the
fiscal year 2014 Operations and Management budget.
The Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges (FTBNWR) was
incorporated and became a 501c3 in 2008 to better assist the Tampa Bay
National Wildlife Refuges with volunteers and fundraising. In 2012
FTBNWR was able to provide over 2,000 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
animals on the Pinellas Refuges that prevented birds from nesting and
ate the 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. Volunteers
act as bird stewards on Egmont Key NWR during the summer nesting season
to enhance the visitors' experience on the refuge through education.
Our refuges do not have enough staff to provide these education
programs so we have filled that gap as volunteers. Our volunteers are
passionate about the refuge system and donate their time, money, and
expertise to protect it.
The Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges is one of
over 230 Friends groups who support the National Wildlife Refuges. The
interest in our National Wildlife Refuge System is significant and we
are proving it with our donated time and funds.
In conclusion, the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
Refuges believe the National Wildlife Refuge System can meet its
conservation objectives only with strong and consistent funding
leveraged by the work of refuge staff and volunteers. We again extend
our appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing commitment to our
National Wildlife Refuge System. We encourage you to approve $499
million for the fiscal year 2014 National Wildlife Refuge System
Operations and Maintenance budget managed by FWS and to approve $900
million for fiscal year 2014 for the LWCF land acquisition budget as
well as a dedicated $300 million for Fish and Wildlife.
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission
BIA Rights Protection Implementation: $36,722,000. Great Lakes Area
Resource Management: $7,067,000 (administration's proposed allocation).
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. Sec. 13; Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, (Public Law 93-
638), 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 450f and 450h; and the treaties between
the United States and GLIFWC's member Ojibwe Tribes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Specifically, the 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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIA Contract Support: At least the $231,000,000 amount requested by
the administration, provided this amount meets the full contract
support funding required by the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act.
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. Sec. Sec. 450f and
450h.
EPA Great Lakes Restoration: $300,000,000. Tribal need:
$25,000,000. GLIFWC need: $1,200,000 (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. Sec. 1268(c);
and treaties cited above.
great lakes indian fish and wildlife commission's goal--a secure
funding base to fulfill treaty purposes
For nearly 30 years, Congress has funded GLIFWC to meet non-
discretionary treaty obligations and to comply with associated Federal
court orders. GLIFWC implements 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 appreciate the administration's and
Congress's strong support of these treaty obligations for the past 30
years and for their continuing recognition of the hard work undertaken
to implement the RPI program. Despite an increase in support for treaty
rights protection in fiscal year 2012, GLIFWC's fiscal year 2012
funding, leveraged with other funding sources, still results in unmet
needs of $2,636,000. Funding at the proposed fiscal year 2014 level
would begin to address these unmet needs. For more detail, the three
elements of this fiscal year 2014 funding request are:
BIA Great Lakes Area Management: $7,067,000.--This program falls
within the Rights Protection Implementation (RPI) line item, which the
administration proposed at $36,722,000 for fiscal year 2014. 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 and other Treaty Commissions
testified about chronic underfunding of the Rights Protection
Implementation line item and the impacts of that underfunding on
GLIFWC's programs. The increases in the Great Lakes Area Resource
Management line item in fiscal year 2010 allowed the Commissions to
restore some program cuts that had resulted from previous funding
shortfalls. Sequestration will undo many of these restorations. For
example, for GLIFWC, sequestration threatens its long-standing fish
contaminant and consumption advisory program, fall juvenile walleye
recruitment surveys, tribal court and registration station funding, and
Lake Superior lamprey control and whitefish assessment programs. Any of
these cuts will have a greater impact now, when demand for GLIFWC's
services across the ceded territories is increasing as more tribal
members are exercising their rights to put food on their tables during
difficult economic times. Funding at the proposed fiscal year 2014
level would protect GLIFWC programs from these cuts.
BIA Contract Support.--At least $231,000,000, consistent with the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act's requirement
for full contract support funding. GLIFWC does not support the
administration's proposal to institute individual statutory caps, in
part because there is no funding to cover any shortfalls without
undermining service capacity.
EPA Environmental Programs and Management: $300 million.--GLIFWC
supports continued funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
(GLRI) at the administration's proposed fiscal year 2014 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 maintain its protection and enhancement activities
throughout the ceded territories. These activities are especially
important at a time when State and Federal agencies are stepping back
from on-the-ground protection work due to budget constraints.
Protection activities are imperative--protecting resources from
degradation is much more effective and cost efficient than restoration
activities. It makes no sense to let resources degrade, only to spend
more money on restoration. The benefits of GLIFWC protection and
restoration activities are not only felt by its member tribes, but
benefit all communities that use the ceded territories.
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 ``on-the-ground'' ecosystem benefits early.
ceded territory treaty rights--great lakes indian fish and wildlife
commission'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
more than a 60,000 square mile area that extends to Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Through its staff of 66 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
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 2014 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.--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 2014 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 long-standing fish contaminant analysis and
consumption advisory program by testing additional species, testing in
a wider geographic range, and testing for chemicals of emerging
concern; 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 that
achieve public benefits that no one partner could accomplish alone, as
the Department of the Interior highlighted in its Fiscal Year 2014
Budget in Brief.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Fiscal Year 2014 Budget in Brief highlights GLIFWC's wild
rice restoration and management activities, done in partnership with
the States of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan, as well as GLIFWC's
participation in joint fisheries management on Lake Superior. See pages
DH-84 and DH-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
other related appropriations concerns
Rights Protection Litigation Support.--Litigation support funds are
used to defray costs associated with litigation to affirm and implement
treaty reserved rights. Defraying these costs, such as those associated
with ongoing negotiations with States in ongoing co-management
activities preserves base funding for GLIFWC's program costs.
Rights Protection Evaluation and Research Activities.--GLIFWC
supports the administration's proposed $3.5 million for evaluation and
research activities in the Rights Protection Implementation line item,
provided this funding goes to RPI tribes and intertribal commissions to
carry out the evaluation and research activities that will lead to the
development of implementation and management strategies to deal with
the many changes that are occurring throughout the ceded territories.
______
Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America
Summary.--The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges Congress to
at least restore the fiscal year 2012 appropriation for the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) in fiscal year 2014 and support as many of the
proposed increases in the administration's request as possible. As one
of our Nation's key science agencies, the USGS plays a vital role in
understanding and documenting mineral and energy resources that
underpin economic growth worldwide; researching and monitoring
potential natural hazards that can undermine United States and
international security; and determining and assessing water
availability and quality necessary for society. Despite the critical
role played by the USGS, funding for the Survey has stagnated in real
dollars for more than a decade. The cuts from sequestration in an
agency already operating in a constrained environment are decreasing
this agency's ability to monitor and assess resources upon which our
society depends. Given the importance of the many activities of the
Survey that protect lives and property from natural hazards, stimulate
innovations that fuel the economy, provide national security, and
enhance the quality of life, the Geological Society of America believes
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.
u.s. geological survey contributions to national security, health, and
welfare
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 in land use planning, emergency response, natural
resource management, engineering, and education. These partnerships
also allow USGS to leverage funds, making the most of scarce Federal
dollars. USGS research addresses many of society's greatest challenges
for national security, health, and welfare, including natural hazards,
mineral and energy resources, climate change, and water availability
and quality.
--Natural hazards--including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic
eruptions, 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
billion dollar weather/climate disasters. Several areas in the
United States are vulnerable to damages from earthquakes,
tsunamis, volcanoes, and landslides--as evidenced by the recent
west coast landslide. USGS research that improves our
understanding of geologic hazards will allow for better
planning and mitigation in these areas that will reduce future
losses. GSA urges Congress to support efforts for USGS to
modernize and upgrade its natural hazards monitoring and
warning systems to protect communities from the devastating
personal and economic effects of natural disasters.
--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. The USGS is the sole Federal
information source on mineral potential, production, and
consumption. USGS assessments of mineral and energy resources
are essential for making informed decisions about the Nation's
future. GSA is greatly concerned about recent cuts in mineral
resources and the ability of our Nation to safely develop new
resources.
--Many emerging energy technologies--such as wind turbines and solar
cells--depend upon 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). USGS research will play a lead role in
helping ease our dependence on these foreign sources.
--The devastating droughts in 2012 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. The proposed increases for water gauges and other
water programs will increase our scientific understanding of
surface water and groundwater necessary to ensure adequate safe
water resources for the future.
--USGS research on climate impacts is used by the Department of the
Interior and local policymakers and resource managers to make
decisions based on the best possible science. The Climate
Science Centers, for example, provide scientific information
necessary to anticipate, monitor, and adapt to climate change's
effects at regional and local levels, ranging from sea level
rise and extreme weather events to the impact of climate change
on wildfires to effects on agriculture.
--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. The successful
launch of Landsat 8 is an important step to continue to provide
these resources. GSA supports interagency efforts to examine a
path forward for support of Landsat.
Research in Earth science is fundamental to training and educating
the next generation of Earth science professionals. The United States
faces a looming shortage of qualified workers in these areas that are
critical for national security. We are very concerned that cuts in
Earth science funding will cause students and young professionals to
leave the field, potentially leading to a lost generation of
professionals in areas that are already facing worker shortages.
Investments in these areas could lead to job growth, as demand for
these professionals now and in the future is assessed to be high.
A 2013 report by the National Research Council, Emerging Workforce
Trends in the Energy and Mining Industries: A Call to Action, found,
``Energy and mineral resources are essential for the Nation's
fundamental functions, its economy, and its security. . . In mining
(nonfuel and coal) a personnel crisis for professionals and workers is
pending and it already exists for faculty.''
Another 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 . . . 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.
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.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about the U.S.
Geological Survey.
______
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. We urge the subcommittee to address these
priority issues in the fiscal year 2014 Department of the Interior
appropriation.
rock creek park deer
The HSUS requests that funds made available in this act give
preference to non-lethal deer management programs and that the NPS be
prohibited from using funds to conduct lethal deer management programs
at Rock Creek Park. The National Park Service (NPS) recently decided to
implement lethal methods for controlling the deer population in Rock
Creek Park despite the availability of non-lethal 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 the future, we ask that priority be given to
humane, non-lethal methods with respect to decisions regarding funding
deer management programs.
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.'' We
encourage this subcommittee to direct the USFWS to immediately move
forward with the ``injurious'' listing of the five remaining species,
which will prohibit importation and interstate movement of these
animals as pets. A recent, comprehensive report by the U.S. Geological
Survey showed these non-native snakes all pose a medium or high risk to
ecosystems. Large constrictor snakes have been released or escaped into
the environment and have colonized Everglades National Park and other
portions of south Florida as well as Puerto Rico 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 and establishment of these snakes
into new areas.
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, which is also supported by
the American Chemistry Council:
``The Committee recognizes that EPA is implementing the use of
ToxCast information in the prioritization of chemicals for screening in
the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). The Committee
supports this activity as part of a pathway-based approach to endocrine
assessment, and directs EPA to maximize its efforts to develop adverse
outcome pathways (AOPs) for endocrine modes of action and to utilize
mechanistic information not only in prioritization, but also in hazard
and risk assessment in place of tests involving living animals, if
comparable and reasonably and practicably available. The Committee also
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 EDSP. The Committee understands that EPA
contributed to an international review of rat reproduction studies that
showed the lack of utility of a second generation and supporting
replacement of the two-generation mammalian study with a more efficient
`extended one-generation' design. The Committee directs EPA to maximize
the efficiency of each EDSP 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 or 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
committee 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 research and
development of human biology-based and Tox21-related methods and
prediction tools, including pilot studies of pathway-based risk
assessments. The data sets and prediction model structures generated
should be transparent, publicly disseminated, and to assure readiness
and utility for regulatory purposes, undergo public review and comment
and independent scientific peer review to establish relevance and
reliability. The Committee requests EPA provide a report on associated
funding in fiscal year 2014 for such activity and a progress report in
the congressional justification request, featuring a 5-year plan for
projected budgets for the development of mechanism-based methods,
including Tox21 activities and prediction models and activities
specifically focused on establishing scientific confidence in them for
regulatory purposes. 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 2014 budget requests $9.98 million
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. The 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 oppose any future use of funds
from these conservation programs 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 2014 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 (The HSUS) is one of the
leading advocates for the protection and welfare of wild horses and
burros in the United States with a long history of working
collaboratively with the 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
Congress has stated. When intervention is required, we owe them our
best efforts to ensure that any human actions that affect their lives--
such as gathers, transportation, confinement, and adoption--are done in
a way to assure their humane treatment.
Therefore, The HSUS strongly supports a significant reduction in
the number of wild horses and burros gathered and removed from our
rangelands annually. We believe removing horses from the range without
implementing any active program for suppressing the population growth
rate 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 50,000 wild
horses and burros in these pens. In the most recently completed fiscal
year (2012), holding costs accounted for $43 million (or 59 percent)
out of a total wild horse and burro budget of $74.9 million.
In the spring of 2011, we were encouraged by the BLM's announcement
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.
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 proactive management
strategy. And in its 1990 report on the BLM's wild horse management
program, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found 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 to the range.\1\ 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.\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Rangeland Management: Improvements Needed in Federal Wild
Horse Program, GAO/RCED-90-110 (Washington, DC: Aug. 20, 1990).
\2\ Bartholow, J. 2007. Economic benefit of fertility control in
wild horse populations. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 71(8):2811-2819.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, at the conclusion of fiscal year 2012, we were seriously
disappointed when we learned that the BLM only treated and released 881
mares in fiscal year 2012 which means that BLM fell short of achieving
its own management goals by more than 50 percent (see table Completed
Fiscal Year 2012 Gathers under the heading Number of Mares Treated with
Fertility Control: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/
herd_management/Data/completed_fy_12_gathers.html).
Moreover, in its budget justification for fiscal year 2013, BLM
provides no explanation for why it failed to meet its own management
objectives for fiscal year 2012. In fact, for fiscal year 2013,
specific goals for reducing population growth rates on the range are
conspicuously absent--there's no mention of the agency's proposed
strategy of treating and releasing 2,000 mares in fiscal year 2012 and
fiscal year 2013 (see page 64 under the section titled Strategy for
Managing Wild Horse and Burro Populations, Reducing Population Growth
http://www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2013/upload/
FY2013_BLM_Greenbook.pdf).
This was a key component of the Proposed Strategy that the BLM
finalized in March 2011, which was supposed to put the Wild Horse and
Burro Program on a sustainable track and the agency has provided no
justification whatsoever for its failure to meet its own management
objectives. (See page 4 of the BLM's Caring for America's Wild Horses
and Burros: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/
Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/wild_horse_and_burro/
documents.Par.32058.File.dat/WHB_Fundamental_022411.pdf.)
There are already over 50,000 wild horses and burros living in
Government holding facilities today--that's almost twice the number of
wild horses and burros living on our public lands, and as a result, the
cost of caring for these animals off the range could more than double
in a just a few years.
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 Interstate Mining Compact Commission
My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I serve as executive director of
the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. I appreciate the opportunity
to present this statement to the subcommittee regarding the views of
the Compact's 25 member States on the fiscal year 2014 budget request
for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
within the U.S. Department of the Interior. In its proposed budget, OSM
is requesting $57.7 million to fund title V grants to States and Indian
tribes for the implementation of their regulatory programs, a reduction
of $10.9 million or 15 percent below the fiscal year 2012 enacted
level. OSM also proposes to reduce mandatory spending for the abandoned
mine lands (AML) program by $67 million pursuant to a legislative
proposal to eliminate all AML funding for certified States and tribes.
The Compact is comprised of 25 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 $57.7 million for title V grants to
States and tribes in fiscal year 2014, 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, Congress approved $68.7 million for State
title V grants, an amount that appears to have been reauthorized again
in fiscal year 2013 pursuant to the Continuing Resolution adopted in
March.\1\ 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
amounts approved by Congress for title V funding over the past several
fiscal years. Even with mandated rescissions and the allocations for
tribal primacy programs, the States saw a $12 million increase for our
regulatory programs over fiscal year 2007 levels. State title V grants
had been stagnant for over 12 years and the gap between the States'
requests and what they received was widening. This debilitating trend
was compounding the problems caused by inflation and uncontrollable
costs, thus undermining our efforts to realize needed program
improvements and enhancements and jeopardizing our efforts to minimize
the potential adverse impacts of coal extraction operations on people
and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In approving this amount for State grant funding in fiscal year
2013, the subcommittee noted that: ``Federal regulatory grants to
primacy States results in the highest benefit and the lowest cost to
taxpayers, and if a State were to relinquish primacy, OSM would have to
hire and train sufficient numbers and types of Federal employees. The
cost to implement the Federal program would be significantly higher and
as such the Committee summarily rejects the proposal [to cut funding
for State regulatory grants].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its fiscal year 2014 budget, OSM has once again attempted to
reverse course and essentially unravel and undermine the progress made
by Congress in supporting State programs with adequate funding. As
States prepare their future budgets, we trust that the recent increases
approved by Congress will remain the new base on which we build our
programs. Given fiscal constraints on State budgets from the downturn
in the economy, some States have only recently been able to move beyond
hiring and salary freezes and restrictions on equipment and vehicle
purchases, all of which have inhibited States' ability to spend all of
their Federal grant money. 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. Please keep 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 prior to cutting Federal funding for State title V grants.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ It has taken OSM over 3 years to develop a proposal of its own
for cost recovery that will apply to Federal and Indian Lands programs
where OSM is the regulatory authority. On April 4, OSM republished a
proposed rule (78 Fed. Reg. 20394) that would adjust existing permit
fees and assess new fees to recover the actual costs for permit review
and administration and permit enforcement activities provided to the
coal industry. Comments on the proposal are due May 28. The States have
not yet had an opportunity to review the rule, which OSM has asserted
could serve as a template for similar efforts by the States. Regardless
of whether this is the case, and contrary to OSM's implication that the
States should have already moved forward with similar proposals of
their own based on the fact that OSM has included this suggested
approach in its last three proposed budgets, OSM is well aware of the
complexities associated with a proposal of this magnitude for the
States based on extensive information we have provided to the agency.
We are happy to share that information with the subcommittee as well.
It will clearly take more than a single fiscal year for the States to
seriously consider and undertake such an effort. And most importantly,
the subcommittee has directed OSM in each of the past 3 fiscal years
``to discontinue efforts to push States to raise fees on industry as
the bill provides the funds necessary for States to run their
regulatory programs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 19 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 62) 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 and reflects a move by OSM to exert a more direct
role in State programs, especially regarding permitting decisions,
thereby weakening State primacy. However, without more to justify the
need for more oversight and the concomitant increase in funding for
Federal operations related thereto, 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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The subcommittee agreed with this assessment when it commented
as follows on OSM's proposed increase in fiscal year 2013: ``The
Committee similarly rejects the proposal to increase inspections and
enhanced Federal oversight of State regulatory programs. Delegation of
the authority to the States is the cornerstone of the surface mining
regulatory program, and State regulatory programs do not need enhanced
Federal oversight to ensure continued implementation of a protective
regulatory framework. Accordingly, the Committee has not provided the
$3,994,000 and 25 FTE increase requested for those activities within
the Regulation and Technology account.'' Furthermore, the States are
confounded by OSM's desire to increase its staff by 19 FTEs when it
currently has more than twice that number of unfilled positions in the
agency. Is OSM attempting to add 19 new FTEs, or fill a portion of the
vacancies? In either event, the $4 million intended for this purpose is
better spent by the States in their role as the primary enforcement and
permitting SMCRA authority, rather than by OSM oversight to second
guess State decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 to the States
was ``careful and deliberate'' and that 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
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 $71 million for
State and tribal title V regulatory grants, as fully documented in the
States' and tribes' estimates for actual program operating costs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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. 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 $340 million in fiscal year
2014. Instead, OSM has budgeted an amount of $273 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 $67 million reduction repudiates the
comprehensive restructuring of the AML program that was passed by
Congress in 2006, following over 10 years of congressional debate and
hard fought compromise among the affected parties. We urge the Congress
to reject this unjustified, ill-conceived proposal, delete it from the
budget and restore the full mandatory funding amount of $340 million.
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.
We also urge 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 Congress restore funding for
the AML emergency program in OSM's fiscal year 2014 budget.
We further ask 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. We note 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 Congress approves
funding for the agency or considers advancing the legislative proposals
contained in the budget.
questions re osm's proposed fiscal year 2014 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 19 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?
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 2014 that reflects an $11 million decrease from
fiscal year 2013. 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 over $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
2014, 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 19 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 6 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 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 Congress
support its budget proposal?
Specific Questions Re OSM 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 committee?
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 FTEs for upwards of a week. How does OSM reconcile the State
resources it will take to address TDNs with the proposed reductions in
State title V grants, all of which will impact the State resources
needed to ensure effective program operations?
questions and concerns re the aml legislative proposal in osm's fiscal
year 2014 budget
Proposed Elimination of Funding for AML 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 non-
emergency 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 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 non-
certified 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 2014 proposed
budget, this will amount to $327 million 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 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, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA) provides for the vesting of exclusive jurisdiction with the
States for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation
operations within their borders following approval of a State program
by the Secretary of the Interior; and
WHEREAS, over the past 35 years, the States have established and
been recognized for their commitment to implementing the goals and
objectives of SMCRA; and
WHEREAS, under the primacy regime envisioned by Congress under
SMCRA, a stable, consistent and effective State/Federal partnership was
anticipated based on principles of comity and federalism; and
WHEREAS, a disregard for these principles will undermine the
effective implementation of SMCRA; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the enhanced Federal oversight initiative
contained in the June 2009 Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S.
Department of the Interior, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) has issued three directives
concerning the use of Ten-Day Notices (INE-35) in primacy States and
the annual evaluation of State program implementation (Reg-8 and Reg-
23); and
WHEREAS, the result of these directives has been a noticeable
increase in the issuance of TDNs in primacy States and in some cases,
as a follow on to the TDNs, the filing of notices of intent to sue and/
or complaints for declaratory action; and
WHEREAS, these actions result in a significant drain on limited
State resources for the implementation of regulatory programs and often
erode the State/Federal working relationship under SMCRA
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Interstate Mining Compact Commission reasserts its
commitment to the principles of primacy and federalism that underlie
implementation of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977; and
That the IMCC looks for the same commitment from the Interior
Department and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
and anticipates the continuation of an effective State/Federal
partnership under SMCRA; and
That, in light of the above, the IMCC urges OSMRE to work
cooperatively with the States to reevaluate and potentially redesign
Directives INE-35, REG-8 and REG-23 and their implementation to address
State concerns.
Issued this 12th day of October, 2012
ATTEST:
Gregory E. Conrad
Executive Director
______
Prepared Statement of the Independent Tribal Courts Review Team
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony on the
fiscal year 2014 budget priorities for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I
would like to address the serious funding needs that are 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
2014 to support the needs of Tribal judicial systems.
budget priorities, requests and recommendations
+$10 million increase for Tribal Courts above the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.
+$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).
Support the requests and recommendations of the National Congress
of American Indians.
The increase will support:
--Hiring and Training of Court Personnel;
--Compliance with the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010;
--Compliance with the VAWA Act of 2013;
--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.
The Independent Court Review Team supports the proposed $1 million
increase in the fiscal year 2014 President's budget. The fight against
crime and drugs has led to more arrests which is increasing the
caseload in the Tribal Court System. The continuing implementation of
the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) and the recent enactment of the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), further strains the capacity of the
Tribal Judicial System which is underfunded, understaffed and ill-
equipped to function effectively and in a manner comparable to non-
Indian government judicial systems. Tribal Courts are at a critical
stage in terms of need.
background
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department of the
Interior provides funding to Tribal governments to supplement their
justice systems including courts. Tribal courts play a ``vital role''
in Tribal Self-Determination and Self-Governance as cited in long-
standing Federal policy and acts of Congress. Funding levels from BIA
to support Tribal justice systems have not met the Federal obligations.
There is a great deal of variation in the types of Tribal courts
and how they apply laws. Some Tribal courts resemble Western-style
courts in that written laws and court procedures are applied. Others
use traditional Native means of resolving disputes, such as
peacemaking, elders' councils, and sentencing circles. Some Tribes have
both types of courts. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) also manages a
small number of CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) courts.
Since 1999, the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Department of
Justice has administered the Tribal Courts Assistance Program, designed
to provide funds for Tribes to plan, operate, and enhance Tribal
judicial systems. They have made attempts to evaluate Tribal Courts but
discovered their means of doing so was insensitive to American Indian
and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people and unrealistic in the absence of
elements that were key to Indian Country, such as: (1) the importance
of Tribal culture and traditions; (2) the inability to apply State and
local criminal justice initiatives to Tribal settings; (3) the lack of
cooperation from non-Tribal entities; and (4) the lack of available
data on Tribal Justice.
The Independent Court Review Team has had more hands on success in
reviewing Tribal Court Systems. For approximately 7 years, we have been
traveling throughout Indian Country assessing how Tribal Courts are
operating. During this time, we have completed 84 court reviews. We
also completed 28 Corrective Actions. There is no one with more hands-
on experience and knowledge regarding the current status of Tribal
Courts than our Review Team.
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 & Order Act of 2010.--To provide
Judges, Prosecutors, Public Defenders, who are attorneys and who are
barred to do ``enhanced sentencing'' in Tribal courts.
Compliance with the 2013 VAWA Act.--To provide Tribal Courts with
the ability to provide non-Indians with all the rights under the U.S.
Constitution in domestic violence actions in Tribal courts (12 person
juries, provide attorneys for non-Indians, provide attorneys in court
personnel in domestic violence cases as in TLOA, etc.).
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.
Nationwide, there are 184 Tribes with Courts that received $23.47
million in Federal funding in 2012. The Review Team's Assessments have
indicated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs only funds Tribal Courts at
26 percent of the funding needed to operate. Now BIA faces $114 million
in cuts and Tribal courts face 5 percent cuts plus .9 percent reduction
due to the budget sequester/budget cuts. 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 in fiscal
year 2005, our Reviews specifically examined how Tribes were using
Federal funding. In the 7 fiscal years through June of fiscal year 2011
there were only two isolated incidents of a questionable expenditure of
Federal funds. It has been speculated that because of our limited
resources, we compromise a person'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 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 do 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.
This Congress and this administration can do something great. Put
your money where your promises have been and support the acts you have
passed. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Inter Tribal Buffalo Council
introduction and background
My name is Ervin Carlson and I am a member of the Blackfeet Nation
in Montana and the President of the Inter Tribal Buffalo Council
(ITBC). Please accept my sincere appreciation for this opportunity to
submit written testimony to the honorable members of the Senate
Committee on Appropriations; Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies. ITBC was granted a Federal charter in 2009
pursuant to section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act and is
comprised of 58 federally recognized Indian Tribes in 19 States with
headquarter offices in Rapid City, South Dakota. On behalf of the
member Tribes of ITBC I would like to address the following issues: (1)
request an appropriation of $3 million for fiscal year 2014, from the
Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Operation of Indian
Programs, to enhance and maintain ongoing buffalo restoration efforts,
ensure the availability of highly qualified technical assistance for
herd health and maintenance, implement a sustainable marketing
initiative and reinforce ITBC's health initiative utilizing buffalo to
treat and prevent diet related diseases among American Indian
populations; (2) explain to the subcommittee the unmet needs of the
members of ITBC; and (3) update the subcommittee on the present
initiatives of ITBC.
American Indians have a significant, long-standing connection with
the American buffalo, also known as bison. Historically, buffalo
provided the Tribes with food, shelter, clothing and essential tools
for survival; thus, the health of the Indians depended on the health
and existence of the buffalo. In the 1800s, the systematic destruction
of the buffalo paralleled the termination of the Indian's nomadic
lifestyle resulting in extreme suffering to both. The needless
slaughter of over 60 million buffalo by the onset of the 20th century
not only nearly extinguished this great animal but devastated the
American Indian. Despite the near destruction of the buffalo, Indians
maintained a strong spiritual and cultural connection with the buffalo
that has not diminished with the passage of time. This undying
connection motivated multiple Tribes to unite and organize ITBC to re-
establish and preserve the sacred relationship between Indian people
and the buffalo through the restoration of buffalo to Tribal lands.
ITBC Tribes believed the restoration of buffalo on Tribal lands would
create numerous cultural, health and economic opportunities for Tribes.
ITBC was keenly aware that numerous Indian Reservations are unsuitable
for large scale farming or ranching but ideal for maintaining buffalo
herds that are a native species of North American ecosystems and have
been for thousands of years.
ITBC formally organized and first received Federal funding in 1992,
with 1,500 buffalo managed by less than 10 Tribes, to commence efforts
to restore buffalo to Indian Country. Since then, Federal
appropriations of $1 million or less per year for herd development have
allowed ITBC to successfully restore 15,000+ buffalo collectively to
over 50 Reservations on more than 1 million acres of trust land. ITBC
strives to assist Tribes with maintaining healthy, viable buffalo herds
that will create opportunities to utilize buffalo for prevention and
treatment of diet related diseases including diabetes, obesity, and
cardio-vascular disease that impact Indian populations in epidemic
proportions. Additionally, viable buffalo herds can evolve into
successful economic development projects upon identification of
reliable markets.
funding request
The InterTribal Buffalo Council respectfully requests an
appropriation for fiscal year 2014 in the amount of $3 million. These
funds would support activities to successfully accomplish ITBC goals
and objectives as specifically described below. While ITBC's membership
has grown from 10 Tribes to 56 and the number of buffalo from 1,500 to
15,000 over the last 20 years, Federal funding for herd development has
been stagnant at $1 million for the last 10 years. $3 million would
restore vital funding for marketing and health initiatives that was cut
in fiscal year 2007 and has not been restored. This requested funding
level of $3 million will preserve Member Tribes' successful restoration
efforts, restore ITBC's marketing initiative and restore the health
initiatives, while simultaneously contributing to economically
sustainable Tribal projects.
funding shortfall and unmet need
In fiscal year 2006, ITBC was funded through appropriations at
$4,150,000. However, the President's budget in fiscal year 2007 and
fiscal year 2008 eliminated funding for ITBC. In 2007, ITBC obtained an
earmark appropriation of $1 million. In fiscal year 2008, ITBC received
$1 million for Herd Development Grants to Tribes from the BIA budget.
In fiscal year 2009 ITBC received $1 million for herd development
grants through an earmark from the DOI, BIA budget and $421,000 for
ITBC administration from BIA fiscal year 2008 carryover funds. In
fiscal year 2010, fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 ITBC has been
in the BIA budget at the level of $1.4 million. The President's fiscal
year 2013 budget included $1,406,000 for ITBC but due to the continuing
resolution and sequestration a final funding level is uncertain. The
reduction in funding from the fiscal year 2006 level critically
curtailed ITBC's successful marketing program at a point when Tribes
were close to accessing secure markets that would facilitate self-
sustaining herds. Further, the funding cut seriously reduced efforts to
solidify the ITBC Health Initiatives that had the potential to
positively impact the incidence of diet related health problems among
American Indians.
ITBC is structured as a member cooperative and 100 percent of the
appropriated funds are expended on the development and support of
Tribal buffalo herds and buffalo product business ventures. A
significant portion of ITBC funding is distributed directly to ITBC
member Tribes via a Herd Development Grant program developed and
administered by the ITBC members.
A recent survey of ITBC Tribes indicates unmet project needs at an
approximate cost of $13 million. These project needs range from
staffing needs to infrastructure including fencing, water development,
harvesting and processing needs. Specific Tribal Bison Project Proposal
summaries detail the unmet needs for each member Tribe and are on file
with ITBC and available for your review.
itbc goals
ITBC's primary objectives are to restore buffalo to Tribal lands,
conserve and enhance existing Tribal herds through the promotion of
traditional Tribal practices and beliefs. ITBC strives to offer
assistance and opportunities to Tribes that meet the needs and desires
of individual Tribal programs. ITBC attempts to balance the varying
interests of member Tribes from maintaining herds for spiritual
purposes to utilizing buffalo as viable agricultural business efforts.
ITBC accomplishes these objectives via the following actions:
--Providing direct services to the Tribes to assist with restoration
of buffalo to Indian lands, conservation and enhancement of
existing Tribal bison herds;
Technical Assistance.--ITBC assesses current and potential Tribal
buffalo programs to determine technical service needs and
infrastructure needs and provides technical assistance in the
areas of wildlife management, ecological management, range
management, buffalo health, cultural practices and economic
development. Further ITBC assists with fencing, corrals,
facility design, water development and equipment research. ITBC
provides annual training sessions (national and regional)
designed to enhance Tribal bison management.
Surplus Bison Program.--ITBC collaborates with the National Park
Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to obtain
surplus bison from National Parks for distribution to Tribal
Buffalo Projects at no cost.
--Developing professional relationships with all levels of Federal
and State governments, wildlife organizations and conservation
groups to protect and preserve the future of buffalo and their
habitat, through education and awareness programs;
Education and Outreach.--ITBC staff provides educational
presentations on bison restoration, conservation efforts, and
the historical, cultural relationship between bison and
American Indians.
Partnership and Collaboration.--ITBC is a member of various
working groups, comprised of Federal and State agencies
organized to address bison issues. ITBC is a full partner on
the Inter Agency Bison Management partnership established to
address the Yellowstone National Park bison/brucellosis issue.
--Support Tribal economic efforts that utilize buffalo:
Cooperative Marketing Program.--ITBC strives to develop markets
for bison meat and products for interested member Tribes. ITBC
procures bison from Tribes and sells the meat products under
the ITBC label. ITBC currently sells meat to the National
Museum of the American Indian in Washington, DC and seeks
additional specialized consumers and markets.
--Implement a healthcare initiative that educates American Indian
populations on the benefits of Indian produced buffalo meat in
their daily diets.
Outreach and Education.--ITBC staff will provide educational
programs and materials to Tribes, regarding the benefits of
incorporating low fat buffalo meat into their regular diets to
combat diet related health problems.
Healthcare Initiative.--ITBC intends to develop and implement a
project that incorporates buffalo meat into the Flandreau
Santee Sioux Elderly Nutrition Program and Flandreau Indian
School in coordination with the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribal
Health Department and the South Dakota State University. This
effort will serve as a model for other Indian reservation
collaborations to utilize buffalo meat to address health
concerns. ITBC will purchase buffalo from ITBC member Tribes,
process and distribute the meat to participating individuals
for this program.
conclusion
ITBC has existed for 20 years to assist Tribes with restoration of
buffalo to Tribal lands initially for cultural purposes and now
evolving into sustainable herds that may support economic development
efforts. No other national program exists to assist Tribes with buffalo
restoration and protection.
ITBC and its member Tribes have created a new Indian Reservation
industry that includes job creation and new revenue for the Tribal
economies. ITBC ultimately hopes to restore Tribal herds large enough
to support local Tribal health needs and generate sufficient revenue to
achieve economically self-sufficient herds.
ITBC and its member Tribes are appreciative of past and current
support from Congress and the administration. I urge the committee to
consider restoring ITBC funding close to the fiscal year 2006 level of
$3 million to enhance ITBC's abilities to serve its member Tribes and
meet the objectives outlined above.
I would like to thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to
present testimony and I invite you to visit ITBC Tribal buffalo
projects and experience first hand their successes.
______
Prepared Statement of the Izaak Walton League of America
The Izaak Walton League of America appreciates the opportunity to
submit testimony for the record concerning appropriations for fiscal
year 2014 for various agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of
the subcommittee. The League is a national, nonprofit organization with
more than 41,000 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 Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Environmental Protection
Agency.
keep fiscal year 2014 bill free of extraneous policy provisions
The League strongly urges the subcommittee not to include or accept
any provision in its fiscal year 2014 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
similar provisions in previous bills.
Since proposing draft guidance in April 2011, 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 reported 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 $145 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 the administration's request for a total of
$600 million ($200 million in permanent funding and $400 million in
discretionary funding) for the LWCF in fiscal year 2014. 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 off-shore oil and gas drilling. As
importantly, diverting resources from LWCF to offset other expenditures
from the general treasury directly undermines the fundamental premise
on which LWCF is based. That common sense premise is a portion of the
revenue generated by natural resource extraction should be invested in
conserving other natural resources at the national, regional, and State
levels.
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
$499 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 at least
$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 2014 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
2014 for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. This amount equals the
administration's request and the appropriation for fiscal year 2012.
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 additional 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. The League supports the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
request for a $2 million increase to combat Asian carp in the Great
Lakes and an additional $1 million to address the threat in the Upper
Mississippi River region. 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 meantime, 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 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
funding to 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, non-point source management program
(clean water act section 319)
The League is concerned that 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
non-point 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 non-point 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 request for approximately $72.9 million in
fiscal year 2014 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 Southern Illinois University--Carbondale
As a fisheries scientist and long-time collaborator with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), I am writing to express my concern
regarding the proposed $400,000/3 FTE reduction in support for the
USFWS Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership (AADAP) program as
described in the fiscal year 2014 President's budget. Given the
importance of this program and its deliverables to the fisheries and
aquaculture disciplines--particularly to the mission of the USFWS
itself and researchers like myself--I strongly encourage you to
reconsider the ramifications of this reduction, and fully support the
AADAP program with $1,790,000 in base funding and current FTEs. This
figure represents the amount previously dedicated to the drug approval
process by the Department of the Interior (2010 funding levels adjusted
to fiscal year 2014 dollars). Without this level of support, these
unduplicated and essential activities cannot be completed, and
fisheries researchers, including myself and my USFWS colleagues, will
be unable to effectively do our part to conserve America's fisheries
and aquatic resources.
Fisheries professionals use a suite of drugs to accomplish
fisheries management objectives and deliver public and tribal trust
responsibilities. Field biologists need to use sedatives to protect
themselves and the fish they handle when collecting population
assessment data and completing fisheries management objectives.
Hatchery biologists need therapeutic drugs to combat disease outbreaks,
spawning aids to encourage fish to reproduce in captivity, and marking
agents to allow hatchery fish to be differentiated from wild fish after
stocking. Fish drugs are largely innocuous chemicals such as hydrogen
peroxide, but it is illegal to use such products unless they have
passed the rigorous Food and Drug Administration (FDA) animal drug
approval process. The AADAP program is the only program in the United
States fully dedicated to fish drug approval research and ensuring
critically needed drugs are available to fisheries professionals. USFWS
leadership in this area is critical because the Service itself is a
major end-user of aquatic animal drugs, the need for safe and effective
drugs is nationwide, and without public sector assistance economic
incentives are insufficient to encourage drug sponsors to pursue
aquatic animal drug approvals in the United States.
Recognizing difficult budgetary decisions must be made, I contend
that the proposed cuts to the AADAP program offer only modest savings
and would eliminate vital elements of a program that serves the USFWS,
its partners, and fisheries and aquatic resources in essential and
unduplicated ways. Without access to safe and effective drugs, it is
unclear to me how fisheries professionals, especially USFWS staff, will
be able to fulfill their mandates (e.g., rearing and stocking fish,
collecting field data) without misusing the few approved drugs
currently available (e.g., overusing an existing antibiotic because no
other alternatives exist, risking the development of antibiotic-
resistant bacteria) or resorting to the use of unapproved products
(e.g., using innocuous but currently unapproved products, risking
significant legal liability and FDA action). The proposed cuts would
effectively terminate the AADAP research program, and with it, the drug
approval process in the United States.
I encourage you to fully support the AADAP program at a funding
level of $1,790,000 and ensure the current and future needs of
fisheries and fisheries professionals continue to be met. Thank you for
your consideration of my position on this issue.
______
Prepared Statement of the Jamestown S'klallam Tribe
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 2014 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian
Health Service (IHS) budgets. We urge Congress to work together to
achieve a balanced approach to the deficit reduction that includes the
raising of new revenue sources and that doesn't rely solely on cuts to
discretionary spending.
The Federal approach to deficit reduction has been significantly
unbalanced with nondefense Federal programs shouldering the fiscal
burden of these budget cuts. Discretionary programs have already
experienced $1.5 trillion in spending cuts as a result of reductions in
the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution, the Budget Control Act and
the American Taxpayer Relief Act. Tribes are funded out of the
nondefense discretionary budget and have experienced significant
hardship with the imposed budget reductions for Tribal programs.
Additional budgetary restrictions would devastate our Tribal economies
impacting not only our Tribal citizens but also the surrounding non-
Native communities whom we employ and provide with much needed
services, such as, public safety, education, health and dental care.
tribal specific appropriation priorities
Restore and increase Housing Improvement Program (HIP) funding.
local/regional requests and recommendations
The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is a direct beneficiary of the
collective Tribal efforts and continues to support the requests and
recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians,
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission.
national requests and recommendations
BIA requests:
--Hold Indian Country programs harmless (deficit reductions/
sequestration);
--Fully fund contact support costs $242 million for the BIA;
--Economic Development/Indian Loan Guarantee Program $15 million; and
--Increase funding for tribal priority allocations.
IHS requests:
--Fully fund contract support costs $617 million for the IHS;
--Fully fund the implementation of ACA inclusive of the IHCIA; and
--Increase funding for Contract Health Service $171.1 million.
hold indian country programs harmless (deficit reductions/
sequestration)
Decades of unfulfilled Federal obligations has devastated Tribal
communities who continue to face persistent shortfalls and overwhelming
unmet needs. The additional reductions under sequestration will
devastate our communities and severely inhibit our ability to provide
essential Governmental services to our Tribal citizens. In addition,
the budgetary reductions will stifle our economic growth and our
ability to promote and achieve Tribal self-sufficiency. Until Tribes
attain exclusive taxing jurisdiction within their Tribal lands, Federal
support remains critical to ensure the delivery of essential
Governmental services to our Tribal citizens. The Federal trust
obligation must be honored and vital programs and services for Tribes
must be sustained in any deal enacted to reduce the national deficit.
bureau of indian affairs
Since 2004, the BIA has received the smallest percentage increase
in funding compared to the other agencies within the Department of the
Interior. Tribal programs make up a minuscule portion of the overall
Federal budget. For example, the Bureau of Indian Affairs accounts for
a mere 0.07 percent of Federal spending. During the last two budget
cycles, the trend of favoring other Interior agencies over the Bureau
of Indian Affairs has continued. In addition to receiving the least
amount of incremental funding increases, the Bureau has absorbed the
greatest funding reductions compared to the other agencies within
Interior.
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:
Fully Fund Contract Support Costs (CSC) $242 Million for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and $617 million for the Indian Health Service
The U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed that Tribes carrying out
Federal programs under the Indian Self Determination and Education
Assistance Act (ISDEAA) are entitled to full payment of their contract
support costs. Tribes are entitled to be paid what the statute and
contract promised and to be treated on an equal basis with every other
Federal contractor. Despite the Supreme Court decision, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service have refused to negotiate in
good faith with the Tribes to reach a final resolution of this issue
which has been ongoing for the past 20 years. To further exacerbate the
situation, the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request will
fundamentally alter the nature of Tribal Self-Governance by imposing
individual statutory caps on the payment of Tribal contract support
costs. The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe opposes the administration's
unilateral proposal, in its fiscal year 2014 budget request.
Contract support cost funding is essential to the operation of
contracted Federal programs administered under federally issued
indirect cost rate agreements. No change of such a fundamental
character should be implemented until there has been a thorough
consultation and study process jointly undertaken by the Indian Health
Service (IHS), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and tribal leaders,
informed by a joint technical working group and coordinated through
NCAI. Such a consultation process must be scheduled to permit
opportunity for full tribal participation. While we firmly believe that
overall statutory caps on contract support costs should be eliminated,
at the very least Congress should maintain in fiscal year 2014 and
fiscal year 2015 the status quo statutory language enacted in fiscal
year 2013 so that tribally developed changes in contract support cost
funding mechanisms, if any, can be included in the fiscal year 2016
budget.
Economic Development/Indian Loan Guarantee Program $15 Million
Economic Development in Indian Country trails significantly behind
the rest of the Nation and the acute economic conditions experienced by
our Tribal citizens are even more pronounced than those of the current
economic crisis. Tribal citizens are more vulnerable to the impacts of
the current economic conditions because Tribal governmental revenues
depend entirely on effective economic development to support nearly
every aspect of reservation life and Tribal governance. However,
chronic underfunding by the U.S. Government and the severe lack of
private investment has left the economic potential of Indian Country
unrealized. Tribes are forced to rely on our own economic ventures to
generate revenue to support citizen programs and maintain Government
services for our people. Yet, Tribes are expected to meet these
economic challenges with fewer resources and greater restrictions
placed on vital economic financing tools and incentives. It stands to
reason that Tribes should be given all of the tools and incentives
available to other governments to raise and attract capital. When given
the right tools to exercise our inherent right of self-government,
Tribes can effectively lift our communities out of poverty and fully
participate in the American economy. It is not just our Tribal citizens
who benefit from Federal investment in our communities, surrounding
communities, and at times, entire regions, are also beneficiaries of
Tribal success.
Guaranteed Financing is needed for Tribal economic development
projects. 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. This program provides
attractive incentives and assurances for banks to expand and underwrite
loans in Indian Country, assisting Tribes in accessing capital and
encouraging lending to Indian-owned businesses. Loan guarantees are
also an attractive financial measure because they result in the
leveraging of Federal dollars. Federal program funding and guarantees
are critically important to Tribes seeking to develop a strong economic
foundation. If not for the BIA Loan Guarantee Program, many Tribes
would not, in most cases, be able to secure loans from the standard
sources available to other entities and businesses. We urge you to
restore and increase funding for this program, a very important tool
for raising the level of Tribal self-sufficiency.
Tribal Priority Allocations Increase Funding
Tribal priority allocations fund essential core governmental
services. We use these dollars to provide the most basic needs for our
Tribal citizens: food, clothing and shelter and to provide critical
services, including, law enforcement, education, transportation,
natural resources and economic development. Since 1996, Tribal
government core services are operating with over a 30 percent reduction
in base funds. We urge you to adequately fund TPA to enhance the health
and well-being of our communities.
Restore Housing Improvement Program (HIP) Funding.--This program
serves the neediest population, or, those at 125 percent of the Federal
income poverty guideline. The President's fiscal year 2014 budget
request zeroed out this program based on the false presumption that it
is duplicative of existing HUD programs. This assumption is wrong and
we urge you to restore funding for this program that provides an
essential service, safe and sanitary housing, to our Tribal citizens.
indian health service
Given the unique mission of the IHS as a direct healthcare provider
fulfilling a Federal trust responsibility, fully funding and
implementing the ACA and IHCIA will elevate the health status and
decrease the health disparities experienced by American Indians and
Alaska Natives. Federal spending for the Indian Health Service amounts
to 0.12 percent, a very small percentage of the Federal budget.
Contract Health Service.--Provide a $171.7 million increase for
CHS. Most IHS and Tribal operated direct care facilities do not provide
the required emergency and specialty care services so Tribes are forced
to turn to the private sector to fulfill this need. CHS funds are used
to purchase essential healthcare services, including inpatient and
outpatient care, routine emergency ambulatory care, transportation and
medical support services, such as diagnostic imaging, physical therapy,
laboratory, nutrition and pharmacy services.
fully fund the implementation of aca inclusive of the ihcia
The permanent reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act (IHCIA) within the ACA is the most significant advancement in
Federal health policy for Tribes in decades. The purpose of the IHCIA
is to promote healthcare parity for Indian Tribes by addressing
deficiencies in health status and resources within the Indian health
system. Funding for the IHCIA is a top budget priority. Although the
IHCIA provides the authority and, with it, the opportunity to provide
essential healthcare to Tribal citizens, it did not provide the
necessary funds to the IHS to carry out these new statutory
obligations.
There are 23 unfunded provisions in the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act (IHCIA). Many of the provisions that remain unfunded
would strengthen the Tribal healthcare workforce, provide greater
access to behavioral health and support innovative initiatives for
healthcare delivery to Tribal citizens. Funding these provisions is a
necessary precursor to increase Tribal capacity, infrastructure and
most importantly access to healthcare services.
Significant Federal investment is needed to achieve a fully funded
Indian Health Service and now is the time to act on opportunities made
possible in the newly expanded authorities granted under the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act.
On behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, I respectfully request
that these recommendations be included in the fiscal year 2014 Federal
budget in order to honor the trust responsibility and support tribal
economic security and prosperity.
______
Prepared Statement of the League of American Orchestras
The League of American Orchestras urges the Senate Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee to
approve fiscal year 2014 funding for the National Endowment for the
Arts (NEA) at a level of $155 million. We ask Congress to continue
supporting the important work of this agency, which increases public
access to the arts, nurtures cultural diversity, promotes the creation
of new artistic works, and cultivates a sense of cultural and historic
pride, all while supporting millions of 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 more than 800 orchestras runs the gamut from
world-renowned symphonies to community groups, from summer festivals to
student and youth ensembles. Orchestras unite people through creativity
and artistry, fuel local economies and civic vitality, and educate
young people and adults.
Throughout the Nation, persistent economic challenges beset
nonprofit arts organizations; therefore, the award of a notably
competitive NEA grant continues to be a compelling boost to an
orchestra's pursuit of funding from other sources. Indeed, a grant from
the NEA has long been recognized 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 2013, the NEA's Grants to Organizations included
100 direct grants to orchestras, and continued funding for the agency
will support orchestras' ability to serve the public. The NEA promotes
creation, engagement, livability, 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
connect 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 funding increases public access to live cultural experiences
The NEA, together with the organizations it helps support, is
dedicated to improving public access to the arts. For example, the
Portland Symphony Orchestra (PSO), which employs 10 full-time and 5
part-time staff, along with 86 musicians, received an NEA grant in
fiscal year 2009 that supported a program featuring the performance of
``Sabar: Concerto for Senegalese Drummers and Orchestra'' by James
DeMars. This grant allowed the PSO to offer a lecture at the Museum of
African Culture in Portland with Music Director Robert Moody, guest
Senegalese drummer Mark Sunkett, and Museum Director Oscar Mokeme, as
well as an in-school performance and presentation at King Middle
School, which serves the most racially, ethnically, and economically
diverse neighborhoods in Maine. Twenty-six percent of the school's
nearly 500 students speak a primary language that is not English. The
centerpiece performance attracted the second highest attendance for a
PSO Classical Concert during the 2008-09 season, and the concert
allowed the PSO to serve the people of Southern Maine by increasing
their knowledge of, appreciation for, and understanding of West African
music and culture by presenting it in the context of similar dance and
cultural influences in the music of Bartok.
The rural isolation of the Walla Walla, Washington region poses
challenges to its local cultural arts organizations, but the Walla
Walla Symphony, with just two full-time and five part-time staff,
roughly 60 musicians, and more than 35 volunteers nonetheless finds a
way to offer a year-round, intensive complement of musical and
educational experiences--often free or at low cost. The region's
population has a low median income, with more than half of area youth
qualifying for the Federal Free/Reduced Lunch program, and every school
in the district failed to meet No Child Left Behind progress
requirements in 2011. A lack of resources in the schools has made it
all the more important for area arts organizations to serve as partners
to the schools. With an fiscal year 2013 Challenge America grant from
the NEA, the Walla Walla Symphony will bring guest artists PROJECT Trio
to a community that has expressed an ongoing interest in compelling
guest artist performances, high-quality symphonic music, and music
education resources and opportunities for its children. During its 4-
day residency, PROJECT Trio will collaborate with symphony musicians to
offer four musical events to the public: they will appear in an
Educational Family Concert, offer a solo Trio performance, appear in a
full symphonic concert, and provide educational programs at local
schools.
Another recipient of Challenge America support, the Tulsa Symphony
Orchestra, a musician-led orchestra with five full-time and seven part-
time staff and a musician pool of 140, organized 2 days of string
workshops and clinic sessions for area students, teachers, and
musicians with visiting guest violin and teaching artists Mark O'Connor
and Kelly Hall-Tompkins. The sessions preceded a concert and were
hosted by Will Rogers High School and the University of Tulsa. More
than 95 percent of the students participating were from underserved
title I schools and the NEA grant provided much-needed transportation
to the workshop sites. This component of support is often overlooked
and yet it meets a specific, acute need that would otherwise have
prevented Will Rogers students from being able to learn from these
artists. In addition to making the workshops possible, the NEA grant
also allowed the Tulsa Symphony to provide tickets to 400 economically
disadvantaged students to attend an evening concert featuring these
same guest artists at the Tulsa Performing Arts Center.
nea grants help orchestras educate and engage america's youth
NEA support helps bring disparate communities together through the
experience of live music, and it also provides a creative means to
focus on educating and encouraging young people in their musical and
academic endeavors. In June 2012, the Alexandria Symphony Orchestra's
(ASO) ``Music Makes a Difference'' program engaged more than 3,600
students in a hands-on arts education program. The orchestra partnered
with three Alexandria City Public Schools (ACPS) to create and deliver
an integrated music, art, and astronomy unit based on Virginia
Standards of Learning for elementary school students. The unit
culminated in three side-by-side performances of Gustav Holst's ``The
Planets,'' performed by both ASO professional musicians and ACPS middle
school students. During the concerts, elementary students' artwork
based on their astronomy lessons was projected on stage to further
reinforce science concepts. ASO was able to offer this kind of
innovative program thanks to NEA support and its dedicated four full-
time and two part-time staff members, 250 part-time musicians, and 40
volunteers.
The El Paso Symphony Youth Orchestras (EPSYOs) similarly utilized
NEA funding to foster the musical and academic achievement of more than
270 students from throughout the region through four distinct ensembles
based on age and skill levels. These ensembles include the El Paso
Youth Orchestra, the El Paso Symphony Youth String Ensembles, the El
Paso Youth Symphonic, and the El Paso Youth String Philharmonic. In
addition to the musical instruction these students receive, such as
weekly rehearsals, master classes, clinics, and performances, they also
develop study skills, self-esteem, confidence, and determination that
crosses over into their academic work as well. In fact, 100 percent of
all high school seniors participating in the EPSYO program since its
inception 6 years ago have gone on to seek a higher education at
universities and colleges throughout the United States. Although most
of these youth orchestra alumni are not pursuing a music degree, almost
all of them credit their involvement with the EPSYOs for their desire
and ability to apply to these programs. Furthermore, many of these
students are low-income and in addition to receiving financial aid for
EPSYOs tuition during their involvement, many of them also received
higher education scholarships due to their involvement with the EPSYOs
program and its clinicians and master class presenters.
Like El Paso, the Heart of Los Angeles affords valuable
opportunities to economically disadvantaged children. A fiscal year
2013 NEA Arts Works grant supports the Youth Orchestra Los Angeles at
Heart of Los Angeles (YOLA at HOLA) program. Implemented in partnership
with the Los Angeles Philharmonic, which employs 107 full-time
musicians, 133 full-time administrative staff members and 1,814 part-
time and seasonal workers, YOLA at HOLA provides 240 children in the
underserved Rampart District with free afterschool instrumental
instruction, ensemble performance opportunities and academic support
15-17 hours per week for 48 weeks out of the year. YOLA at HOLA
students have the opportunity to participate in both large orchestral
and small group ensembles, service learning projects, and student
leadership committees. The program's young musicians have participated
in public performances in community venues throughout Los Angeles,
including the nationally renowned Hollywood Bowl and Walt Disney
Concert Hall, reaching more than 20,000 listeners. A music learning
program with an emphasis on community-building, YOLA at HOLA also
provides families with access to social service support, adult music
learning opportunities and parenting workshops.
nea funding encourages new works and local artistry
NEA grants to orchestras help support the creative initiatives of
American composers and musicians, many of whom share the agency's
dedication to developing young audiences. The Cleveland Orchestra and
its 236 full-time staff members will use its fiscal year 2013 Art Works
grant to host a week-long residency at Severance Hall featuring a newly
commissioned orchestral work by young American composer Sean Shepherd.
From April 16 through April 21, The Cleveland Orchestra is premiering
Sean Shepherd's commissioned work, and Mr. Shepherd is participating in
numerous educational activities that will inspire students of all ages
in northeast Ohio. His residency encompasses master classes, in-school
visits, lectures, chamber concerts, concert previews, and rehearsals
throughout the community. Students from four local high schools and
universities will be given the opportunity to discuss the composition
process and ways to bring creative musical ideas to life, and students
will also receive feedback from Mr. Shepherd on their own compositions.
The Cleveland Orchestra and conductor Franz Welser-Most will premiere
Sean Shepherd's work in concerts at Severance Hall in Cleveland's
University Circle district on April 18, 20, and 21. Thanks to the NEA's
support, approximately 7,000 students and adult community members in
northeast Ohio will interact with this art and the variety of related
educational programming. Mr. Shepherd's residency exemplifies the
orchestra's commitment to providing opportunities for the next
generation of composers to create new work while mentoring and
developing wide-ranging, multifaceted relationships with young
composers, as well as engaging audiences of all ages in the classical
music art form.
Thank you for this opportunity to convey the tremendous value of
NEA support for orchestras and communities across the Nation. These are
but a sampling of the innovative compositions, thoughtful programming
for underserved regions and populations, and lifelong learning
opportunities orchestras provide in service to adults and children from
all walks of life. The Endowment's unique ability to provide a national
forum to promote excellence and engagement 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 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 of our Tribal
members for fiscal year 2014. I would like to thank the subcommittee
for its leadership and commitment to Tribes and the programs that are
critical to us.
Sequestration.--We would first like to express our strong objection
to sequestration of discretionary programs. An across the board
sequester was proposed not as a sensible policy, but because it was so
universally viewed as unreasonable that it was expected to spur
Congress and the President to get together on the budget to make sure
it never took place. Yet here we are, with a sequester in place for
fiscal year 2013--and likely to continue unless Congress and the
President can agree otherwise for fiscal year 2014.
The sequester is terrible policy for the country overall, but it
has a special impact on tribes. The United States has both Treaty
obligations and a trust responsibility to Indian tribes. The tribes
gave up the lands on which this country was built, in return for the
solemn promises of the United States to protect tribal treaty rights,
lands and resources and to provide various services to tribal members.
The United States' promises to the tribes should be kept--and not
reduced by sequestration. The indiscriminate cuts from sequestration
harm tribes, as we continue our ongoing effects to promote economic
growth and build a better future for our children. Tribal programs
should not be subject to sequestration.
Changes Proposed Regarding Contract Support Costs--For BIA and
IHS.--The Lac du Flambeau Band opposes the administration's proposal
for fiscal year 2014 regarding payment of contract support costs. Here
again, this is a matter of the United States keeping its promises. When
a tribe enters a contract with the United States under the Self-
Determination Act, the United States promises to pay full contract
support costs--various costs necessary for the tribe to successfully
run the program. The courts have held that if the United States does
not fulfill its promise regarding payment of contract support costs,
the tribe can file a claim and recover the shortfall. But now, the
administration is proposing a new system--which would impose for the
first time caps for each tribe regarding contract support costs. The
whole purpose of these new tribal-specific caps is to protect the
United States from having to pay full contract support costs. The
effect of this provision would be to make it more difficult for tribes
that enter contracts or compacts under the Self-Determination Act to
succeed, and to penalize tribes that wish to enter new contracts or
compacts. The administration's proposal should be rejected. Congress
should fully fund all contract support costs and resolve all prior year
contract support cost claims.
indian health service
Purchased/Referred Care.--We want to call particular attention to
the need for purchased/referred care (which was previously called
contract healthcare) funding, which is a need that we have expressed to
Congress for several years. This category of health care funding is so
important to the basic health and well-being of our communities, where
a very significant portion of our healthcare must be referred out.
Despite its importance, historically this category has been tragically
underfunded--with funds running out before the year ends. We would like
to express our appreciation to the subcommittee for providing increases
to contract healthcare funding over the past couple of years, and we
strongly support the $35 million increase for purchased/referred care
services proposed for the fiscal year 2014 budget.
Mental Health.--At Lac du Flambeau there is a rapidly expanding
need for resources to address a range of mental health problems.
Funding has simply failed to keep pace with our needs--as our mental
health funding remains a very small portion of our annual healthcare
funding. We strongly support the administration's proposal to add $4.2
million for Mental Health.
bureau of indian affairs
The Tribe is disappointed that the BIA's proposed budget for fiscal
year 2014 is essentially level funding for most programs. The Tribe
recognizes the difficult fiscal times the Nation is in and thus, is
pleased that the BIA did not propose decreases to many BIA programs.
The 2014 budget does include an initiative called ``horizontal
consolidation''--a $33.5 million cut that would be imposed by reducing
BIA personnel at the Headquarters, Regional and Agency offices through
attrition, buyouts and other means. We are concerned that will leave
the BIA inadequately staffed to meet its trust obligations of the
tribes. We are seeing this with respect to BIA Natural Resource
personnel--as key people leave and are not replaced, the level of
services to the tribes may decline and key tasks may be delayed or
omitted entirely. It is vital that BIA personnel reductions be
undertaken with full tribal consultation and sensitivity to the needs
of tribes and the BIA's ongoing obligations. We urge the subcommittee
to monitor these changes carefully.
Today we want to focus on the funding needs for the BIA Education,
Public Safety and Natural Resource Programs.
Tribal Education Programs.--Education is a top priority for the
Tribe. We believe that it is through investment in education that we
will be able to restore stability to our Nation's economy. 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. We support the
administration's proposed small increase for the BIA scholarship and
adult education program, as well as the newly proposed $3 million for
postgraduate study in science fields. 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.
Public Safety.--The Tribe supports the administration's proposal to
increase funding for BIA Public Safety and Justice Programs. Among the
many challenges facing law enforcement at Lac du Flambeau is an
increasing threat from a range of illegal drugs--including synthetic
cannabinoids and others. The rapid growth in the use of these illegal
drugs has led our Tribal government recently to declare a state of
emergency. We are taking broad steps to address the problem in a multi-
dimensional way--including education, prevention and rehabilitation. A
key component of this effort is to prosecute those who sell these
illegal drugs that are so significantly harming our young people and
our communities. This is just one example of the need for an effective
law enforcement presence at Lac du Flambeau.
Tribal Natural Resource Management and Development.--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. 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. It is with this
understanding of the importance of our natural resources, that the
Tribe strongly supports the administration's proposed increase of $2
million for the Tribal Natural Resource Management and Development.
Specific proposed increases in Fishing, Wildlife and Parks, Endangered
Species, Rights Protection and Cooperative Landscape Conservation are
all very important to us. We also support the administration's
initiative to engage Indian youth in the natural sciences.
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. We urge the subcommittee to
support increased funding for Conservation Law Enforcement for fiscal
year 2014, as 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 continue to provide support for the BIA Circle of
Flight Program, by providing at least the $800,000 funding level
proposed by the administration. 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 over 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 programmatic funding for GLIFWC in the amount of $6.367 million
from BIA, plus $1.2 million from EPA to continue its vital treaty-
rights protection/implementation programs. 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.
environmental protection agency
Tribal General Assistance Program.--The Tribe strongly supports the
proposed $5 million increase for the Tribal General Assistance Program
(Tribal GAP). This 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. 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 continue to support the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and in particular, the
funding set-aside for tribes. 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 are
necessary to the protection and preservation of the tribal communities
that have made the Great Lakes their home since time immemorial.
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, and the Tribe supports the proposed
$20.3 million increase in section 106 grants. 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. 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.
Air Quality.--In Wisconsin, a major recent change in State law
creates the likelihood of a new, large-scale iron-mining, which would
have extensive environmental impacts on both the Reservation and the
Tribe's ceded territory, where we have Treaty-protected hunting,
fishing and gathering rights. To protect our lands and Treaty rights
from pollution associated with new iron mining, we will need baseline
air quality data which demonstrates the conditions we are seeking to
protect. We urge the subcommittee to support increased funding for
Tribal air quality monitoring activities and associated staffing.
Brownfields.--The 2002 Brownfield bill authorizes $50 million for
State and Tribal Response Programs. Appropriations have been slightly
less than the authorized $50 million. The 2002 authorization expired in
2006. Like many programs, expired authorizations have continued to be
allocated. Both States and Tribes are competing for the same pool of
money. Every year more tribes apply for funding. There is a critical
base needed just to operate a program. Both the needs of a State
cleanup program and the needs of new tribal cleanup programs cannot be
met by the authorized $50 million or the allocated amounts.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lummi Indian Business Council
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal year
2014 budget priorities for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the
Indian Health Service (IHS).
background information
We are the Lhaq'temish, ``The Lummi People.'' We are the original
inhabitants of Washington's northernmost coast and southern British
Columbia and are the third largest Tribe in Washington State serving a
population of more than 5,200. The Lummi Nation is one of the
signatories to the Point Elliot Treaty of 1855. The Lummi Nation is a
fishing Nation and for thousands of years we have worked, flourished
and celebrated life on the shores and waters of the Salish Sea which is
referred to as Puget Sound. We have drawn our physical and spiritual
sustenance from the marine tidelands and waters of the Salish Sea since
time immemorial, and we understand the challenge of respecting our
traditions while making progress in a modern world--to listen to the
wisdom of our ancestors, to care for our lands and waterways, to
educate our children, to provide family services and to strengthen our
appropriate ties with neighboring communities and jurisdictions.
lummi specific requests--bia and bureau of indian education (bie)
+$13 million over 10 years on fish hatcheries:
--$2 million for Phase 1--Fish Hatchery Water Supply Line
--Basic maintenance, upgrades and improvements
--Fish hatchery expansion and construction
+$300,000 for BIE--Preschool--Furnish, equip and staff two new
classrooms
+$200,000 funding to continue the Lummi Nation's successful water
rights restoration and management program.
committee direction to department of the interior requests
Direct the Department of the Interior (DOI) and BIA to settle
existing claims for past contract support funding owed to Tribes and
consult with Tribes on contract support costs policies and procedures
to govern future funding years.
Require Census to work with tribal governments and BIA to develop a
tribal specific Census supplemental program.
Secure Residential School funding for youth who reside at Lummi
Youth Academy.
Increase funding for Community Fire Protection Program consistent
with tribally identified need(s).
lummi specific requests--indian health services
+$500,000 for IHS to provide minimal funding to the Lummi Nation
under the ASAP and MMSP programs.
+$500,000 for IHS facility funding to support the start-up
furnishing, staffing and equipment packages for a school and an urban
healthcare clinic.
committee direction to dhhs requests
IHS must take a leadership role in the implementation of the
Affordable Care Act (ACA) amongst DHHS Operating Divisions.
IHS must take the primary role in the implementation of Indian
Health Care Improvement Act.
Provide direct financial support to IHS for a Tribal/Federal Work
Group which addresses the need for Basic Emergency Medical Services
among tribal members.
lummi specific requests justifications--bia/bie
+$13 million over 10 years on fish hatcheries.--Lummi Nation Fish
Biologists estimate that our fish hatcheries are currently operating at
30 percent of their productive capacity. Funding is needed to support
increased hatchery production through basic maintenance, upgrades and
improvements. This is addressed in the Lummi Nation's comprehensive
plan to eliminate economic fishery disasters which have regularly
occurred since 1999.
--+$2 million for Phase 1--Fish Hatchery Water Supply Line.--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.
--Fish hatchery expansion and construction.--The water infrastructure
project is needed to support fish hatchery optimization
expansion and construction to meet the demands of the modern
world.
--+$300,000 for the Lummi Nation Preschool to furnish, equip and
staff for two new classrooms.--The Lummi Nation has financed
the construction of a new early childhood learning facility to
house the Lummi Nation Head Start Program, Lummi Nation Day
Care and adding two new Classrooms from BIE Preschool funds.
--+$200,000 funding to continue the Lummi Nation's successful water
rights restoration and management program.--Lummi Nation
developed its successful Water Rights Restoration and
Management project, in response to literally decades of neglect
by the Federal Government which resulted in the development of
non-tribal community water systems on Lummi Reservation Lands;
lands that are treaty-reserved for the exclusive use of Lummi
Nation tribal membership. The Lummi Nation has been able to
assume ownership of three reservation based water systems
developed by non-Indians with relatively little disruption to
water services. Our successful model requires substantial
initial expenditures to avoid long term costs. Lummi Nation's
approach is to use staff lawyers to work with existing water
associations and stakeholders to negotiate and avoid long term
costly litigation.
committee direction to doi requests justifications
Direct the DOI and the BIA to settle existing claims for past
contract support funding owed to Tribes and consult with Tribes on
contract support costs policies and procedures to govern future funding
years.
Require the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census to work
with the Department of the Interior--BIA to assume the responsibility
and funding otherwise available for the U.S. Census of Indian Country.
The BIA is uniquely constituted and situated to work with tribal
governments to develop a comprehensive, reliable and valid Census for
Indian Country. Now that the BIA is under pressure to improve the
reliability and validity of its Labor Force Report and related data
they are drawn back to the Census.
Secure Residential School funding for youth who reside at Lummi
Youth Academy. The Lummi Nation has constructed facilities to support
70 residential service placements for Lummi Nation youth at the Lummi
Nation Youth Academy. The Lummi Nation is seeking to assume authority
and funding from existing BIA Residential Schools. The Lummi Nation is
preparing formal notification, 18 months in advance of the planned
assumption date.
Increase funding for Community Fire Protection Program consistent
with tribally identified need(s). Tribal governments, who rely on these
services to limit damage to property injury and death to its
membership, must reach out to local services with little or no
resources to support the services needed. In time of economic hardship
local governments eliminate services for which there is no identified
payment source. Currently, the Bureau Community Fire Protection Program
is funded at $845,000 which serves approximately 40 tribal communities
out of a total of 565+ tribal communities.
lummi specific requests justifications--ihs
+$500,000 to allow the Indian Health Services to provide minimal
funding to the Lummi Nation under the ASAP and MMSP programs.--The
Alcohol and Substance Abuse and the Meth Mitigation and Suicide
Prevention Programs fund services desperately needed by Lummi Nation
membership on both an individual and community basis. Lummi Nation
Police and Tribal Court handle more than 2,000+ alcohol and drug abuse
cases each year.
+$500,000 for facility funding to support the start-up furnishing,
staffing and equipping packages for a school and an urban healthcare
clinic.--The Lummi Nation is seeking to expand access to healthcare
services for its membership. We see the opportunity to expand Lummi
Nation Health Care services to our tribal school and to our Lummi
Nation urban population who reside off Reservation due to the lack of
housing on the Reservation.
committee direction to dhhs requests justifications
IHS must take a leadership role in the implementation of ACA
amongst DHHS Operating Divisions. The IHS must act in concert with
tribal governments who are seeking ways to ensure their membership
accesses and benefits from National Health Care Reform.
Lummi Nation is requesting that the committee direct DHHS and IHS
to convene in tribal consultations and Tribal Work Groups on program,
services, functions and activity proposals of the Indian Health
Services and the operating divisions.
IHS must take the primary role in the implementation of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act. There are several provisions of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act that must be supported and implemented
through IHS. Sections 206, 222 and the sections that prohibit Indians
being forced to register in a managed care plan. The Lummi Nation is
requesting that the committee direct the Indian Health Services to form
a Tribal/Federal Work Group to identify and develop a plan of action to
address these implementation issues.
Provide direct financial support to the Agency for Tribal/Federal
Work Group which addresses the need for Basic Emergency Medical
Services among tribal members. IHS has assumed that other local
governments are providing these essential community services. Tribal
Governments rely on these services to limit damage to property, injury
and death to its membership. During times of economic hardship local
governments are cutting those services which are not supported by
additional funding. Lummi Nation requests that the subcommittee provide
specific financial support to the Tribal Federal Work Group convened to
address the need to plan and implement essential community services.
Regional Requests.--The Lummi Nation supports the requests of the
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, the Northwest Portland Area
Indian Health Board and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, that
are beneficial to the region and our tribal interests.
National and Self-Governance Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Priorities.--
In general, all BIA and IHS line items should be exempt from any budget
rescission and discretionary funding budget reductions.
BIA:
--Fully Fund Contract Support Costs (CSC).--Provide increase over the
President's fiscal year 2013 request needed to fund the CSC
shortfall report.
--Law Enforcement.--Fully Fund all Provisions of the Tribal Law &
Order Act of 2010 and VAWA's reauthorization tribal provisions
that affect Indian Tribes and Law Enforcement programs,
services and functions.
IHS:
--Fully Fund Contract Support Costs (CSC).--Provide increase over the
President's fiscal year 2013 request needed to fund the CSC
shortfall report.
--Mandatory Costs.--Provide increased funding for mandatory
healthcare costs to maintain current services.
--Purchased Referred Care (PRC), formally Contract Health Services.--
Provide a threefold increase to CHS Funding.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide Lummi Nation
appropriations priorities for fiscal year 2014.
Hy'shqe.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lummi Indian Business Council
The purpose of this letter is to express the Lummi Nation's serious
concern with respect to language in the fiscal year 2014 President'
budget proposing a $400,000 reduction in funding for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership (AADAP)
program. AADAP is the Nation's only program singularly committed to
obtaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of aquatic animal
drugs needed by fisheries professionals. AADAP provides many key
services to the USFWS and its partners, including the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission and their 20 member treaty tribes, by providing
access to needed drugs and securing drug approvals to ensure safe and
effective drugs are available to treat disease, aid spawning, and
facilitate field research and fisheries management activities. We
firmly believe any reduction in funding for AADAP would have a
significant, negative impact on the ability of the USFWS to meet tribal
trust responsibilities and for the tribes themselves to accomplish fish
production and field management objectives. We request that the
proposed cuts be reconsidered, and that the AADAP program receive
$950,000 in base funding.
Lummi Nation owns and operates two anadromous salmon hatcheries in
Whatcom County, Washington. One of the hatcheries is responsible for
the recovery of an ESA-listed stock of spring chinook in the South Fork
Nooksack River. This unique stock of fish is reliant on proper
treatment in order to achieve the goal of recovery. Both hatcheries
play an extremely important role in generating income for Lummi Tribal
members through commercial fisheries, but most importantly, both
hatcheries provide opportunity for subsistence for our Tribal
community.
In order to continue providing salmon for our Tribal members as
well as all members of the Whatcom County community, we must have
access to safe and effective drugs for treating health-compromised
rearing fish.
The Lummi Nation is aware of the challenging budgets facing all
agencies. However, the AADAP program's dedication to fisheries
conservation, track record of success, and critical deliverables are
recognized by public and private fisheries and aquaculture stakeholders
and conservation authorities as unduplicated and unparalleled. Attempts
at cost savings that diminish this program also diminish needed Federal
leadership in this area and jeopardize the ability of the USFWS to
deliver effective fisheries conservation and fulfill trust
responsibilities. Further, the Lummi Nation and our member treaty
tribes continue to rely on AADAP to help us meet critical fisheries
management needs. We strongly encourage you to fund AADAP at $950,000
in base funding, a level we believe is essential to maintaining the
performance and capacity of this program. We thank you in advance for
your consideration of our view.
______
Prepared Statement of the Maniilaq Association
Summary.--The Maniilaq Association is an Alaska Native regional
nonprofit organization representing 12 tribes in Northwest Alaska. We
provide health services through a self-governance agreement with the
Indian Health Service (IHS). The focus of our testimony is on the need
to bring some stability and certainty to the Indian Health Service
budget by changing its funding to an advance appropriations basis. This
is what Congress has done with regard to the Veterans Administration
medical accounts, and we ask for comparable treatment with regard to
the IHS.
We also ask that the Appropriations Committees address the chronic
underfunding of the Village Built Clinics program ($7.8 million
increase) and IHS contract support costs ($617 million total), and
exempt the IHS from future budget sequestration.
advance appropriations
The Need for Indian Health Service Advance Appropriation.--The
Federal health services to maintain and improve the health of American
Indians and Alaska Natives are consonant with and required by the
Federal Government's historical and unique legal relationship with, and
resulting responsibility to, the American Indian and Alaska Native
people. Since fiscal year 1998 there has been only 1 year (fiscal year
2006) when the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
appropriations bill has been enacted by the beginning of the fiscal
year. The lateness in enacting a final budget during that time ranges
from 5 days (fiscal year 2002) to 197 days (fiscal year 2011). Even
after enactment of an appropriations bill, there is an apportionment
process involving the Office of Management and Budget and then a
process within the IHS for allocation of funds to the IHS area offices.
Late funding causes the IHS and tribal health care providers great
challenges in planning and managing care for American Indians and
Alaska Natives. It significantly hampers tribal and IHS healthcare
providers' budgeting, recruitment, retention, provision of services,
facility maintenance and construction efforts. Providing sufficient,
timely, and predictable funding is needed to ensure the Government
meets its obligation to provide health care for American Indian and
Alaska Native people.
In the case of the Maniilaq Association, we draft our budget for
the coming fiscal year in the spring--a budget which must be reviewed,
amended, and approved during the ensuing months. However, if we find
out that come October, as has been the case for far too many years,
that Congress has not enacted an IHS appropriations bill, we are in
limbo and must spend considerable staff time re-doing our budget,
perhaps multiple times. We--and all tribes and tribal organizations--
are hampered by the uncertainty as to whether the Congress will be
providing funding for built-in costs, including inflation and pay
increases, what amount of funding we might have with regard to signing
outside vendor and/or medical services contracts, ordering supplies,
and making crucial hiring decisions.
Advance Appropriations Explanation.--As you know, an advance
appropriation is funding that becomes available 1 year or more after
the year of the appropriations act in which it is contained. For
instance, if fiscal year 2015 advance appropriations for the IHS were
included in the fiscal year 2014 Interior, Environment and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, those advance appropriations would not be
counted against the fiscal year 2014 Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee's funding allocation but rather
would be counted against its fiscal year 2015 allocation. It would also
be counted against the ceiling in the fiscal year 2015 budget
resolution, not the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution.
To begin an advanced appropriations cycle there must be an initial
transition appropriation which contains (1) an appropriation for the
year in which the bill was enacted (for instance, fiscal year 2014) and
(2) an advance appropriation for the following year (fiscal year 2015).
Thereafter, Congress can revert to appropriations containing only 1
year advance funding. If IHS funding was on an advance appropriations
cycle, tribal healthcare providers, as well as the IHS, would know the
funding a year earlier than is currently the case and would not be
subject to continuing resolutions. We note that advance appropriations
are subject to across-the-board reductions.
The Veterans Administration Experience.--In fiscal year 2010 the
Veterans Administration (VA) medical care programs achieved advance
appropriations. This came after many years of veterans' organizations
advocating for this change, including enactment of the Veterans Health
Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-81)
which authorized advance appropriations and specified which
appropriations accounts are to be eligible for advance appropriations.
The act required the Secretary to include in documents submitted to
Congress in support of the President's budget detailed estimates of the
funds necessary for the medical care accounts of the Department for the
fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the budget is
submitted.
The fact that Congress has implemented advance appropriations for
the VA medical programs provides a compelling argument for tribes and
tribal organizations to be given equivalent status with regard to IHS
funding. Both systems provide direct medical care and both are the
result of Federal policies. Just as the veterans groups were alarmed at
the impact of delayed funding upon the provision of healthcare to
veterans and the ability of the VA to properly plan and manage its
resources, tribes and tribal organizations have those concerns about
the IHS health system. We also note that there is legislation (H.R.
813) pending in this Congress that would expand advance appropriations
to the VA beyond its medical accounts.
We thus request this subcommittee's active support for any
legislation that may be needed to authorize IHS advance appropriations,
to protect such funding from a point of order in the budget resolution,
and to appropriate the necessary funds. We have prepared a white paper
on IHS advance appropriations and would be happy to share it with you.
village built clinic program
Last year the Maniilaq Association, Aleutian Pribilof Islands
Association, Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, and Norton Sound
Health Corporation submitted joint testimony to the committee regarding
the chronic underfunding of the Village Built Clinic (VBC) program and
the IHS's refusal to provide maintenance and improvement funding for
the VBC-leased clinics. These clinics are vital to the provision of
services by the Community Health Aides/practitioners who provide
primary healthcare services and coordinate patient care through
referral relationships with midlevel providers, physicians, and
regional hospitals. The situation has not improved and we ask, as have
other Alaska Native healthcare providers, that Congress direct the IHS
to utilize fiscal year 2014 appropriations to fully fund the Village
Built Clinics leases in accordance with section 804 of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA). Section 804 of the IHCIA (25
U.S.C. 1674) authorizes the Secretary ``notwithstanding any other
provision of law'' to enter into leases with Indian tribes for a period
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.'' We estimate an additional $7.8 million more than current
IHS resources needs to be allocated to VBC leases.
ihs contract support costs
IHS Contract Support Costs Shortfall.--We appreciate the recent
increases provided by the Congress for Contract Support Costs (CSC)
owed to tribes and tribal organizations under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) and Federal case
law. Even so, there remains an ongoing shortfall of CSC, which
continues to impose significant hardships on us and on other tribes/
tribal organizations and our ability to provide adequate health
services to our patients. We urge the subcommittee to continue to push
for full funding of CSC. While it is difficult to estimate the full CSC
need for fiscal year 2014--in part because IHS refuses to release its
CSC distribution data for the last 2 years, as discussed further
below--we estimate the total need in fiscal year 2014 to be $617
million.
Given the progress toward full CSC funding in recent years, we
found it surprising that the administration's fiscal year 2014 budget,
released on April 10, proposed only a minimal increase for IHS CSC to
$477,205,000. This would force tribes to absorb almost $140 million in
uncompensated costs for overhead and administration of Federal
programs. Just as bad, the administration's proposed appropriations act
language attempts to preclude tribes from recovering any of their CSC
shortfalls through contract actions, which the Supreme Court said is
currently their right in the Ramah case. The bill language would
incorporate by reference a table identifying the maximum amount of CSC
available for every single ISDEAA agreement. We urge that the committee
reject this proposed approach and, instead, fully fund CSC for both IHS
and BIA.
Additionally, the IHS has failed to provide CSC shortfall reports
to Congress for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. We and other co-signers to
the Alaska Tribal Health Compact, under title V of the ISDEAA, recently
asked the IHS to share the shortfall data for those years with all of
the co-signers. Access to the CSC shortfall data, if not the reports
themselves, is critical to our ability to understand the IHS's view of
the scope of CSC underfunding, to evaluate IHS's allocation of its
insufficient past CSC appropriations, and to pursue full CSC funding
moving forward. The IHS has to date refused to make the information
available, and again refused as recently as the co-signers' meeting
with the IHS Area Lead Negotiator for the Alaska Area of IHS in March
2013. We thus ask that the committees direct the IHS to immediately
release the fiscal years 2011 and 2012 CSC shortfall reports, or, at
the least, the CSC shortfall data for those fiscal periods.
sequestration
Exempt IHS From Sequestration.--We are very concerned about the
scale of reductions imposed on IHS and tribes/tribal organizations
under the fiscal year 2013 budget sequestration. The IHS budget is
fully sequestrable, which resulted in a $220 million cut in funding to
the IHS for fiscal year 2013. IHS lost $195 million for programs like
hospitals and health clinics services, contract health services, dental
services, mental health and alcohol and substance abuse. Impacts are
also felt on programs and projects necessary for maintenance and
improvement of health facilities. These negative effects are then
passed down to every Indian Self-Determination Act contractor including
the Maniilaq Association.
We believe the IHS's budget should be exempt from these reductions.
The United States has a trust responsibility for the health of Alaska
Native and American Indian people. We fail to understand why this
responsibility was taken less seriously than the Nation's promises to
provide healthcare to our veterans. The Veterans Health Administration
(as well as Medicaid and most of Medicare) was made fully exempt from
sequestration for all programs administered by the VA. We thus strongly
urge the subcommittee to support an amendment to the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act to fully exempt the IHS from any
future sequestration, just as the VA's programs are exempt.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and requests. We
are happy to respond to questions or provide any additional information
you may want.
______
Prepared Statement of the M.A.C.T. Health Board, Inc.
On behalf of the M.A.C.T. Health Board, Inc. (MACT), a tribal
organization providing healthcare services to Indian beneficiaries
living in a rural four-county area (Mariposa, Amador, Calaveras, and
Tuolumne Counties) in central California, I submit this testimony
regarding the fiscal year 2014 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget. Our
requests are that Congress:
--Reject the administration's attempt to eliminate contract support
cost (CSC) shortfall recovery by specifying in the
appropriations bill capped amounts for individual Self-
Determination contracts.
--Fully fund Indian Health Service (IHS) CSC at $617 million, an
amount $140 million over the President's fiscal year 2014
budget request.
MACT has provided healthcare services to tribal members, their
families, and other community members since 1969, when it opened the
Tuolumne Rural Indian Health Center. Since that time, we have opened
clinics in Sonora, Jackson, San Andreas, and Mariposa to serve patients
in the Central Sierras. Until March 31, 2013, MACT provided healthcare
services to eligible Indian beneficiaries in its four-county service
area pursuant to a subcontract with the California Rural Indian Health
Board, Inc. (CRIHB), which maintained a self-determination contract
with the Indian Health Service (IHS) under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). During this
period, MACT developed nine clinic facilities in various locations,
which MACT operates to effectively serve the Indian population in this
large and remote service area. We have also expanded our services to
include medical, dental, outreach, behavioral health, substance abuse,
and diabetic telehealth programs. We currently serve 3,325 Indian
beneficiaries.
it is likely that mact will be paid no indirect csc if contractor-by-
contractor ``caps'' are implemented as proposed by the administration
MACT objects to the administration's proposal to cap CSC for
individual self-determination contractors. Exactly how the
administration's proposed individual CSC cap would be implemented is
not altogether clear, but it appears that the impact of such caps on
MACT will be particularly dramatic because of its status as a new
contractor in fiscal year 2013 that will be paid only a small portion
of its CSC entitlement in the first year of the contract. I provide
some background on our unique circumstances below.
Prior to fiscal year 2013, MACT provided healthcare services
through a subcontract with CRIHB. CRIHB's self-determination contract
with IHS explicitly stated that CRIHB would provide healthcare services
in to the eligible population in MACT's four-county service area
through a subcontract with MACT. The subcontract between MACT and CRIHB
described the scope of the services to be provided by MACT by
references to the scope of work described in CRIHB's ISDEAA contract.
As a subcontractor of CRIHB, MACT received the program funds associated
with the services provided by MACT and a portion of both the indirect
and direct CSC, which CRIHB received from the IHS for the services
provided by MACT. Under its last contract with IHS, CRIHB received
approximately $55,000 in direct CSC and $850,000 in indirect CSC
associated with the MACT program.
In 2012, MACT determined that it would be able to better serve the
eligible population within its service area by contracting directly
with IHS. MACT's last subcontract with CRIHB expired on March 31, 2013,
the same date that CRIHB's self-determination contract with IHS
expired. On December 28, 2012 MACT submitted a proposal to contract
directly with IHS pursuant to title I of the ISDEAA, effective April 1,
2013, to provide the same services it provided as a subcontractor.
MACT's current contract became effective on April 1, 2013. Under its
new contract, MACT provides services to the same eligible Indian
population in the same service area that it previously provided as
CRIHB's subcontractor. MACT also operates the same clinic facilities it
previously operated as a subcontractor of CRIHB.
Under the contract, MACT receives the program funding associated
with the services provided by MACT directly from the IHS. MACT is also
entitled under the ISDEAA to be paid both indirect and direct CSC
associated with these services. When MACT provided these services
through a subcontract with CRIHB, CRIHB paid a portion of the indirect
and direct CSC it received from IHS to MACT.
Under existing IHS policy, upon MACT's withdrawal from CRIHB, CRIHB
was required to return the total amount of direct CSC IHS paid for
MACT's subcontract to IHS so that those funds could be included in
MACT's new contract. The policy does not, however, require CRIHB to
return any portion of the indirect CSC associated with MACT's program
to IHS if CRIHB is not funded at 100 percent of its overall CSC need.
As a result, unless CRIHB voluntarily agrees to return the indirect CSC
to IHS, the agency cannot unilaterally reduce CRIHB's indirect CSC
amount to pass on to MACT, even though part of that funding was based
on the services which CRIHB is no longer providing through MACT.
In previous years, when a subcontractor pulled out of CRIHB and
entered into an ISDEAA agreement directly with IHS, CRIHB voluntarily
agreed to pass on the portion of indirect CSC associated with the
services that were removed from CRIHB's contract. In the case of MACT's
withdrawal, however, CRIHB has refused to return any indirect CSC back
to IHS. MACT and IHS are still completing negotiations on the exact
amount of direct and indirect CSC that IHS will transfer to MACT under
the contract, but given CRIHB's position, it is likely that IHS will
only able to pay MACT direct CSC, or approximately $55,000, once final
numbers have been established. It is also likely that no indirect CSC--
or the approximately $850,000 that CRIHB was paid in fiscal year 2012
associated with MACT's subcontract--will be paid. The indirect CSC that
are not paid to MACT will be added to the IHS shortfall lists and will
not be paid, unless Congress appropriates sufficient new CSC to pay
MACT and all other tribal contractors full CSC entitlements, an
unlikely scenario based on the President's budget proposal.
As a result of this situation, while MACT is entitled under the
ISDEAA to be paid its full indirect and direct CSC, in 2013 IHS will
most likely only pay a small fraction of the full amount. If, as is a
possible reading of the administration's unclear proposal, the amount
of CSC that MACT was paid in fiscal year 2013 becomes the amount that
is capped in 2014, there will be no new CSC funds available in the
budget to pay MACT any indirect CSC. Because of this unique situation,
MACT could never be paid any indirect CSC funds and only a portion of
its direct CSC funds in its 2014 ISDEAA agreement, unless Congress
makes a special exception for MACT if it implements the President's
proposal. In contrast, under current law, while MACT will not be paid
for indirect CSC in fiscal year 2013 up front by the IHS, under the
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 132 S.Ct. 2181 (2012) decision, MACT
retains the right to file a Contract Disputes Act claim to recover its
full CSC entitlement--including its share of the indirect CSC that
CRIHB has to date refused to return to the IHS--that the ISDEAA
contemplates tribal contractors will be paid.
This result--which is caused by the IHS CSC policy and the lack of
full CSC funding--is punitive and unfair. A tribal organization should
not be so severely punished for directly contracting with IHS under the
ISDEAA. We urge the Congress to reject the administration's request to
impose a cap. If, however, Congress adopts the administration's
proposal to cap CSC on a contract-by-contractor basis, due to MACT's
unique situation, we request that the subcommittee exempt MACT from the
administration's proposal and provide that MACT receive full CSC
funding in accordance with the ISDEAA in fiscal year 2014.
the congress should fully fund contract support costs and reject the
administration's attempt to cap csc per individual contract
MACT's unique situation aside, we urge the committees to provide
full funding of CSC due tribal contractors. IHS has a duty to fully
fund the CSC that cover the administrative and overhead portions of the
programs MACT has contracted to carry out. We are grateful for recent
increases in CSC, but there is still a ways to go to meet the true
need. Unfortunately, the President's proposed budget would continue the
underfunding of CSC, crippling all contractors' ability to operate
their programs as intended.
The President proposes that IHS receive $477,205,000 for CSC in
fiscal year 2014. This amount is far below the estimated need of $617
million. While Congress has in the past appropriated additional funding
for CSC owed to tribes and tribal organizations under applicable law,
those additional appropriated funds are not enough to eliminate the
ongoing shortfall of CSC. As a result, tribes and tribal organizations
continue to endure significant financial restrictions that translate
into less healthcare for our patients.
These shortfalls force contractors to transfer funds intended to
provide health services into operational and administrative accounts
that keep our programs running. For too long, the Government has
treated tribal contractors differently from other Government
contractors with regard to CSC payment. The Supreme Court ruled this
disparity is unjustified in Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, and held
the Government liable for failing to pay full CSC to tribal contractors
in past years. Id.
In an attempt to skirt this responsibility, the administration
proposes to limit CSC payments to tribal contractors by submitting a
list of contractors to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees,
with recommended individual appropriations for each contractor, as
mentioned above. How the proposal will be implemented is unclear. For
example, when would the list be compiled: before the President's budget
is proposed or after the appropriations has been enacted?
Implementation of the proposal appears to us not only untenable and
unwieldy; it is also unjust.
We are further concerned that the administration has made no effort
to include tribes in the process of preparing the proposed CSC funding
levels. While the President's proposal says this new effort is part of
the ``longstanding policy of managing CSC costs,'' tribal contractors
know that this means saddling us with chronic CSC shortfalls year after
year. These shortfalls are an effective penalty for engaging in self-
determination or self-governance contracting. Both the annual
underfunding and the administration's misguided proposal for fiscal
year 2014 are contrary to the stated policy of both the Congress and
the administration to encourage tribal self-determination. The simplest
and most fair answer is to fully fund tribal contractors' CSC. We urge
the Congress to reject the President's proposal outright, and fully
fund IHS contract support costs at $617 million.
conclusion
MACT is a newly independent tribal contractor, and, in this new
capacity, it will continue provide the best, most responsive and
accountable services our patients have ever received. We are very
concerned, however, that the President's proposal will impose a CSC
payment system that will disproportionally and unfairly impact MACT's
right to be paid full CSC funding under the ISDEAA. This, in turn, will
severely impact MACT's ability to provide desperately needed health
services to our patients. We urge the Congress to reject the
administration's proposal and instead fully fund all tribes' CSC needs.
If Congress decides to implement the administration's proposal we urge
that MACT be exempted from the negative impacts of the proposal.
Thank you for our consideration, and I will be glad to provide any
additional information the committees may request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Maniilaq Association
Summary.--The Maniilaq Association is an Alaska Native regional
nonprofit organization representing 12 tribes in Northwest Alaska. We
provide health services through a self-governance agreement with the
Indian Health Service (IHS). The focus of our testimony is on the need
to bring some stability and certainty to the Indian Health Service
budget by changing its funding to an advance appropriations basis. This
is what Congress has done with regard to the Veterans Administration
medical accounts, and we ask for comparable treatment with regard to
the IHS.
We also ask that the Appropriations Committees address the chronic
underfunding of the Village Built Clinics program ($8.2 million
increase), IHS contract support costs ($617 million total), BIA
contract support costs ($242 million total), reject the
administration's proposal to limit recovery of contract support costs,
and exempt the IHS from future budget sequestration.
advance appropriations
The Need for Indian Health Service Advance Appropriation.--The
Federal health services to maintain and improve the health of American
Indians and Alaska Natives are consonant with and required by the
Federal Government's historical and unique legal relationship with, and
resulting responsibility to, the American Indian and Alaska Native
people. Since fiscal year 1998 there has been only 1 year (fiscal year
2006) when the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
appropriations bill has been enacted by the beginning of the fiscal
year. The lateness in enacting a final budget during that time ranges
from 5 days (fiscal year 2002) to 197 days (fiscal year 2011). Even
after enactment of an appropriations bill, there is an apportionment
process involving the Office of Management and Budget and then a
process within the IHS for allocation of funds to the IHS Area Offices.
Late funding causes the IHS and tribal healthcare providers great
challenges in planning and managing care for American Indians and
Alaska Natives. It significantly hampers tribal and IHS healthcare
providers' budgeting, recruitment, retention, provision of services,
facility maintenance and construction efforts. Receipt of funds late
also severely impacts Maniilaq's ability to invest the funds and
generate interest which can be used to offset the chronic underfunding
of the region's health programs. Providing sufficient, timely, and
predictable funding is needed to ensure the Government meets its
obligation to provide healthcare for American Indian and Alaska Native
people.
In the case of the Maniilaq Association, we draft our budget for
the coming fiscal year in the spring--a budget which must be reviewed,
amended, and approved during the ensuing months. However, if we find
out that come October, as has been the case for far too many years,
that Congress has not enacted an IHS appropriations bill, we are in
limbo and must spend considerable staff time re-doing our budget,
perhaps multiple times. We--and all tribes and tribal organizations--
are hampered by the uncertainty as to whether Congress will provide
funding for built-in costs, including inflation and pay increases, what
amount of funding we might have with regard to signing outside vendor
and/or medical services contracts, ordering supplies, and making
crucial hiring decisions.
Advance Appropriations Explanation.--As you know, an advance
appropriation is funding that becomes available 1 year or more after
the year of the appropriations act in which it is contained. For
instance, if fiscal year 2015 advance appropriations for the IHS were
included in the fiscal year 2014 Interior, Environment and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, those advance appropriations would not be
counted against the fiscal year 2014 Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee's funding allocation but rather would be counted against
its fiscal year 2015 allocation. It would also be counted against the
ceiling in the fiscal year 2015 budget resolution, not the fiscal year
2014 budget resolution.
To begin an advanced appropriations cycle there must be an initial
transition appropriation which contains (1) an appropriation for the
year in which the bill was enacted (for instance, fiscal year 2014) and
(2) an advance appropriation for the following year (fiscal year 2015).
Thereafter, Congress can revert to appropriations containing only 1
year advance funding. If IHS funding was on an advance appropriations
cycle, tribal healthcare providers, as well as the IHS, would know the
funding a year earlier than is currently the case and would not be
subject to continuing resolutions. We note that advance appropriations
are subject to across-the-board reductions.
The Veterans Administration Experience.--In fiscal year 2010 the
Veterans Administration (VA) medical care programs achieved advance
appropriations. This came after many years of veterans' organizations
advocating for this change, including enactment of the Veterans Health
Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-81)
which authorized advance appropriations and specified which
appropriations accounts are to be eligible for advance appropriations.
The act required the Secretary to include in documents submitted to
Congress in support of the President's budget detailed estimates of the
funds necessary for the medical care accounts of the Department for the
fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the budget is
submitted.
The fact that Congress has implemented advance appropriations for
the VA medical programs provides a compelling argument for tribes and
tribal organizations to be given equivalent status with regard to IHS
funding. Both systems provide direct medical care and both are the
result of Federal policies. Just as the veterans groups were alarmed at
the impact of delayed funding upon the provision of healthcare to
veterans and the ability of the VA to properly plan and manage its
resources, tribes and tribal organizations have those concerns about
the IHS health system. We also note that there is legislation (H.R.
813) pending in this Congress that would expand advance appropriations
to the VA beyond its medical accounts.
We thus request this subcommittee's active support for any
legislation that may be needed to authorize IHS advance appropriations,
to protect such funding from a point of order in the budget resolution,
and to appropriate the necessary funds. We have prepared a white paper
on IHS advance appropriations and would be happy to share it with you.
village built clinic program
Last year the Maniilaq Association, Aleutian Pribilof Islands
Association, Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, and Norton Sound
Health Corporation submitted joint testimony to the committee regarding
the chronic underfunding of the Village Built Clinic (VBC) program and
the IHS' refusal to provide maintenance and improvement funding for the
VBC-leased clinics. These clinics are vital to the provision of
services by the Community Health Aides/practitioners who provide
primary healthcare services and coordinate patient care through
referral relationships with midlevel providers, physicians, and
regional hospitals. The situation has not improved and we ask, as have
other Alaska Native healthcare providers, that Congress direct the IHS
to utilize fiscal year 2014 appropriations to fully fund the Village
Built Clinics leases in accordance with section 804 of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA). Section 804 of the IHCIA (25
U.S.C. 1674) authorizes the Secretary ``notwithstanding any other
provision of law'' to enter into leases with Indian tribes for a period
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.'' We estimate an additional $8.2 million over current IHS
resources needs to be allocated to VBC leases.
contract support costs
IHS Contract Support Costs Shortfall.--We appreciate the recent
increases provided by Congress for Contract Support Costs (CSC) owed to
tribes and tribal organizations under the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) and Federal case law. Even so, there
remains an ongoing shortfall of CSC, which continues to impose
significant hardships on us and on other tribes/tribal organizations
and our ability to provide adequate health services to our patients.
However, the President has proposed only $477,205,000 for IHS CSC,
far below the estimated need of $617 million. In addition, the
administration proposes to limit CSC payments to tribal contractors by
submitting a list of contractors to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, with recommended, individual appropriations for each
contractor. This proposed system is wholly unworkable. And--as it is
created without any input from ISDEAA contractors--we fear the list
will fail to reflect true CSC needs since the administration has proven
itself unable to properly account for contract support costs. The
simplest and most fair answer is to fully fund tribal contractors' CSC.
We urge the Congress to reject the President's proposal outright,
and fully fund IHS contract support costs at $617 million.
BIA Contract Support Costs Shortfall.--The President proposes $230
million for Bureau of Indian Affairs contract support costs. This
amount is closer to the estimated full need of $242 million than the
IHS proposal, but still falls short of the actual need. Additionally,
the President proposes the same system to cap BIA CSC as he did for the
IHS. Maniilaq rejects this misguided proposal, and urges the committees
to fully fund the BIA contract support costs at $242 million, which
will erase the need for the administration's contortionist attempts to
handle CSC shortfalls.
Unreleased IHS CSC Shortfall Reports.--IHS must submit CSC
shortfall reports to Congress no later than May 15 of each year, per
section 106(c) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 450j-1(c)). Yet, the IHS has failed to
submit CSC shortfall reports for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Tribes
have repeatedly asked the agency to release this data, which is
critical for our ability to understand the IHS's view of the
underfunding, and to pursue full payment of CSC, to which the Tribe is
legally entitled. The IHS has refused to release these reports time and
again, most recently in March of this year.
We ask the committees to direct the IHS to release the shortfall
data for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 immediately--and to submit future
reports on time--as required under the law.
sequestration
Exempt IHS From Sequestration.--We are very concerned about the
scale of reductions imposed on IHS and tribes/tribal organizations
under the fiscal year 2013 budget sequestration. The IHS budget is
fully sequestrable, which resulted in a $220 million cut in funding to
the IHS for fiscal year 2013. IHS lost $195 million for programs like
hospitals and health clinics services, contract health services, dental
services, mental health and alcohol and substance abuse. Impacts are
also felt on programs and projects necessary for maintenance and
improvement of health facilities. These negative effects are then
passed down to every Indian Self-Determination Act contractor including
the Maniilaq Association.
We believe the IHS's budget should be exempt from these reductions.
The United States has a trust responsibility for the health of Alaska
Native and American Indian people. We fail to understand why this
responsibility was taken less seriously than the Nation's promises to
provide healthcare to our veterans. The Veterans Health Administration,
Medicaid, and all but 2 percent of Medicare's administrative costs were
made fully exempt from sequestration for all programs administered by
the VA. We thus strongly urge the committee to support an amendment to
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act to fully exempt
the IHS from any future sequestration, just as the VA's programs are
exempt.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and requests. We
are happy to respond to questions or provide any additional information
you may want.
______
Prepared Statement of the Minnesota Citizens for the Arts
Minnesota Citizens for the Arts (MCA), representing 1,400 arts
organizations and 38,000 artists and their audiences are pleased to
submit written testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies supporting fiscal year
2014 funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at the level
of $154.466 million. MCA is a member of Americans for the Arts.
I would like to talk about how the NEA serves as a catalyst to
increase access to the arts for all Americans.
Several years ago the citizens of Minnesota took the rather
extraordinary step of approving a ballot measure to add an amendment to
our State constitution to create dedicated funding for the arts and the
environment. By a wide popular vote Minnesotans voted to tax themselves
to increase support for the arts because they agreed that the arts
bring benefits to their quality of life and economy. We are now the
only State in the country to have the arts as part of our constitution
(although John Adams, when he wrote the Massachusetts State
constitution, included the arts as one of the subject areas required to
be provided as part of the State's educational system). There are many
polls that suggest that Americans support arts funding, but in
Minnesota we took it to the ballot box and received a very strong yes.
The arts hold a special place in the hearts of Minnesotans whether
they live in the heart of the Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis,
or in any town or rural area from Ada to Zumbrota. The passage of what
is now called the ``Legacy Amendment'' has led to an extraordinary
flowering of artistic activity that is bringing together people from
all walks of life to share in creative activities and the bettering of
their communities through arts.
The National Endowment for the Arts set the stage for this
extraordinary action by investing in and encouraging the arts to
flourish in every State through its highly effective grant programs.
The NEA serves as a catalyst for additional State and local investments
in the arts such as the bipartisan Legacy Amendment by providing
examples to the States of highly effective creative and cultural
projects as well as organizations that promote access to and
involvement in the arts for all citizens.
Economists are increasingly aware that when citizens gather
together to create or perform the arts, they too are a catalyst for
economic activity that brings people together to revitalize
neighborhoods, energize businesses, and bring energy to our economy.
Through the relatively small investments made by the NEA, Congress is
making possible extraordinary things all across the country, including
seeding new jobs in the creative economy. In Minnesota alone, the arts
have more than a $1 billion economic impact through the entrepreneurial
work of artists starting small businesses, arts organizations producing
and presenting the arts and the audiences who are drawn to and who
participate in the wonderful work they create. We know through other
studies that Minnesota's artists themselves are fully engaged in their
communities, volunteering and voting at higher rates than other
citizens, contributing their passions and their creativity to their
neighborhoods and to their towns. Minnesota has 1,400 nonprofit arts
organizations who serve nearly 13 million attendees each year--more
than twice the population of the State. This story is repeated in State
after State where the NEA has had an impact.
As a child I was lucky to have parents who would take me on Sunday
after church for ``Culture Day'' to all of the wonderful cultural
organizations in our area--the Walker Arts Center, considered one of
the premier modern art museums in the world, the Minneapolis Institute
of Arts, which makes masterpieces from cultures across the globe
available to all for free, and many other nonprofit arts organizations
in St. Paul that opened my eyes to the beauty that was possible in the
world and inspires me in my work even today. Even back then (and I'm
not going to say how far back this was) these organizations were
supported and helped along by the National Endowment for the Arts in
their work to make the arts accessible to all Americans, regardless of
where they live and what their resources, because the arts give us
access to our cultural heritage and to ways of thinking that make us
more engaged and better citizens. Because of the NEA's support these
organizations are serving even more people now than they were then, and
even reaching out to the rest of the world through new arts access
points on the web.
I'd like to talk about two examples of how the NEA has been a
catalyst for creativity and access to the arts across the country
through grants to arts organizations in Minnesota.
In the late 1990s the National Endowment for the Arts provided seed
money for a program at the American Composer's Forum in St. Paul that,
although it's based in Minnesota, has had a wide-ranging impact across
the country on the music available to kids picking up their instruments
for the first time to play in middle school bands. I know if you're a
parent you may have had the privilege of attending middle school band
concerts. It can be tough going, and not just because the instruments
are making squawking noises as kids learn to control the sounds, but
particularly because the music itself can be so uninteresting and
sometimes just bad.
In 1997 the NEA funded a program at the American Composer's Forum
called ``BandQuest''--a program that commissions simple but creative
music for middle school bands. It was--and is--a desperate need for
this important age group. Prominent living American composers--at least
four of whom have won Pulitzer Prizes--are paired with middle school
bands around the country to enrich their educational experience with
new, challenging and interesting music. Imagine--Pulitzer Prize winning
composers in residence in a middle school--writing great music that is
inspired by the students themselves--their lives, their interests, and
their town. The program's multiple goals include creating new high
quality music that will keep the kids interested in learning, creating
music that can be shared with other schools across the country, and
providing musical experiences for kids that will inspire them to become
life-long learners in the arts. The new music created by the modest NEA
grant then became available to teachers and students all across the
country to play with their own kids.
Minnesota composer Stephen Paulus who was one of the founders of
the American Composers Forum, was one of the earliest participants in
the program creating a piece for BandQuest called ``Mosaic.''
Another participant in BandQuest, Michael Colgrass, a Pulitzer
Prize winning composer, created a piece called ``Old Churches,'' which
took Gregorian chants and bells as its inspiration and has since become
one of the most popular musical scores for kids in middle schools to
play across the country. In fact, since his work with the project he's
been inspired to go on to write six more pieces for middle school kids,
so yet again with this project the NEA grant has acted as a catalyst to
leverage additional investments and creativity in American schools.
The National Endowment for the Arts, by continuing its rather
modest investment in this program for the past several years, has
increased exponentially the challenging and interesting music available
to middle school students everywhere who are just learning to play
their instruments. In addition, the NEA grant was a catalyst to
additional private investment totaling three times the size of the
grant, and the series continues to this day as one of the leading
sources of great music for kids by living composers.
More than 500,000 kids in every State, including Idaho, Virginia
and Oklahoma have benefited from the ripple effect of the NEA's
investment, creating a lasting impact and inspiring kids across the
country to think of music as relevant to their own lives.
As one participating student said, ``I have a deep respect for (the
composer). I play bassoon, and without this song my life would not be
complete. Thank you.'' That--from a 12 year old.
Another program funded by the NEA in St. Paul has also served as a
catalyst for growing entrepreneurship and small businesses in the arts
across the country. Springboard for the Arts is an economic development
agency run by and for artists, based in St. Paul. Springboard creates
programs that help artists make both a living and a life and programs
that help communities tap into the resources artists can provide. Their
programs include business skills and entrepreneurship training for
artists and programs that pair artists with small businesses to develop
creative ways of attracting people and dollars.
Springboard creates these innovative programs from their home in
Minnesota, and in recent years support from the NEA has helped them
create models and toolkits so that these training programs can be
shared with communities all across the country. The NEA has again been
a catalyst, helping to scale up Springboard's work to a national level
and allowing communities of all sizes (and particularly rural
communities) to get access to the programs and services that help
artists contribute more to the economy and to their communities.
For example, because of the NEA's support, Springboard has been
able to provide training in entrepreneurship for artists in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa, where artists are leading the way in the redevelopment of
a business district devastated by the historic 2008 flood.
Because many artists are small business entrepreneurs, they make
good things happen at the local level. The creation of art has real
economic spillover effects--sales revenue, advertising revenue, and
jobs. Improving income for individual artists through training and
other opportunities allows them to better join the economic mainstream.
As new markets develop around the arts, businesses benefit, too. And
because artists and art projects make places more attractive to
shoppers, entrepreneurs and homebuyers, the larger community benefits.
The National Endowment for the Arts has an important role as a
catalyst in promoting opportunities for Americans to participate in the
arts, spurring employment for artists and for encouraging economic
activity made possible by the arts. For this reason I would like to
conclude by reiterating our request that the subcommittee fund the
National Endowment for the Arts at the President's request of $154.466
million.
We are concerned that the nonprofit arts and the small businesses
they often work with will be negatively impacted by cuts just as they
are starting to get back on their feet after the recession. The dollars
provided by the National Endowment for the Arts draw other private and
public investments that make our local economies thrive. Please support
the NEA's request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Marine Conservation Institute
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Marine Conservation
Institute, based in Seattle, Washington, is a nonprofit conservation
organization that uses the latest science to identify important marine
ecosystems around the world, and then advocates for their protection
for us and future generations. I wish to thank the members of the
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for the
opportunity to submit written testimony on the fiscal year 2014
appropriations in regards to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS)
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), particularly the monuments and
refuges that conserve marine environments. Marine Conservation
Institute is a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement (CARE), a coalition of more than 20 wildlife, sporting, and
conservation organizations advocating for the National Wildlife Refuge
System. Marine Conservation Institute specifically requests $6.8
million, an increase of $1.8 million, to more adequately manage and
protect the marine national monuments in the Pacific in 2014.
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 NWRS. 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.
However, many years after the establishment of these monuments,
Marine Conservation Institute is greatly concerned that the NWRS lacks
adequate resources to effectively protect and conserve the lands and
waters of all four monuments. Marine Conservation Institute believes
that even in these difficult budget times, protecting these ocean
treasures should be a priority.
According to the National Ocean Economics Program, the U.S. ocean
and coastal economy contributes more than $258 billion to our Nation's
GDP annually. Compared to other marine ecosystems, the marine monument
ecosystems are relatively intact, rich in biodiversity and relatively
free from the problems plaguing many other marine ecosystems: over-
exploitation, disturbance, and pollution. Using these remarkably intact
tropical ecosystems, U.S. scientists are developing an understanding of
what healthy and productive places really look like, which helps us
identify negative impacts to marine ecosystems closer to home and shows
us the benefits of restoration activities.
significance of our nation's marine national monuments
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, also referred to as the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, is the largest conservation area
(139,797 square miles) under U.S. jurisdiction. It was established to
protect the exceptional diversity of natural and cultural resources.
The monument is home to millions of seabirds, an incredible diversity
of coral reef species, 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. In 2010, the
monument was designated as a World Heritage Site by the United Nations
Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), expanding
recognition globally of the monument's unique natural and cultural
resources.
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 within
200 nautical miles of the seven islands. Seamounts are important
biodiversity hotspots because they provide habitat and localized
nutrients for many species, including commercially important 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 such as sharks, an indicator of a healthy ecosystem. 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
Through the FWS, the Department of the Interior is a co-trustee of
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in partnership with the
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), and the State of Hawaii. In the case of Marianas Trench,
Pacific Remote Islands, and Rose Atoll Marine National Monuments, FWS
NWRS has overall management responsibility, but works in partnership
with NOAA on managing fishing in the outer waters of each monument.
management needs
Unfortunately many years after the establishment of these
monuments, inadequate funds have left most monument management plans
and fishing regulations unfinished and most islands remain essentially
unmanaged and unmonitored. Without adequate funding to conserve,
restore and protect our Nation's marine monuments, the marine monuments
continue to be vulnerable to: illegal fishing, accidental ship
groundings and oil spills, and introduction of invasive species. There
have been several documented cases of both illegal foreign fishing and
illegal trespass by commercial and recreational vessels. Additionally,
millions of dollars have already been spent to remove invasive species
to protect important seabird colonies.
The NWRS received approximately $4.6 million for management of all
four marine national monuments in fiscal year 2013. This is a decrease
of $1 million from fiscal year 2012 levels, severely decreasing science
capabilities and visitor services. Cutting visitation to
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument closes the public's only
window into these magnificent marine places.
Of the remaining $4.6 million in fiscal year 2013, only 20 percent
($0.9 million) of the NWRS monument funding provides resources for
monument resource management, restoration, and research. The remaining
$3.7 million helps FAA maintain the airfield at Midway Atoll (northern
end of Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument) for emergency
commercial airplane stopovers transiting the Pacific Ocean. Without
Midway, those aircraft would need to alter their routes, incurring
additional flight time and fuel costs. Congress has mandated the
airfield remain open which has caused strain on NWRS' science
capabilities and visitation opportunities at Midway Atoll.
Additionally, a recent severe storm destroyed vital infrastructure
at Tern Island located within Papahanaumokuakea Marine National
Monument. Tern Island facilities provided critical space for Government
employees and university researchers to conduct vital research and
monitoring efforts on corals, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine
mammals. However, these critical facilities for providing food storage,
safe water, equipment storage and shelter were destroyed in the recent
storm. FWS estimates the cost of repairs at $5,000,000.
appropriations needs
Marine Conservation Institute requests that the subcommittee
increase funding for NWRS operations by $1.8 million in 2014 to better
manage our Nation's marine monuments. An additional $1 million in 2014
directed toward Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument could help
to reinstate visitation and science capabilities at Midway Atoll and
begin to restore research capabilities at Tern Island.
Furthermore, an additional $0.8 million would allow FWS 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 and travel.
Additional funds would help address invasive species that are hurting
native wildlife populations, provide surveillance and enforcement
capabilities and strengthen partnerships with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Coast Guard.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our views.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metlakatla Indian Community
The requests of the Metlakatla Indian Community (Tribe) for the
fiscal year 2014 budget are as follows:
--Exempt the Indian Health Service (IHS) from any future
sequestration, as Congress has done for the Veterans Health
Administration programs.
--Appropriate enough funds to allow IHS to fully fund all contract
support costs (CSC). We estimate this would require $617
million, which is $140 million more than the administration's
proposed level. We also ask that the subcommittee direct the
IHS to immediately release the outstanding fiscal year 2011 and
fiscal year 2012 CSC shortfall reports.
--Provide full funding for Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) CSC, at a
level of $242 million, $12 million more than the President's
proposal.
--Reject the administration's proposal to cap CSC on a contractor-by-
contractor basis.
The Tribe's Annette Island Service Unit offers primary
comprehensive outpatient healthcare services to Alaska Natives and
American Indians living in Metlakatla, Alaska. The mission of the
Annette Island Service Unit is to provide the highest quality health
service for our people. We have a long-standing commitment to excellent
healthcare and support for our patients, and we are proud to uphold a
high standard of quality as we strive to address the health needs of
our island population. We provide primary health services at our
outpatient facility in Metlakatla through funding from the IHS as a co-
signer to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA).
Sequestration.--The Office of Management and Budget determined that
the IHS's discretionary appropriation is fully sequestrable, which
resulted in a $220 million cut in funding to the IHS for fiscal year
2013--roughly 5 percent of the IHS's overall budget. IHS lost $195
million for programs like hospitals and health clinics services,
contract health services, dental services, mental health and alcohol
and substance abuse. Impacts are also felt on programs and projects
necessary for maintenance and improvement of health facilities. These
negative effects are then passed down to every ISDEAA contractor, like
the Tribe. The Tribe is already significantly underfunded, resulting in
further cuts to the availability of health services we are able to
provide to our patients, resulting in real consequences for individuals
who have to forego needed care.
We suffer these reductions and experience these new challenges to
providing healthcare for our people, despite the United States' trust
responsibility for the health of Alaska Native and American Indian
people. We fail to understand why this responsibility was taken less
seriously than the Nation's promises to provide health to our veterans.
The Veterans Health Administration (VA) was made fully exempt from the
sequestration for all programs administered by the VA. See section 255
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA), as
amended by Public Law 111-139 (2010). Also exempt are State Medicaid
grants, and Medicare payments are held harmless except for a 2 percent
reduction for administration of the program. We thus strongly urge the
subcommittee to support an amendment to the BBEDCA to fully exempt the
IHS from any future sequestration, just as the VA's health programs are
exempt.
contract support costs (csc) need full funding
Indian Health Service CSC Shortfalls.--Congress' additional
appropriations for CSC are greatly appreciated, but the appropriated
funds remain far below what is needed to fully fund all of the CSC owed
to Tribes and tribal organizations under the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act and Federal case law. These ongoing
shortfalls of CSC continue to impose significant hardships on the Tribe
and its patients. We ask the committees to push for full funding of CSC
so that the shortfalls can be eliminated. While it is difficult to
estimate the full CSC need for fiscal year 2014--in part because the
IHS refuses to release its CSC distribution data for the last 2 years,
as discussed further below--projections from fiscal year 2010 have led
us to estimate that the total need in fiscal year 2014 is $617 million.
This requires an appropriation of an additional $146 million over the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
We also ask the subcommittees to address the ``caps'' that Congress
has for years placed in the IHS's appropriations on the amount of CSC
the IHS could pay for aggregate CSC. Section 106(a)(2) of the ISDEAA
requires full payment of CSC, notwithstanding the appropriations
``cap.'' The effect of the ``cap'' does not limit what the IHS must pay
individual Tribes and tribal organizations for CSC under their ISDEAA
contracts and compacts. Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 132 S. Ct.
2181 (2012). In the Ramah decision, the United States Supreme Court
recognizes that the ISDEAA requires payment of full CSC to all
contractors, yet in every year at issue Congress failed to appropriate
enough for the agencies to do so.
In a misguided attempt to address these shortfalls, the
administration proposes to limit CSC payments by submitting a list of
contractors to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, with
recommended individual appropriations for each contractor. This
proposed system is not only untenable and unwieldy; it is also unjust.
The administration has proven itself incapable of properly accounting
for contract support costs, and we have no indication the agencies will
include contractors in this process to ensure the lists reflect
contractors' needs. The simplest and most fair answer is to fully fund
tribal contractors' CSC.
We urge the Congress to reject the President's proposal outright,
and fully fund IHS contract support costs at $617 million.
Bureau of Indian Affairs CSC Shortfalls.--The President proposes
$230 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs contract support costs. This
amount is closer to the estimated full need of $242 million than the
IHS proposal, but we ask that Congress fully fund the BIA's CSC as
well.
The President's proposal to limit CSC funding via contractor-by-
contractor caps applies to the BIA as well. Again, we strongly reject
this effort, particularly because the administration has made no effort
to include Tribes and tribal contractors in the process of preparing
the proposed CSC tables. While the President's proposal says this new
effort is part of the ``longstanding policy of managing CSC costs,''
Tribes know that this means saddling contractors with chronic CSC
shortfalls like the Tribe experiences year after year. These shortfalls
are an effective penalty for engaging in self-determination or self-
governance contracting. Both the annual underfunding and the
administration's misguided proposal for fiscal year 2014 are contrary
to the stated policy of the Congress and the administration to
encourage tribal self-determination.
We urge the subcommittee instead to fully fund the BIA contract
support costs at $242 million, which will erase the need for the
administration's contortionist proposal to handle CSC shortfalls.
IHS Must Release CSC Shortfall Reports.--The Tribe is concerned
about the IHS's failure to provide CSC shortfall reports to Congress
for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. These shortfall reports are required to
be submitted not later than May 15 of each year by section 106(c) of
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), 25
U.S.C. Sec. 450j-1(c). While we understand that the IHS may sometimes
need additional time to prepare the reports and review them through
their own administrative processes, the Tribe nevertheless believes
that the IHS must share the CSC distribution data as soon as possible.
The Tribe and other co-signers to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact
recently asked the IHS to share the CSC distribution data for those
years. Access to the CSC shortfall data, if not the reports themselves,
is critical to our ability to understand the IHS's view of the scope of
underfunding and to pursue payment of 100 percent of the CSC to which
the Tribe is legally entitled. The IHS has repeatedly refused to make
the reports or data available, most recently in March of this year at a
meeting with the IHS Area Lead Negotiator for the Alaska Area. We thus
ask that the committees direct the IHS to immediately release the
fiscal years 2011 and 2012 CSC shortfall reports--and all future
reports--in a timely manner.
Thank you for your consideration of our requests to fully exempt
IHS funds from any future budget sequestration, to eliminate the
chronic underfunding of CSC for the BIA and IHS, protect Tribes from
the administration's proposal to cap CSC payments, and to direct the
IHS to release the CSC shortfall data from fiscal years 2011 and 2012.
We will be glad to provide any additional information the subcommittee
may request.
______
Prepared Statement of Mississippi State University
As a catfish diagnostician and researcher for the Thad Cochran
National Warmwater Aquaculture Center Aquatic Diagnostic Laboratory in
Stoneville, Mississippi, I would like to express my concern regarding
the proposed $400,000/3 FTE budget reduction for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership
(AADAP) program. This program is vitally important to the catfish and
other fisheries programs in the United States. I strongly encourage you
to consider the ramifications of this reduction, and fully support the
AADAP program with $1,790,000 in base funding and current FTEs. This
figure represents the amount previously dedicated to the drug approval
process in the Department of the Interior budget (2010 funding levels
for AADAP and the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS budget since eliminated
entirely]), adjusted to fiscal year 2014 dollars. Without this level of
support, unduplicated and essential research activities cannot be
completed, and fisheries professionals, especially the USFWS, will be
unable to effectively deliver on their responsibilities to the American
public.
We are facing difficult times in the U.S. catfish industry. Among
our other problems, we are plagued by diseases for which we have no
treatment. Mississippi State University has worked with AADAP in
successfully gaining a recent drug approval for columnaris disease in
catfish and is currently working with them on treatments for other
bacterial and parasitic diseases. The AADAP program has been
instrumental in working with many fisheries groups in coordinating
studies for submission to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) animal
drug approval process. Unfortunately, because fish are a minor species,
economic incentives are insufficient for drug sponsors to pursue
aquatic animal drug approvals in the United States.
Recognizing difficult budgetary decisions must be made, I contend
that the proposed cuts to the AADAP program would eliminate vital
elements of a program that serves the USFWS, its partners, and
fisheries and aquatic resources in essential and unduplicated ways.
Without access to safe and effective drugs, it is unclear how fisheries
professionals, especially USFWS staff, will be able to fulfill their
mandates (e.g., rearing and stocking fish, collecting field data)
without misusing the few currently approved drugs. The proposed cuts
would effectively terminate the AADAP research program, and with it,
the drug approval process for aquatic animals in the United States.
I am asking you please to fully support the AADAP program at a
funding level of $1,790,000 to ensure that the current and future needs
of fisheries and fisheries professionals are met. Thank you for your
consideration.
______
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 2014, 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 $376 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 $577
million annually 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 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 signed 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 the Upper Colorado
River Basin water users through more efficient water management,
increased crop production, benefits to local economies through
construction contracts and through environmental enhancements. The
Program benefits 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.
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 2014 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 National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
Programs
My name is Todd Coffelt and I serve as the Chief of the Mines and
Minerals Bureau within the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
Stewardship. I am submitting this statement on behalf of the National
Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP) for which I
currently serve as President. The NAAMLP represents 31 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 $340 million in fiscal year 2014. In its fiscal year 2014
budget, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) is requesting $273 million
for State and tribal AML grants, a reduction of $67 million. OSM's
budget also includes three legislative proposals, the first of which
would eliminate funding to States and tribes that have ``certified''
completion of their highest priority abandoned coal reclamation sites;
the second of which would return the AML reclamation fee paid by coal
operators to pre-2006 levels; and the third of which would establish a
hardrock AML fee and accompanying program.
Over the past 30 years, the accomplishments of the States and
tribes under the AML program have 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 united in achieving the goals
and objectives as set forth by 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.
When passed in 1977, SMCRA set national regulatory and reclamation
standards for coal mining. The act also established a Reclamation Trust
Fund to work toward eliminating the innumerable health, safety and
environmental problems that existed throughout the Nation from 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 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 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 \1\, then the State Share funds could be used to address a myriad
of other abandoned mine issues as authorized by SMCRA and as further
defined under each State's or tribe's Abandoned Mine Reclamation Plan,
each of which is approved by OSM. 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. In this regard, the certified States and tribes
have been good stewards of the AML funds they receive, especially with
regard to addressing dangerous non-coal mines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While a certified State or tribe confirms at the time of
certification that it has completed all of the coal sites on its
current inventory, the certification contemplates that new, formerly
unidentified high priority coal AML sites may occur in the future and
the State/tribe commits to addressing these sites immediately. All AML
States and tribes, including those that are certified, have identified
additional previously unknown high priority coal sites as a result of
ongoing field investigations, new information and features that have
been expressed to the surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 by OSM to amend SMCRA in
this regard.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In this regard, we should note that funding to certified States
and tribes was already capped at $15 million annually pursuant to an
amendment to SMCRA adopted last year as part of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (Public Law 112-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the $33 million reduction for certified States and
tribes, the proposed fiscal year 2014 budget perpetuates the
termination of Federal funding for the AML emergency program, leaving
the States and tribes to rely on funds received through their non-
emergency 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 program using OSM's ``discretionary
share'' under section (402)(g)(3)(B), which is entirely separate from
State and tribal non-emergency AML grant funding under sections
(402)(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(5). SMCRA does not provide for 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 particular States
and tribes when emergencies arise.
If 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 non-emergency AML funds so that
they can be prepared for any emergency that may arise. 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 addressing 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.
It appears from our review of OSM's proposed budget that the agency
has abandoned the idea (contained in its last three budget proposals)
to revamp the method for allocating State grant funding based on a
competitive grant process whereby States and tribes compete for funding
based on the findings of an AML ``Advisory Council.'' We are greatly
encouraged by this development given its potential to completely upend
what has been an effective protocol for distributing State grant moneys
based on the priorities set forth by Congress in SMCRA. We are hopeful
that this particular idea has been fully put to rest. As we have noted
in the past, given the uncertainties and the negative implications for
the accomplishment of AML work under title IV of SMCRA under the
proposal, Congress should reject it as being counterproductive to the
purposes of SMCRA and an inefficient use of funds.
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 in order 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.\3\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Simply defined, the measure used by OSM as an ``undelivered
order'' is all AML funding that has been awarded but not yet ``drawn
down'' from the U.S. Treasury. Given that all grants are on a
reimbursement basis, the funds cannot be drawn down until the bills are
paid. 30 CFR sec. 700.5 provides the definition of ``expended.'' There
is an obvious disconnect between OSM's reporting of ``undelivered
orders'' and the definition of ``expended''. A fairer measure of the
obligation of Federal grant moneys would be to examine them at the end
of the grant period (3 or 5 years from award) and also take into
account active and ongoing construction contracts where money has been
encumbered but not yet paid out pending completion of the project work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2014 appropriations bill that would allow the use of AML funds for
any non-Federal cost-share required by the Federal Government for AMD
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. These programs saw drastic cuts as a result of
sequestration and we are hopeful that Congress will restore the
necessary funding for these critical programs in the fiscal year 2014
appropriation. 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 2014. We would be happy to answer
any questions you may have or provide additional information.
attachment
questions and concerns re the aml legislative proposal in osm's fiscal
year 2014 budget
Proposed Elimination of Funding for AML 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 non-
emergency 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 around $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 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 non-
certified 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 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.
Proposed Hardrock AML Fee and Related Program
The States and tribes have advocated for legislation that would
allow us to address historic hardrock AML problem areas, beginning with
the inclusion of section 409 of SMCRA in 1977, to the most recent
legislation (passed by the Senate and the House Resources Committee in
the last session of Congress, i.e. S. 897) that would allow uncertified
States and tribes to use prior balance replacement funds to address
noncoal AML projects. There is clearly a need to establish both the
funding mechanism and the administrative program to address these
legacy sites. We believe that OSM is in the best position to administer
this program, given its 35 years of experience in operating the title
IV program under SMCRA. Our only concern is that, while on the one hand
OSM is advocating for the establishment of a hardrock AML program, it
is also pushing for the elimination of funding for certified States and
tribes to accomplish this very work. Granted, OSM's position is based
on its belief that SMCRA funding should be restricted to high priority
coal problems only. However, Congress clearly felt differently from the
outset of SMCRA's formation and, while there have been many recent
opportunities to adjust its views and amend SMCRA accordingly, Congress
has chosen not to do so. To the contrary, Congress has adopted
legislation that would clarify the use of SMCRA AML funds to address
noncoal problems. Nonetheless, we would welcome an opportunity to work
closely with OSM in examining the potential for a hardrock AML program,
wherever it may reside and however it may be constituted.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
On behalf of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
(NACAA), thank you for this opportunity to testify on the fiscal year
2014 proposed budget for the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). NACAA supports the President's request for a $21.5
million increase (over the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget) in Federal
grants for State and local air pollution control agencies under
sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, under the State and Tribal
Assistance Grant (STAG) account (for a total of $257.2 million).
Additionally, NACAA supports retaining funding for fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) monitoring under section 103 authority,
rather than shifting it to section 105 authority.
NACAA is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit association of air
pollution control agencies in 43 States, the District of Columbia, 4
territories and more than 116 metropolitan areas. The members of NACAA
have the primary responsibility under the Clean Air Act for
implementing the 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 this testimony do
not represent the positions of every State and local air pollution
control agency in the country.
state and local air quality programs face significant funding deficits
State and local air pollution control agencies have been facing
significant funding deficits for many years, with adverse impacts on
their ability to implement the federally mandated core elements of the
clean air program. A study NACAA conducted several years ago showed
that there is an annual shortfall of $550 million in Federal grants for
State and local air programs.\1\ While the resource needs for these
vitally important State and local programs are substantial and the
proposed increase would not eliminate the deficit, we understand that
full funding in the current economic climate is unlikely. We appreciate
the administration's recognition of the importance of clean air and we
believe the proposed increase is essential for our efforts to obtain
and maintain healthful air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and local air agencies do more than their fair share to
provide resources for their air quality efforts. Section 105 of the
Clean Air Act authorizes the Federal Government to provide grants for
up to 60 percent of the cost of State and local air programs, while
State and local agencies are required to provide a 40 percent match.
However, the reality is that State and local air quality programs, on
average, supply 77 percent of their budgets (not counting permit fees
under the Federal title V program), while Federal grants total only 23
percent.
To make matters worse, the grants these agencies receive have
decreased in purchasing power over recent years due to inflation. For
example, between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2011, the purchasing
power of Federal grants decreased by 9 percent. This decline, along
with unrelenting and increasing responsibilities, has made it difficult
for many States and localities to keep their essential air quality
programs operating.
Many agencies have reported reductions in and/or elimination of
programs, as well as diminishing staff levels. According to a recent
survey that the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) conducted,
37 States reported that 2,112 environmental agency positions have been
eliminated or held vacant due to budget limitations in fiscal year
2010.\2\ State and local agencies find it difficult to operate in the
midst of these types of staffing woes, as it is hard to recover from
the loss of trained and valuable staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ECOS Green Report--Impacts of Reductions in Fiscal Year 2010 on
State Environmental Agency Budgets (March 2010), Environmental Council
of the States, http://ecos.org/files/
4011_file_March_2010_ECOS_Green_Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The impacts of program reductions due to economic conditions are
significant. Many NACAA agencies report worrisome program contractions,
including reductions and/or elimination of activities related to the
following: monitoring, including curtailment of monitoring and/or
analysis activities or even closing down of monitoring sites;
permitting for major and minor sources, resulting in delay and backlogs
in permit issuance and reduced permitting assistance to sources;
inspections of sources, including for compliance purposes; air toxics
programs, including implementing Federal air toxics standards and
taking delegation of Federal area source standards; public education
and outreach; emissions inventory work; training; data analysis;
citizen-complaint response; rulemaking; development of State
Implementation Plans (SIPs); and motor vehicle-related programs.\3\ In
an era in which the public expects immediate information and rapid
responses to their concerns, this loss of capacity is even more of a
challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NACAA Letter to Leadership of Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (June 28,
2011), http://www.4cleanair.org/Documents/
NACAAlettertoSenatewithstaffstudy2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to remember that well-funded and well-operated air
quality agencies can serve their communities better through more
efficient permitting and compliance assistance, among other things.
Considering those benefits, as well as the fact that the public's
health and welfare are at risk, it does not make sense to underfund
these critical programs. However, since the economy has been slow to
recover, air agencies will continue to make painful decisions, such as
reducing or cutting air programs that protect public health. During
these hard economic times, Federal grants are more essential than ever.
We fully understand that Congress must allocate ever-scarcer
resources among many commendable programs. However, it is worth noting
that improvements in air quality are very cost effective and beneficial
to our economy. More healthful air quality results in lower healthcare
costs and a more productive workforce. An EPA analysis has shown that
the benefits of the Clean Air Act since 1990 have exceeded the costs by
more than 30 to 1.\4\ This is a return on an investment the likes of
which few programs can claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the increases will support essential programs
As stated earlier, the administration has requested a $21.5 million
increase (more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget) in Federal
grants for State and local air pollution control agencies, for a total
of $257.2 million. These additional funds can be put to good use to
support our core programs--which are the foundation of the air program
and include day-to-day responsibilities--and monitoring, among other
things. The list of activities for which State and local agencies need
Federal funding is extremely long, but here are just a few of the
things these agencies must do in fiscal year 2014 that the
administration's proposed funding level would support:
--develop State strategies (i.e., SIPs) to implement the health-based
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which will
include complex modeling, development of emission inventories
and public involvement;
--make recommendations for area designations and develop supporting
documentation for the fine particle (PM2.5) NAAQS
issued in 2012;
--implement the 8-hour ozone and lead NAAQS that were issued in 2008;
--implement the 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS and
the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS from 2010;
--continue the implementation of previous PM2.5 and ozone
NAAQS;
--continue implementation of permitting requirements for greenhouse
gases, sulfur dioxide, NO2 and PM2.5;
--implement changes to PM2.5 monitoring requirements
related to recent revisions to the particulate matter NAAQS;
--continue operation of multi-pollutant monitoring site networks;
--deploy near-road NO2 monitoring stations, some of which
will include carbon monoxide monitoring;
--implement and enforce EPA regulations to address hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs), including Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards and area source programs; and
--monitor, collect and analyze emissions data related to HAPs.
monitoring funds should remain under section 103
The President's budget request includes a provision whereby
PM2.5 monitoring funds would begin to be shifted, over a 4-
year period, from Clean Air Act section 103 authority, where matching
funds are not needed, to section 105, which would require additional
matching funds. While we appreciate that the budget request would
retain level Federal funding for PM2.5 monitoring, we
request that these funds remain under section 103 authority, as they
have in the past, rather than being shifted to section 105 authority.
For any State or local agencies with concerns about the matching
requirements, this will ensure that they can continue receiving these
critical monitoring funds.
why are clean air programs so important?
We have discussed the funding shortfalls that exist and how State
and local programs are in need of additional resources. But why is it
so important that these public health programs be adequately funded? It
is because air pollution causes tens of thousands of premature deaths
every year and results in many more people suffering serious health
problems. These include the aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases; damage to lung tissue, irregular heartbeat,
heart attacks, difficulty breathing; increased susceptibility to
respiratory infections; adverse effects on learning, memory, IQ, and
behavior; and cancer. Air pollution also harms vegetation and land and
water systems, impairs visibility and causes other adverse impacts.
This is indeed a public health crisis, with the widespread adverse
effects spanning the United States, affecting millions of people. EPA
estimates that 124 million people in the country lived in areas that
violated at least one of the health-based NAAQS in 2010.\5\ EPA's most
recent 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'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Our Nation's Air: Status and Trends Through 2010 (February
2012), EPA, www.epa.gov/airtrends/2011/.
\6\ National Air Toxics Assessment for 2005--Fact Sheet,
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is notable is that some of these deaths and adverse health
impacts are preventable through programs designed to reduce air
pollution. That is why it is so critical that State and local air
quality programs, the implementers of the Federal Clean Air Act, be
adequately funded to carry out their mission.
conclusion
Increases in Federal grants for State and local air pollution
control agencies are essential if they are to continue their core
activities and address some of the new requirements mandated by Federal
law and regulation. While the need for Federal grants far exceeds the
proposed amount, State and local agencies appreciate any increase
provided and would put the additional funds to excellent use.
NACAA supports the fiscal year 2014 budget request for Federal
grants to State and local air quality agencies under sections 103 and
105 of the Clean Air Act, which is $257.2 million ($21.5 million more
than the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget). Also, NACAA supports
retaining funding for PM2.5 monitoring under section 103
authority, rather than shifting it to section 105 authority.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify and for considering the
efforts of State and local air quality programs as they improve and
protect public health.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
Introduction.--On behalf of the National Congress of American
Indians (NCAI), we would like to submit outside witness testimony on
the budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service,
and Environmental Protection Agency. NCAI is the oldest and largest
American Indian organization in the United States. Tribal leaders
created NCAI in 1944 as a response to termination and assimilation
policies that threatened the existence of American Indian and Alaska
Native tribes. Since then, NCAI has fought to preserve the treaty
rights and sovereign status of tribal governments, while also ensuring
that Native people may fully participate in the political system. As
the most representative organization of American Indian tribes, NCAI
serves the broad interests of tribal governments across the Nation. As
Congress debates elements of various budget proposals for fiscal year
2014 and beyond, leaders of tribal nations call on decisionmakers to
ensure that the promises made to Indian Country are honored in the
Federal budget.
sequester
Although we are submitting testimony on fiscal year 2014, we must
comment on the fiscal year 2013 sequestration of discretionary
programs. NCAI passed a unanimous resolution that trust and treaty
obligations to tribes should not be subject to sequestration. Although
the United States, businesses, and workers hoped that an economic
recovery was finally taking off, the Nation will begin absorbing
automatic spending cuts known as sequestration in the next few months,
creating an economic drag. The sequester cuts pose particular hardship
for Indian Country and the surrounding communities who rely on tribes
as employers, where the recession struck especially hard.\1\ Tribal
leaders urge Congress to protect the Federal funding that fulfills the
trust responsibility to tribes in the face of difficult choices. The
sequester reductions to tribal programs undermine Indian treaty rights
and obligations--treaties which were ratified under the Constitution
and considered the ``supreme law of the land.'' At its most basic
level, the economic success of the United States is built upon the land
and natural resources that originally belonged to tribal nations. In
exchange for land, the United States agreed to protect tribal treaty
rights, lands, and resources, including provision of certain services
for American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages, which is
known as the Federal Indian trust responsibility. Indiscriminate cuts
sacrifice not only the trust obligations, but they thwart tribes'
ability to promote economic growth or plan for the future of Native
children and coming generations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Economic Policy Institute. (November 18, 2010). Different race,
Different recession: American Indian Unemployment in 2010. Washington,
DC: Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2013 sequester and potential reductions due to the
Budget Control Act caps will hurt law enforcement, education, health
care and other tribal services, which have been historically
underfunded and have failed to meet the needs of tribal citizens.
federal cuts disproportionately impact indian country
In their role as governments, tribes deliver all the range of
services that other governments provide. Tribal governments maintain
the power to determine their own governance structures and enforce laws
through police departments and tribal courts. Tribes provide social
programs, first-responder services, education, workforce development,
and natural resource management. They also build and maintain a variety
of infrastructure, including roads, bridges, housing, and public
buildings. Yet, tribes need adequate resources to exercise their self-
determination and serve as effective governments. Government funds
provide much-needed investments in tribal physical, human, and
environmental capital.
For many tribes, a majority of tribal governmental services is
financed by Federal sources. Tribes lack the tax base and lack parity
in tax authority to raise revenue to deliver services. If Federal
funding is reduced sharply for State and local governments, they may
choose between increasing their own taxes and spending for basic
services or allowing their services and programs to take the financial
hit. On the other hand, many tribes have limited ability to raise
substantial new revenue, especially not rapidly enough to cover the
reduction in services from the across the board reductions of the
fiscal year 2013 sequestration. States and localities finance their own
areas of spending and State and local taxes provide the majority of the
funding for most of their services. The Census Bureau shows that half
of State and local government revenue is from their own taxes, while a
quarter is Federal.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Census Bureau, State and Local Government Finances
Summary: 2010, September 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, up to 60 and 80 percent of the revenue for
tribal governmental services comes from Federal sources. Although some
tribes have implemented strategies that enhance economic development
for their communities to supplement Federal sources, that does not
supplant the Federal Government's duty to fulfill its trust
responsibility.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Congress of American Indians (April 2013). A Call to
Honor the Promises to Tribal Nations in the Federal Budget. Washington,
DC: Author (http://www.ncai.org/resources/policy_papers/honor-the-
promises-the-tribal-nations-in-the-federal-budget).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With those tribal revenue constraints provided for context, this
testimony will address recommendations for some of the critical tribal
programs in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee jurisdiction. NCAI has previously submitted fiscal year
2014 testimony on funding for the Indian Health Service and the Bureau
of Indian Education. NCAI also supports the recommendations of the
National Indian Health Board, National Indian Child Welfare
Association, and National Indian Education Association. A separately
submitted written testimony from NCAI addresses recommendations for the
Bureau of Indian Education funded in the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill.
bureau of indian affairs in context
NCAI appreciates recent support for tribal programs over recent
years, especially for the Indian Health Service and law enforcement.
However, we must mention that comparing budget increases for the six
largest Interior agencies between fiscal year 2004 enacted to fiscal
year 2014 Presidents' request shows that BIA has received the smallest
percentage increase.
BUDGET INCREASES FOR THE SIX LARGEST INTERIOR AGENCIES FISCAL YEAR 2004 TO FISCAL YEAR 2014
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year Fiscal year 2004-2014
2004 enacted 2014 request (percentage
increase)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USGS............................................................ $938.8 $1,167.0 24.3
FWS............................................................. 1,303.4 1,552.0 19.1
NPS............................................................. 2,258.6 2,636.0 16.7
BLM............................................................. 999.8 1,162.0 16.2
BOR............................................................. 942.9 1,050.0 11.4
BIA............................................................. 2,305.8 2,563.0 11.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increase for BIA from the fiscal year 2004 enacted level to the fiscal year 2014 President's requested level
is about 11 percent, the smallest percent increase compared to the six largest Interior agencies.
changes proposed to contract support costs
NCAI opposes the administration's unilateral proposal, in its
fiscal year 2014 budget request, to fundamentally alter the nature of
tribal self-governance by implementing individual statutory tribal caps
on the payment of contract support costs. Contract support cost funding
is essential to the operation of contracted Federal programs
administered under federally issued indirect cost rate agreements. No
change of such a fundamental character should be implemented until
there has been a thorough consultation and study process jointly
undertaken by the Indian Health Service (IHS), the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), and tribal leaders, informed by a joint technical
working group and coordinated through NCAI. Such a consultation process
must be scheduled to permit opportunity for full tribal participation.
While NCAI believes that overall statutory caps on contract support
costs should be eliminated, at the very least Congress should maintain
in fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 the status quo statutory
language enacted in fiscal year 2013 so that tribally developed changes
in contract support cost funding mechanisms, if any, can be included in
the fiscal year 2016 budget.
specific recommendations for indian affairs
The President's budget eliminates the Housing Improvement Program
(HIP) budget. NCAI opposes HIP's elimination because the program serves
the neediest of the needy in Indian Country and losing the program
altogether would be difficult for tribes to absorb or cover in other
ways. Language to provide a no-cost economic development and jobs
creation solution for restoring land to tribal governments impacted by
the Carcieri Supreme Court decision is included in the Department of
the Interior general provisions of the President's budget.
Natural Resources and Trust Lands.--Federal investment in tribal
natural resources management helps to sustain tribal land and people,
grow economies, and support continued prosperity. Many of the BIA Trust
natural resources programs discussed in this section experienced
substantial cuts over the past decade. Further reductions in fiscal
year 2013 under the Budget Control Act of 2011 would eliminate jobs,
stymie economic activity at a critical time for tribes, and curtail
combined tribal, Federal, State, and community collaboration as well as
the valuable perspective in natural resource management that tribes
contribute to the national natural resources and the economy.
One of the largest increases in the proposed fiscal year 2014 BIA
budget is for sustainable tribal stewardship and development of natural
resources. The proposed budget includes increases of $32.4 million for
this initiative. The funding is proposed for resource management and
decisionmaking in the areas of energy and minerals, climate, oceans,
water, rights protection, endangered and invasive species, resource
protection enforcement, and post-graduate fellowship and training
opportunities in science-related fields. $2.5 million of this funding
will focus on projects engaging youth in the natural sciences and will
establish an office to coordinate youth programs across Indian Affairs.
Programmatic changes in Trust Natural Resources include increases of
$9.8 million to cooperative landscape conservation, $7.7 million to
Rights Protection Implementation, $5.1 million to Forestry, $3 million
to Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and $2 million to Tribal Management and
Development. NCAI supports such increases, but the increases are below
the recommended levels for various natural resources programs at BIA
included in the fiscal year 2014 Indian Country budget request.
Expanded tribal justification on each program is also available in the
fiscal year 2014 tribal budget request.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Congress of American Indians. (January 2013). Fiscal
year 2014 Indian Country budget request: Supporting tribal economic
security and prosperity. Washington, DC: Author. (http://www.ncai.org/
resources/policy_papers/fy2014-indian-country-budget-request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIA Office of Justice Services.--The President's budget includes a
$19 million increase for BIA public safety and justice. These increases
will provide $5.5 million to hire additional tribal and bureau law
enforcement staff and $13.4 million to staff recently constructed
tribally operated detention centers. An increase of $1 million is for
tribal courts, which are expected to see an increase in caseloads. $3
million is to meet the needs of tribal communities with elevated levels
of domestic violence. NCAI welcomes these increases, but notes that a
$1 million increase for tribal courts is far below the amount needed.
It is well documented by entities such as the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights and the American Bar Association that tribal courts have been
historically underfunded by the Federal Government and that this
underfunding negatively impacts their law enforcement operations.
Although there have been Federal grants issued--particularly through
the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)--to address discrete justice and
safety concerns, those grants are time-limited and do not support the
ongoing and daily operating needs of tribal courts. Enacted in 1993,
the Indian Tribal Justice Act authorized an additional $50 million per
year for each of 7 years for tribal court base funding. Despite
numerous congressional reauthorizations of the act over the past couple
of decades--most recently through fiscal year 2015 in TLOA--not a
single penny has been appropriated. The promise of this much-needed
base funding must finally be fulfilled.
indian health service
NCAI urges Congress to uphold the Federal trust responsibility by
protecting the IHS budget and developing a long-term plan to fully fund
the IHS, including an advanced appropriations scheme. These
recommendations parallel the National Indian Health Board's testimony--
which NCAI supports--and are high priorities of tribal governments and
tribal leaders.
environmental protection agency
Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP).--The President requested
an increase of approximately $5 million more than fiscal year 2012
appropriations to $72.6 million for the Tribal General Assistance
Program. Program capacity building is a top environmental priority
identified by tribes as part of the EPA National Tribal Operations
Committee National Tribal Caucus. Expanded justification on tribal EPA
programs can be found in the NCAI fiscal year 2014 tribal budget
request.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
Thank you for your consideration of this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is the oldest and
largest American Indian organization in the United States. Tribal
leaders created NCAI in 1944 as a response to termination and
assimilation policies that threatened the existence of American Indian
and Alaska Native tribes. Since then, NCAI has fought to preserve the
treaty rights and sovereign status of tribal governments, while also
ensuring that Native people may fully participate in the political
system. As the most representative organization of American Indian
tribes, NCAI serves the broad interests of tribal governments across
the Nation.
Providing Native students with an excellent education is a top
priority for tribal nations. President Obama has repeatedly stressed
that improving American education is an ``economic imperative.'' For
tribes, the stakes are just as high, if not higher. Education not only
provides tribal economies with a more highly skilled workforce, but
also directly spurs economic development and job creation. The profound
value of education for Native nations extends beyond just economics,
however. Education drives personal advancement and wellness, which in
turn improve social welfare and empower communities--elements that are
essential to maintaining tribes' cultural vitality and to protecting
and advancing tribal sovereignty.
Despite the enormous potential of education for transforming Native
communities, Native education is in a state of emergency. American
Indian and Alaska Native students lag far behind their peers on every
educational indicator, from academic achievement to high school and
college graduation rates.\1\ The situation is even more dire in BIE
schools, where during the 2010-2011 school year, the graduation rate
stood at 59 percent and barely one-third of students performed at
proficient/advanced levels in both language arts and math.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, the 2011 National Indian Education Study found
that Native students continue to score significantly lower than their
peers in reading and math in grades four and eight. Only 18 percent of
Native fourth graders and 22 percent of Native eighth graders scored
proficient or advanced in reading, and only 22 percent of Native fourth
graders and 17 percent of Native eighth graders scored proficient or
advanced in math. (National Indian Education Study 2011, NCES 2012-466.
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, United States Department of Education.) The crisis of Indian
education is perhaps most apparent in the Native high school dropout
rate, which is not only one of the highest in the country, but is also
above 50 percent in many of the States with high Native populations.
(School Year 2010-2011 Four-Year Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation
Rates, Department of Education.)
\2\ Bureau of Indian Education, ``Bureau-Wide Annual Report Card,
2010-2011.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this urgent situation and provide tribal nations with
the critical foundation for economic success, the Federal Government
must live up to its trust responsibility by providing adequate support
for Native education. The requests below detail the minimum
appropriations needed to maintain a system that is struggling and
underfunded.
indian country's concerns with the fiscal year 2014 president's budget
Indian Country opposes two significant changes to the Bureau of
Indian Education (BIE) outlined in the President's fiscal year 2014
budget request. The first change proposes to decrease the Indian School
Equalization Formula (ISEF) by $16.5 million in order to pay for a new
pilot program based on the Department of Education's turnaround schools
model. ISEF provides basic support for BIE schools and is already
underfunded. The Department of Education's turnaround schools model has
had little to no success in public schools serving Native students on
Indian lands because it largely depends on replacing staff, which are
hard to come by in isolated rural areas. There is no reason to think
that this model would be any more successful in BIE schools because
they face almost all of the same personnel and other challenges as
their public school counterparts. Congress should not decrease funding
for a program that covers basic operating costs for BIE schools in
order to support a model that has generally failed to increase Native
student achievement in similar circumstances.
Tribes also oppose the defunding of BIE school replacement and
replacement facility construction in the President's fiscal year 2014
budget. NCAI urges Congress to restore funding for this program. The
fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution increased Department of Defense
school replacement by $30 million above fiscal year 2012 levels, while
zeroing out funds for new BIE school construction. Such a disparity
between the Nation's two federally funded school systems is patently
unfair, and dilapidated BIE schools deserve just as much attention.
Providing safe and secure schools for Native students is a matter of
basic equity and a fundamental element of the Federal Government's
trust responsibility to tribes.
ncai indian country funding requests for the fiscal year 2014 interior,
environment, and related agencies appropriations bill
Tribal Education Departments
Provide $5 million to fund Tribal Education Departments.
Five million dollars should be appropriated to the Department of
the Interior to support tribal education departments (TEDs). This
funding assists TEDs, which are uniquely situated at the local level to
implement innovative education programs that improve Native education.
Because they are administered by tribes, TEDs are best equipped to
deliver education programs tailored for Native students. TEDs would use
this much-needed funding to develop academic standards, assess student
progress, and create math and science programs that require high
academic standards for students in tribal, public, and Bureau of Indian
Education schools. Tribes exercising self-governance over their
citizens' education have been very successful because they better
understand the circumstances of their populations and can develop
initiatives that meet local needs. Adequately funding TEDs would create
the most return on Federal dollars spent.
School Construction and Repair
Provide $263.4 million for Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) school
construction and repair.
This funding category includes school construction, facilities
improvement and repair, and replacement school construction. Schools
operating within the BIE system are woefully outdated and in some
cases, dangerous for student and staff. More than 60 BIE schools are
currently rated in ``poor'' condition, which puts Native students at an
unfair disadvantage. Students cannot be expected to succeed in
environments that are dilapidated and unsafe. Further, moratoriums on
new construction only exacerbate the already large backlog of
construction projects. The Federal Government must uphold its trust
responsibility to Native education and fund construction and repair
projects.
Johnson O'Malley
Provide $36 million to the Johnson O'Malley program.
The Johnson O'Malley program has provided grants to supplement
basic student needs since 1934. It is currently being used across the
country in innovative ways to assist with the unique cultural and
academic needs of Native students. However, current funding provides
less than $50 per student. These funds are often the only source
through which Native students--including those in public schools--can
engage in basic activities expected of all American students. Some
examples include, but are not limited to, the acquisition of musical
instruments for use in classrooms, essential school supplies, and
educational field trips.
Student Transportation
Provide $73 million for student transportation in the BIE system.
BIE schools incur significant costs in transporting Native students
to and from school. These costs are considerably higher than most
school systems due to the often-rural location of BIE facilities.
Additionally, the poor road conditions that link the BIE-funded schools
increase vehicle maintenance costs. These high costs often lead to
funding shortfalls, which then must either go unpaid or be funded by
diverting funds from other education programs.
Tribal Grant Support Costs
Provide $73 million for tribal grant support costs for tribally
operated schools.
Tribal Grant Support Costs fund the administrative costs of
existing tribally operated schools. The current funding level only pays
65 percent of the current need and must not be reduced in the upcoming
budget cycle. This funding also help tribes expand self-governance and
tribal control over education programs by allocating monies for
administrative costs such as accounting, payroll, and other legal
requirements. Cuts must be avoided. Otherwise, schools must then divert
critical teaching and learning funding to cover any shortfalls in
operational costs.
Facilities Operations
Provide $109 million for BIE facilities operations.
BIE schools use this funding for costs such as electricity, heating
fuels, communications, vehicle rentals from the General Services
Administration, custodial services, and other operating expenses. For
years, schools have only received roughly 50 percent of funding needed
for these expenses. This shortfall is unacceptable as costs continue to
rise for vital services.
Facilities Maintenance
Provide $76 million for BIE facilities maintenance.
BIE schools use this funding for the preventative and routine
upkeep, as well as for unscheduled maintenance of school buildings,
grounds, and utility systems. Underfunding of maintenance continues to
be an issue as buildings are in poor conditions and cannot maintain
proper standards.
Indian School Equalization Formula
Provide $431 million for the Indian School Equalization Formula.
These funds provide the core budget account for BIE elementary and
secondary schools by covering salaries for teachers, aides, principals,
and other personnel. Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF) funds
are often reallocated to cover the program cuts in other areas of
education. ISEF must have adequate funding to ensure all program needs
are fulfilled.
Juvenile Detention Education
Reinstate $620,000 for juvenile detention education in BIA-funded
facilities.
These critical funds were eliminated in fiscal year 2012. This
essential funding was used to provide educational services to detained
and incarcerated youth at 24 BIA-funded juvenile detention facilities.
One of the best methods to rehabilitate individuals is through
education. Eliminating this program only exacerbates the issue and
creates additional costs. Eliminating a program that was utilized to
decrease the rate of repeat offenders does not save money and is short-
sighted.
Tribal Colleges and Universities' Institutional Operations
Provide $94.3 million for titles I and II under the Tribally
Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act.
Title I.--Fully funding title I of the Tribally Controlled Colleges
and Universities Assistance Act of 1978 (Tribal College Act), which
provides day-to-day operating funds for 26 TCUs, would require $77.3
million. Since the act was first funded in 1981, the number of TCUs has
more than quadrupled and enrollments have increased by more than 325
percent. Currently, Title I TCUs receive $5,665 per Indian student
toward their institutional operating budgets. Accounting for inflation,
the program's funding level is more than $1,500 less per Indian student
than it was under the program's initial fiscal year 1981 appropriation,
which was $2,831 per Indian student. Despite the constraints of the
current economy, Congress has an obligation to make these critical
institutions whole now rather than continuing to make hollow promises
for the future.
Title II.--Dine College has indicated a need for $17 million to
operate its multiple campuses and education sites located on the Navajo
Nation in Arizona and New Mexico.
Five other TCUs receive institutional operating funds through the
annual Department of the Interior Appropriations measure, under
separate various authorities. To support the basic day-to-day operating
budgets of these TCUs, we request the following:
--$9 million for institutional operations of tribally chartered
career and technical institutions under title V of the Tribally
Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978;
--$9,369,000 for operations of the Institute of American Indian Arts
in New Mexico under the American Indian, Alaska Native, and
Native Hawaiian Culture and Art Development Act of 1986;
--Adequate funds for continued and expanded operations of Haskell
Indian Nations University in Kansas and Southwestern Indian
Polytechnic Institute in New Mexico under the Snyder Act of
1921; and
--$27.7 million for a one-time appropriation, equal to 75 percent of
the current combined funding of the institutional operations
grants of those TCUs not funded under titles I or II of the
Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of
1978, necessary to transition these programs to forward
funding.
support for the national indian education association's testimony
NCAI also supports the proposals outlined in Dr. Heather Shotton's
testimony from the National Indian Education Association (NIEA). NIEA
offered a number of nonfunding proposals, including:
--Release the updated BIA funded schools in poor condition index and
tribal priority construction list(s).
--Promote Federal agency collation to ensure existing education
programs are effective and funding is used efficiently.
--Establish a tribal advisory committee to advise the Secretary of
the Interior on policy issues and budget development for the
BIE school system.
--Direct the BIE to contract with tribal colleges and universities
when possible for professional development, rather than
funneling these resources to non-Native, outside entities.
Thank you for your consideration of this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers
Fiscal year 2014 request of withdrawals from the Department of the
Interior's National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund (16 U.S.C.
470h): $50 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and
$3 million for a competitive grant program for underrepresented
populations.
The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
also supports the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers fiscal year 2014 request of $9.985 million from the Historic
Preservation Fund for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs).
With the anticipated number of THPOs reaching 150 in fiscal year 2014,
the funding will provide THPOs the ability to meet the increasing needs
and demands to comply with Federal, State, and tribal laws.
success--federal-state partnership
In 1966 Congress enacted the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA 16 U.S.C. 470) in recognition of the importance of our heritage.
This act established historic preservation as a priority of the Federal
Government. Recognizing that States are the experts of their own
history, instead of using Federal employees to carry out the act, the
Department of the Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation partner with the States--delegating to SHPOs the
responsibility for: locating and recording historic resources;
nominating significant historic resources to the National Register of
Historic Places; fostering historic preservation programs at the local
government level and educating communities on preservation ordinances;
providing funds for preservation activities; commenting on Federal
preservation tax projects; reviewing all Federal projects for their
impact on historic properties; and providing technical assistance to
Federal agencies, State and local governments and the private sector.
And, States deliver these services to the Federal Government at half
the operating cost by matching Federal funds with State resources.
success--streamlining
Federal, State, and local government agencies are working hard to
deliver projects more quickly and efficiently, and for less cost--also
known as streamlining. A popular buzz word, SHPOs have been
streamlining and enacting increased efficiencies in historic
preservation reviews (known as section 106 reviews under the National
Historic Preservation Act) for decades. Last summer the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) released a report entitled ``Effective Practices
for Considering Historic Preservation in Transportation Planning and
Early Development.'' \1\ The report highlights innovative programs that
enable State Department of Transportation and local transportation
planning organizations to streamline their compliance with section 106
while simultaneously improving their stewardship of historic resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Effective Practices for Considering Historic Preservation in
Transportation Planning and Early Project Development.'' National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 25-25, Task 49. Prepared
by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with the SRI Foundation. August 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A common theme woven throughout the case studies was the importance
of State Historic Preservation Offices. The HPF provides SHPOs the
resources that makes innovation and increased efficiencies possible!
The HPF provides SHPO's with the staff, data, technology, and training
resources necessary for success but without increased funding
challenges remain:
--Colorado DOT.--``The SHPO understands and supports what CDOT is
trying to do through the Planning and Environmental Linkages
program; however, the SHPO currently does not have the staff or
resources to actively participate . . . From CDOT's
perspective, the SHPO's involvement contributes to a better
working relationship between their respective offices.''
--North Carolina DOT.--``The biggest problem has been funding and
staffing, especially at the SHPO and OSA. They currently do not
have the staff or resources for digitizing records for the
remainder of the State. The model, therefore, has not been
expanded beyond the initial seven-county area.''
--Oregon DOT.--``Part of the problem is SHPO staffing. The Oregon
SHPO, like most SHPOs across the country, is understaffed and
does not have the resources to fulfill their National Historic
Preservation Act responsibilities and fully participate in
programs like CETAS.''
--Texas DOT.--``The participation of all the resource agencies,
including the SHPO, was critical to the initiative's success.
CAMPO's partners provided important sources of GIS
environmental data, such as the TxDOT's GISST database and
screening tool.''
success--job creation and economic development
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 2012, the private investment in the approved and completed
projects totaled $3.15 billion and averaged 77 jobs per
project.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings--Statistical Report and Analysis for FY 2012'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Development
From Phenix, a village in the northwest corner of West Warwick,
Rhode Island to Ketchikan, 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 of economic development. The program benefits communities by:
--Increasing the value of the rehabilitated property--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.
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. A 2010 U.S. Cultural & Heritage
Tourism Marketing Council study found that:
--Two-thirds of cultural and heritage travelers visited some sort of
historic site.
--65 percent of cultural and heritage travelers seek travel
experience where the ``destination, its buildings and
surroundings have retained their historic character.''
--Other cultural and heritage activities include: visiting historic
sites (66 percent); attending historical re-enactments (64
percent); visiting a State or national park (41 percent);
shopping in museum shops (32 percent); and exploring urban
neighborhoods (30 percent).
--Cultural and heritage travelers spend about $994 per trip compared
to $611 spent on the average U.S. trip.
--45 percent spend more of their money on cultural and heritage
activities than they do on anything else while on their trip.
--37 percent would pay more for lodging if it somehow reflects the
culture or heritage of the destination they are visiting.
success--saving america's heritage
Preservation in part recognizes the significant places in American
history at the local, State, and national levels through creating
historic districts and listing resources on 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
stable, livable neighborhoods such as those in Portland, Oregon and
Nashville, Tennessee. Best of all, this neighborhood improvement comes
from individual, private investment, not from Federal programs.
The National Historic Preservation program is primarily one of
assistance, not acquisition. The Federal Government does not own,
manage, or maintain responsibility for most of 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 identify preserve and utilize
the historic assets of importance to them.
To that end, the NCSHPO supports the $3 million request in the
President's fiscal year 2014 budget for a competitive grant program to
survey and nominate to the National Register of Historic Places or
National Landmark Program, sites associated with populations that are
currently underrepresented. The best part--no Federal ongoing
responsibility.
2012 state historic preservation offices' accomplishments
SHPOs used their HPF allocations well in 2012. While virtually
every State continues to experience staffing and operation reductions,
SHPOs must still fully discharge the responsibilities outlined in the
NHPA. Highlights and accomplishments include:
--Reviewing nearly 142,000 Federal undertakings within 30 days.
--Leveraging over $3.15 billion of private investment in the
rehabilitation of commercial historic properties under the
Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit program (FRTC).
--An estimated 57,783 jobs created by the FRTC program in 2011 as
well as 6,366 low and moderate income housing units.
--Approximately 20.9 million acres surveyed for the presence and
absence of cultural resources and more than 610,860 properties
evaluated for their historical significance.
--1,179 new listings in the National Register of Historic Places.
--104,813 National Register eligibility opinions.
--42 new communities became Certified Local Governments (CLGs).
--Under local law, CLGs newly designated 101,000 properties, and
74,500 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 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 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, and the
Environmental Protection Agency:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the organization
responsible for establishing unified industry policy on matters
affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects
of generic operational and technical issues. NEI's members include all
entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear powerplants in the
United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering
firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other
organizations and entities involved in the nuclear energy industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--DOI's withdrawal of land in northern Arizona from uranium mining
activity;
--Unnecessary and unreasonable regulatory delays by BLM, EPA, and
other agencies involving permits for uranium mining;
--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; and
--BLM sage grouse habitat management in 11 Western States, which
could unduly restrict uranium mining activity.
doi'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. 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.
The Arizona Strip land withdrawal is not justified because of
erroneous information upon which DOI's Final Environmental Impact
Statement is based. Contrary to Secretary Salazar's statement in
announcing the land withdrawal on January 9, 2012, today's
environmental laws ensure that ore extraction and production at uranium
mines have negligible impact on surrounding land, water, and wildlife.
Moreover, it is a fact that modern mining practices and associated
regulatory standards themselves ensure minimal environmental impact.
DOI's EIS for the land withdrawal, on the other hand, was based on
uranium mining practices of the 1950s and 1960s that are no longer used
and, therefore, distorted environmental impacts that will not arise
given current mining techniques and regulatory requirements. In
addition, miners must provide assurance that the financial resources
are in place to remediate a site before any mining begins.
Even Arizona Governor Brewer, the principal steward for
environmental protection in her State, objected to the proposed
withdrawal: with environmental laws currently in place, ``ore
extraction and production at existing uranium mines have minimal
environmental impact on the surrounding land, water, and wildlife.''
It appears that DOI has ignored critical technical information,
often provided by the industry, in order to justify a public policy
outcome favored by the Department, when public policy should be based
on scientific fact. NEI has joined the National Mining Association in
litigation contesting the Arizona withdrawal, contending that the
underlying statute is unconstitutional and that DOI did not reasonably
assess the basis for the withdrawal. NEI urges the subcommittee to
instruct DOI to base all future Department decisions on compelling
public policy grounds and accurate technical information, not on
technically flawed environmental impact statements that use outdated
and incorrect information.
unnecessary and unreasonable blm, epa, and other agency regulatory
delays involving permits for uranium mining resulting from agency
inefficiency and lack of coordination pose a serious impediment to
expansion of the domestic uranium mining industry and send jobs to
other countries
Nuclear energy generates nearly 20 percent of our country's
electricity, and represents 63 percent of the electricity produced by
non-emitting energy sources. Yet, 90 percent of the uranium used by
nuclear powerplants comes from sources outside of the United States.
Unnecessary and unreasonable regulatory delays pose a serious
impediment to expanding the domestic uranium industry and ensuring
long-term a reliable and domestic supply of nuclear powerplant fuel.
Thus, these delays have an adverse impact on enhancing our country's
energy security as well as economic growth, as the mining jobs that
Americans could have remain in other countries.
Unnecessary and unreasonable delays in mine permitting are a widely
recognized problem. Last year a bipartisan bill requiring agency action
to eliminate these delays with regard to nonfuel minerals passed the
House by an overwhelming majority. This year the bill, National
Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013 (H.R. 761),
stipulates that minerals ``necessary'' for ``electrical power
generation and transmission'' are considered ``strategic and critical
minerals,'' indicating the national importance of the electric power
industry. The measures prescribed by this bill for nonfuel minerals
would remedy the regulatory delays occurring in the domestic uranium
mining industry as well. These include streamlined National
Environmental Policy Act compliance determination, coordination of
review by all relevant agencies to eliminate duplication, more
effective use of State agency permitting actions, time limits for each
phase of the review process and overall total time limit, and a
reasonable public comment process. The bill also calls for expeditious
judicial review of agency actions, when they occur, with limitations on
relief.
NEI respectfully asks the subcommittee to direct BLM and EPA to
coordinate with each other and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
Department of Agriculture, and relevant State agencies to develop and
follow procedures that will eliminate unnecessary and unreasonable
delays in uranium mining permitting. We have every confidence that BLM
can do for uranium mining what it has done for renewables development.
As the Government Accountability Office has reported in Renewable
Energy: Agencies Have Taken Steps Aimed at Improving the Process for
Development on Federal Lands, GAO-13-189, January 2013, ``What GAO
Found'':
``Federal land management agencies. . . have developed or revised
policies aimed at, among other things, improving the renewable energy
permitting process, formalized coordination within and across agencies
and with State and local governments, and devoted increased resources
to processing applications for renewable energy permits. One of BLM's
most comprehensive actions was the completion of programmatic
environmental impact statements for renewable energy development,
intended to streamline the permitting process. The agencies also took
steps to improve coordination through regularly established meetings
and development of memorandums of understanding between Federal and
State agencies. . . To help ensure that its actions are achieving their
intended purposes, BLM issued an instruction memorandum in December
2012 aimed at increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of its
renewable energy permitting process.''
blm'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
Last year BLM set aside more than 300,000 acres in the Southwest
from new mining claims for at least 20 years, designating those lands
solely for solar energy development and transmission, extending the
withdrawal time period of an interim rule allowing the segregations of
lands exclusively for renewables use.
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, if necessary, is possible.
Mining and all renewable energy projects are not mutually
exclusive. Wind energy or solar thermal projects and mining operations
can be co-located and developed simultaneously. Solar projects
consisting of fields of photovoltaic panels, on the other hand, can
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.
NEI is concerned about the precedent that has been set by this
particular land withdrawal. Thus, when BLM is considering designating
lands solely for renewable 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. Further, NEI urges the subcommittee to
direct BLM to exercise caution in segregating lands in the future,
given the vast amount of Federal land already closed to mining
operations. Finally, NEI urges the subcommittee to ask BLM to
reevaluate the newly lengthened segregation period of 20 years,
increased from 5 years, which is excessive and could adversely impact
legitimate mining claims.
blm sage grouse habitat management in 11 western states may unduly
restrict uranium mining activity
BLM is taking 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. With as many as 160 million
acres potentially affected in 11 Western States, BLM's conservation
efforts could have a substantial impact on uranium mining activity on
public lands.
Chairman Hastings, in his March 7, 2013 letter to DOI on behalf of
the Committee on Natural Resources, points out that ``there are as many
as 98 separate planning strategies under consideration in 68 various
areas in several States'' in response to BLM's National Technical Team
Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. As
Chairman Hastings notes, scientific reviewers are critical of the
report, with one noting that the report ``does not appear to have any
`rational scientific basis.' '' Chairman Hastings' letter concludes
that ``the administration's 2011 ESA multi-species-settlement,
negotiated behind closed doors, essentially handed over prioritization
of endangered species listings to special interest groups,'' initiating
the greater sage grouse conservation actions, which are ``being driven
by litigation, closed-door settlements and court deadlines, rather than
being guided by sound science and the best available data and
information.''
According to its 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
development and implementation of 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. Finally, NEI asks that
the committee review the various sage grouse conservation plans to
ensure that they do in fact ensure multiple use.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northern Forest Center
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you
for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program (Community Forest
Program) under the USDA Forest Service in the fiscal year 2014
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. This
program was first authorized by Congress in title VIII, section 8002 of
the Farm, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
We are pleased to support the President's fiscal year 2014 budget
request of $4 million for the Community Forest Program. The Community
Forest Program is an important new tool and opportunity for communities
to take advantage of the surrounding forest landscape--a flexible,
locally led approach to conservation and economic development that we
have seen at work here in the Northern Forest of New York, Vermont, New
Hampshire, and Maine. The Community Forest Program provides matching
funds to help local government entities, Indian tribes, and nonprofit
organizations to purchase forestlands threatened with development for
local ownership and management.
Development threats to private forests are real and growing,
creating urgency for the Community Forest Program. The U.S. Forest
Service report Private Forests, Public Benefits projects that 57
million acres of America's private forests could experience a
substantial increase in housing density by 2030. This level of change
would impact working forests, renewable biomass energy production,
water supplies, recreation access, wildlife, and other forest resources
important to communities.
Fostering greater local ownership of important forestlands is a
great conservation strategy that allows each project to be fine-turned
for local needs, including economic development through forestry and
recreation. The Community Forest Program requires each grantee to
develop a forest management plan, and makes available technical support
from State and tribal forestry agencies to assist interested grantees
with forest planning.
Locally driven conservation has proven popular and effective across
the country, which is why this program has drawn national support from
diverse forest sector interests, sporting organizations, land trusts,
and local community groups. Communities and tribes can utilize these
forests to meet their most pressing needs, from timber revenue for
local budgets to hunting and fishing access that is open to all. The
program also emphasizes the power of community forests to educate.
Demonstration forestry to inform private landowners and youth outdoor
education are among the activities the program seeks to support.
We greatly appreciate the committee's past support for the
Community Forest Program as reflected in prior year appropriations. The
first round of Community Forest Program grants was awarded last year
using fiscal year 2012 and prior year funding totaling $3.5 million.
The diversity of applications from across the country--49 total
projects seeking $14.5 million--demonstrated the breadth of need for
this kind of locally led conservation. The U.S. Forest Service received
strong applications from local governments, tribes, and a wide array of
local nonprofit organizations spread across 24 different States. The
proposed projects collectively offered leverage of more than $3 in non-
Federal funding for every $1 requested in Community Forest Program
funds. This demonstrates the willingness of local entities to match
Federal funding with significant commitments of funding and other
resources.
The 10 Community Forest Program projects funded in fiscal year 2012
featured a diversity of local government, tribal, and local nonprofit
grantees. For example:
--The Easton-Sugar Hill Community Forest project will enable the
towns of Easton and Sugar Hill, New Hampshire, in partnership
with the Ammonoosuc Conservation Trust, to create an 840-acre
mixed-elevation locally owned forest adjacent to White Mountain
National Forest. This important tract will connect regional
trails to the National Forest, protecting recreation access for
the community and the recreation economy. Education initiatives
planned include workshops and a planned silvicultural
curriculum for local students, as well as demonstration of
community and nonprofit cooperatives to preserve large forest
tracts. Demonstrating community management of this large forest
will provide a valuable model for rural conservation
partnerships adjacent to Federal lands.
--The Barre Town Forest project helped a Vermont town to acquire
lands containing a regionally popular biking and skiing trail
network that draws recreation tourism from across New England.
A study by the Gund Institute at the University of Vermont
estimated the local economic impact of this tourism at $481,000
annually, with projected increases to $640,000 by 2015. The
property will also continue to feature working forestry and
offer interpretive features that showcase the history of
granite operations in the area.
--The Mount Ascension Natural Park project will enable the City of
Helena, Montana, in conjunction with Prickly Pear Land Trust,
to complete a 540-acre acquisition. Timber will be harvested to
mitigate the mountain pine beetle infestation in this area and
to provide economic benefits to the community. School groups
routinely use Mount Ascension Natural Park for educational
purposes and local Boy and Girl Scouts utilize the park as
their primary site for outdoor education.
--The Hall Mountain project in North Carolina enabled the Eastern
Band of Cherokee Indians to acquire this highly significant
108-acre tract perched above a sharp bend in the Little
Tennessee River. Tribal ownership of this property will enhance
tribal members' access to fisheries and wildlife-related
recreational and subsistence activities. White-oak regeneration
will allow local artisans and craft makers to obtain the
resources needed to make their crafts and stimulate their local
economy. In addition, the Cherokee will continue to actively
protect the forest through traditional forest management
practices.
Given the strong interest in the Community Forest Program that was
demonstrated in this first round of grants, and the impressive list of
projects that still wait to be funded, it will be important to provide
adequate funding to meet future demand. Locally owned forests help
advance national goals to increase opportunities for Americans to
connect with forests in their own communities and foster new public-
private partnerships for conservation, restoration, and management. It
is in the national interest to match the initiative of local
communities, tribes, and nonprofits as they work to take a leadership
role in conservation of their communities.
A robust investment in the Community Forest Program as part of the
fiscal year 2014 appropriations for the U.S. Forest Service will help
maintain the momentum that the agency and its many partners have
created. Just this spring, a group of 39 local government and nonprofit
organizations sent a letter of support to this committee asking that
the committee meet the President's requested fiscal year 2014 level for
the Community Forest Program of $4 million. We are grateful for your
consideration of this testimony and the strong interest of these many
organizations.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Ground Water Association
The National Ground Water Association (NGWA) requests that $2.5
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress listened and responded to these requests for enhanced
groundwater monitoring by authorizing a national groundwater monitoring
network with passage of Public Law 111-11 (Omnibus Public Land
Management Act) in 2009. Six States \4\ voluntarily pilot tested
concepts for a national groundwater monitoring network as developed by
the Federal Advisory Committee on Water Information's Subcommittee on
Ground Water. If this effort moves forward, consistent, comparable
nationwide data would become accessible through a web portal for
Federal, State, local government, and private sector users. In these
tight fiscal times, the proposed network would build on existing State
and Federal investments, maximizing their usefulness and leveraging
current dollars to build toward systematic nationwide monitoring of the
groundwater resource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The six pilot States were Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota,
Montana, New Jersey, and Texas. Additionally, Idaho, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Washington and Wyoming volunteered as pilots but were
not included given limited oversight resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration's fiscal year 2014 USGS budget request of
approximately $600,000 split between the National Ground Water
Monitoring Network, and a groundwater climate response network is
woefully inadequate to support regional, State, and tribal partners and
move a national groundwater monitoring network forward. We ask the
subcommittee to allocate $2.5 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 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 $2.5 million for groundwater
monitoring requested here is small in comparison to the entirety of the
Department of the Interior's appropriations. But the $2.5 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 and approximately 42 percent of irrigation water. Thank you for
your consideration of this request.
NGWA 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 and the Folger
Shakespeare Library
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
National Humanities Alliance with its 104 member organizations and the
Folger Shakespeare Library, I write to express strong support for the
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
overview
For fiscal year 2014, we respectfully urge the subcommittee to fund
the National Endowment for the Humanities at the administration's
requested level of $154.4 million.
The National Endowment for the Humanities has endured significant
cuts in recent years. From fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2013,
NEH has been cut by more than 16 percent, from $167.5 million to less
than $140 million. These decreases have come on top of a long history
of cuts that have eroded the agency's capacity to meet the demand for
its support. Modestly increasing NEH's budget to $154.4 million would
allow the Endowment to build its capacity to support the humanities at
a time when the humanities are increasingly called upon to meet
national needs.
While we recognize the seriousness of the fiscal situation faced by
Congress and the administration, and we understand the difficult
choices that are before this subcommittee, we believe that the capacity
of NEH must be expanded. In the remainder of this testimony, I will
articulate the reasons for this expansion by first describing the ways
in which the humanities have been called upon to help accomplish four
critical national goals and then by describing the central role of the
National Endowment for the Humanities in achieving these goals.
importance of the humanities to national needs
The humanities are increasingly called upon to play critical roles
in our efforts to achieve four national goals: opportunity for all
Americans, innovation and economic development, productive global
engagement, and strong communities.
Opportunity for All Americans
Many Americas lack access to opportunity because they are deficient
in a number of critical skills that are sought by employers. In a
recent study conducted by the Conference Board, Corporate Voices for
Working Families, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and the
Society for Human Resource Management, employers ranked reading and
writing as top inadequacies in new hires. More than one-third of
employers found high school graduates ``deficient'' in reading
comprehension, and ``written communications'' tops the list of applied
skills found lacking in high school and college graduates. The Common
Core standards that have been adopted in 45 States call for the
humanities to play a central role in correcting these inadequacies by
fostering essential skills and habits including reading, writing,
critical thinking, and effective communication across primary and
secondary school curricula. These deficiencies not only limit the
economic mobility of individuals, they also carry an economic burden
for society as annual spending on remedial writing courses is estimated
at more than $3.1 billion for large corporations and $221 million for
State employers.
Innovation and Economic Growth
Employers increasingly seek employees who can combine the cultural
knowledge and analytical ability fostered by humanities programs with
technical knowledge and scientific research fostered by STEM education
to create innovation and economic growth. In an effort to serve this
demand, the Committee on the Engineer of 2020, a group convened by the
National Academy of Engineering, recommends increased interdisciplinary
education--including the humanities--in order to train engineers with
the broad perspective necessary for 21st century innovation. Similarly,
a substantial number of medical schools have integrated humanities
coursework into their programs to enhance the cultural knowledge and
observational abilities of their graduates with the goal of providing
higher quality, more efficient care. Recognizing the role that the
humanities play in fostering innovation, countries such as China and
India have begun to integrate the humanities into their own education
systems.
Productive Global Engagement
As they deal with increasingly complex international relationships,
both business and military leaders look to the humanities to provide
critical knowledge about communities throughout the world. These
leaders argue that our ability to engage productively with the world
depends on the deep knowledge of the languages, cultures, and histories
of rapidly changing areas of the world that the humanities cultivate
and maintain. Historians, linguists, anthropologists, archaeologists,
and literature scholars among others spend years learning about
communities and their deep roots, thereby gaining expertise that may
inform those who seek to work in these geographic areas. As the former
Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, recently said in his
address to the National Humanities Alliance Annual Meeting as he
described the critical role of the humanities in preparing our citizens
for global engagement, ``We need a strong cadre of Americans in our
Government, military, business, civil society, academe, and beyond who
have the right skills and experience to help America stay connected
with the world and shape outcomes that secure our national interests.''
Strong Communities
Finally, with the well-documented decline in critical, community-
based social institutions, communities throughout our own country are
trying to foster a sense of shared identity and responsibility. In
doing so, they rely on the humanities to preserve and explore their
history and traditions in order to promote the understanding of common
ideals, enduring civic values, and shared cultural heritage. To
strengthen communities, humanities councils, museums, libraries, and
universities produce vital programs that promote understanding among
diverse communities through the cultivation and exchange of knowledge
about cultural heritage and history.
the central role of neh
The National Endowment for the Humanities is organized into
Federal/State Partnerships, the division that supports humanities
councils that provide engaging programs in every State and territory;
Competitive Grants, which awards peer-reviewed grants in Research,
Education, Preservation, Digital Humanities, Challenge Grants, and
Public Programs divisions; and Special Initiatives, which awards funds
through its Bridging Cultures program to projects that promote
understanding among diverse communities. In this testimony, I will
focus on the NEH Competitive Grants in order to illustrate the central
role that NEH funding plays in supporting critical humanities work.
Each year, NEH awards hundreds of competitive, peer-reviewed grants
to individual scholars and a broad range of nonprofit educational
organizations around the country. Grantees include universities, 2- and
4-year colleges, humanities centers, research institutes, museums,
historical societies, libraries, archives, scholarly associations, K-12
schools, local education agencies, public television/film/radio
producers, and more. Through its competitive grants programs, NEH
supports the preservation of collections that would be otherwise lost,
path-breaking research that brings critical knowledge to light,
programs for teachers that enrich instruction in schools, and public
programs that reach individuals and communities in every district in
the country. There is a high likelihood that someone from your district
has benefited from this funding. To make this concrete, I'll provide
two illustrative examples in the following paragraphs.
Salafi Networks in Southeast Asia
In one case, a team from the Center for the Study of Religion and
Conflict at Arizona State University received a grant from NEH to study
varieties of Salafism. In the words of the team's lead researcher, who
brings more than 30 years of experience studying religion in Southeast
Asia to the project, ``Salafism is the driving force behind movements
ranging from al Quaeda to quietist groups living pious lives in self-
imposed isolation . . . Because these diverse groups share religious
teaching and symbols, scholars, policymakers, and intelligence analysts
often have difficulty distinguishing between violent and nonviolent
Salafis.'' Clearly this distinction is critical for maintaining both
our national security and productive diplomatic relations, and this
grant provides this knowledge to other scholars, policymakers, and
others.
Teaching Shakespeare Institute
At the Folger Shakespeare Library's Teaching Shakespeare Institute,
supported by the NEH, 25 secondary school teachers from across the
Nation attend intensive seminars with distinguished Shakespeare
scholars and work with our unique resources and collections. The
experience enhances teachers' ability to integrate research into their
teaching, allowing them to create the kind of stimulating project-based
learning opportunities that transform students into lifelong learners.
NEH grants for teaching institutes, such as the one at the Folger
Shakespeare Library, promote the deep knowledge of humanities subject
matter that is critical to ensuring that initiatives such as the Common
Core standards succeed in improving academic attainment for all
Americans. Through these transformative workshops, teachers become
excited about the subjects they teach and then communicate their
enthusiasm to students, making the classrooms exhilarating places to
learn.
Given the important role of projects such as these, we are
especially concerned about the decline in funding for the NEH
competitive grants that support them. In the past, NEH's rigorous
evaluation process has determined that a greater number of projects
than the agency is currently able to fund were worthy of support. As a
result of recent cuts, NEH is able to make many fewer grants for
fellowships and collaborative research; digital humanities projects;
professional development for teachers and faculty; preservation of
historically significant collections; public film, radio, television,
and digital media projects; and challenge grants to build institutional
capacity and leverage non-Federal support.
Although modest, the increased support proposed by the President
would have a significant impact. For example, at the proposed fiscal
year 2014 level, the NEH Research Division could make 48 more awards
than in fiscal year 2013. This means that an additional 44 individual
scholars could receive fellowships, and 4 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 insights. 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 530 additional teachers to revitalize
their knowledge of the humanities through participation in summer
workshops; approximately 66,000 high school students would benefit from
this valuable professional development for teachers.
conclusion
We recognize that Congress faces difficult choices in this and
coming years. Nevertheless, we ask the subcommittee to consider
modestly increased funding for the humanities through NEH as an
investment in opportunity for all Americans, innovation and economic
growth, productive global engagement, and strong communities. Thank you
for consideration of our request and for your past and continued
support for the humanities.
Founded in 1981, the National Humanities Alliance advances national
humanities policy in the areas of research, preservation, public
programming, and teaching. More than 100 organizations are members of
NHA, including scholarly associations, humanities research centers,
colleges, universities, and organizations of museums, libraries,
historical societies, humanities councils, and higher education
institutions.
An internationally recognized research library established in 1932,
the Folger Shakespeare Library is a primary repository for material on
the early modern period in Europe (1500-1750); a center for advanced
scholarly programs in the humanities; an innovator in the preservation
of rare materials; a national leader in how Shakespeare is taught in
grades K-12; and an award- winning producer of arts programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Indian Child Welfare Association
The National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) is a national
American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) organization with more than 25
years of experience in providing leadership in support of and analysis
of public policy that affects AI/AN children and families. NICWA
regularly provides community and program development technical
assistance to tribal communities regarding the development of effective
services for this population. Our primary focus will be on Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) programs serving AI/AN children and families. We
thank the subcommittee for its efforts to honor the Federal trust
responsibility and provide necessary resources to meet the unique needs
of tribal children and families.
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was enacted over 35 years ago
in 1978 in response to the troubling practices of public and private
child welfare agencies that were systematically removing large numbers
of AI/AN children from their homes, communities, and cultures, and
placing them in non-Indian foster and adoptive homes (25-35 percent of
all tribal children). In spite of ICWA's mandates, AI/AN families in
the child welfare system are still removed from their homes,
communities, and cultures at rates higher than other children in
America. Where abuse or neglect has been reported, AI/AN children in
State child welfare systems are two times more likely to be
investigated, two times more likely to have allegations of abuse
substantiated, and four times more likely to be placed in foster care
than white children.\1\ This has led to the overrepresentation of AI/AN
children in State foster care (AI/AN children are overrepresented in
foster care at a rate 2.2 times greater than their rate in the general
population.) \2\ In several States, the rate of tribal children in
State foster care is even higher, as much as 10 times their proportion
in the general population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hill, R. B. Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity in Child
Welfare, Race Matters Consortium Westat. (2008). An analysis of racial/
ethnic disproportionality and disparity at the national, State, and
county levels. Seattle, Washington: Casey Family Programs.
\2\ Summers, A., Wood, S., & Russell, J. (2012). Technical
Assistance Bulletin: Disproportionality rates for children of color in
foster care. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges:
Reno, Nevada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The surest ways to reduce the number of AI/AN children in State
child welfare systems is to ensure that tribes have the ability to
effectively partner with States as Congress intended under ICWA by
increasing tribal service capacity, funding off-reservation Indian
child welfare programs to assist tribal governments and States, and
fund tribal child abuse prevention and treatment programs to prevent
abuse and possible removal of children and treat the trauma of victims
of child abuse that, left untreated, can increase the risk of further
abuse in the future.
Although ICWA recognizes tribes' inherent sovereign right to
intervene in State child welfare proceedings and provide services for
their member children and families, tribal child welfare programs
remain underfunded and therefore unable to fully exercise this right
and responsibility. Tribes have an important relationship with their
children and families: they have important knowledge of how to best
meet the needs of AI/AN children, and are best suited to effectively
serve those needs and improve outcomes for these children.\3\
Furthermore, many States find tribes to be an essential part of the
child welfare system because of the culturally competent case
management, services, and placements they provide tribal children.\4\
Not only is the Federal funding currently available for tribal child
welfare programs inadequate, but tribes remain ineligible for several
important sources of child welfare funding that States access and rely
upon to create a continuum of care (from prevention to permanency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Indian Child Welfare Association & Pew Charitable
Trusts (2007). Time for reform: A matter of justice for American Indian
and Alaska Native children. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Pew Charitable
Trusts. Retrieved from http://www.nicwa.org/government/time-for-
reform.pdf.
\4\ United States Government Accountability Office (2005). Indian
Child Welfare Act: Existing information on implementation issues could
be used to target guidance and assistance to states. (GAO Publication
No. 05-290.) Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
indian child protection and family violence prevention act grant
programs
Recommendation.--Appropriate $40 million to the Indian Child Abuse
Treatment grant program ($10 million) and the Indian Child Protection
and Family Violence Prevention grant program ($30 million).
The Indian Child Abuse Treatment grant program is currently
authorized at $10 million and the Indian Child Protection and Family
Violence Prevention grant program at $30 million (25 U.S.C. Sec. 3208
and 3210). Yet these grant programs have never received any
appropriations. The BIA, which has oversight authority over these
programs, has not made a budget request in more than 10 years.
11.0 of 1,000 AI/AN children were abused or neglected in 2011. This
compares to 7.8 of 1,000 for white children and 14.6 of 1,000 for
African-American children.\5\ Further, AI/AN women are more likely than
any other single racial group to experience intimate partner violence
(IPV, also known as domestic violence; 39 percent of AI/AN women report
having experienced IPV at some point in their lives).\6\ These findings
underscore the need for tribal access to family violence prevention
funding that takes into account the relationship between child
maltreatment and domestic violence, such as the Indian Child Protection
and Family Violence Prevention grant program, which remains unfunded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and
Families, Children's Bureau (2011). Child Maltreatment 2010.
\6\ Black, M. C., & Breiding, M. J. (2008). Adverse health
conditions and health risk behaviors associated with intimate partner
violence--United States, 2005. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
57(5), 113-117. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, tribes lack access to resources that provide for
targeted treatment of AI/AN children who have experienced child abuse
or neglect. When children who have faced maltreatment are unable to
access mental health services, the residual effects of trauma can
continue for many years and greatly affect their mental, physical, and
social well-being--costing families and society a great price. The
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), reauthorized in 2010
(Public Law 111-320), is the only Federal law focusing solely on
prevention, assessment, identification, and treatment of child abuse
and neglect. Yet it contains no funding for tribes to address these
critical public health issues, other than a small $277,000 per year
program that only funds two tribes. The unfunded Indian Child Abuse
Treatment grant program, if funded, would fill this void.
icwa, title ii funding for on-reservation child welfare services grant
program
Recommendation.--Increase appropriations for ICWA, title II tribal
grant program by $10 million for an approximate total of $30 million in
ICWA funding for tribal child welfare programs.
There is no specific authorization amount included in the
legislation. However, its legislative history indicates that Congress
estimated at least $26 million would be needed to fully implement this
grant program for tribes in 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1932). The ICWA, title II
Funding for On-Reservation Child Welfare Services grant program began
just after the passage of the law in 1979. During the first 14 years,
the grant program was a competitive grant process. During these years,
the appropriated funding never exceeded $17 million and less than one-
third of all tribes received ICWA, title II dollars. In fiscal year
1994, Congress appropriated $25 million for the grant program, which
allowed the BIA to make it a noncompetitive grant program for the first
time. Now almost every tribe receives this funding. However, almost
two-thirds of tribes receive less than $30,000 per year to support
essential child welfare services. Since fiscal year 1994, the overall
appropriations for this program have actually decreased by
approximately $6 million.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Budget documents provided by the BIA only show enacted funds of
$10.85 million for the most recent fiscal year (fiscal year 2012).
Self-governance tribes, which comprise an increasing number of the
total number of tribes, receive their share of these funds through a
separate budget allocation mechanism for which the BIA does not provide
specific numbers. However, the number of tribes receiving these funds
and reported levels has not significantly changed over the last 10
years, which supports the assumption that the total enacted
appropriation for this program is closer to $20 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal child welfare programs work with some of the most at-risk
and needy families in America, and in spite of this, have access to
fewer resources than their State counterparts. For this reason, ICWA
funding continues to be the base funding for most Indian child welfare
programs. But in order to provide the most effective services, the
small amount of ICWA, title II dollars given to a tribe is divided
between child protective services, family reunification and
rehabilitation, case management, foster care recruitment and retention,
and adoption services.
When ICWA was passed, Congress estimated that $26 million-$62
million was required to fully fund tribal child welfare programs for
all interested tribes on or near reservations during the first 4 years
of the grant program.\8\ The current funding level is well below $26
million. An allocation increase from the fiscal year 2012 level of $10
million will provide a level of funding which will increase tribal
capacity to serve their children within their jurisdiction and partner
more fully with States to improve outcomes for tribal children in State
child welfare systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Senate Report 95-597, page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
icwa, title ii funding for off-reservation child welfare services grant
program
Recommendation.--Reestablish the Off-Reservation Indian Child
Welfare Program under title II of ICWA funded at $5 million.
There is no specific authorization amount identified in the
legislation (25 U.S.C. 1932). However, starting the year after ICWA's
passage (fiscal year 1979) and lasting until fiscal year 1996, the BIA
requested funds for the grant program within the Special Projects and
Pooled Overhead portion of its budget separate from tribal ICWA, title
II funds. The ICWA Off-Reservation competitive grant program
appropriated $1.5 million-$2 million over the course of these years,
which funded several key programs within urban areas with higher
densities of AI/AN children and families.
ICWA does not make a distinction between which Indian children
should benefit from the act. It is designed to provide protections to
AI/AN children and families regardless of where they reside and
therefore authorizes grant funding under title II for Off-Reservation
ICWA programs as well as the On-Reservation programs discussed above.
In 1970, 38 percent of AI/AN individuals lived off-reservation\9\; in
the 2010 census, 67 percent of all individuals who identified as AI/AN
alone lived off-reservation; and 78 percent of all individuals who
identified as AI/AN and another race(s) lived off-reservation.\10\
Indian children living outside of their tribal community are some of
the most vulnerable Indian children given the challenges they face in
staying connected to their culture and kinship networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ National Urban Indian Family Coalition (2008). Urban Indian
America, The Status of American Indian and Alaska Native Families
Today: A Report to the Annie E Casey Foundation. Washington: Seattle.
\10\ Norris, T., Vines, P. & Hoeffel, E. M. (2012). 2010 Census
Briefs: The American Indian and Alaska Native Population 2010. U.S.
Census Bureau: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When funded, the ICWA, title II Off-Reservation grant program
ensured that AI/AN children and families living in urban areas received
the protections of ICWA and States had additional expertise and
culturally appropriate services available to them. Specific services
typically provided by ICWA, title II Off-Reservation programs included
recruitment of AI/AN foster care homes, case management, identification
of at-risk families for services, and in-home services that help
children stay in their homes or be reunified with their parents safely.
With an increasing number of AI/AN individuals living off-
reservation, reinstating this funding would provide support to urban
areas and other areas off-reservation where there is pronounced AI/AN
density.
child assistance funds
Recommendation.--Increase Child Assistance appropriation request by
$10 million to $35 million.
Child Assistance Funds are provided through the Tribal Priority
Allocations line item and authorized under the Snyder Act (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 13). Historically, appropriations have never exceeded $31 million
and in fiscal year 2012, the enacted level was $24.2 million.
These funds are critical because tribal governments have a
responsibility to support the placements of AI/AN children under their
jurisdiction that live on tribal lands and cannot safely remain in
their homes. These funds are available to tribes to provide basic
payments to support foster care, guardianship, and adoptive placements.
Without these funds, tribes would have to place children in
unsubsidized foster care, which often places a strain on those
individuals--many of whom have few resources--willing to care for
children who would otherwise have no home. Aside from title IV-E, a
program that is not feasible for every tribe, tribes have no other
source of funding to support out-of-home placements that occur on-
reservation.
In addition, tribes that are now pursuing administration of the
title IV-E program--which requires a significant tribal match to
support program services and placements--will need some portion of
these BIA funds to continue to serve tribal children who are not title
IV-E eligible, as well as to help meet the title IV-E matching
requirements.
While these funds are critical to tribes that receive them, not all
tribes that need these funds have access to them. The BIA continues a
policy of not making these funds available to tribes that they deem
have access to other, similar types of services. This policy has
created huge gaps in the ability of tribes to provide necessary child
welfare services to their citizens that are under their jurisdiction
and responsibility. It is for this reason that the allocations should
be increased from $25 million to $35 million so that all tribes
providing child welfare services can subsidize their out-of-home
placements.
______
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 2014
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 v. Washington \1\ (U.S. v.
Washington). To meet the many natural resources management
responsibilities required of the tribes, I submit the following
requests for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Environmental
Protection Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United States v. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed
Western Washington Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
summary of fiscal year 2014 appropriations request
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Provide $17.146 million for Western Washington Fisheries
Management.
Provide $3.082 million for Washington State Timber, Fish and
Wildlife.
Provide $4.844 million for United States/Canada Pacific Salmon
Treaty Implementation.
Provide $2.4 million for Salmon Marking.
Provide $6.843 million for Fish Hatchery Maintenance.
Provide $2.6 million for Fish Hatchery Operations.
Provide $230 million for Contract Support.
Provide $10 million for Landscape Conservation.
Provide $725,000 for Watershed Restoration.
Environmental Protection Agency
Provide $96.375 million for General Assistance Program.
Provide $50 million for Puget Sound.
treaty rights at risk and the federal trust obligation
Last year we brought to your attention an initiative that we have
been pursuing--our Treaty Rights at Risk (TRAR) initiative. The treaty
rights of the western Washington treaty tribes are in imminent danger.
Salmon are critical to the tribal cultures, traditions and their
economies. The treaty-reserved right to harvest salmon continues to
decline due to ongoing loss of habitat. All of this is due to the
inability to restore salmon habitat faster than it is being destroyed.
Wild salmon and their habitat continue to decline despite massive
reductions in harvest and a significant investment in habitat
restoration.
The Federal Government has a fiduciary responsibility and an
obligation to protect these treaty-reserved natural resources. This
obligation is met through policy and funding support that is provided
to tribes to allow them to perform the necessary management
responsibilities to protect these resources. Without this continued
support the treaties will have no meaning as these natural resources
disappear. The tribes' treaties are constitutionally protected and have
been confirmed by the Federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
As a signer to these treaties, the Federal Government has an ongoing,
non-discretionary obligation to provide adequate funding to the tribes
to allow them to protect and preserve these treaty rights.
On behalf of our 20 member tribes, I am providing our fiscal year
2014 natural resources management funding requests for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We
are pleased that the fiscal year 2014 President's budget continues to
be supportive of the northwest natural resources funding requests. In
addition to our specific requests described below, we also support the
budget priorities and funding requests of the National Congress of
American Indians.
justification of requests
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Provide $17.146 million for BIA 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
program. The increase in fiscal year 2010 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
2014 budget contains $9.613 million. We respectfully request $17.146
million. Funding for this program allows for continued treaty harvest
management, population assessment, habitat protection and data
gathering for finfish, shellfish, groundfish, wildlife and other
natural resource management needs. Funds provide the necessary capacity
for the treaty tribes to co-manage the resources with the State of
Washington and to meet court required mandates.
Provide $3.082 million for BIA Washington State Timber-Fish-
Wildlife.--The congressional increase to Rights Protection
Implementation in fiscal year 2010 of $12 million was allocated to all
programs within this subactivity including the Washington State Timber-
Fish-Wildlife (TFW) program. The President's fiscal year 2014 budget
contains $3.082 million. We support funding this account at $3.082
million. Funding for this program is provided to improve forest
practices on State and private lands while providing protection for
fish, wildlife and water quality. This will provide the necessary
funding to tribal TFW programs to fully participate in the TFW process.
Provide $4.844 million for BIA United States/Canada Pacific Salmon
Treaty Implementation.--The Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) Act of 1985
charges the United States Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission with
the responsibility for implementation of the PST, 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 2014
budget contains $4.844 million. We support funding this account at
$4.844 million. 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 BIA Salmon Marking.--Funding for this
program is required to meet the 2003 mandate by Congress that required
all salmon released from federally funded hatcheries be marked so they
could be uniquely identified. This allows tribes to mark salmon at
tribal hatcheries and to use these marked fish to scientifically
monitor salmon populations and watersheds in western Washington. The
President's fiscal year 2014 budget contains $1.171 million. We
respectfully request $2.4 million. This amount is required to fully
implement more extensive selective fisheries targeted at these marked
fish. This request is also important in part because marking costs are
increasing as tribal hatchery production continues to increase.
Provide $6.843 million for BIA 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. The President's fiscal year
2014 budget contains $6.843 million. We support funding this account at
$6.843 million. Funding for this program is provided to tribes
nationwide based on the ranking of annual maintenance project
proposals. 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 over $48.0 million in necessary hatchery maintenance
and rehabilitation costs.
Provide $2.6 million for BIA Fish Hatchery Operations.--Funding for
this program is provided to tribal hatcheries to support the rearing
and releasing of salmon and steelhead for harvest by Indian and non-
Indian fisheries. The President's fiscal year 2014 budget contains
$1.85 million. We respectfully request $2.6 million. This increase
reflects the needs of the western Washington treaty tribes. Hatcheries
are a necessary part of fisheries management because of the lack of
wild salmon production due to habitat degradation. Without hatcheries
tribes would have very few fisheries and their treaty rights would be
rendered meaningless.
Provide $230.0 million for BIA Contract Support.--Funding for this
function is provided to tribal organizations to ensure they have the
capacity to manage Federal programs under self-determination contracts
and self-governance compacts. Historically Indirect Contract Support
has been drastically underfunded, yet this is a critical funding source
as it directly supports our governmental functions, which allow us to
fully exercise our right to self-govern. The President's fiscal year
2014 budget contains $230 million. We support funding this account at
$230.0 million, assuming this covers 100 percent of need. Direct
Contract Support is also an important piece of this funding.
Provide $10 million for BIA Cooperative Landscape Conservation.--
Funding for this program will provide the tribal capacity needed to
develop adaptation mechanisms to adjust to environmental challenges.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget contains $10 million. We
support funding this account at $10 million, of which $2 million is
respectfully requested for the western Washington treaty tribes. This
will allow tribes to provide their perspective on climate change
adaptation in the form of traditional ecological knowledge necessary to
protect their treaty rights.
Provide $725,000 for BIA Watershed Restoration.--Funding for this
program supports our Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and
Assessment Program. The fiscal year 2012 appropriations provided a
total of $390,000 to western Washington treaty tribes. We respectfully
request $725,000 for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. This
will allow us to continue to provide environmental data management,
analysis, and reporting support to our member tribes. These services
and functions would continue to support our tribes' ability to
adequately participate in watershed resource assessments and salmon
recovery work.
Environmental Protection Agency
Provide $96.375 million for EPA 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 2014 budget contains $72.631 million. We
respectfully request $96.375 million. Funding for this program
continues to provide the capacity for tribal environmental protection
programs nationwide. This allows tribes to address their most
fundamental needs such as inadequate drinking water and basic
sanitation.
Provide $50 million for EPA 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 2014 budget contains $17.15 million. We respectfully
request $50 million. Funding for this initiative allows tribes to
participate in implementing the Puget Sound Action Agenda and a wide
range of projects aimed at improving the health of Puget Sound by 2020.
conclusion
The treaties and the treaty-reserved right to harvest are the
supreme law of the land under the U.S. Constitution. Some of the treaty
tribes have had to give up even their most basic ceremonial and
subsistence fisheries. Tribes are key partners in the management of
natural resources by virtue of treaty-reserved rights and the legal
status as co-managers.
We are sensitive to the budget challenges that Congress faces.
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. We urge you
to support our funding requests. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources
Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski, I am Reagan Waskom,
Director of the Colorado Water Institute at Colorado State University.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit this statement on behalf of
National Institutes for Water Resources (NIWR), the organization that
collectively represents the State water resources research institutes.
My statement is in support of an appropriation of $6,490,000 for the
Water Resources Research Act programs as part of the fiscal year 2014
U.S. Geological Survey's budget.
The Water Resources Research Act (42 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.)
establishes a Federal-State-university partnership in water resources
research, education, and information transfer and dissemination. There
are a total of 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
this State-based network of institutes dedicated to solving problems of
water supply and water quality in partnership with universities, local
governments and the general public. It is the only federally authorized
research network that focuses on applied water resources research,
education, training and outreach. The institutes are a direct, vital
link between Federal water interests and needs and the academic
expertise located within the States' research universities. It provides
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 matching requirements of the program ensure that
States invest in water research and training.
The Water Resources Research Act established two grant components
of the USGS Water Resources Research Institutes program. The first
component is the base grant program which is divided equally among the
institutes. The act requires that each Federal dollar must be matched
by 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 2013, each Institute
received $92,335, an appropriation of approximately $5.2 million for
the base program. NIWR respectfully requests the subcommittee provide
the same funding for these State-based water supply research seed
grants, technology transfer, professional education, and outreach to
the water-user community by the institutes.
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. Last year this
program received 46 applications, which underwent rigorous peer review
from a national panel. This panel selected a total of six projects from
Alabama, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and West Virginia.
My institute, the Colorado Water Institute, collaborates closely
with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado's primary water
policy agency, to conduct applied research, provide public education
and train students through internships. An example of this partnership
is the South Platte Basin which is the most populous and water-short
region of the State and recently has been struggling with optimizing
the conjunctive use of surface and groundwater. The Colorado
legislature has commissioned CWI to conduct a comprehensive analysis of
groundwater management to determine if current management is causing
high water tables causing crop damage and flooded basements. In
addition to analyzing data, CWI is working to bring well users and
surface users into productive dialogue to find solutions to benefit
both.
Another partnership with the Colorado Water Conservation Board
includes providing drought support to the State, agricultural
producers, and Colorado's Drought Task Force during the 2012 drought by
serving as the Co-Chair of the Agriculture Drought Task Force and
serving on the Colorado Governor's Water Availability Task Force. In
addition to regular communication across the agencies, we provided
online and printed factsheets and information resources, held local
drought meetings for stakeholders, helped producers with crop insurance
claims, held drought information tours for State officials, helped
organize the State's 2012 drought conference, and handled stakeholder
requests. The 2013 crop season is once again looking as though drought
will be a problem for cities and agriculture, and we are ramping up our
capacity to respond to critical information and coordination needs.
Through the Water Resources Research Act, the institutes, in
coordination with State extension services, specialize in identifying
problems within their States, developing solutions to those problems,
and engaging with the public to implement those solutions. The act's
greatest strength 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. The following are several examples of research
conducted by institutes across the country.
Gainer Dam is the largest and most important in Rhode Island since
it retains the waters of the Scituate Reservoir, the source clean water
for more than 60 percent of the State's population. Although Rhode
Island is not in a zone of high seismic activity, there is still risk
from earthquakes and the performance of the Gainer Dam in an extreme
seismic event is uncertain. The Rhode Island Water Resources Center is
performing a seismic evaluation of the Gainer Dam including analyses of
dynamic response, liquefaction potential, stability, and deformation to
evaluate the resiliency of the structure. The analysis will provide
guidance to retrofit the structure of the dam for seismic resistance,
which is of the utmost in importance since a catastrophic failure of
the dam would result in loss of life and an extreme disruption of the
supply of clean water for Rhode Island.
Alaska's Water and Environmental Research Center (WERC) is
collaborating with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities to collect hydrologic information critical for the planning,
design, and permitting of new transportation corridors. Planned
roadways intended to spur resource development such as the roads to
Umiat and Ambler will cross hundreds of miles of undeveloped territory,
and will by necessity cross numerous rivers and streams. Due to the
remote location of these rivers, however, scant hydrologic data is
presently available to inform the design and permitting of new bridges
and culverts. Without additional hydrologic information, these bridges
and hence these transportation corridors, will not be built. Drawing
upon decades of remote Arctic field experience, WERC researchers
observe and evaluate stream flow, ice conditions, and a host of other
parameters critical to bridge and culvert design at key locations along
Alaska's planned transportation corridors.
The New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute hosted its 57th
annual water conference in August 2012. The conference titled ``Hard
Choices: Adapting Policy and Management to Water Scarcity'' drew a
record crowd of more than 500 participants. Following the conference, a
workshop of diverse water policy experts was held to record policy
options derived from the conference discussion. Workshop stakeholders
included agricultural, municipal, environment, local, State, Federal
and tribal representatives. A report was issued with policy options for
consideration by the public and policymakers. This report provides
policymakers an important resource as New Mexico adapts to its ongoing
drought and a future where drought may become more frequent in New
Mexico and the region. It is an example of the role New Mexico's water
institute plays in supporting collaboration across all sectors to bring
about solutions to its pressing water problems.
The Mississippi Water Resources Research Institute is working to
improve a 35 square mile coastal watershed located in Hancock County,
Mississippi. The prosaically named Rotten Bayou drains into the Bay St.
Louis, an embayment of the Gulf of Mexico. The area is under pressure
from population growth, urbanization, and agricultural practices such
as cattle farming. The watershed has been identified by the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) as having impairments such
as low dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and excessive nutrient loads. The
WRRI, with the assistance of faculty at Mississippi State University
and MDEQ, has developed a project to assist the newly formed town of
Diamondhead to identify structural and non-structural Best Management
Practices that will help improve water quality in Rotten Bayou. The
successful completion of the project has design and policy implications
for the entire Mississippi Gulf Coast metropolitan area.
The Institute for Water and Watersheds at Oregon State University
has experimented with new ways to diversify its by creating what is
termed ``just-in-time'' white papers or short You-Tube videos on topics
of interest. For example, white papers have been developed on the
notion of water markets in Oregon, bottled water in Oregon, the
importance of water to the multi-billion dollar per year Oregon wine
industry, and climate change and Oregon water. Videos on water
sustainability and greywater reuse in Oregon, biochar derived from
forest products for treatment of Oregon stormwater, and community
management of deep groundwater in Northeastern are readily available
for review. New projects will focus on arsenic in groundwater in
eastern Oregon using funds bequeathed to the Institute for Water and
Watersheds.
In a study of forest management and water yields, in collaboration
with several nonprofit agencies, California Institute for Water
Resources researchers are undertaking 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. Observational and high resolution modeling
studies of snowpack and water, utilizing data collected since 1930,
paints a picture of significant decreases in snowpack and runoff in the
Sierra Nevada Mountains due to increased greenhouse gases. By the mid-
21st century, considerable decreases in snow water equivalence are
projected. This CIWR research will continue to run atmospheric models
to predict water resources in California.
The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirement (known as a
``pollution budget'') requires actions at all levels--watershed, State,
county, municipality, and landowner--to reduce the flow of nutrients
and sediments to the Chesapeake Bay. Studies supported by the Maryland
Water Resources Research Center are advancing understanding of where
pollutants come from and effectiveness of corrective approaches at
different scales. One study is looking at legacy mill dam sediments
left in rivers and their floodplains from the time when water mills
were the region's power grid. Another is investigating how nitrogen
compounds are transported and transformed in streams in agricultural
Eastern Shore watersheds The Center is also supporting the work of
graduate students investigating the effectiveness of best management
practices (watershed restoration and green roofs) in decreasing
damaging runoff from urban areas.
The Alabama Water Resources Research Institute at Auburn University
hosted the annual Alabama Water Resources Conference, which had more
than 300 participants, and the Alabama Water Resources Association
Symposium. Other recent outreach activities included the Lake Martin
State of the Watershed Conference and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
Flint (ACF) Stakeholders Conference. The institute assisted City of
Auburn to develop water resources portion of CompPlan2030, and Auburn
University to develop the campus storm water management plan. It
provided technical assistance to the Alabama Joint Legislative
Committee on Water Management and Policy and Developed in developing a
science-based ``rivers as systems'' conceptual framework for
comprehensive, sustainable water policy and management.
For almost five 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 workforce. NIWR
recommends the subcommittee provide $6,490,000 to the USGS for the
Water Resources Research Institute Program for fiscal year 2014.
The water institute directors recognize the fiscal challenges
facing the Nation and Congress, but we want to support the USGS
Coalition request that Congress appropriate at least the $1.167 billion
requested for the USGS in fiscal year 2014, a level that will support
critical USGS programs that improve the Nation's environment, health,
safety, quality of life, and future economic growth.
Thank you on behalf of all the Institute directors for the
opportunity to submit our statement to the subcommittee and for your
continuing support of the Water Resources Research Act program.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
Summary.--This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year
2014 appropriations for Colorado River Basin salinity control
activities of the Bureau of Land Management. I urge that at least $5.2
million be appropriated for the Bureau of Land Management within the
Soil, Water, and Air Program for general water quality improvement
efforts in the Colorado River Basin, and an additional $1.5 million be
appropriated specifically for salinity control related projects and
studies.
statement
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is
comprised of representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States
appointed by the respective Governors of the States. The Forum has
examined the features needed to control the salinity of the Colorado
River. These include activities by the States, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). The Salinity Control Program has been adopted by the
seven Colorado River Basin States and approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency as a part of each State's water quality standards.
About 75 percent of the land in the Colorado River Basin is owned,
administered or held in trust by the Federal Government. The BLM is the
largest land manager in the Colorado River Basin, and manages public
lands that are heavily laden with naturally occurring salt. When salt-
laden soils erode, the salts dissolve and enter the river system,
affecting the quality of water used from the Colorado River by the
Lower Basin States and Mexico.
I support past Federal legislation that declared that the Federal
Government has a major and important responsibility with respect to
controlling salt discharge from public lands. Congress has charged the
Federal agencies to proceed with programs to control the salinity of
the Colorado River Basin with a strong mandate to seek out the most
cost-effective solutions. The BLM's rangeland improvement programs are
some of the most cost-effective salinity control measures available. In
addition, these programs are environmentally acceptable and control
erosion, increase grazing opportunities, produce dependable stream run-
off and enhance wildlife habitat.
The water quality standards adopted by the Colorado River Basin
States contain a plan of implementation that includes BLM participation
to implement cost effective measures of salinity control. BLM
participation in the salinity control program is critical and essential
to actively pursue the identification, implementation and
quantification of cost effective salinity control measures on public
lands.
Bureau of Reclamation studies show that quantified damages from
Colorado River salinity to United States water users are about $376
million per year. Modeling by Reclamation indicates that these
quantified damages would increase to $577 million per year by 2030 if
the Salinity Control Program was not continued. Unquantified damages
already increase the total damages significantly.
Control of salinity is necessary for the Basin States, including
New Mexico, to continue to develop their compact-apportioned waters of
the Colorado River. The Basin States are proceeding with an independent
program to control salt discharges to the Colorado River, in addition
to cost sharing with Bureau of Reclamation and Department of
Agriculture salinity control programs. It is vitally important that the
BLM pursue salinity control projects within its jurisdiction to
maintain the cost effectiveness of the program and the timely
implementation of salinity control projects that will help avoid
unnecessary damages in the United States and Mexico.
At the urging of the Basin States, the BLM has created a full time
position to coordinate its activities among the BLM State offices and
other Federal agencies involved in implementation of the salinity
control program. The BLM's budget justification documents have stated
that BLM continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate
progress in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Department of Agriculture, and report salt retention measures to
implement and maintain salinity control measures of the Federal
salinity control program in the Colorado River Basin. The BLM is to be
commended for its commitment to cooperate and coordinate with the Basin
States and other Federal agencies. The Basin States and I are pleased
with the BLM administration's responsiveness in addressing the need for
renewed emphasis on its efforts to control salinity sources and to
comply with BLM responsibilities pursuant to the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act, as amended.
To continue these efforts, I request the appropriation of at least
$5.2 million in fiscal year 2014 for general water quality improvement
efforts in the Colorado River Basin by the BLM within the Soil, Water,
and Air Program, and that an additional $1.5 million be appropriated
specifically for salinity control related projects and studies. I
appreciate consideration of these requests. I fully support the
statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum submitted
by Don Barnett, the Forum's Executive Director, in request of
appropriations for BLM for Colorado River salinity control activities.
______
Prepared Statement of the 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 750,000 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. Founded in 1919, NPCA is 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 testify during a very challenging time for the National Park
Service and the appropriations process, as you know all too well. I
want to first acknowledge the very significant challenges you have had
to face as you have seen your allocation dwindle and have had to
implement the sequester that reduced funding for programs that I know
you realize are important and support. We recognize as well the
challenge in meeting the substantial needs for fire suppression in the
West and hope that you can work with the House to reach a final bill
this year that can prevent fire needs from eating into other needed
investments in the Interior bill.
NPCA is working on several levels to encourage Congress and the
administration to come together on a broad solution that addresses the
real drivers of the deficit, which certainly are not the discretionary
programs in the Interior appropriations bill. We recognize that until
and unless such a deal is struck, it will be a continuous struggle to
provide national parks with the funding they need, that park visitors
and communities deserve, and that the American people support--as we
know from polling that we've already shared with you showing broad
bipartisan support for national park funding. We continue to encourage
Congress and the administration to put everything on the table in an
effort to secure a truly meaningful, worthwhile compromise on the
deficit. Yet here we are in a situation that we all had hoped would
never come to pass, with sequestration in place, and a final fiscal
year 2013 continuing resolution that cut park funding even more than
sequester-mandated levels. We are also concerned that the fiscal year
2014 House budget sharply cuts discretionary spending; if that budget
were implemented, it would further challenge this committee's effort to
meet the needs of our national parks. Conversely, we are grateful for
the Senate budget's recognition of the importance of park investments,
yet we are concerned about the vast divide between these two documents.
The hard reality for national parks is that they are experiencing
deep impacts from the sequester and other continuing reductions, and
this year--2013--will be the most challenging in some time for park
superintendents. As you know, the final fiscal year 2013 levels came on
top of 2 prior years of budget cuts for the park service. Since fiscal
year 2010, park operations have declined by an estimated $300 million--
or nearly 13 percent--in today's dollars. We know that you understand
the importance of funding the operations of our national parks, but it
is worth taking a moment to summarize the damaging impact these cuts
are having in every park across the country.
As you know, the situation at every park is different, and the
impacts of the sequester vary park-by-park. In Maine, Acadia is
delaying completely opening the park by a full month, with reduced
staff and visitor center hours as well. At Blue Ridge Parkway, the most
visited unit in the system, more than 400 campsites will be closed, in
addition to picnic areas and visitor centers. Denali National Park and
Preserve in Alaska will go without--among other positions lost through
attrition--six maintenance staff, despite a deferred maintenance
backlog there that has grown to nearly $50 million. And finally, at
Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky, there will be 15 fewer staff
this year, and fewer rangers will be available in the main campground
to assist visitors. There will also be fewer cave tours, such that an
estimated 28,000 people will not be able to visit Mammoth Cave as a
result.
Overall, there will be nearly 2,000 fewer staff in our national
parks this year to protect the amazing resources that have inspired
visitors for nearly 100 years, and to provide a safe and enjoyable
experience for the nearly 300 million annual park visitors from across
our Nation and the world.
A few weeks ago, I read the story of outfitters at Delaware Water
Gap National Recreation Area, which is among the most visited park
service units. Outfitters in gateway communities were expressing
concern over the National Park Service's decision to close several
access points to the river, a cutback in services that is likely to
make a canoe trip downriver lengthy enough to discourage many families
from visiting. Canoe livery owners predicted the access closures could
decrease business by 25 percent. The superintendent responded by
outlining the very real constraints to his budget as a result of the
annualized across-the-board cut of 5 percent to park budgets that has
resulted from the sequester. This is just one of many stories, and we
worry what will happen to countless local businesses this summer and
families looking forward to their park visits--an experience of a
lifetime for so many of them--when facilities are closed and rangers
are not there to greet people and ensure they have a safe and inspiring
visit.
Recently, nearly 300 businesses whose livelihood is threatened by
reductions in park budgets wrote to the President and congressional
leaders outlining their concerns about funding for national parks. It
reminds us that in addition to their importance to the American way of
life and experience, national parks are economic engines that support a
quarter-million American jobs and contribute some $30 billion to the
national economy annually.
It appears that national parks have no choice but to weather these
cuts this year, but it is clear that many of the ways in which savings
are being found are not sustainable. Half of the savings is through
attrition; but as many superintendents have acknowledged, operating a
park with insufficient staff can be managed in the short term, but the
strategy cannot be sustained over the long run. As you begin to
deliberate on fiscal year 2014 funding, we should be clear that if
these cuts are sustained for any amount of time, we will begin to see
more significant damage to resource protection, as well as visitor
services. Without some relief, less costly--but needed--maintenance
will go undone, leading to much more costly repair needs over the long
term. You can delay changing the brake pads on your car for a year;
however, eventually you will not only have to replace the pads but the
rotors as well because they've become damaged for lack of maintenance,
costing more in the long run and compromising safety in the meantime.
Of course, there are impacts from cuts to all the accounts, not
just park operations. The loss of 70 percent of the construction budget
over the last decade in today's dollars is leading the deferred
maintenance backlog to approach $12 billion, with no relief in sight.
Historic grant programs have been substantially reduced over the years,
compromising opportunities to protect and interpret our unique and
important American story, and undermining opportunities for heritage
tourism. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been suffering
setbacks despite its importance as a conservation tool.
Mr. Chairman, we are doing more than complaining about budget
reductions. Looking toward the Centennial of the National Park System
in 2016, in March we helped convene a symposium hosted by the respected
Bipartisan Policy Center to discuss creative ideas for supplemental
funding sources for the Park Service. We realize the fiscal climate
will continue to be challenging and that no stone should be left
unturned in securing the resources the parks need. We will be focusing
on implementing a handful of the most promising of these ideas to
supplement--but not replace--appropriations. In the meantime, though,
the parks are losing ground.
This subcommittee has a long history of engagement with NPS fee
revenue, having been active in the formulation of Fee Demo and the
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). Without congressional
action, FLREA, along with the NPS's authority to retain fees, will
expire next year. It is imperative that fee retention authority not be
allowed to expire, and NPCA looks forward to working with the
subcommittee and with the authorizing committees to reauthorize and
improve this important legislation.
Restructuring national park fees is one of several supplemental
funding ideas that we are exploring. With a decline of the Park Service
budget since fiscal year 2002 of now 22 percent in today's dollars,
parks desperately need fee dollars in addition to every penny this
subcommittee is able to provide.
The President's budget appears to be an important step in the right
direction, yet not enough to meet the needs of park base operations.
The budget very importantly would undo the sequester and provide a
modest $57 million above fiscal year 2012 in overall discretionary
funding for the National Park Service. However, the proposal provides
for some important priorities reflected by this increase in part
through reductions to park base operations, with a total loss of nearly
100 full time positions in the operations account. When parks already
went into the sequester insufficiently staffed, we find this a
troublesome continuation of the decline of park base operations that
cannot be sustained without impacts to park resources and visitors.
Our national parks have been called the envy of the world,
preserving our uniquely American history in places as diverse as the
Everglades and the Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall and
Yellowstone. These are extraordinarily special places that provide
opportunities for our children and grandchildren to learn about what it
means to be an American and to be awed by a glacier or a geyser, or
simply to sit with their families and watch deer saunter by. We have a
fundamental responsibility to care for them, to hand them down to the
next generation in at least as good a shape as we found them on our
watch. The continuing decline in national park budgets and other
discretionary spending--which is not really providing the long-term
budgetary relief the times demand--threatens our ability to carry out
this national responsibility.
We hope to work with you to identify ways in which we can be
helpful in this climate that we understand is challenging for the
committee. We hope that together we can identify a way to prevent our
national parks from becoming a casualty of a broken budget process.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'd be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association
Thank you Chairman Reed, Senator Murkowski, and other honorable
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written
testimony pertaining to funding for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund's (LWCF) State Assistance Program and the Urban Parks and
Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) in the fiscal year 2014 Interior
Appropriations bill.
overview of funding request
As outlined below, we encourage you to renew the Federal investment
in the LWCF. However, given that the purpose of the act is to help
preserve, develop, and assure access to outdoor recreation facilities
to strengthen the health of U.S. citizens, we urge you to make a
greater investment in States and local communities by:
--Allocating a minimum of 40 percent of fiscal year 2014 LWCF
appropriations to the State Assistance Program;
--Maintaining the State Assistance Program's distribution formula in
its current form; and
--Allocating $15 million in funding for the UPARR in fiscal year 2014
out of total LWCF appropriations.
about the national recreation and park association
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 30,000 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.
40 percent allocation of total lwcf appropriations to the state
assistance program
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
resources developed through the LWCF remain publicly accessible in
perpetuity.
The LWCF provides numerous benefits to local communities across
America, and it does so through a well-recognized and dedicated funding
source--namely oil and gas leasing revenues. More than $6 billion a
year is provided through these leases, with a small fraction provided
to the LWCF. Unfortunately an even smaller fraction is provided to the
State Assistance Program. This is in large part due to the fact that
current law mandates that a minimum of 40 percent of the total LWCF
annual appropriations must be provided to the Federal land acquisition
program without specifying an amount for the State Assistance Program.
As a result, States and local communities have historically
received a very disproportionate share of the total LWCF
appropriations, with only 11 percent of total LWCF funding going to the
State Assistance Program since 1998. Most recently, in fiscal years
2012 and 2013, you provided approximately $322 million for the LWCF,
with $44 million, or 13 percent, allocated to the State Assistance
Program.\1\ We appreciate that you've recently recognized the
importance of the State Assistance Program and allocated a larger
percentage of total LWCF appropriations to it. For nearly 50 years,
however, the bulk of the work to carry out purpose of the act has
fallen on local communities to handle alone. For the reasons outlined
below, we are asking you to empower States and local communities to do
more to preserve, develop, and assure access to outdoor recreation
facilities to strengthen our Nation by allocating 40 percent of total
LWCF appropriations to the State Assistance Program in fiscal year
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amounts reflect amounts provided through appropriations and do
not reflect sequestration reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
lwcf state assistance's return on investment and return on objective
One of the key aspects of the LWCF State Assistance Program is the
ability to create jobs. The outdoor recreation industry, as such is
supported by LWCF State Assistance, is an economic powerhouse in the
United States. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, the
industry generates $646 billion in consumer spending and supports more
than 6 million jobs annually.\2\ 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 5 percent annually
between 2005 and 2011. Considering there are 7,800 State and more than
100,000 locally managed parks throughout the country, it is obvious
that outdoor recreation is most prevalent at the State and local level.
In fact, the National Association of State Park Directors reports that
America's State park system contributes $20 billion to local and State
economies each year.\3\ There is no doubt, that it is the LWCF State
Assistance Program that provides the places, spaces, and opportunities
for outdoor recreation which stimulates the outdoor industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Outdoor Industry Association, ``The Outdoor Recreation Economy
Report 2012.''
\3\ NASPD Annual Report, March 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When viewed through the lens of the importance of the American
outdoor recreation industry, the LWCF State Assistance Program has, for
more than four decades, achieved a proven return on investment (ROI)
demonstrated by the fact that $3.7 billion in Federal support has
leveraged nearly $4 billion additional in matching funds. But the
benefits of this program don't stop there, as the State Assistance
Program has not only provided a ROI, but has also done a tremendous job
of providing an outstanding return on objective for the American
taxpayer by ensuring access for all.
It is well known that not everyone has the ability to visit one of
our treasured national parks, and even those who do so are unable to on
a regular basis as national parks are often vacation destinations or
once-in-a-lifetime trips. To the average American, however, the
neighborhood park--down the street, open and accessible to the public,
and without an admission fee--is the most important public space in
their lives. Many of our country's local places, spaces, and
opportunities for outdoor recreation are provided through this program,
with more than 40,000 grant projects located in 99 percent of America's
counties.
The State Assistance Program is the only Federal investment tool
dedicated to ensuring that Americans have access to local public
recreation opportunities. Because the LWCF State Assistance Program
provides close-to-home recreation opportunities, millions of Americans,
young and old, are annually connected with nature and provided the
ability to be physically active and simply enjoy a life that they may
otherwise be denied.
The LWCF State Assistance Program ensures that local communities,
such as Thurmont, Maryland and Talladega, Alabama 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 critically
important local parks, including: Elmore State Park in Vermont; the new
soccer field at Sisterhood Park in Anchorage, Alaska; and Lions Park in
Bismarck, North Dakota. Each of the aforementioned communities
benefited from State Assistance grant funding in fiscal year 2012.
lwcf state assistance provides health and environmental benefits
In addition to creating jobs and ensuring access for all, the LWCF
State Assistance Program delivers tangible health benefits,
contributing to the overall health and well-being of Americans.
The National Park Service recognizes this through its Healthy Parks
Healthy People U.S. initiative, which aims to increase public
recognition of parks and public lands (including State, local, and
regional park and trail systems) as places for the promotion of
physical, mental, and social health. The CDC reports that childhood
obesity has tripled in the last 30 years, less than 25 percent of
adults engage in recommended levels of physical activity, and that
obesity is a leading cause of chronic disease. As noted by the CDC,
increased access to parks, green space, and recreation opportunities is
essential to becoming a healthier Nation and reducing unsustainable
healthcare costs.
The LWCF State Assistance Program 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.
maintaining the lwcf state assistance program's current distribution
formula
As noted above, 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, in every State. This is made
possible because LWCF State Assistance funding has always been
allocated by formula, 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.
In fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013, attempts were made to
change the LWCF State Assistance distribution formula for the purposes
of a Department of the Interior (DOI)-controlled competitive grant
program whereby DOI officials would decide the needs of local
communities. NRPA believes that local needs are best determined and
addressed at the community level. For almost 50 years this has been
achieved through the balanced, formula-based distribution approach of
the State Assistance Program. We thank you for preserving the State
Assistance Program's existing distribution formula in fiscal years 2012
and 2013 and ask you to continue that preservation in fiscal year 2014.
revitalizing urban parks and recreation through funding of uparr
While the LWCF has indeed benefited virtually every community in
the country, many of our Nation's cities and urbanized counties face
distinct challenges that require additional resources. Recognizing this
fact as well as the importance of public parks and recreation to larger
urban renewal and community development efforts, Congress established
the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) to provide
matching grants directly to localities in metropolitan areas. Over the
course of more than two decades UPARR provided $272 million for nearly
1,500 projects in 380 communities. This enabled neighborhoods across
the country to restore both outdoor and indoor recreation facilities;
support innovative recreational programming and enhance delivery of
services and programs that provided constructive alternatives to at-
risk youth.
Despite its successes, UPARR has not been funded since fiscal year
2002, yet many of the urban open space and recreation challenges still
exist today. NRPA is very pleased to see UPARR in the President's
fiscal year 2014 budget and calls on Congress to update and fund this
needed program to enable metropolitan areas to address quality of life,
health and wellness, and conservation issues as they improve their
communities and make them more attractive for families and businesses
alike. Both LWCF State Assistance and UPARR are critical to providing
Americans close to home recreation opportunities. The programs
complement each other and NRPA implores Congress to fund UPARR from
total LWCF appropriations but not at the expense of the already
underfunded State Assistance Program.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, few programs can address
so many national priorities as effectively as the LWCF State Assistance
Program and UPARR do, with so few dollars and without negatively
impacting the Federal budget. This subcommittee and 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: Allocate a minimum of 40 percent of LWCF funding to
the State Assistance Program; prohibit any diversion, or change to, the
formula funding being made available to States through the State
Assistance Program; and address the need for improved infrastructure in
urban areas by allocating a portion of the total LWCF funding to UPARR.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share NRPA's recommendations
and your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Natural Science Collections Alliance
The Natural Science Collections Alliance appreciates the
opportunity to provide testimony in support of fiscal year 2014
appropriations for the Department of the Interior (DOI). We encourage
Congress to provide the DOI Working Capital Fund with at least $62
million in fiscal year 2014. The NSC Alliance also supports the
administration's budget request for the United States Geological Survey
(USGS), which utilizes and curates various scientific collections in
support of USGS science and provides collections-based information to
other DOI bureaus. We encourage Congress to also work to provide
adequate funding for the scientific collections maintained by other DOI
bureaus, such as the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management,
and Fish and Wildlife Service. These collections are used to inform
resource management and support law enforcement efforts.
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. Our membership consists of institutions
which are part of an international community of museums, botanical
gardens, herbaria, universities, and other institutions that contain
natural science collections and use 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 $2
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 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 2014 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 reduce
the collections' accessioning and cataloging backlog; identify and
assess collections housed at non-Federal locations; correct identified
deficiencies in accountability, preservation, and protection of
Interior cultural and scientific collections; and pursue opportunities
for 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 scientific collections. The proposed budget would
support plans to catalog an additional 2 million museum objects in
fiscal year 2014. Additionally, several parks will complete collections
plans for fire protection, pest management, storage, and emergency
operations.
The United States Geological Survey would expand its efforts to
preserve, inventory, and digitize geological scientific collections,
such as rock and ice cores, fossils, and samples of oil, gas, and
water. The proposed $400,000 increase within Core Science Systems would
be used to help States with collections management, improve
accessibility of collections data, and expand digitization of
specimens.
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 Norton Sound Health Corporation
The requests of the Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC) for the
fiscal year 2014 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows:
--Appropriate an additional $13.58 million to staff and operate the
newly opened Norton Sound Regional Hospital, as requested by
the administration.
--Direct the IHS to use existing fiscal year 2014 appropriations to
fully fund the Village Built Clinic (VBC) leases in accordance
with section 804 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and
allocate an additional $8.2 million to VBC leases.
--Fully fund contract support costs at $617 million, an amount $140
million over the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request.
We also ask that the committees direct the IHS to immediately
release the outstanding fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012
CSC shortfall reports.
--Reject the administration's proposal to preclude CSC shortfall
recovery by specifying in the appropriations bill amounts for
individual Self-Determination contracts.
--Shield the IHS from sequestration.
The Norton Sound Health Corporation is the only regional health
system serving northwestern Alaska. It is on the edge of the Bering
Sea, just miles from the Russian border. We are not connected by road
with any part of the State and are 500 air miles from Anchorage--about
the distance from Washington, DC to Portland, Maine. Our service area
encompasses 44,000 square miles, approximately the size of Indiana. We
are proud that our system includes a tribally owned regional hospital
which is operated pursuant to an Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) agreement, and 15 village-based
clinics.\1\ The logistics and costs associated with travel and
transportation are a daily challenge, to say the least.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Funding Needed To Staff New Hospital Facility.--NSHC
gained beneficial occupancy of its new replacement hospital and
ambulatory care center facility in Nome in June 2012, the construction
of which was funded by the Recovery Act. The IHS and NSHC have
successfully worked as Government-to-Government partners to construct
and furnish the new facility.
The replacement facility is almost three times the size of the
former 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. NSHC needs to hire additional staff for
the new replacement facility including pharmacists, laboratory and X-
ray technicians, maintenance, information technology, housekeeping and
security personnel.
Now that the new facility is open, IHS has only to fund the
expanded staffing needs for operation of the replacement hospital. We
need the full amount requested by the President in his fiscal year 2014
budget--or an additional $13.58 million--in staffing/operating funds to
allow optimal use of the facility. These funds, combined with the over
$10 million staffing funds provided in the fiscal year 2013
appropriations will ensure that NSHC will be able to safely carry out
its mission in the new hospital.
It is important to note that the new hospital is located in a
medically underserved area and has one of the highest Health
Professions Shortage Area (HPSA) scores in the Nation. NSHC has been
greatly limited in its ability to recruit and hire medical
professionals, instead having to focus primarily on hiring core
operational staff. It is very difficult for us to successfully recruit
medical staff to Nome, particularly individuals who will need to move
to Nome with their families, based solely on our anticipation that
Congress might make additional staffing funds available to NSHC
sometime in the future. To fully realize the potential of the new
replacement hospital, and to ensure that we can safely provide adequate
and expanded healthcare services to the people in our region, we need
the full amount of $13.58 million that the President has asked for in
his budget.
Assistance Needed To End Chronic Underfunding of Village Built
Clinics.--The NSHC healthcare system includes 15 Village Built Clinics
(VBCs). The VBCs are essential for maintaining the IHS Community Health
Aide Program (CHAP) in Alaska, which provides the only local source of
healthcare for many Alaska Native people in rural areas. The CHAP
program is mandated by Congress as the instrument for providing basic
health services in remote Alaska Native villages. The CHAP program
cannot operate without the use of clinic facilities.
The IHS has for many years consistently underfunded the leases of
VBCs even though the IHS has had available appropriations to fully fund
the leases. Lease rental amounts for the VBCs have failed to keep pace
with costs--the majority of the leases for VBCs have not increased
since 1989. The IHS has instead shifted its statutory responsibilities
onto the villages and NSHC, which does not have adequate financial
resources to maintain and upgrade the VBCs for CHAP staff. As a result,
many of the VBCs are unsafe or have had to be closed, leaving some
villages in Alaska without a local healthcare facility.
As we indicated in our joint testimony to the subcommittees last
year, NSHC and many other tribal organizations in Alaska have discussed
this issue with the IHS on several occasions, and have proposed
solutions that the IHS continues to ignore. IHS continues to assert
that it provides for VBC leases all of the funds that Congress has
appropriated for the program. In our view, the amounts historically
traceable to the VBC leases 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, improvements and equipment, and
includes a sub-activity 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 can also access other IHS discretionary
funds to fully fund its VBC obligations.
For the fiscal year 2014, we urge that an additional $8.2 million
be appropriated to help fully fund VBC leases. We also ask that
Congress direct the IHS to use existing fiscal year 2014 appropriations
to fully fund the VBC leases in accordance with section 804 of the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
Contract Support Costs Must Be Fully Funded.--NSHC appreciates that
Congress has in recent years increased funding for IHS contract support
costs owed to tribes and tribal organizations under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act and Federal case law. Even
with these additional appropriated funds, the ongoing shortfall of CSC
continues to impose significant hardships on NSHC and its patients. We
urge the subcommittees to continue to push for full funding of CSC so
that CSC underfunding is finally resolved. While it is difficult to
estimate the full CSC need for fiscal year 2014--in part because IHS
refuses to release its CSC distribution data for the last 2 years, as
discussed further below--based on projections from fiscal year 2010 we
estimate that the total need in fiscal year 2014 to be $617 million.
Given the progress toward full CSC funding in recent years, we are
dismayed that the administration's budget request proposed only a
minimal increase for IHS CSC to $477,205,000. This would force tribes
to absorb almost $140 million in uncompensated costs for overhead and
administration of Federal programs. This continued shortfall
compromises NSHC's ability to serve its patients. We urge the
committees to fully fund IHS CSC at $617 million.
Just as disheartening is the administration's proposed
appropriations act language that attempts to preclude tribes from
recovering any of their CSC shortfalls through contract actions, which
the Supreme Court said is their right in the Salazar v. Ramah Navajo
Chapter case from 2012. The proposed bill language would incorporate by
reference a table identifying the maximum amount of CSC available for
every single ISDEAA agreement. This process is unworkable, and has been
proposed with zero input from tribes and other ISDEAA contractors. We
urge that the subcommittee reject this proposed approach and, instead,
fully fund CSC for both IHS and BIA.
Direct the Indian Health Service To Release CSC Shortfall Data.--
The IHS has failed to provide CSC shortfall reports to Congress for
fiscal years 2011 and 2012. The IHS must submit these reports no later
than May 15 of each year, per section 106(c) of the ISDEAA, 25 U.S.C.
Sec. 450j-1(c). NSHC and other ISDEAA contractors recently asked the
IHS to share the CSC distribution data for those years. Access to the
CSC shortfall data is critical to our ability to understand the IHS's
view of the scope of CSC underfunding, to evaluate IHS's allocation of
its insufficient past CSC appropriations, and to pursue full CSC
funding moving forward. The IHS has repeatedly refused to make the
reports available, most recently at a March 2013 meeting with the IHS
Area Lead Negotiator for the Alaska Area. We thus ask that the
committees direct the IHS to immediately release the fiscal years 2011
and 2012 CSC shortfall reports--and all future reports--in a timely
manner, as required by the ISDEAA.
Protect the Indian Health Service From Sequestration.--The Office
of Management and Budget determined that the IHS's appropriation is
fully sequestrable, which resulted in a $220 million cut in funding to
the IHS for fiscal year 2013--roughly 5 percent of the IHS's overall
budget. IHS lost $195 million for programs like hospitals and health
clinics services, contract health services, dental services, mental
health and alcohol and substance abuse. Programs and projects necessary
for maintenance and improvement of health facilities felt these same
impacts. These negative effects are then passed down to every ISDEAA
contractor, including NSHC. NSHC is already significantly underfunded,
resulting in further cuts to the availability of health services we are
able to provide to our patients, resulting in real consequences for
individuals who have to forego needed care.
We suffer these reductions and experience these new challenges to
providing healthcare for the people of the NSHC region, despite the
United States' trust responsibility for the health of Alaska Native and
American Indian people. We fail to understand why this responsibility
was taken less seriously than the Nation's promises to provide health
to our veterans. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) was made fully
exempt from the sequester for all programs administered by the VA. See
section 255 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
(BBEDCA), as amended by Public Law 111-139 (2010). Also exempt are
State Medicaid grants, and Medicare payments are held harmless except
for a 2 percent reduction for administration of the program. Yet the
IHS--which already faces low funding--was subject to full cuts. We thus
strongly urge the subcommittee to support amendment of the BBEDCA to
fully exempt the IHS from any future sequestration, just as the VA and
other health programs are exempt.
Thank you for your consideration of our request that adequate
fiscal year 2014 IHS staffing funding be made available for the NSHC
replacement hospital. We are very excited about the possibilities this
facility brings for improved healthcare for the people of Northwestern
Alaska. We also appreciate the committees' consideration of our
requests to address the chronic underfunding of Village Built Clinics
and contract support costs. We are happy to provide any additional
information you may request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
Coalition
My name is Lloyd Miller and I am a partner in the law firm of
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller and Munson, LLP. I appear here today
as counsel to the National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition. The
Coalition is comprised of 20 Tribes and tribal organizations situated
in 11 States and collectively operating contracts to administer $400
million in IHS and BIA services on behalf of over 250 Native American
Tribes.\1\ As the NTCSC Coalition has frequently stated to this
committee, the payment of contract support costs is essential to the
proper administration of Federal contracts awarded under the Indian
Self-Determination Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NTCSCC is comprised of the: Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium (Alaska), Arctic Slope Native Association (Alaska), Central
Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes (Alaska), Cherokee Nation
(Oklahoma), Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation
(Montana), Choctaw Nation (Oklahoma), Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes (Montana), Copper River Native Association (Alaska), Forest
County Potawatomi Community (Wisconsin), Kodiak Area Native Association
(Alaska), Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (Michigan), Pueblo of
Zuni (New Mexico), Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health
(California), Shoshone Bannock Tribes (Idaho), Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
(Idaho, Nevada), SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium (Alaska),
Spirit Lake Tribe (North Dakota), Tanana Chiefs Conference (Alaska),
Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation (Alaska), and the Northwest Portland
Area Indian Health Board (43 Tribes in Idaho, Washington, Oregon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I noted last year that no single enactment has had a more profound
effect on more tribal communities than the Indian Self-Determination
Act. In just three decades Tribes and inter-tribal organizations have
taken control over vast portions of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
the Indian Health Service, including Federal Government functions in
the areas of healthcare, education, law enforcement and land and
natural resource protection. Today, not a single Tribe in the United
States is without at least one self-determination contract with the IHS
and BIA, and collectively the Tribes administer some $2.8 billion in
essential Federal Government functions, employing an estimated 35,000
people. Contract support cost issues thus touch every Tribe in the
United States.
In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that ``[c]onsistent with
longstanding principles of Government contracting law, we hold that the
Government must pay each tribe's contract support costs in full.''
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 132 S. Ct. 2181, 2186 (2012). The
Court emphasized that ``the Government's obligation to pay contract
support costs should be treated as an ordinary contract promise.'' Id.
at 2188. Two months later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit applied this ruling to the Indian Health Service, concluding
that ``[t]he Secretary [was] obligated to pay all of ASNA's contract
support costs for fiscal years 1999 and 2000.'' Arctic Slope Native
Ass'n, Ltd. v. Sebelius, No. 2010-1013, Order at 6, 2012 WL 3599217
(Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2012). In short, it is now beyond any reasonable
debate that the payment of contract support costs is a binding
contractual obligation due all Tribes that operate BIA and IHS
contracts.
The administration has not embraced the rule of law; it has instead
sought to change it.
First, it has submitted a budget which falls $140 million short of
what is required to honor all tribal contracts with the Indian Health
Service. The budget is also $12 million short of what is required to
honor all BIA contracts.
Second, it has defiantly proposed a statutory amendment-by-
appropriation, seeking to cut off all future contract rights. It has
done this by proposing to give legal effect to a ``table'' which the
Secretary would someday provide to this committee, specifying the
maximum amount each tribal contractor would be entitled to be paid.
Since each tribal contract is ``subject to the availability of
appropriations,'' the administration hopes this language will limit
what is ``available'' to the amount in the ``table.'' The
administration does not propose that a Tribe cut back on its
administration of a contracted hospital or clinic, or a police
department or detention center. It only proposes to cut off what the
Government would pay for those services.
This is an outrageous and unwarranted overreaction by the
administration to another loss in the courts. But it is not surprising.
For years the agencies have kept their heads in the sand about their
contract obligations to the Tribes. They have acted as if these
contracts were just another program to be balanced against other
programs or activities the agencies felt were important to prioritize,
including protecting and growing their internal bureaucracies. They
have treated these self-determination contracts as second-class
contracts, and the Indian Tribes as second-class contractors. They
would never behave in this fashion if an IHS hospital were contracted
out to Sisters of Providence, or a BIA detention center were contracted
out to the Corrections Corporation of America. Yet they find it
perfectly acceptable to do so when the contract is with an Indian
Tribe.
What is perhaps most striking is that the administration has
proposed converting these contracts into second-class contracts only
months after a Supreme Court ruling which declared these to be
``ordinary contract promise[s]'' which must be paid in full. It is
nothing short of dishonorable--even discriminatory--for the
administration now to propose a special limitation applicable to Indian
contracts only. I am also concerned that it may be confiscatory, and
thus unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, for it tells the
Tribes they must do their contracted work and accept less-than-full
payment, to be set at the agency's whim and with no recourse.
It is, of course, the ``no recourse'' aspect of this new idea that
is most troubling. For over 120 years it has been bedrock law that if
the Government cannot, or will not, pay a contractor, the contractor
has recourse through the courts. Ferris v. United States, 27 Ct. Cl.
542, 546 (1892). If an overall appropriation is capped (as has been the
case with contract support costs), there is recourse in the courts for
those tribal contractors who suffer underpayments. A judicial remedy
for any underpayment permits a cap to withstand legal, and
constitutional, scrutiny. But once that relief valve is shut off, the
risk of unconstitutional action rises. In Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt,
the Supreme Court warned that ``[a] statute that retroactively
repudiates the Government's contractual obligation may violate the
Constitution.'' 543 U.S. 631, 646 (2005). The Court also warned against
the ``practical disadvantages flowing from governmental repudiation.''
Id.
Consider what it is the administration is actually proposing. The
administration is not proposing that the appropriations act include a
line-item specifying the maximum amount of funding available to pay a
given contractor. That is what occurred in Sutton v. United States,
256 U.S. 575 (1921), and that is one of the options the Supreme Court
described in Ramah, 132 S. Ct. at 2195 (``Congress could elect to make
line-item appropriations, allocating funds to cover tribes' contract
support costs on a contractor-by-contractor basis.''). Instead, the
administration is proposing that the agencies, and not Congress, would
specify how much each Tribe would be paid--but just in contract support
costs--and the agencies would do so only after the contract support
cost appropriation is enacted and after the agencies have made an
assessment about how they wish to divide up that appropriation. They
would do all this long after the Tribes had signed their contracts,
long after the Tribes had substantially performed those contracts, and
long after the Tribes had incurred costs carrying out those contracts.
In essence, the administration proposes that a Tribe should
contract to run a hospital, clinic or detention center for a full year,
but that if any shortfall occurs in the required administrative costs--
costs that the Government, itself, sets--then the Tribe must somehow
contribute the unpaid balance. That sort of forced volunteer services
may well violate the appropriations clause, by effectively taking away
from Congress the power to regulate spending on Federal projects.
Serious constitutional problems are also implicated when the agency
makes an after-the-fact determination that the Government is not going
to pay for services rendered. These are certainly not the
straightforward ``line-item appropriations'' that the Supreme Court
said were possible if Congress wanted to limit the Government's
exposure for contract damages.
For the foregoing reasons, the National Tribal Contract Support
Cost Coalition respectfully urges the committee to reject the
administration's effort to radically alter both the structure of the
annual appropriations bill and the fundamental nature of Indian Self-
Determination Act contracts. If a sea change in Federal Indian policy
is to be considered by Congress, and if the change potentially
implicates issues of constitutional dimension, due deliberation should
begin with the authorizing committees, starting with the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs.
In sum:
--The Coalition respectfully suggests that this committee reject the
administration's proposed restructuring of the appropriations
act.
--The Coalition further respectfully suggests that the committee
either eliminate the current caps (as was the case with the IHS
appropriation until fiscal year 1998, and with the BIA until
fiscal year 1994), or raise the IHS cap to $617 million and the
BIA cap to $242 million. Whatever funding levels are fixed in
the bill, tribal contractors should not be denied the remedies
that every other Government contractor possesses, and which the
Supreme Court in the Ramah and Cherokee cases confirmed protect
Indian contractors, too.
--The Coalition also respectfully suggests that the administration be
directed to engage Tribes in true and thoughtful government-to-
government consultation, consistent with President Obama's
November 5, 2009 memorandum directing full implementation of
Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments''), 65 Fed. Reg. 67,249 (2000). In so
doing, the administration should be directed to work with the
National Congress of American Indians, impacted tribal
organizations, and experts in the field. If legislative changes
are deemed necessary, the goal should be the development of a
joint Federal-tribal proposal. The administration should be
directed not to bring any proposal to this committee sooner
than the fiscal year 2016 appropriations cycle, to be sure that
any Federal-tribal proposal that is brought forward has been
fully vetted in advance with the relevant authorizing
committees.
--Finally, the Coalition requests that the committee take firm action
to force the disclosure of IHS data the Secretary has failed to
share with Congress and the Tribes, contrary to Federal law.
Section 106(c) of the act requires that an annual shortfall
report on past and anticipated contract underpayments be
delivered to Congress by May 15. The IHS report on fiscal year
2011 data--2 year old data--has still not been submitted to
Congress. The 2009 and 2010 reports were only submitted last
fall, the former report 3 years late. Without accurate data,
this committee cannot perform its constitutional function.
Without accurate data, Tribes cannot know what the agencies are
doing with their contract funds.
Since the agencies invoke the ``deliberative process privilege''
under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(b)(5) to resist disclosure, we request
the insertion of language waiving that provision for all CSC
data not disclosed on or before May 15. Past data errors are a
reason to disclose data, not to keep it secret long until after
it is useful. The recent withholding of CSC payment data must
stop.
--On a related note, the President's budget now routinely omits any
mention of the total projected amounts required for IHS and BIA
contract payments. Until the fiscal year 2011 budget, such
projections were routinely included in the budget narrative.
The Coalition respectfully requests that the committee direct
the Secretaries to include this data in future budget
submissions.
By any measure, the Indian Self-Determination Act has been a
stunning success, most importantly for the Indian citizens
served, but also in the strengthening and maturing of modern
tribal government institutions. Now is not the time to adopt
changes that will inevitably drive Tribes to retrocede their
contracted activities to the Federal Government, turning back
the clock on the most successful initiative the United States
has ever launched in Indian affairs.
On behalf of the over 250 federally recognized Tribes represented
by the National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition, I humbly thank
the committee for this opportunity to provide testimony on the
administration's proposed fiscal year 2014 budget.
______
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 2014 appropriations. My name is Thomas
J. Cassidy, Jr. and I am the Vice President for Government Relations
and Policy. The National Trust is a privately funded nonprofit
organization chartered by Congress in 1949. We work to save America's
historic places to enrich our future. With headquarters in Washington,
DC, 13 field offices, 27 historic sites, 746,000 members and supporters
and partner organizations in 50 States, territories, and the District
of Columbia, the National Trust works to save America's historic places
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 generate lasting economic vitality for 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 38,700 buildings throughout the Nation.
Since its creation more than 30 years ago, the HTC has created 2.3
million jobs and leveraged nearly $106 billion in private investment.
The National Trust and its preservation partners recommend at least
$62.985 million for the Historic Preservation Fund, including $50
million for the SHPOs and $10 million for the THPOs. Such a modest
increase in funding would recognize the continuing demand upon these
agencies for preservation services, including an increase in
participation among THPOs from 131 tribes in fiscal year 2012 to an
estimated 150 tribes in fiscal year 2014.
We enthusiastically endorse the administration's request for $3
million for competitive grants for the survey and nomination of
properties to the National Register of Historic Places and National
Historic Landmarks associated with communities currently
underrepresented. Recent studies have documented that fewer than 5
percent of such listings identify culturally diverse properties. This
program would correct the underrepresentation of all the Nation's
stories.
We also look forward to working with the subcommittee to restore
funding for competitive grant programs that protect our Nation's most
significant cultural artifacts and historic structures. The Save
America's Treasures program, for example, had been one of the largest
and most successful grant programs to preserve endangered and
irreplaceable cultural heritage before funding was eliminated in the
fiscal year 2011 budget.
national park service: operation of the national park system, cultural
resources stewardship
We appreciate the administration's slight increase to this program
over fiscal year 2012 enacted levels. Three-quarters of the 401 units
of the National Park System were created to protect our most important
historic and cultural resources. Over the past two decades, the
National Park Service (NPS) has added over 35 new parks, 8 of them
during this administration, which are predominantly cultural and
historical in value. However, funding for cultural resources
stewardship has not received support commensurate with natural
resources stewardship. During the fiscal year 2010 budget hearings,
then Acting NPS Director Dan Wenk stated that NPS had been neglectful
of cultural resources. A report of the National Academy of Public
Administration found that during the fiscal year 1999-fiscal year 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 2014 budget requests
an increase of $2.6 million over fiscal year 2012 enacted, additional
funding is plainly needed to approach funding parity with natural
resources stewardship. We look forward to working with the subcommittee
to sustain an increase in funding for this program.
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. We support the administration's
fiscal year 2014 request which is a modest increase over fiscal year
2012 enacted. We also support the requested $5.3 million increase for
line item Construction that is needed to address deferred maintenance
and rehabilitation at a number of historic sites and National Historic
Landmarks. 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.
We are concerned that any reduction in the line item Construction
account, most of which funds new construction, not adversely impact
important rehabilitation of historic structures.
national park service: leasing historic structures in national parks
We appreciate the subcommittee'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. Further encouragement by
the subcommittee to expand the use of historic leases could help
catalyze broader use of this important authority.
One promising new and cost-effective opportunity for the NPS and
other Federal agencies with historic preservation responsibilities to
address the backlog of historic maintenance in the parks is through the
recently signed MOU establishing a new cooperative among NPS, the other
Federal land agencies, and several NGOs, including the Student
Conservation Association and The Corps Network. College interns, trade
school students, and out of work youth and veterans would be trained in
the preservation skills necessary to perform preservation work in the
parks and other Federal lands.
national park service: national heritage areas
We recommend funding for National Heritage Areas (NHAs) at the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level or higher. The administration's repeated
proposals to reduce NHA funding, justified as ``encouraging self-
sufficiency,'' would severely impair the sustainability of the program
and the individual NHAs that Congress has established. 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. In its 2013 report, the Alliance of National Heritage Areas noted
that since the program was created in 1984, the economic activity
generated through NHAs supports approximately 148,000 jobs and $1.2
billion annually in Federal taxes. The economic benefits of NHAs are
realized through tourism and visitation, operational expenditures, and
issuing grants and support. NHAs on average leverage every Federal
dollar into $5.50 of additional public and private investment.
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 2014 request, a $6.5
million increase over fiscal year 2012 enacted, in order 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
We support the administration's fiscal year 2014 request of $16.329
million for this account, a slight increase over fiscal year 2012
enacted levels. The 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, 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 only 9
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.
land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
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.
u.s. forest service, recreation heritage and wilderness: heritage
program
Forest Service (USFS) lands contain an estimated 2 million cultural
resource sites, including 27 National Historic Landmarks, 325,000
identified cultural resource sites and its first national monument
designated primarily for its world-class cultural resources. The Forest
Service has updated their performance measures that will now track the
management of the entire program through seven new indicators instead
of tracking individual assets. This will standardize the program and
ensure program staff are working toward a common goal of promoting
efficient and effective management of all heritage resources. As these
new standards are implemented, we request the Forest Service integrate
a needs assessment for bringing their assets to standard. To further
understand the successes and needs of the program we request an annual
reporting to Congress of the allocations, expenditures and
accomplishments of the program by Region and National Forest levels
within 12 months of the close of the fiscal year. Providing Congress
and the public with a clear understanding of the fiscal needs for USFS
heritage assets will assist potential partners determine where they can
best engage with Federal managers for the benefit of these
irreplaceable resources.
advisory council on historic preservation
The National Trust supports the administration's requested increase
of funding for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). 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.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the National Trust's
recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 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 member-based conservation advocacy and education organization,
and our more than 4 million members and supporters, we thank you for
the opportunity to provide fiscal year 2014 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 (Public Law 112-25). 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 2014 appropriations bill, and to pass a bill free of such riders.
National Wildlife Federation is overall supportive of the
President's fiscal year 2014 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 this program has suffered in
recent years. We urge Congress to honor its commitment to this
important effort and strongly support the President's fiscal year 2014
request of $61.3 million.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation
Safeguarding fish and wildlife resources from climate change is a
major concern for the entire natural resource conservation community,
and FWS's Landscape Conservation Cooperatives represent an important
means for leveraging Federal, State, and private resources to achieve
effective conservation outcomes. We urge Congress to meaningfully
address the very real threats of climate change to our fish and
wildlife and support the President's request of $17.6 million for
Cooperative Landscape Conservation.
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 2014 funding request of $499 million for Operations and
Maintenance for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Robust funding is
even more important given that the sequestration cuts enacted in fiscal
year 2013 are continuing to force closures and reduced services at many
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 President's
proposed $35.3 million in funding for fiscal year 2014.
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 President's fiscal year
2014 request of $189.193 million. We are particularly supportive of the
$10 million requested funding for tribal collaboration with DOI
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives to support tribal engagement in
climate adaptation.
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 2014 funding request of $71.5
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. The program
facilitates efficient and expeditious permitting, identification and
review of wind energy areas, and efforts to evaluate and protect the
sage grouse, lesser prairie chickens, whooping cranes, golden eagles,
and Indiana bats. NWF strongly supports the President's request of
$96.9 million for fiscal year 2014, an increase of $25.6 million from
fiscal year 2012 enacted.
u.s. 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 an increase from
the President's $25.3 million fiscal year 2014 request to fiscal year
2012 enacted level of $31.5 million.
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 requests laid out in the
President's fiscal year 2014 budget, with $400 million in ``current''
funding and $200 million in ``permanent'' funding projects for the Land
and Water Conservation Fund. In addition, we support efforts to ensure
LWCF is funded at its maximum authorized level, including legislative
efforts to provide robust and dedicated funding outside of the budget
process. We'd also like to particularly signal our support for the
Urban Parks and Recreation Fund within LWCF, new in this year's budget,
and endorse the President's request of $10 million in ``current''
funding and $5 million in ``permanent'' funding.
national park service
Cooperative Landscape Conservation
In order to ensure the continued survival of the plants, animals,
and landscapes that Americans value for their recreational and
educational uses, conservation efforts must adapt to a changing
climate. DOI is making great strides in establishing guidance and
gathering new data in the field of climate adaptation, and this program
is crucial to ensure that plants and wildlife can survive the changing
climate and exist for future generations to enjoy. NWF supports the
President's request of $8.9 million, $6.0 million more than the fiscal
year 2012 enacted level.
environmental protection agency
Urban Waters Grant Program and Urban Waters Federal Partnership
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 and Urban Waters Federal Partnership not
only fund innovative approaches for water quality improvements that
benefit aquatic ecosystems, but also revitalize urban waterfronts,
providing economic benefits and recreation value for residents. We
support the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request of $4.4 million
for the Urban Waters Grant Program and the Partnership.
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 strongly support the President's requested increase in funding
for the EPA's flagship geographic programs, the Chesapeake Bay Program
Office ($73 million requested, an increase of $15.7 million from fiscal
year 2012 enacted) and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative ($300
million requested). However, we are concerned about significant
proposed funding decreases for several other regional efforts,
including but not limited to the Long Island Sound Program and Puget
Sound Program.
EPA 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 glad to see funding maintained for this program, and
supports the President's fiscal year 2014 request for $27.3 million.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Since the 1970s, 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. While we greatly appreciate the
EPA's dedication to increasing green infrastructure options, we believe
now, particularly when America's infrastructure is rated at D+ by the
American Society of Civil Engineers, is not the time to cut resources
from communities. NWF strongly opposes the $371 million proposed cut to
this program, and urges Congress to increase funding from the
President's fiscal year 2014 request of $1.095 billion to fiscal year
2012 enacted levels of $1.47 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 $164.5 million requested
by the President to the fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $175 million.
Climate and Air Pollution Reduction Programs
NWF supports EPA's priority goal of improving the country's air
quality and take action on climate change. We support the President's
request of $801 million to address air quality, an increase of $32.7
million over 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 and obligations to reduce
toxic air pollution. We also support the requested $212.9 million for
addressing climate change, an increase of $12.9 million over fiscal
year 2012 enacted, allowing the Agency to support a full range of
approaches for reducing carbon pollution and the risks posed to human
health and the environment from climate change.
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 2014.
everglades
America's Everglades are one of the most unique and biodiverse
ecosystems in the world, designated as Ramsar Wetlands of International
Significance. In the 1940s the Army Corps drained the Everglades
resulting in substantial wetland and habitat loss. Protection of the
remaining ecosystem and restoration of ecological function are critical
for water supply, wildlife, water quality, recreation, tourism, and the
economy of South Florida. A recent study indicates each dollar invested
in restoring the Everglades will result in a $4 return. Beginning in
the 1980s, Congress made and has affirmed its commitment to restoring
the historic River of Grass by allowing fresh water to flow southward
and later enacting the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. This
subcommittee has made substantial progress in furthering that promise
in recent years--authorizing and funding construction of a 1-mile
bridge along the Tamiami Trail, and in fiscal year 2013 authorizing the
next phase of bridging. We urge Congress to continue its investment and
strongly support the President's budget request for $30 million to
construct the Next Steps of the Tamiami Trail, $5 million for
conservation in the Everglades Headwaters, and $30.2 million for
Everglades National Park and Refuges management.
______
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
support for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). NWRA
appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2014
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill and
respectfully requests $499 million for the Refuge System's Operations
and Maintenance accounts, as well as $600 million for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
We understand the challenging fiscal climate our Nation is in, but
we also feel that cutting funding to programs that are economic drivers
in local communities is not an answer to our problems, but rather
exacerbates the issue. Should sequestration cuts continue in fiscal
year 2014, we estimate that vital Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
programs such as the NWRS and Partners for Conservation will be unable
to meet core functions. Because budgets have not kept pace with rising
costs, the gap between the level of funding needed to maintain
capabilities for these programs and the level of funding appropriated
by Congress has widened dramatically. To begin to bridge that gap, NWRA
seeks a middle ground and urges Congress to fund critical programs that
leverage Federal dollars and are economic drivers. We, therefore,
respectfully request the subcommittee support the following funding
allocations for programs in the NWRS and FWS:
--$499 million for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of
the NWRS, including $22 million for Inventory and Monitoring,
$40 million for Refuge Law Enforcement, $75 million for
Visitors Services, $3.6 million for Challenge Cost Share, $9.35
million for the Cooperative Recovery Initiative and $5 million
for the Pacific Marine Monuments;
--$600 million for LWCF, of which $106 million be allocated for FWS,
including $50 million for the Everglades Headwaters NWR and
Conservation Area (Florida); $6.5 million for the Silvio O.
Conte NFWR (Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts); and $6 million for the Cache River NWR
(Arkansas);
--$60 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
--$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
(under DOI);
--$20 million for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund;
--$17.6 million for Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) in the
FWS;
--$16 million for the FWS construction account;
--$61.3 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
--$39.4 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
--$3.7 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund;
--$9.8 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund and
$13.5 million for Wildlife Without Borders; and
--$8.5 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF).
national wildlife refuge system--o&m
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 Refuge System. CARE estimates the Refuge
System needs at least $900 million annually to fully function; yet the
highest level of funding for the System, $503 million in fiscal year
2010, was just over half that amount. Since that time, appropriations
have been steadily backsliding toward levels that, in real dollars,
have not been seen since fiscal year 2006.
If sequestration cuts continue, CARE estimates that NWRS's fiscal
year 2014 appropriation could drop to about $420 million--a cut of $83
million, or 17 percent, compared with fiscal year 2010. On the ground,
it will feel more like a 24 percent, cut, because the Refuge System
needs an increase of $8 million to $15 million each year to cover the
rising cost of fuel, utilities, rent, and other fixed expenses. Because
budgets have not kept pace with rising costs, the gap between the level
of funding needed to maintain the Refuge System's capabilities and the
level of funding appropriated by Congress has widened dramatically. To
begin to bridge that gap, CARE seeks a middle ground and urges Congress
to fund the NWRS Operations and Maintenance accounts at $499 million in
fiscal year 2014.
NWRS generates tremendous public benefits, with 47 million visitors
coming to enjoy recreational opportunities last year. Refuge visitation
generates between $4 and $8 to local economies for every $1
appropriated, and contributes to the $1.7 trillion overall annual
economic impact of outdoor recreation, natural resource conservation,
and historic preservation. In addition, refuges generate more than
$32.3 billion each year in ecosystem services, such as water storage/
filtration and storm buffering on which cities like Miami, Minneapolis,
Hartford, New Orleans, Salt Lake City and Sacramento depend. NWRS is
not a bloated bureaucracy; in fact, for most FWS regions, the size of
the full-time workforce is smaller today than 10 years ago. During this
decade, NWRS has also had a large expansion of responsibility in the
areas of planning, inventory and monitoring, law enforcement needs,
climate change, acres managed, expanded public use opportunities such
as hunting, fishing, birding, and more. These numbers are indicative of
a workforce stretched thin and describes an agency that cannot do more
with less; they are a rubber band at its breaking point and unless
Congress restores their funding, they will be forced to make drastic
management decisions.
partnerships and strategic growth
NWRA calls upon Congress to fund the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) at $600 million, of which $106 million should be allocated
to FWS for individual refuge projects and collaborative conservation
projects. Created in 1965 and authorized at $900 million per year (more
than $3 billion in today's dollars), 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, LWCF is more important than ever. NWRA strongly supports the new
mandatory funding requests, as well as the collaborative conservation
proposals of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture that bring
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;
--Cache River NWR (Arkansas)--$6 million; and
--Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut)--$6.5 million.
NWRA also strongly supports the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program, a powerful tool for working with private landowners to
collaboratively conserve refuge landscapes. The program consistently
leverages Federal dollars for maximum conservation benefit, generating
between $4 and $10 in conservation return for every $1 appropriated.
NWRA requests a fiscal year 2014 appropriation of $60 million for the
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.
commitment to refuge communities--refuge revenue sharing
The Refuge System uses net income derived from 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. 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.
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 and currently sequestration is having a dramatic impact. FWS
anticipates that fewer than 20 refuges nationwide will attempt to
continue their fire regime as called for in management plans; that
means every other program in the Nation will be ended completely or
deeply cut. Unfortunately, because funding for the FWS fire program
falls under the DOI's Hazardous Fuel Reduction program, less and less
funds are going to the FWS for prescribed burns. The funding for the
FWS under DOI's Hazardous Fuel Reduction program is down by 40 percent,
with FWS treating less than one-quarter of what they used to do.
This loss of prescribed burning is leading to an increase in fuel
and could have catastrophic results--especially in urban areas where
reducing fuel loads ultimately protects people's lives and property.
For instance, J.N. Ding Darling NWR in Florida uses prescribed burns
extensively where lightning strikes would normally cause fires every
couple of years. Without the ability to reduce fuel on the refuge,
there is concern in the city of Sanibel that the next fire could
quickly become out of control. We urge returning capabilities for FWS
to $60 million for fiscal year 2014.
national blueways
Two National Blueways have been established and both are focused on
national wildlife refuges and surrounding watersheds. The first
National Blueway, the Connecticut River watershed, established in May
2012 and encompasses the entire Silvio O. Conte National Fish and
Wildlife Refuge spanning the States of Connecticut, Vermont, New
Hampshire, and Massachusetts. In this instance, the Blueway is an
overlay of the refuge, which was established to conserve the entire
watershed. The second National Blueway, the White River, includes the
Cache River NWR. Cache River NWR dominates an important landscape where
the FWS, NRCS and the Army Corps are cooperating on a major restoration
project. Fiscal year 2014 LWCF funding is essential to supporting the
goals of the project and Blueway.
National Blueway designation is not a new Federal spending program,
rather it is good governance where agencies, through memorandums of
understanding and cooperative agreements, agree to focus and share
resources toward common goals. This is something we at NWRA have long
advocated for and are strongly supportive of. Continued collaboration
across agencies and with local communities is the future of
conservation in our Nation.
leveraging american volunteerism
Refuges are vital places for the American people to connect with
nature and get involved. Currently, refuge Friends and volunteers do 20
percent of all work on refuges. In 2012, these 1.6 million hours
equated to 766 full time employees. This is extremely important, as the
System has lost approximately 500 positions from operations and 150
from fire over the past few years. About 200 staff nationwide are
assigned to visitor's services, but with sequestration and lost
positions from attrition, these staff are being moved to other duties.
Adding insult to injury, this reduction has a drastic multiplier effect
because many of these positions oversee volunteers. Without staff to
oversee volunteers, that commitment and passion is lost, as is their
desperately needed contribution to the System. We request $74 million
for Visitors Services for NWRS.
construction
While FWS has steadily been working to reduce their operations and
maintenance backlogs, refuges still have existing have construction
needs, including the replacement of deteriorating structures that are
expensive to maintain. We support the President's requested $16 million
for NWRS's construction budget, including habitat restoration and
visitor enhancements.
protecting the public and refuge resources--nwrs 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 Refuge System. They
recommended a force of 845 full-time Federal wildlife officers to
adequately protect visitors and taxpayer resources; but the System has
only a little more than one-quarter of that amount with 250 officers
for the 150-million-acre System. Further, since the report was
completed in 2005, the System has grown by 50 million and visitation
has grown by more than 15 percent to more than 45 million in 2012. We
request $40 million for NWRS law enforcement.
using science to guide adaptive management
FWS and the NWRS are developing landscape-level strategies to
address habitat changes due to shifting land use, increasing human
population, the spread of invasive species and changing climates. 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 allocating $17.6 million to fund LCCs in fiscal year 2014 and
$22 million for the NWRS's Inventory and Monitoring program.
NWRA believes the National Wildlife Refuge System can meet its
responsibilities to the American people with collaboration and
sufficient funding and we urge Congress to help the FWS meet these
obligations.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Water Resources Association
On behalf of the membership of the National Water Resources
Association, I am in support of selected programs under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
endangered species recovery implementation program
Fiscal Year 2014 Request--Support President's Budget Request
This program provides funding for Upper Colorado and San Juan
endangered fish recovery programs that ensure ESA compliance for 2,500
Federal, tribal, and non-Federal water projects under Federal/non-
Federal cost sharing arrangements authorized by Congress under Public
Law 106-392.
fisheries and aquatic resources conservation activity; national fish
hatchery operations subactivity
Fiscal Year 2014 Request--Support President's Budget Request
This program provides the Federal share of funding from USFWS for
the Upper Colorado and San Juan Endangered Fish Recovery Program and
ensures ESA compliance for 2,500 water projects.
resources management appropriation ecological services activity;
endangered species subactivity--recovery of species element
Fiscal Year 2014 Request--Support President's Budget Request
This program provides the Federal share of funding from USFWS for
the Upper Colorado and San Juan Endangered Fish Recovery Program and
ensures ESA compliance for 2,500 water projects.
new project/program starts
Cooperative Environmental Water Transactions Program Development (EBID
0203-12-036170)
Fiscal Year 2014 Request--$70,000 DOI (Fish and Wildlife Service)
______
Prepared Statement of OPERA America
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, OPERA
America is 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 the subcommittee to designate
a total of $155 million to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
for fiscal year 2014. 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.
the nea is a great investment in the economic growth of every community
Despite diminished resources, including a budget that has decreased
by almost $30 million since 2010, the NEA awards more than 1,000 grants
annually to nonprofit arts organizations for projects that encourage
artistic creativity and community accessibility. 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
and in every congressional district.
The return of the Federal Government's small investment in the arts
is striking. The nonprofit arts industry generates $135.2 billion
annually in economic activity ($61.1 billion by the Nation's nonprofit
arts and culture organizations), supports 4.13 million full-time
equivalent jobs, and returns $22.3 billion in revenue to local, State,
and Federal governments each year. Measured against collective arts
allocations of $4 billion, that's a return of more than five 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 the recent years, the NEA
continues to be a beacon for arts organizations across the country.
The return on investment is not only found in dollar matches. The
average city and county reports that nonprofit arts and culture
organizations had 5,215 volunteers who donated 201,719 hours. These
volunteer hours have a value of approximately $4.5 million--a
demonstration that citizens value the arts in their communities.
nea grants at work
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.
NEA grants are awarded to dance organizations through its core
programs: Art Works; Challenge America Fast Track Grants; and Federal/
State Partnerships. In 2013, the NEA funded or has recommended funding
60 grants, totaling almost $2 million, to the opera discipline under
the Art Works funding category.
The following are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on
opera programs from the NEA's 2012 Art Works Program:
Atlanta Opera, $12,500, Atlanta, Georgia
To support the Studio Touring Production for Middle School Youth, a
new educational initiative. For the first time, the organization will
reach middle-school students with a program featuring the bilingual
opera En Mis Palabras (In My Own Words), about the teenage immigrant
experience.
Des Moines Metro Opera, $20,000, Indianola, Iowa
To support the OPERA Iowa Touring Educational Troupe reaching
undeserved rural schools in the Midwest.
Minnesota Opera, $40,000, Minneapolis, Minnesota
To support the world premiere of Douglas J. Cuomo and John Patrick
Shanley's Doubt. Based on the Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award-winning
play and Oscar-nominated motion picture, the production will be
conducted by Christopher Franklin with stage direction by Kevin
Newbury.
Opera Memphis, $15,000, Memphis, Tennessee
To support 30 Days of Opera, a new opera festival. Activities will
include concerts, educational workshops at community centers, pop-up
opera on street corners and in parks, and back-stage tours of the
costume and scenic shops at the opera house.
Palm Beach Opera, $15,000, West Palm Beach, Florida
To support the training activities, mainstage productions, and
community outreach of the Palm Beach Young Artist Program. The
educational curriculum will include voice lessons, master classes, and
movement classes, as well as performance opportunities in mainstage
roles and in numerous outreach programs, including ``One Opera in One
Hour,'' ``Lunch & Learn,'' and ``Concerts for the Classroom.''
Santa Fe Opera, $60,000, Santa Fe, New Mexico
To support a new production of Oscar, the co-commission and co-
production with Opera Philadelphia based on the life and words of Oscar
Wild, brought to the stage by the creative team of director Kevin
Newbury, composer Theodore Morrison, with a libretto by Theodore
Morrison and John Cox.
Virginia Opera, $22,500, Norfolk, Virginia
To support a new production of Andre Previn's A Streetcar Named
Desire, to launch the ``Made in America'' series, and based on the
Pulitzer Prize-winning play by Tennessee Williams.
More than half of OPERA America's member companies were established
after 1970 (corresponding to the establishment of the NEA) and more
than 40 percent were established since 1980, indicating the growth of
opera throughout in the last 40 years. In the 2010 and 2011 calendar
years, OPERA America's members were involved with 35 world premieres
an. New operatic works--369--have been produced in North America since
2000.
Over 6.5 million people attended a live performance at one of OPERA
America's company members during the 2010-2011 season, including
educational and outreach programs, as well as festivals. During the
same season, members of OPERA America presented 1,070 mainstage,
festival, educational, and other productions. The collective expenses
of members totaled $687 million; total Government support amounted to
$36 million, representing 5 percent of total operating income. This
represents a return on investment of 19 to 1.
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 Outdoor Industry Association
On behalf of the Outdoor Industry Association and our more than
1,300 member companies, I write to urge you to support modest and
sustainable funding for the recreation and preservation programs of the
Department of the Interior, the U.S. Forest Service and the EPA.
The strength of our national economy is directly linked to the
treasures that are our parks, forests, waterways, wildlife refuges,
recreational trails and similar recreation assets. These public lands
and waters are deeply popular with American families nationwide.
Moreover, they represent a foundational infrastructure for recreation
just as important as highways are to the transportation industry or
fiber optic lines are to the telecommunications industry. A national
outdoor recreation system of diverse, accessible, affordable places for
every American to get outdoors and enjoy healthy lifestyles is crucial
to the health and well being of the American people and our economy.
Rather than compounding our deficit problems, our national outdoor
recreation system produces exceptional economic value and jobs in
communities across the country. Our public lands and waters drive a
recreational economy that generates $646 billion in direct consumer
spending, supports more than 6 million sustainable American jobs, and
generates more than $80 billion in Federal, State and local tax
revenue. At the local level, resources invested in recreational trail
infrastructure, river access and other open space have an impressive
and sustainable return for local economies, especially those in rural
areas.
In real terms, Federal spending on natural resources and recreation
programs has declined over the last 20 years. This program area
comprised only about 1 percent of the total Federal budget for fiscal
year 2012. Natural resources, recreation, bicycling, and community
development programs are, at best, paltry contributors to the Federal
deficit yet they have been disproportionately targeted for cuts in the
past. We believe this should be avoided as Congress begins
consideration of the fiscal year 2014 Federal appropriations. Instead,
these programs need to be recognized as shining examples of the type of
sound investment that the Federal Government should pursue.
In order to support a strong economy and foster happy, healthy
families and communities, we urge Congress to recognize the importance
and value of the investments in the natural resources, recreation,
conservation, and preservation programs found in the budgets for the
Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the EPA.
Please provide adequate funding for the our Nation's public lands
and waters as outlined below:
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Department/Program 2012 Enacted 2014 Proposed OIA Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land and Water Conservation Fund (Total)..................... $322 $600 $900
Federal Land Acquisition (Interior & Agriculture (USFS).. 199.1 356 356
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund......... 25 84 84
NPS State Grants......................................... 44.9 60 60
Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Grants............... 0 15 15
Forest Legacy Program (USFS)............................. 53.3 84.8 84.8
Department of the Interior:
Youth Programs (department-wide)......................... 42 54 54
Land Management Operations (NPS, BLM, FWS)............... 4,535 4,675.8 4,675.8
Partnership Program...................................... 100 104 104
Rivers, Trails, Conservation Assistance.................. 9.9 10.1 10.1
Historic Preservation and Battlefield Grants............. 57.3 50.3 57.3
Reclamation River Restoration............................ 154 120.2 154
Agriculture--National Forest System (USFS): Recreation, 281 261 281
Heritage and Wilderness.....................................
EPA--Protecting America's Waters............................. 2,799 2,479 2,479
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 9,984.3 9,993.2 10,696
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthy and productive communities offer lasting good jobs and easy
access to parks, trails and other places to play. There is no doubt
that people use green spaces when they're available, well maintained
and close at hand. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that access
to green spaces has significant economic and health benefits.
--After investing in public space restoration and development, the
city of Ogden, Utah, added more jobs than any other region in
the country in 2011, with more than 8,000 new jobs flowing into
the community. In addition, the city has scored more than $1.2
billion in investment, while lowering taxes three times. And
crime has dropped by 33 percent, which is more than double the
national average rate.
--In Cincinnati, Ohio, research found that homeowners were willing to
pay a premium of $9,000 on houses that were within 1,000 feet
of bike paths.
--As part of its turnaround strategy, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
created the Allegheny Riverfront Green Boulevard, ``a multi-
modal transportation corridor that includes park access, open
space programming, neighborhood design, storm water management
and habitat restoration.''
--The State of Arkansas awarded $1.2 million in 50/50 match grants in
2012 to foster outdoor recreation, recognizing its potential
benefits to the economy and residents' quality of life.
Outdoor recreation and the outdoor industry are a core economic
sector in America, driven by innovation and technology. Sustainable
American jobs exist across the value chain-suppliers, manufacturers,
retailers, sales representatives. Moreover, outdoor recreation is an
industry that America dominates worldwide. The world looks to America
as the leader in the protection of our public lands and waters and
looks to American brands for innovative outdoor products, gear, apparel
and footwear.
A healthy and diverse outdoor recreation economy promotes economic
activity and jobs in every community--large and small, urban and
rural--across America. Outdoor recreation and the places that Americans
get outside--parks, trails, rivers and open space--are critical
economic drivers and essential to a high quality of life. Cutting
funding that supports those quality places directly and adversely
impacts not just the outdoor industry, but a diversity of other
industries and myriad associated businesses that chose their location,
in large part, on accessible, healthy public lands and watersheds and
outdoor spaces to be enjoyed by their workforce. Conversely, investing
in these quality lands and waters promises significant economic growth
for both the outdoor industry and the many associated businesses that
choose to locate near public lands and outdoor spaces in order to
improve the quality of life experience for their employees.
Please promote a strong economy and happy, healthy families and
communities by investing in our Nation's parks, trails, rivers and open
spaces.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
The Oregon Water Resources Congress (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 2014. The CWSRF is an effective loan
program that addresses critical water infrastructure needs while
benefiting 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.
OWRC is a nonprofit association representing irrigation districts,
water control districts, improvement districts, drainage districts and
other local government entities delivering agricultural water supplies.
These water stewards operate complex water management systems,
including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower
production, and deliver water to roughly one-third of all irrigated
land in Oregon. OWRC has been promoting the protection and use of water
rights and the wise stewardship of water resources on behalf of
agricultural water suppliers for more than 100 years.
fiscal year 2014 appropriations
We recognize that our country is facing difficult economic times
and that we must make strategic investments with scarce resources. The
CWSRF is a perfect example of the type of program that should have
funding increased because it creates jobs while benefiting the
environment, aids with proactive asset management, 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 a wise investment that allows local communities to
leverage their limited resources and address critical infrastructure
needs that would otherwise be unmet.
Nationally, and in Oregon, there are substantial unmet water
infrastructure needs. In Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008: Report to
Congress and Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment:
Fourth Report to Congress, EPA estimated that the funding need for
drinking water infrastructure totaled $335 billion (in 2007 dollars)
and wastewater infrastructure needs totaled $298 billion (in 2008
dollars). Appropriations for water infrastructure, specifically the
CWSRF, should not be declining but remaining strong, and growing, in
order to meet these critical needs. The President's fiscal year 2014
budget proposes only $1.1 billion for the CWSRF program, a $472 million
reduction from fiscal year 2012. This is an inadequate amount in light
of the enormity of the infrastructure needs nationally. There has not
been an increase since 2009 while both the infrastructure needs and the
costs to address continue to grow. Continued funding reductions have
led to delaying repairs or upgrades which increases potential for
catastrophic failure and is counterproductive to the administration's
desire to encourage asset management and sustainable water
infrastructure. We are deeply concerned about this negative downward
trend and urge you to reverse course and increase funding for this
valuable program.
cwsrf success and needs in oregon
Six OWRC member districts have successfully received loans from the
CWSRF over the last several years and many more will apply if funds are
available. Numerous irrigation districts and other water suppliers are
taking proactive approaches to addressing non-point source issues by
piping open canals, which improves water quality by eliminating
potential run-off, and increasing water availability for both
irrigators and fish and wildlife. Oregon's Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) has also recently revised their CWSRF rules, which will
create greater opportunities for water quality improvement projects
that yield both environmental and economic benefits. However, reduced
Federal funding has created uncertainty for potential program
applicants and there continues to be more applicants than available
funding.
What is being proposed for fiscal year 2014 CWSRF appropriations is
far short of what is needed to address critical water infrastructure
needs in Oregon and across the Nation. The DEQ's most recent ``Proposed
Intended Use Plan Update #2--State Fiscal Year 2013,'' lists 14
projects in need of a total of $30,914,491 in Oregon alone. The fiscal
year 2013 capitalization grant available to DEQ is $7,370,000, roughly
half of the fiscal year 2012 appropriations DEQ received. Currently,
two irrigation districts have submitted applications for funding to
complete projects that will not only benefit the environment and the
patrons served by the water delivery system, but also benefit the
economy. These projects include:
--Central Oregon Irrigation District.--This project would provide
4,500 feet of new pipeline to carry irrigation water currently
in open canal which will lead to water efficiency consistent
with EPA's green project reserve guidance. Request: $3,250,000
--Three Sisters Irrigation District.--This project would design and
construct approximately 5.3 miles of HDPE 42-inch pipe to
remove irrigation water from open canals which will lead to
water efficiency consistent with EPA's green project reserve
guidance. Request: $2 million
We support the administration's efforts to expand ``green
infrastructure'' options and encourage sustainable water
infrastructure. In fact, irrigation districts and other water suppliers
in Oregon are on the forefront of ``green infrastructure'' through
innovative piping projects that provide multiple environmental
benefits. Four irrigation districts received more than $11 million
funding in Oregon from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(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. Our districts continue to be on the forefront of innovation
and are often the only projects that qualify for the green project
reserve. However, continually reducing the amount of funds available
for these worthwhile projects is counterproductive to the
administration's desire to incentivize green infrastructure 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. CWSRF reductions can lead to loss of grant
funding and delay or derail beneficial projects that irrigation
districts have been developing for years. 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.
the importance and success of local watershed planning
In addition to advocating for increases to the CWSRF program, OWRC
is supportive of funding and technical assistance for States to conduct
watershed planning activities. Oregon is the model for watershed
planning and does not need a new Federal agency or executive branch
office to continue watershed planning--but we could use Federal
assistance in implementing priority activities. 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.
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 and Federal
government. However, we continue to be concerned about EPA (and CEQ)
efforts to revise Clean Water Act Guidance without appropriate public
process or legislative oversight. The proposed changes would greatly
broaden EPA authority and illustrate 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. Furthermore, funding
for these types of regulatory activities should be extensively reviewed
and not come at the expense of valuable and established programs like
the CWSRF.
conclusion
We strongly support the CWSRF program and urge you to increase
funding so that additional innovative, environmentally and economically
beneficial water quality projects can be implemented in Oregon and
nationally. The voluntary, pro-active approach of the CWSRF program
creates and promotes collaborative solutions to water resources
challenges. Conversely, regulatory overreach destroys cooperation,
creates mistrust and has a very negative effect on jobs and local
economies. Last, increasing CWSRF program funding is a smart investment
that will help leverage other sources of funding to address critical
water infrastructure needs. We respectfully request the appropriation
of at least $2 billion for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund for fiscal year 2014.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection
Committee
I am writing to you on behalf of the Pacific Northwest Fish Health
Protection Committee (PNFHPC). The PNFHPC was formed in 1984 and is a
consortium of representatives from natural resource management agencies
including Treaty Tribes and commercial fish producers from the Pacific
Northwest. The committee is a forum, operating on a consensus basis to
discuss and resolve fish health issues, to disseminate research
findings/educational material and to communicate openly on all matters
as they relate to the production of healthy wild and cultured fish.
Members within the PNFHPC include representatives from Alaska,
California, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington, USFWS, NOAA-
Fisheries, Pacific Northwest Tribes, the private fish production
sector, with observers from British Columbia, Canada and valuable
participation from educational institutions, private and public
research laboratories, resource managers and conservation groups within
the Pacific Northwest and other regions.
The PNFHPC wishes to express their serious concern regarding the
fiscal year 2014 President's budget that proposes a $400,000 reduction
in funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Aquatic Animal Drug
Approval Partnership (AADAP) program. AADAP serves a unique and
necessary Federal role in aquaculture drug approvals, and exemplifies
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's stated principles of leadership, sound
science, and fulfilling its partners' needs.
U.S. aquaculture is worth more $1 billion annually, and U.S.
aquaculture farms employ more than 10,500 Americans with a payroll of
nearly $169 million. The FAO estimates that for every person directly
employed in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, 3-4 additional jobs
are supported indirectly in related industries. The aquaculture jobs
sector is growing and providing food security and jobs throughout the
world. Without a strong and growing aquaculture industry, the United
States faces an increasingly insecure seafood supply: 86 percent of
seafood consumed in the United States is imported, creating a seafood
deficit of over $10.4 billion annually.
The mission of PNFHPC, in part, is to provide a unified regional
forum for fish health issues as they relate to aquaculture. The
aquaculture industry is subject to numerous regulatory burdens,
including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's regulation of aquatic
animal drugs needed to ensure the health and well-being of farmed fish,
as well as food safety. The market for aquaculture drugs offers
pharmaceutical companies little return on investment, and the
aquaculture industry relies on public partners for access to these
tools. The AADAP program coordinates the efforts of numerous
stakeholders, including members of the PNFHPC, to secure aquaculture
drug approvals, and aids public and private fish culture operations by
allowing for monitored, legal access to drugs in development. AADAP is
one of the few Federal programs providing needed support to an industry
which faces significant and unique challenges related to animal health
and risk management.
The PNFHPC recognizes the challenges of the current fiscal climate,
but loss of leadership and capacity within the AADAP program will
prevent public and private fish culture operations from accessing the
tools they need to provide the American public with safe, wholesome
seafood. The proposed reductions will effectively terminate the AADAP
research program. Without this program the finfish aquaculture drug
approval process in the United States will be halted. We strongly
encourage you to fully support the AADAP program at a funding level of
$1.2 million and ensure the current and future needs of commercial
aquaculture continue to be met. Thank you for your consideration of our
position.
______
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 19
years, through operations funding and dedicated Challenge Cost Share
funds, for the national scenic and historic trails administered by the
National Park Service. We also appreciate your increased allocation of
funds to support the trails administered and managed by the Forest
Service and for the trails in the Bureau of Land Management's National
Landscape Conservation System. To continue the progress that you have
fostered, the Partnership requests that you provide annual operations
funding for each of the 30 national scenic and historic trails for
fiscal year 2014 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.
--USDA 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 13 trails administered by the Park Service or the
Forest Service: $4 million; $3,140,000 for operating five
National Historic Trail interpretive centers; Construction:
$300,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail.
--We ask that you appropriate $4.5 million for the National Park
Service Challenge Cost Share Program and continue to direct
one-third ($1.5 million) for national scenic and historic
trails or create a separate $1.5 million National Trails System
Challenge Cost Share Program.
--We ask that you add $500,000 to the Bureau of Land Management's
Challenge Cost Share Program and allocate it for the national
scenic and historic trails it administers or manages.
We ask that you appropriate $61,601,508 from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund for the acquisition of 119 tracts along seven
national scenic and four national historic trails described in the
National Trails System Collaborative Landscape Planning proposal and
allocate this funding to:
--the Bureau of Land Management: $5,722,260;
--the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $12,660,782;
--the U.S. Forest Service: $18,215,866; and
--the National Park Service: $25,002,600.
national park service
The $16.21 million we request for Park Service operations includes
increases for some of the trails to continue the progress and new
initiatives made possible by the additional funding Congress provided
several years ago. Funding for the new Star Spangled Banner and
Washington-Rochambeau Trails and $400,000 for the Park Service to
implement planning for the New England Trail is included.
We request an increase of $626,000 to expand Park Service efforts
to protect cultural landscapes at more than 200 sites along the Santa
Fe Trail, to develop GIS mapping, and to fund public educational
outreach programs of the Santa Fe Trail Association. An increase of
$780,000 for the Trail of Tears will enable the Park Service to work
with the Trail of Tears Association to develop a GIS to map the Trail's
historical and cultural heritage sites to protect them and to develop
interpretation of them for visitors. We request an increase of $346,000
to $866,000 for the Ala Kahakai Trail to enable the Park Service 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 the Park Service to provide greater support for the regional GIS
mapping, trail building, trail management, and training of volunteers
led by the North Country Trail Association. 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 and cultural resources on
the Trail and Ice Age Trail lands and 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. We
request that you robustly fund the Park Service, Bureau of Land
Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service Challenge Cost Share programs
and appropriate $4.5 million in Challenge Cost Share funding to the
Park Service for fiscal year 2014 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.
usda--forest service
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. Recognizing the on-the-ground
management responsibility the Forest Service has for 1,024 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.
The Partnership's request of $9.096 million includes $2.5 million
to enable the Forest Service and Florida Trail Association to continue
trail maintenance, to control invasive species, do ecosystem
restoration, and otherwise manage 4,625 acres of new Florida Trail
land. The $9.096 million request 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 the Forest Service 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
Although considerably more money is needed to fully administer the
National Landscape Conservation System and protect its resources, we
support the $69.549 million in base funding for the System the
administration requested for fiscal year 2013. We ask that you
appropriate as new permanent base funding $250,000 for National Trails
System Program Coordination, $700,000 for the Iditarod Trail, $230,000
for El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Trail, $350,000 for the Old
Spanish Trail, and $4,000,000 for the Bureau of Land Management to
manage 3,756 miles of 13 other national scenic and historic trails. 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 provide $19 million for the Bureau's Challenge Cost
Share program and to direct $500,000 for National Trails System
projects as you have done with the Park Service's CCS program.
To promote greater management transparency and accountability for
the National Trails and the whole National Landscape Conservation
System, we urge you to request expenditure and accomplishment reports
for each of the NLCS Units for fiscal year 2013 and to direct the
Bureau to include unit-level allocations within major sub-activities
for each of the scenic and historic trails, and wild and scenic
rivers--as the Bureau has done for the monuments and conservation
areas--within a new activity account for the National Landscape
Conservation System in fiscal year 2014. The Bureau's lack of a unified
budget account for National Trails prevents the agency from efficiently
planning, implementing, reporting, and taking advantage of cost-saving
and leveraging partnerships and volunteer contributions for every
activity related to these national resources.
land and water conservation fund
The Partnership requests that you provide the authorized $900
million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and within this amount
$61,601,508 for the National Trails System Collaborative Landscape
Planning proposal to acquire 119 tracts along the 11 national scenic
and historic trails detailed here:
Bureau of Land Management: $5,722,260, 19 tracts, 3,687 acres
Nez Perce and Lewis and Clark National Historic Trails (Idaho and
Montana).--$1,630,000 to protect natural and archaeological resources
along two historic trails at Cow Island, Cow Creek, and Lolo Creek.
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (Oregon and California).--
$4,092,260 for trail and resource protection within the Cascade
Siskiyou National Monument, San Gorgonio Wilderness, and Whitewater
Area of Critical Environmental Concern.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $12,660,782, 8 tracts, 3,433 acres
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Pennsylvania).--$4,300,000 for
watershed, viewshed, and globally rare habitat protection along
Kittatinny Ridge in the Delaware Water Gap of Cherry Valley National
Wildlife Refuge.
El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail (New
Mexico).--$6,860,782 for resource protection and acquisition of water
rights for Middle Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge, the southwest's
first urban national wildlife refuge.
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (Washington).--$1,500,000
for protection of an intact historic setting representing what the
Corps of Discovery saw and experienced, and improved protection of a
threatened habitat type.
U.S. Forest Service: $18,215,866, 70 tracts, 5,203 acres
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (North Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia).--$5,450,000 to protect priority viewsheds and unique,
quality high-elevation ecosystems in the Pisgah, Cherokee, and George
Washington National Forests.
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Colorado).--$199,300 to
provide trail connectivity, conserve alpine landscapes, and protect
watersheds critical to Denver's water supply.
Florida National Scenic Trail (Florida).--$1,776,675 to protect the
remaining 3 miles of gaps along the 70-mile Suwannee River section and
complete resource protection for critical habitat, including riparian
lands.
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (California, Oregon,
Washington).--$10,789,891 for trail and resource protection along the
crest of the Cascades and Sierras, and the Transverse Desert Ranges
from the edge of the Anza-Borrego Desert in southern California to the
Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest in northern Washington.
National Park Service: $25,002,600, 22 tracts, 5,349 acres
Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (Hawaii).--$4,250,000 to
protect 59 acres along the Kona Coast with numerous historical and
archaeological sites and a section of the Ala Kahakai National Historic
Trail.
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Pennsylvania and Vermont).--
$3,700,000 for watershed, viewshed, and globally rare habitat
protection along Kittatinny Ridge in the Delaware Water Gap of Cherry
Valley National Wildlife Refuge and for an inholding in the Green
Mountain National Forest.
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (New Mexico).--$5,300,000
to re-route the CDNST off of roads onto lands that will afford
spectacular views of an access to nationally significant volcanic
landscapes in El Malpais National Monument.
Ice Age National Scenic Trail (Wisconsin).--$3,780,000 for
protection of a continuous corridor for hikers, wildlife, and
management along the Eau Claire River, at the edge of the Driftless
Area and within the renowned Kettle Moraine.
New England National Scenic Trail (Connecticut and
Massachusetts).--$4,000,000 for trail and resource protection on two
key parcels that provide campsites for hikers, connections to two
community centers and a contiguous open space corridor.
Nez Perce National Historic Trail (Oregon and Montana).--$1,210,000
to preserve trail and archaeological sites at the Bloody Gulch of Big
Hole National Battlefield and at Old Joseph Minam State Park.
North Country National Scenic Trail (Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).--
$2,762,600 for key trail connections between Moraine State Park and
McConnell's Mill State Park in western Pennsylvania, and along the Lake
Superior shoreline in Wisconsin.
The Partnership strongly supports the new ``National Rivers and
Trails Initiative'' funding line included in the National Park Service
budget 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 for fiscal year 2013 since the
Park Service LWCF funding requests above total more than $25 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 Congress' support for the
trails has grown. In 2012 the trail organizations fostered 1,185,375
hours--an increase of 2.4 percent more than 2011--of documented
volunteer labor valued at $26,244,202 to help sustain the national
scenic and historic trails. The organizations also raised private
sector contributions of $7,565,777 to benefit the trails.
______
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 2014 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 (Tacoma, Fife, Milton, Puyallup,
Edgewood, and Federal Way).
The following written testimony being submitted to the U.S. Senate
Appropriations subcommittee documents the Puyallup Tribe's views on the
President's fiscal year 2014 Federal budget. On April 10, 2013,
President Obama delivered his delayed fiscal year 2014 budget to
Congress. The budget proposal focuses on job creation and the beginning
steps to reducing the Nation's projected deficits. Within the budget,
$2.183 billion is provided for the Operation of Indian Programs. This
represents an overall increase of $37.2 million over the fiscal year
2012 enacted level. For the Indian Health Service, $5.5 billion is
provided, an increase of $116 million over the fiscal year 2012 enacted
level. We appreciate the increased funding provided for the operation
of Indian programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian
Health Service. However, the years of inadequate funding, negative
effects of inflation and the impacts of sequestration on the fiscal
year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 funding levels will impact the tribe's
ability to fully exercise self-determination and self-governance. As
negotiations proceed on the fiscal year 2014 budget and future
appropriations, efforts to ensure adequate funding is provided for the
operation of Indian programs will be paramount. To preserve increased
funding levels realized in recent years and contained in the proposed
fiscal year 2014 budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian
Health Service, Congress and the administration should view these
increases as new ``base funding'' and be held harmless from across the
board cuts to programs that have been historically underfunded.
Specific issues and needs are:
department of the interior--bureau of indian affairs
Public Safety and Justice.--The fiscal year 2014 budget request
includes $363.4 million for BIA Public Safety and Justice. This
represents a $19.9 million increase over the fiscal year 2012 enacted
level, which is fully supported by the Puyallup Tribe. The $96.9
million for Tribal and BIA detention and corrections funding is of
great importance to the Puyallup Tribe. Within this amount, $13.4
million increase will be directed to fund staffing, training,
operations and O&M costs at newly constructed tribally operated
detention facilities. While this increase is supported by the Puyallup
Tribe, it is of concern that current and ARRA funded facilities will
remain understaffed and underfunded. 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, with
additional facilities coming on-line in fiscal year 2014. It is
estimated that 291 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 28-bed adult corrections facility. The Tribe has addressed
all special Terms and Conditions of the Grant Award, completed facility
environmental documentation, design, executed final construction
contracts and performed the Groundbreaking Ceremony on March 28, 2013.
The Project will be completed and be coming on-line by the end of the
second quarter of fiscal year 2014. Over the past 4 years the Puyallup
Tribe has been working closely with national and regional staff of the
BIA-Office of Justice Services on identifying the future operating and
staffing costs associated with the Puyallup Tribe's new adult
corrections facility. We have 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 O&M funding for the Tribe's Adult
Corrections facility, estimated at $3.2 million annually. Further, the
Puyallup Tribe requests the subcommittee's support for increasing
funding for BIA Detention/Corrections by $32.2 million to reflect
actual funding needs. 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 continue to request support from the subcommittee to
increase Tribal Court funding at $73.2 million, an increase of
approximately three times the fiscal year 2012 base funding. Increased
funding would be used for judges, prosecutors, public defenders,
probation officers, court staff and development of diversion programs
designed to reduce recidivism within the tribal judicial system.
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 2014, $9.613 million is provided for BIA Western Washington
Fisheries Management, a small increase over the fiscal year 2012
enacted level of $8.256 million. 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
2014 budget contains $6.842 million for Tribal Hatchery Maintenance,
compared to the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget of $4.83 million and
$1.85 million for Tribal Hatchery Operations, compared to the fiscal
year 2012 enacted budget of $1.6 million. The Puyallup Tribe supports
the President's fiscal year 2014 funding requests for Tribal Hatchery
Operations and Maintenance. The Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW)
Supplemental and United States/Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty programs
have 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 the subcommittee to support
providing funding for the TFW at the President's fiscal year 2014
request of $3.082 million and United States/Canada Pacific Salmon
Treaty program funding at $4.844 million, an increase of $640,000 over
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. 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 the subcommittee to support providing
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 2014 appropriations.
Education.--The fiscal year 2014 budget requests funding of $802.7
million for the Education program, an increase of $7.2 million, less
than a 1 percent increase above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. We
operate the pre-K to 12 Chief Leschi Schools which include a verified
2011-2012 School student enrollment of 910+ 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. The
Puyallup Tribe is concerned and strongly disagrees with the proposed
elimination of funding for the Replacement School Construction line
item. We do not believe that the underfunded Facilities Improvement and
Repair program will be able to address the growing need for new
education facilities. Additionally, 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 Congress and the BIE to increase funding in fiscal
year 2014, including: Tribal Grant Support Cost for Tribally Operated
Schools--$23 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level;
Replacement School Construction--$17.8 million; Student
Transportation--$52.796 million; and Elementary and Secondary
Programs--$526.4 million.
Operations of Indian Programs and Tribal Priority Allocations.--The
President's fiscal year 2014 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 2014 request of $2.183 billion and Tribal Priority
Allocations at a minimum of $894 million, an increase of $15.5 million
above 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 the Indian Health Service 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 Puyallup Tribal members. There are no Indian
Health Service hospitals in the Portland Area so all specialties and
hospital care have to be paid for out of our contract care allocation.
The contract care allocation to PTHA has been significantly inadequate
to meet actual need since fiscal year 2004 when the Puyallup Tribe
subsidized Contract Health with a $2.8 million contribution. For fiscal
year 2013 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 years 2012
and 2013 have made continued subsidies to the PTHA financially
difficult for the Puyallup Tribe. The fiscal year 2014 budget requests
$5.5 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Indian Health
Service. This represents a $116 million increase over the fiscal year
2012 enacted level. For Health Services programs the fiscal year 2014
budget request is $4.43 billion, an increase of $112 million over the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Included within the increases are
funding for Contract Support Costs ($477.2 million--$100 million short
of actual need), Purchase/Referred Care ($878.5 million), IHS
Facilities ($448.1 million) and Alcohol and Substance Abuse funding
($196.4 million). The Puyallup Tribe fully supports funding increases
for existing IHS programs and will work with Congress to increase
funding for IHS and the critical programs administered by this Agency.
However, if Congress and the President do not agree to an alternative
to the existing sequestration, any increases to IHS funding in the
fiscal year 2014 budget will be eliminated.
sequestration
Finally, it is the Tribe's sincere hope that the fiscal year 2014
bill language remedy the drastic cuts to fiscal year 2013
appropriations implemented under the sequester. As we have already
stated, tribal programs have been historically underfunded--and this is
in spite of the fact that the Federal Government maintains a sacred
trust responsibility over Indian affairs. Should sequestration go into
effect October 1, 2013, the proposed fiscal year 2014 Interior
Department could be reduced to $10.966 billion, a $467.6 million
decrease below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level for the Interior
Department, taking Indian Country and the Nation in the wrong
direction. The across the board 5 percent cuts to already underfunded
tribal programs will have devastating impacts on Indian Country and
reverse or delay tribal efforts, such as my tribe's, to improve our
economies and the health and well-being of our tribal members.
______
Prepared Statement of the Quinault Indian Nation
Thank you for accepting the Quinault Indian Nation testimony on
fiscal year 2014 budget priorities for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). We ask that this committee
not subject tribal programs to sequestration reductions or assess
unfair and disproportionate rescissions on American Indian and Alaska
Native (AI/AN) peoples, not now, not ever. Ours is a unique
relationship that you must honor and respect just as we were expected
to trust you to honor the obligations documented in the agreements
between our Nations. We ask this in the name of our ancestors and for
the future generations of our indigenous people.
Tribal Specific Priority Request
$5.79 million over a period of 5 years for upper Quinault River
Restoration--BIA (2013-2017)
Local/Regional Requests and Recommendations
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
National and Self-Governance Requests and Recommendations--BIA Requests
+$9.8 million--Contract Support Costs over fiscal year 2012 enacted
level and maintain the status quo statutory language enacted in fiscal
year 2013
+$19 million--BIA Public Safety and Justice
+$8 million--Tribal Pay Cost to achieve parity with the U.S. cost
predictions
+$89 million--General Increase to BIA Tribal Priority Allocation
for inflationary and fixed costs and will allow Tribes to fully
exercise the right to self-govern
Fully fund provisions of Tribal Law & Order Act of 2010
Funding to fully staff the Office of Self-Governance
National and Self-Governance Requests and Recommendations--IHS Requests
+$5.8 million over fiscal year 2012 enacted level
+$403 million for mandatory costs, inflation and population growth
and to maintain existing healthcare services
+$171.6 million for Purchased/Referred Care Program
+$5 million to the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Tribal
Self-Governance to keep pace with the increased needs of Tribes
entering Self-Governance
tribal specific request justification
$5.79 Million Upper Quinault River Restoration (5-year period from
2013-2017)
The Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) respectfully submits this proposal
to complete river, floodplain, and salmon habitat restoration
activities in four priority areas in the upper Quinault River (UQR)
over a period of 5 years beginning in 2013. The QIN requests $5.79
million in funding to (1) build up to 140 engineered logjams, (2)
purchase logs and pilings for use in the logjams, and (3) complete
approximately 537 acres of forest restoration planting. The funding
will also be used to complete permitting, consultation and other
construction related activities.
The UQR is located on the west coast of the Olympic Peninsula in
Washington State. The river provides the QIN culturally and
economically important salmon resources. The most important salmon
resource to the QIN is the Quinault Blueback (sockeye) salmon. The
Blueback and other salmon stocks native to the UQR have declined
significantly over the past 50 years. Current trends in Blueback run
sizes indicate that the decline will continue and that the Blueback
salmon is at risk of ``virtual extinction.''
The QIN hired the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR) in 2002 to
conduct a study to evaluate changes that occurred to the UQR and
potential causes for the observed declines in Blueback salmon
production. The USBOR identified many contributors to salmon habitat
loss and the Blueback salmon decline. However, the most important
conclusion made by the USBOR was that:
``[T]he upper Quinault River and its salmon habitats will not heal
on their own. Restorative intervention is required.''--U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation 2005
In response to the USBOR's conclusion and inherent risks to
continued viability of the Blueback salmon as a fisheries resource, QIN
made restoration of the UQR and Blueback salmon one of its primary
initiatives. QIN staff immediately began developing a plan to restore
the river. The Quinault Department of Fisheries completed the Salmon
Habitat Restoration Plan--Upper Quinault River (Plan) in 2008. The Plan
is a comprehensive, science based approach to restore the UQR including
its floodplains, floodplain forests, and salmon habitat.
The Plan applies engineered logjams (ELJs) and floodplain forest
restoration methods modeled after natural floodplain forest
developmental patterns and river channel habitat forming processes
found in river valleys of the west side of the Olympic Mountains. The
overall goal of the Plan is to restore for the long-term through
cumulative benefits of individually completed projects, natural
riverine and forested floodplain processes that will result in
restoration of ecosystem services for salmon, wildlife and human users
of the resources. Restoration of the Blueback and other fisheries
resources in the UQR will provide cultural and economic benefits to
local stakeholders, private landowners, and the QIN.
The Plan and restoration approach is endorsed by Federal regulatory
agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, and the Army Corp of Engineers. The Plan is
also endorsed by agencies of the State of Washington including the
Governor's Salmon Recovery Office, Department of Natural Resources,
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Ecology, Washington
Coast Sustainable Salmon Partnership, and the Pacific Coast Salmon
Coalition. Federal land managers include the Olympic National Park and
the U.S. Forest Service.
The QIN has received support in principle from more than 27 private
landowners in the UQR for the proposed projects. The QIN, with help
from its restoration and funding partners, has raised and spent
approximately $3.3 million in grant and ``in-kind'' staff funding since
the USBOR study was conducted a decade ago. In that period, QIN has
completed planning, engineering design, an environmental assessment,
streamlined permitting and Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation
processes, and constructed three habitat restoration projects. These
accomplishments demonstrate the ability and commitment of QIN to
restore the UQR and the Blueback salmon. The QIN requests that this
proposal for funding be approved so it can continue the work it has
begun and maintain the momentum it has established to restore the UQR
and Blueback salmon.
project description
The QIN proposes to (1) build up to 140 engineered logjams, (2)
purchase logs and pilings for use in the logjams, and (3) complete
approximately 537 acres of forest restoration planting. The QIN will
also complete permitting, consultation, and other construction related
activities. The QIN has shovel ready designs completed for 4.8 river
miles of the 12.6 mile (approximately 6,900 acres) UQR restoration
reach with the remaining 7.2 river miles scheduled for completion in
late summer 2013. Restoration activities in this proposal include ELJ
construction, materials procurement, and forest restoration planting in
four prioritized project areas in the restoration reach.
project objectives
The project areas proposed for use of the funding include
approximately 3.6 miles of main stem river channel and 520 acres of
existing floodplain. The project, if funded and constructed in its
entirety, will yield approximately 7.7 miles of protected and/or
restored main stem river and side channel salmon habitat, approximately
860 acres of new floodplain, and reestablish approximately 537 acres of
mixed conifer-deciduous floodplain forest.
project tasks, time schedule, and budget
The proposed project will complete tasks and related activities
according to the time schedule and estimated costs identified in Table
1. The QIN will manage the project and provide ``in-kind'' services
necessary to complete Tasks 1 and 5. Local logging contractors and
timber suppliers will provide materials and services necessary to
complete the project. The QIN has a contract with Quinault Valley
Forestry, LLC to provide services necessary to complete materials
procurement and construction services (Tasks 2 and 6). GeoEngineers,
Inc. and Natural Systems Design are under contract with the QIN to
provide permitting, river restoration, engineering design and
construction oversight services (Tasks 3 and 4). R2 Resource
Consultants is an environmental consulting firm under contract with QIN
to provide forest and wetlands restoration services (Task 7).
TABLE 1.--PROJECT TASKS, TIMELINES, AND ESTIMATED BUDGET DURING THE
PERIOD 2013 TO 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Task/Description Time Schedule Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Task 1--Project Management & 2013-2017.............. $18,200
Coordination.
Task 2--Materials Procurement 2013-2017.............. 1,450,161
Services.
Task 3--Permitting, NEPA and 2013-2015.............. 12,000
Consultations.
Task 4--Professional Engineer 2014-2017.............. 140,000
Services.
Task 5--Fish Management/ 2014-2017.............. 42,848
Conservation.
Task 6--ELJ Construction 2014-2017.............. 3,589,580
Services & Related Activities.
Task 7--Forest Restoration 2014-2017.............. 537,000
Services.
----------------------------------------
Grand Total.............. ....................... 5,789,789
------------------------------------------------------------------------
number of jobs created or retained
Jobs created or retained by this project include professional,
labor, and services wage jobs. This project as proposed will directly
create or help to retain an estimated 109 part-time seasonal or full-
time jobs during the 5-year period. 61 part-time seasonal or full-time
professional and labor wage jobs will be created or retained during the
5-year period. An additional 35 jobs (which represent indirect and
induced employment) are created or sustained as the income earned by
the project workers is spent in other sectors of the economy. The
proposed project will likely create or retain 41 jobs in the local
Grays Harbor County and Jefferson County sectors whereas the remaining
20 jobs created or retained will be filled by professionals employed by
companies located in the Puget Sound Region. In addition to the
professional and labor jobs an estimated 48 services related jobs in
the local Quinault, Washington area alone will be created or retained.
These jobs include wage level positions in the food services,
restaurant, tourism, retail, and lodging sectors. Additional jobs will
also be created or retained as the income from the services workers is
spent in other sectors of local and regional economies.
conclusion
``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 documented 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
______
Prepared Statement of Quantum Tides, Inc.
As a researcher, educator, industrial aquaculture professional, and
staunch supporter of advancing domestic aquaculture as an agricultural
sector, I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed
$400,000/3 FTE reduction in support for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership (AADAP)
program as described in the fiscal year 2014 President's budget. Given
the importance of this program and its deliverables to the fisheries
and aquaculture disciplines--particularly to the mission of the USFWS
itself--I strongly encourage you to reconsider the ramifications of
this reduction, and fully support the AADAP program with $1,790,000 in
base funding and current FTEs. This figure represents the amount
previously dedicated to the drug approval process in the Department of
the Interior budget (2010 funding levels for AADAP and the U.S.
Geological Survey [USGS budget since eliminated entirely]), adjusted to
fiscal year 2014 dollars. Without this level of support, these
unduplicated and essential activities cannot be completed in a
reasonable timeframe, and fisheries professionals, especially the
USFWS, will be unable to effectively deliver on their responsibilities
to the American public.
Most fisheries and aquaculture activities require the use of drugs:
whether to maintain health and fitness of hatchery fish, or facilitate
field-based research and management activities, as described in a
recent AFS Policy Statement \1\, the absence of suitable drugs,
``jeopardizes fishes, fisheries, fish culture, research, and poses
considerable risk to those involved in these activities.'' Fish drugs
include commonplace chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide, but it is
illegal to use such products unless they have passed the rigorous Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) animal drug approval process. USFWS
leadership is critical because the Service itself is a major end-user
of aquatic animal drugs, the need for safe and effective drugs is
nationwide, and without public-sector assistance economic incentives
are insufficient to encourage drug sponsors to pursue aquatic animal
drug approvals in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AFS Policy Statement on the Need for Immediate-release
Sedatives in the Fisheries Disciplines. Available at: http://
fisheries.org/docs/policy_statements/policy_34f.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing difficult budgetary decisions must be made, I contend
that the proposed cuts to the AADAP program offer only modest savings
and would eliminate vital elements of a program that serves the USFWS,
its partners, and the growing aquaculture production sector in the
United States. Without access to safe and effective drugs, it is
unclear to me how aquaculture, the fastest growing sector of
agriculture in the United States will be able to maintain this growth;
and fisheries professionals, especially USFWS staff, be able to fulfill
their mandates (e.g., rearing and stocking fish, collecting field data)
without misusing the few approved drugs currently available (e.g.,
overusing an existing antibiotic because no other alternatives exist,
risking the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria) or resorting
to the use of unapproved products (e.g., using innocuous but currently
unapproved products, risking significant legal liability and FDA
action). The proposed cuts would effectively terminate the AADAP
research program, and with it, the drug approval process in the United
States. This is not grand-standing or arm-waving, it is reality:
without AADAP, the drug approval process stops, and without approved
drugs, aquaculture, fisheries professionals and fisheries themselves
are put in jeopardy.
I encourage you to fully support the AADAP program at a funding
level of $1,790,000 and ensure the current and future needs of
fisheries and fisheries professionals continue to be met. Thank you for
your consideration of my position on this issue.
______
Prepared Statement of Roz Schnick Consulting, LLC
As the former National Coordinator for Aquaculture New Animal Drug
Evaluations, I am writing to request that you eliminate the proposed
$400,000/3 FTE reduction that funds the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership (AADAP) program as described
in the fiscal year 2014 President's budget. This program is extremely
important in maintaining our Nation's fishery resources and in
supporting our aquaculture industries. The drug approval program in the
U.S. Geological Survey dedicated to the drug approval process has
already been eliminated and we cannot afford to have both these teams
dismantled after working for almost 50 years to develop the expertise,
facilities, and teams to perform this unique and unduplicated research.
All aquatic species that are cultured in the United States need
safe and effective drugs to maintain their health and provide for their
efficient and effective production. We are on the cusp of getting a
basic medicine chest but without the efforts of AADAP, this will be
impossible. To use these drugs, they must be proven to be safe and
effective to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and if they are not
approved, it is illegal to use them. The pharmaceutical companies
depend upon AADAP to aid them in gaining approvals of their drugs
because the economic return on their investment is too low to recoup
the approval expenses--our public and private aquaculture industries
are too small. We already import at least 84 percent of the seafood we
eat and this loss would exacerbate that problem.
I encourage you to support the AADAP program at its full funding
level. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sac and Fox Nation
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal year
2014 Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Services budgets. We
appreciate your dedication to righting the wrongs our people suffered
in the past and suffer in the present. 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.
First and foremost we ask that 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. Further,
Tribes are extremely concerned about the consequences of sequestration.
The sequester reductions to Tribal programs undermine Indian treaty
rights and obligations--treaties which were ratified under the
Constitution and considered the ``supreme law of the land.'' We
strongly urge for the sequester to be replaced since it threatens the
trust responsibility and reduces portions of the budget that are not
major contributors to the deficit.
sac and fox nation tribal specific budget request
Add $4.8 million to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Public Safety and
Justice, Detentions and Corrections to Fully Fund the Sac & Fox Nation
Juvenile Detention Center.
national tribal program budget requests: bureau of indian affairs
Fully fund contract support costs (CSC) consistent with the 2012
U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter
Case--$9.8 million increase over fiscal year 2012 enacted.
Fully fund fixed costs/pay costs--Provide $8 million increase. In
fiscal year 2014, the Tribal Pay Cost need is estimated at
approximately $8 million to achieve parity with the general U.S. cost
predictions.
Tribal priority allocations--Provide $89 million increase (10
percent over fiscal year 2012 enacted).
Law enforcement:
Fully fund all of the provisions of the Tribal Law & Order Act of
2010 that authorize additional funding for law and order
programs that affect Indian Tribes, for fiscal year 2014 and
beyond; and
Support the $19 million increase in funding in the fiscal year
2014 President's budget for BIA Public Safety and Justice,
including an increase in funds for officer recruitment and
training, and for Tribal detention facilities operations and
maintenance.
Office of Self-Governance (OSG)--Provide increase funding to the
OSG to fully staff the office for the increase in the number of Tribes
entering Self-Governance.
sac and fox nation 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 & 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 (JOG). 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 JOG is a full service, 24-
hour juvenile detention facility that provides basic detention services
to all residents to ensure 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 fiscal year 2013 appropriations testimony provided by Assistant
Secretary Larry Echo Hawk, he requested $6.5 million for Detention/
Correction and an additional 18 FTEs. Assistant Secretary Kevin
Washburn recently announced in an April 10 conference call that seven
facilities were near completion and expected to be operational in late
2013 or early 2014. We take great exception to 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 JOG.
The Sac and Fox Nation has had to utilize funds to operate the JDC
that should have been used for other social service needs. Full funding
for the JDC was authorized but instead Federal officials used these
resources for other purposes. The Sac and Fox Nation is committed to
working with the BIA to ensure that the financial commitment is
fulfilled. With the promise of full funding realized, Tribes utilizing
the JDC will be able to provide the cultural and traditional healing
our children need to live healthy and productive lives. The Sac and Fox
Nation is requesting that this subcommittee provide the funding for the
JDC and include language that will mandate the BIA to utilize these
funds as intended by Congress in the appropriations and for no other
purpose.
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 to pay tribute to a Sac and Fox descendent and Great
Native American, Jim Thorpe. One of the most revered Olympic athletes
who has ever represented the United States, Mr. Thorpe won the
pentathlon and decathlon in the 1912 Olympics.
The Sac & Fox Nation of Oklahoma's jurisdiction covers 487,040
acres across three counties in Oklahoma: Payne, Lincoln and
Pottawatomie Counties. The U.S. Census Bureau's Statistics indicate
that 17.6 percent of Pottawatomie County residents live below the
Poverty Level, 14.8 percent in Lincoln County and 23.2 percent in Payne
County.
As reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the National
Unemployment Rate for February 2013 is 7.6 percent and the Oklahoma
unemployment rate is 5.0 percent. In Pottawatomie County the
unemployment rate is 4.9 percent, Lincoln County 5.3 percent and Payne
County 4.5 percent.
Taking all the statistics into account, one derives the conclusion
that what we have is a population of working poor. The insufficient
wages for the working poor make it impossible for them to provide basic
necessities and result in people having to make choices between food on
the table or having a place to live. Largely because they are earning
such low wages, the working poor face numerous obstacles that make it
difficult for many of them to find and keep a job, save up money, and
maintain a sense of self-worth.
In 2012 the Sac and Fox Nation experienced a 74 percent increase in
the request for hardship assistance from the previous year. For 2013 we
are at 97 percent of hardship requests from our 2012 numbers, and there
are 5 months remaining in the program year.
Funding cuts to the Human Services which encompass Social Services,
Welfare Assistance, and Child Welfare Services would have dire effects
on the Sac & Fox Nation tribal members and those American Indian/Alaska
Native families that reside within our service area who come from our
neediest families. The Sac & Fox Nation can't absorb any more cuts for
the sake of reducing the Federal deficit. Funding reduction in these
programs would increase critically high rates of poverty and hardship.
It is our duty to protect our children and the most vulnerable from
bearing a disproportionate burden for deficit reduction.
sequestration
Although we are submitting testimony on fiscal year 2014, we must
comment on the fiscal year 2013 sequestration of discretionary
programs. The Tribal leaders of the Tribal Interior Budget Council
(TIBC) and the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) passed
unanimous resolutions that trust and treaty obligations to tribes
should not be subject to sequestration. The sequester reductions to
Tribal programs undermine Indian treaty rights and obligations--
treaties which were ratified under the Constitution and considered the
``supreme law of the land.'' The ongoing contribution of Tribal nations
to the U.S. economy is the land on which this Nation is built. In
exchange for land, the United States agreed to protect Tribal treaty
rights, lands, and resources, including provision of certain services
for American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages, which is
known as the Federal Indian trust responsibility. Indiscriminate cuts
sacrifice not only the trust obligations, but they thwart tribes'
ability to promote economic growth or plan for the future of Native
children and coming generations.
The fiscal year 2013 sequester and expected reductions due to the
Budget Control Act caps will hurt law enforcement, education, health
care and other Tribal services, which have been historically
underfunded and have failed to meet the needs of Tribal citizens. We
strongly urge for the sequester to be replaced since it threatens the
trust responsibility and reduces portions of the budget that are not
major contributors to the deficit.
Thank you for including this testimony into the fiscal year 2014
budget hearings record.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society of American Foresters
The Society of American Foresters (SAF), with more than 12,000
forestry professionals across the country, 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.
saf fiscal year 2014 budget priorities
We recognize that the subcommittee must make difficult decisions
when making fund allocation decisions, and given the budget constraints
and pressures that face Congress and the Federal Government, we commend
the members of the subcommittee for continued efforts to encourage
sustainable forest management. SAF's budget recommendations do not
encompass all the programs SAF supports. The listed items are the
priorities identified by SAF leadership to highlight in the fiscal year
2014 budget process.
--SAF supports an increase in the National Forest System timber
harvest from the 2.38 BBF projected by the Agency to 2.65 BBF
to help achieve management objectives and stem threats faced in
our Federal forests.
--SAF supports funding the Forest Health Management (FHM) as a
consolidated budget line item under the USFS State and Private
Forestry at no less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted funding
level.
--SAF recommends funding the USFS and DOI Hazardous Fuels Programs at
no less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted levels.
--SAF also supports continuation of the Integrated Resource
Restoration (IRR) pilot program in the three USFS Regions. We
encourage the subcommittee to provide the necessary funds to
continue these pilots in fiscal year 2014.
--SAF, a CFLR Coalition Steering Committee member, joins the 150
other member organizations requesting a $40 million funding
level for the program.
--SAF requests that Congress support a $72 million funding level for
Forest Inventory and Analysis in fiscal year 2014.
--SAF supports the fiscal year 2014 $9.8 million funding request for
BLM Public Domain Forestry in the fiscal year 2014 BLM budget
request.
The 751 million acres of forests in the United States are subject
to threats from wildfires, insects, disease, invasive species, and
changing climates. The public relies on forests for clean air and
water, forest products and natural resources, recreational
opportunities, hunting, fishing, and scenic values. Federal employees
managing these forests must guard against these potential threats while
still providing the multiple uses that the public demands. With a
difficult economic outlook, land management agencies must look for
innovative ways to maintain and improve the health of America's
forests.
As the largest professional society for foresters in the world, SAF
represents the forest managers and scientists working on public and
private forests across the country. The task of managing the Nation's
valuable, renewable resource is as challenging now as at any time in
the 113-year history of the Society. The continued loss of forest
industry infrastructure, job losses and hardship in rural communities,
pressure of invasive species, expanded areas of insects and disease,
overstocked stands, and increased risk of wildfire necessitate the
acceleration in the pace of management activities in federally owned
forests.
Since 1910, the U.S.'s forest area has been 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,
and the Forest Service estimates that 65 million to 82 million acres of
the National Forest System (NFS) require restoration. SAF is concerned
that the USFS set the restoration work goal for the NFS at 3.5 million
acres and the timber harvest volume target at 2.38 BBF for fiscal year
2014 due to budget constraints and sequestration.\2\ The 2.38 BBF
timber harvest target is a 15 percent decrease from the timber harvest
target set in fiscal year 2013 and well below the 3 BBF set as a USFS
goal in the ``Increasing the Pace of Restoration of the Nation's
Forests'' report released in 2012.\3\ We worry that the management
objectives outlined in the USFS fiscal year 2014 budget justification
are not sufficient to keep pace with ongoing management projects on
Federal lands and to combat the declining health of our Nation's
forests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2010. U.S. Forest Resource Facts
and Historical Trends. Available online: http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/
library/brochures/docs/2010/Forest%20Facts%201952-
2007%20English%20rev072411.pdf; last accessed April 2013.
\2\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2014. Fiscal Year 2014 President's
Budget Justification. Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/
budget/2014/fy2014-justification.pdf; last accessed April 2013.
\3\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2012. Increasing the Pace of
Restoration and Job Creation on Our National Forests. Available online:
http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/restoration/restoration.pdf; last
accessed April 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic conditions that led to a downturn in demand for
construction and wood products resulted in fewer resources available
for forest management activities. The depressed markets led to a steady
decline in the forestry-related job sector and loss of infrastructure.
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. These factors also resulted in low timber prices, and the
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 below 50 percent of capacity
at the remaining mills.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Smith, B.W., and Guldin, R.W. 2012. Forest Sector Reeling
during Economic Downturn. The Forestry Source January 2012. Available
online: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/saf/forestrysource_201201/
index.php; last accessed April 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the economy recovers, with new March 2013 building permit
applications for new housing 17 percent higher than March 2012, timber
prices should rebound and increased wood production from Federal lands
will be necessary as the industry struggles to recover the operational
capacity lost during the downturn.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Census Bureau. 2013 U.S. Census Bureau News. Available
online: http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf;
last accessed April 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
saf budget recommendations explained
SAF supports an increase in the National Forest System (NFS) timber
harvest from the 2.38 BBF projected by the Agency budget justification
to 2.65 BBF representing the average targeted harvest volume for fiscal
years 2010-2013 as an avenue to improve the health and productivity of
our Federal forests. An increase in the timber harvest will reduce the
number of overstocked stands and result in stand improvement, lessen
the threat of catastrophic wildfire, combat challenges presented by
pests, and support Agency efforts to restore priority watersheds in
fiscal year 2014. Increased output from Federal lands could also reduce
pressure on private forestlands, which supply 90 percent of wood
production, to meet demand for wood products here and abroad.\6\ We
believe that the USFS can achieve the 2.65 BBF mark without
significantly altering the plan outlined by the administration and
agency in the fiscal year 2014 budget justification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2010. National Report on
Sustainable Forests--2010. Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/
research/sustain/2010SustainabilityReport/documents/
2010_SustainabilityReport.pdf; last accessed April 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAF also supports the USFS State and Private Forestry programs that
offer vital assistance to private landowners and State forestry
agencies. These programs allow owners of property adjacent to Federal
land to participate in management initiatives and promote cooperation
between Federal land managers and non-Federal partners. The structure
allows State and Private Forestry programs to provide a significant
return on the Federal investment by leveraging the resources of
partners to accomplish shared objectives. The USFS Forest Health
Management (FHM) Program pays dividends on Federal and non-Federal
lands by offering the critical resource support necessary to protect
forest health. The FHM Program delivers assistance necessary to prevent
and mitigate insect and disease outbreaks as well as the spread of
invasive species. SAF supports funding the FHM Program as a
consolidated budget line item under the USFS State and Private Forestry
at no less than fiscal year 2012 enacted funding levels.
We appreciate the subcommittee's consistent support for wildfire
management, providing funds to encourage a balanced approach to
averting threats posed by fire. The Hazardous Fuels Line Items in the
USFS and DOI budgets are essential to restoring forest health and
resilience and reducing the cost of suppressing wildfires. In fiscal
year 2012, the USFS and DOI treated more than 3.2 million acres
reducing wildfire risks on Federal lands. SAF recommends funding the
USFS and DOI Hazardous Fuels Programs at no less than the fiscal year
2012 funding levels.
SAF also supports continuation of the Integrated Resource
Restoration (IRR) pilot program in the three USFS Regions. We encourage
the subcommittee to provide the necessary funds to continue these
pilots in fiscal year 2014. SAF will continue to monitor the progress
on these pilot projects and urges Congress to track these pilot
projects and consider national implementation if the third-party audits
of these pilots produce the improvement in forest health and resilience
anticipated by the administration and USFS in the fiscal year 2014
budget justification.
SAF appreciates the subcommittee's support of the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLR) and is pleased that the
administration recognizes its value by providing $39.8 million in the
2014 Forest Service budget justification. As this subcommittee knows,
CFLR encourages collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of
priority forest landscapes.\7\ Since 2009, the 23 projects have
afforded fuels treatment on over 600,000 acres, generated and sustained
4,574 jobs, and supplied approximately 387 MMBF in timber sales.\7\
SAF, a CFLR Coalition Steering Committee member, joins the 150 other
member organizations requesting a $40 million funding level for the
program. We look forward to continuing to work with Congress and the
administration to provide the support this program needs to achieve the
stated 10-year goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2012. Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Program. Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/
restoration/CFLR/index.shtml; last accessed April 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. USFS
R&D's Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is an indispensable
resource 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. FIA data is the
backbone of the forest research and development for the Agency and
private sector interests. FIA data are used by researchers across the
country to evaluate forest disturbance risks, such as wildfire, insects
and disease, the spread of invasive species, fragmentation and
parcelization, and forest carbon sequestration. SAF requests that
Congress support a $72 million funding level for this program in fiscal
year 2014. $72 million would allow the program to continue to function
as it does currently and sustain the services and information that
Congress, Federal agencies, academia, and the private sector demand.
SAF closes our written testimony with two matters of concern with
regard to funds available for management of BLM lands. The BLM's Public
Domain Program currently operates at the $6.3 million funding level
included in the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution which represents
a 35 percent decrease in the funding level in fiscal year 2012. The BLM
fiscal year 2014 budget justification specifies that the funding level
be returned to $9.8 million which corresponds with the fiscal year 2012
funding level, but without passage of a fiscal year 2014 budget, BLM
Public Domain Forestry will be required to function at the level
stipulated by the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution and force the
BLM to make significant reductions in the number of employees managing
the 60 million acres in the Public Domain Forestry Program. This
prospect is particularly worrisome considering that the authorization
for receipts from the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund, a
permanent operating fund, expires at the end of 2015.
The expiration of this fund would negatively impact Public Domain
Forestry and BLM O&C lands. The Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery
Fund can be used for various forestry purposes including planning,
preparing, implementing, and monitoring salvage timber sales and forest
ecosystem restoration activities. This fund currently allows Public
Domain Forestry to implement necessary management activities with the
significant budget reductions by using the portion of the receipts from
sales of timber and wood products on BLM lands not returned to the
neighboring counties, but if this permanent operating fund created in
the appropriations act of 1993 is allowed to expire the receipts used
to continue management on the ground will be required to return to the
Federal treasury.
On behalf of the 12,000 members of the Society of American
Foresters, we thank you for this opportunity to provide written
testimony to the subcommittee.
______
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 Reed,
Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee, it is a
pleasure to be here and I thank you for the opportunity to testify
before this subcommittee.
I have been involved in the provision of Alaska Native healthcare
for more than 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. I have been the President/CEO of SEARHC for
over a year, and am continually amazed at the positive impact our
tribal consortium has on the health of Alaska Natives.
SEARHC is an inter-tribal consortium of 18 federally recognized
Tribes situated throughout the southeast panhandle of Alaska. Our
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.
SEARHC meets these challenges through a network of community
clinics anchored in the Mt. Edgecumbe Hospital. Our services include
medical, dental, mental health, physical therapy, radiology, pharmacy,
laboratory, nutritional, audiology, optometry and respiratory therapy
services. We also 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 average more than 115,000 patient encounters
each 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
many 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 small portion of these contract support costs are covered in
the direct service budget which IHS contracts to pay. 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 parts of the Government, including
other DHHS divisions, and even other departments of the Federal
Government. Still, these are mandatory fixed costs which SEARHC must
incur every year. Each year the DHHS Division of Cost Allocation,
Western Field Office sets these costs for SEARHC, and under our
contract and the law, IHS is then required to pay them--in full.
But IHS does not pay these costs in full. It does not even budget
to pay them in full. In fact, it is never even clear how much IHS will
honor under the contract until the contract is already performed. Even
this year--nearly half way through the year--we have no idea what IHS
will pay us.
SEARHC has no tax base. Most tribes have no tax base. Therefore,
the only way for SEARHC to make up for the difference is to divert
resources that would otherwise support the delivery of services. Every
year this shortfall severely impacts our ability to serve the Alaska
Native community. What is worse is that in no other area of Government
contracting does the United States fail to pay its contractors in full.
SEARHC is a member of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
Coalition, and we fully endorse the NTCSCC's testimony. Full funding of
contract support costs in fiscal year 2014, at a $99 million increase
above the President's request, would honor SEARHC's contract and stop
the bleeding of direct service funds to compensate for IHS's contract
support cost shortfalls.
One final word. It has been 9 years since the Supreme Court
required the Government to honor its self-determination contracts with
tribal healthcare providers. That was the landmark case of Cherokee
Nation v. Leavitt. It has now been 10 months since the Court reaffirmed
that decision in the Ramah Navajo and Arctic Slope cases. In light of
those decisions it is stunning that IHS would dare to defy the Court,
and dare to overtly discriminate against Indian tribal contractors, by
now suggesting a new strategy for avoiding its liability. If IHS
devoted a fraction of the time it spends trying to avoid its contract
obligations to instead meeting those obligations, we would not be here.
But one thing is clear: We have a deal with Congress and with IHS,
and now is not the time to unilaterally change it. Our contracts, and
the law under which they are executed, require IHS to pay us for the
work we do--not to pay us in part but in ``full.'' That is what the law
says. ``Full.'' The law also says we can file a claim with IHS if
payments fall short. We absolutely oppose IHS's insertion of new
appropriations language to unilaterally change our contracts and
unilaterally change the law by insulating IHS from any future liability
for its underpayments. It is a shocking reaction-in-avoidance to
multiple losses in the courts. It is insulting to Indian people and
tribal governments. And it is just plain wrong.
I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the
subcommittee on these important matters.
______
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. SCF acts
pursuant to tribal authority granted by Cook Inlet Region, Inc., an
Alaska Native regional corporation designated by Congress as an Indian
Tribe for purposes of Indian Self-Determination Act activities. Once
again, SCF requests that in fiscal year 2014 Congress fully fund our
Mat-Su Clinic joint venture staffing requirements, as required by our
joint venture contract agreement with IHS since last year, and fully
fund SCF's and all other contract support cost requirements at $617
million, as the Supreme Court and other courts required last year.
For more than 25 years SCF has carried out IHS programs under Self-
Determination Act agreements. In accordance with its self-governance
compact with the Department of Health and Human Services, SCF currently
provides medical, dental, optometric, behavioral health and substance
abuse treatment services to over 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. Finally, SCF provides statewide tertiary OB/GYN and
pediatric services for 110,000 Alaska Native people. 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; they are enforceable as contracts.
Three years ago SCF and IHS entered into a binding joint venture
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.'' At the same time, IHS only
agreed to fund 85 percent of our staffing requirements, explaining
that, on average, IHS facilities are only funded at 85 percent of their
need. See 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. The IHS will request funding
from Congress on the same basis as IHS requests funding for any other
new Facility.'')
Last July we received our certificate of beneficial occupancy. IHS,
in turn, provided $2 million of our $27 million annual staffing
requirement. We appreciate IHS's action, since IHS had not anticipated
SCF opening our doors in fiscal year 2012. But now we have been
operational all of fiscal year 2013, at an IHS-calculated staffing need
of $27 million. Yet, in fiscal year 2013, IHS's budget only requested
50 percent of the Clinic's staffing requirement ($13.5 million).
Despite this disappointing request, we are deeply appreciative of the
subcommittee's efforts in the context of sequestration, made in
collaboration with IHS and OMB, to secure at least this partial payment
within the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution.
But, we must be perfectly frank with the subcommittee: the amount
and timing of this payment have caused severe cutbacks in Clinic
operations. Since we remain $12 million short in Clinic funding--
remember, that is at the IHS 85 percent funding level--SCF has only
been able to provide about 50 percent of the medical service capacity,
30 percent of wellness and physical therapy services, only minimal
behavioral health services, and nothing in the way of dental, lab,
optometry, audiology, OB-GYN, pediatrics, home healthcare, or specialty
clinics. Three-quarters of the Clinic has not been operated this fiscal
year, though we expect that to improve when this year's funds arrive.
Once those funds arrive, we will be able to begin to expand existing
services as originally intended. Still, most of the Clinic will remain
unused.
It appears the President's budget request is still insufficient to
fully fund SCF's Clinic with the remaining $12 million that is due,
even 2 years late, in 2014. The budget request is insufficient and does
not honor the joint venture contract under which we built it. It is
legally and morally wrong.
Our message is simple: Before IHS requests, and before Congress
funds, discretionary increases in other IHS accounts--even an important
account like Contract Health Care (which in recent years has already
seen a 40 percent increase)--discretionary increases should be
suspended until IHS honors its contracts and pays its staffing packages
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 self-
governance Tribes like SCF.
The Budget requests an insignificant CSC increase for fiscal year
2014: bringing the total to $477 million. This is the case, despite
projections that the total requirement in fiscal year 2014 is $617
million. Worse yet, IHS is defying the Supreme Court's Salazar vs.
Ramah decision: IHS is imposing a cap on contract payments to each
contractor when no caps have ever existed in those payments, reaching
back to 1975. This would be a radical change in the law, and one which
would go far beyond the work of an appropriations committee. Worse yet,
we don't even know what those caps will be for us--everything is being
done in secret, and won't be known until long after the appropriation
is finalized and we are already performing our contracts.
If IHS is going to underpay us, we should at least have the right
to go to Court to vindicate our contract rights. This is how it has
always been. To now cap our contract by statute is to essentially kill
the principal of tribal self-governance and convert us into grantees--
an enormous step backward in the Nation's dealings with Indian tribes.
It is a radical step back, and one we are confident the authorizing
committees would never agree to make.
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 on collections from Medicare, Medicaid and
private insurers, which in turn cuts off even more staffing and
services for our people. The reverse is also true. When in fiscal year
2010 Congress appropriated an historic increase in contract support
cost funding (thanks to this subcommittee's leadership), SCF opened 97
positions to fill multiple healthcare provider teams and support staff.
Our fixed contract support costs are largely ``indirect costs.''
Those costs are set by the IIHS 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. We have to track property and equipment. All of these costs
are independently audited every year by Certified Public Accountants,
as required by law.
SCF's contract support cost shortfall in fiscal year 2014 will be
$8.95 million, including the cost of operating the new Clinic ($5.1
million) on top of our existing contract support cost shortfall ($3.85
million). The loss of almost $9 million in contract support costs, plus
the remaining $12 million in new Clinic staff funding, totals $21
million. That is well over 150 healthcare positions.
This subcommittee has stated the binding nature of our contracts,
and has directed IHS (and the BIA) to fully fund all contract support
cost requirements. The Supreme Court agreed with this subcommittee.
Yet, the IHS budget justification defies this subcommittee's direction
and reflects the view that these contracts are not binding at all, and
are just another priority to be balanced against something else.
No other Government contractors are treated this way. IHS only
treats its contracts with Indian tribes this way--as optional,
discretionary agreements that it can choose to pay or not to pay. We
provide a contracted service for a contracted price, but IHS only pays
us what it chooses to pay. That is not the law, and this subcommittee
should reject IHS's effort to rewrite the law.
In fiscal year 2014 IHS should finally pay its contract obligations
in full, even if this means forgoing other increases, and even if this
means cutting IHS's internal bureaucracy. Either the contract support
cost line-item should be fully funded at $617 million, or the capped
contract support cost earmark should be eliminated altogether (as was
the case prior to 1998). The subcommittee should certainly reject the
administration's shocking new proposal to cap individual contracts.
This way, the subcommittee will preserve the remedies which existing
statutory law provides contractors that suffer contract underpayments.
As SCF has said here before, underfunding contract 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 Congress is going to cut
budgets or limit increases, fairness demands that such actions occur in
those portions of the budget that are shouldered equally by IHS and the
tribes (as sadly occurred with the sequester). Tribes should not
shoulder the full burden of a cut.
Again, SCF respectfully calls upon Congress in fiscal year 2014 to
eliminate all existing caps on contract payments. Alternatively, SCF
respectfully calls upon Congress to provide $617 million in contract
support cost funding. Every Tribe has contracts with IHS to carry out
some of the agency's healthcare services, and most are still 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.
data disclosure
On a related note, SCF requests that Congress direct IHS to resume
promptly disclosing to tribes and to Congress all IHS data on contract
support cost requirements and payments. Up until 2011, IHS disclosed
such information to the tribes, albeit informally. Then suddenly IHS
stopped--because IHS was embarrassed by errors in its data. IHS claims
the data is protected from disclosure until it is approved by the
Secretary. But, the Secretary then holds the report back from Congress
for years. The fiscal year 2011 data is now 1 year late, even by IHS's
own calculations. The fiscal year 2009 data was 2 years late. The 2014
budget keeps secret the agency's projected total CSC requirement.
Contract support cost appropriations belong to the tribes. Tribes
have a right to know what is happening to these funds on a timely
basis. So does this subcommittee. We therefore respectfully urge that
the subcommittee eliminate all privileges against disclosure of IHS
data if that data is not timely released to Congress under existing
law. This way, the subcommittee can properly perform its budget
oversight function, and tribes, too, can hold the agency accountable.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
Southcentral Foundation and the 58,000 Native American people we serve.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Historical Archaeology
Request:
--$46.925 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs);
and
--$8.985 million for the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices
(THPOs).
These programs are funded through withdrawals from the U.S.
Department of the Interior's National Park Service Historic
Preservation Fund (HPF) (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470h).
about sha and its members
SHA is the largest organization in the world dedicated to the
archaeological study of the modern world and the third largest
anthropological organization in the United States. It promotes
scholarly research and knowledge concerning historical archaeology, and
is specifically concerned with the identification, excavation,
interpretation, and conservation of sites and materials on land and
underwater. SHA and its more than 2,300 members strongly support the
protection of cultural and historical resources and sites around the
Nation.
funding shpos and thpos is critically important to protecting u.s.
archaeology
In 1966, Congress, recognizing the importance of our heritage,
enacted the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470, et
seq.) (NHPA), which established historic preservation as a Federal
Government priority. 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 in the future.
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 and THPOs
to review all Federal projects for their impact on historic properties,
among other tasks. In order for the review process to work smoothly and
for historical archaeological sites to be protected, SHPOs and THPOs
must have adequate funding. Proper financial support for their work
allows SHPOs and THPOs to review and approve projects in a timely
basis, moving projects forward in an efficient manner and protecting
irreplaceable cultural and historical resources and sites.
conclusion
SHA would like to thank you, Chairwoman Mikulski, and all the
members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment and Related Agencies for the opportunity to submit
testimony.
SHA would also like to thank the subcommittee for its commitment to
historic preservation.
______
Prepared Statement of Susan Indian Rancheria
On behalf of the Susanville Indian Rancheria, I submit this written
testimony for the fiscal year 2014 budget request. My testimony
requests the following:
--Full funding of the Indian Health Service contract support costs at
$617 million.
--Full funding of the Bureau of Indian Affairs contract support costs
at $242 million.
--Rejection of the administration's proposed BIA and IHS contractor-
by-contractor contract support costs caps.
--Directing the Indian Health Service to release contract support
costs data for fiscal years 2011 and 2012.
--Protecting the Indian Health Service from sequestration.
The Susanville Indian Rancheria includes over 1,030 tribal citizens
located in Northern California. The Tribe operates several programs
through Indian Self-Determination Act contracts with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), including the Tribe's two largest: the
Consolidated Tribal Government Program and the Road Maintenance
Program. Through these programs, the Tribe operates aid to tribal
government, Johnson O'Malley, social services, Indian child welfare,
community fire protection, adult and higher education, and job
placement programs, as well as projects to maintain the Tribe's
infrastructure. Through these programs, the Tribe is a vital part of
the Susanville and Lassen County economic community.
The Tribe also operates the Lassen Indian Health Center via a title
V self-governance compact with the Indian Health Service (IHS). The
Tribe and the Health Center serve not only our tribal members, but also
lineal descendants of California Indians. As a result, our service
population for Lassen County is over 1,900 individuals of Indian
descent. The Health Center is a vital link for our patients, who
receive medical and dental care, behavioral health services, alcohol
and drug counseling, and pharmacy services. Providing both governmental
and healthcare services is an important role for the Tribe, but we
depend on our contract partners--the IHS and the BIA, and through them,
the Congress, to fulfill their contractual obligations.
congress must fully fund contract support costs
One of these obligations is that the BIA and the IHS will fully
fund the contract support costs (CSC) that cover the administrative and
overhead portions of the programs the Tribe has contracted to operate
in place of the Federal Government. We are grateful for recent
increases in CSC, but there is still a ways to go in meeting the true
need. Unfortunately, the President's proposed budget would continue the
underfunding of CSC, particularly with regard to the IHS, crippling all
tribes' ability to operate their programs as intended.
Indian Health Service
The President proposes $477,205,000 for contract support costs in
the IHS for fiscal year 2014. This amount is far below the estimated
need of $617 million. While Congress has in the past appropriated
additional funding for CSC owed to tribes and tribal organizations
under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and
Federal case law, those additional appropriated funds are not enough to
eliminate the ongoing shortfall of CSC. As a result, the Tribe
continues to endure significant financial restrictions that translate
into less healthcare for our patients.
For example, in fiscal year 2012, the Tribe's CSC was funded at
only 78 percent of actual need. This shortfall forced the Tribe to
transfer funds intended to provide health services into operations and
administrative accounts that keep our programs running. For too long,
the Government has treated tribal contractors differently from other
Government contractors with regard to CSC payment. The Supreme Court
ruled this disparity is unjustified, and in its decision Salazar v.
Ramah Navajo Chapter, ordered the Government to pay full CSC to tribal
contractors. 132 S. Ct. 2181 (2012).
In an attempt to skirt this responsibility, the administration
proposes to limit CSC payments to tribal contractors by submitting a
list of contractors to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees,
with recommended, individual appropriations for each contractor. This
proposed system is not only untenable and unwieldy; it is also unjust.
The administration has proven itself incapable of properly accounting
for contract support costs, and we have no indication the agencies will
include contractors in this process to ensure the lists reflect
contractors' need. The simplest and most fair answer is to fully fund
tribal contractors' CSC.
We urge the Congress to reject the President's proposal outright,
and fully fund IHS contract support costs at $617 million.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The President proposes $230 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs
contract support costs. This amount is closer to the estimated full
need of $242 million than the IHS proposal, but we ask that Congress
fully fund the BIA's CSC as well.
The President's proposal to limit CSC funding via contractor-by-
contractor caps applies to the BIA as well. Again, we strongly reject
this effort, particularly because the administration has made no effort
to include tribes and tribal contractors in the process of preparing
the proposed CSC tables. While the President's proposal says this new
effort is part of the ``longstanding policy of managing CSC costs,''
tribes know that this means saddling contractors with chronic CSC
shortfalls like the Tribe experiences year after year. These shortfalls
are an effective penalty for engaging in self-determination or self-
governance contracting. Both the annual underfunding and the
administration's misguided proposal for fiscal year 2014 are contrary
to the stated policy of both the Congress and the administration to
encourage tribal self-determination.
We urge the committee instead to fully fund the BIA contract
support costs at $242 million, which will erase the need for the
administration's contortionist proposal to handle CSC shortfalls.
direct the ihs to release csc shortfall reports
IHS must submit CSC shortfall reports to Congress no later than May
15 of each year, per section 106(c) of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 450j-1(c)). Yet, the IHS
has failed to submit CSC shortfall reports for fiscal years 2011 and
2012. Tribes have repeatedly asked the agency to release this date,
which is critical for our ability to understand the IHS's view of the
underfunding, and to pursue full payment of CSC, to which the Tribe is
legally entitled. The IHS has refused to release these reports time and
again, most recently in March of this year.
We ask the committees to direct the IHS to release the shortfall
data for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 immediately, as required under the
law.
protect the indian health service from sequestration
The Office of Management and Budget determined that the IHS's
discretionary appropriation is fully sequestrable, which resulted in a
$220 million cut in funding to the IHS for fiscal year 2013--roughly 5
percent of the IHS's overall budget. IHS lost $195 million for programs
like hospitals and health clinics services, contract health services,
dental services, mental health and alcohol and substance abuse.
Programs and projects necessary for maintenance and improvement of
health facilities felt these same impacts. These consequences are then
passed down to every ISDEAA contractor, including the Lassen Indian
Health Center. The Center is already significantly underfunded, and
sequestration resulted in further cuts to the availability of health
services we are able to provide to our patients. This creates real,
negative consequences for individuals who have to forego needed care.
We suffer these reductions and experience these new challenges to
providing healthcare for the people in our service area, despite the
United States' trust responsibility for the health of American Indian
and Alaska Native people.
We cannot understand why this responsibility was taken less
seriously than the Nation's promises to provide health to our veterans.
The Veterans Health Administration (VA) was fully exempt from the
sequester for all programs administered by the VA. See section 255 of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA), as
amended by Public Law 111-139 (2010). Also exempt are State Medicaid
grants, and Medicare payments are held harmless except for a 2 percent
reduction for administration of the program. Yet the IHS--which already
faces low funding--was subject to full cuts. We thus strongly urge the
committee to support amendment of the BBEDCA to fully exempt the IHS
from any sequestration procedures, just as the VA's and other health
programs are exempt. We recognize that the President's proposed budget
is designed to eliminate future sequestrations, but Congress will work
its will on that proposal, so we seek an amendment to exempt the IHS
from sequestration.
conclusion
Ensuring full funding of tribal programs at the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the Indian Health Service is important not only to Tribes
like the Susanville Indian Rancheria, but to the communities around us.
We recognize the economic hardships facing the country, but remind
Congress that funding our programs enables us to create more jobs for
Indians, non-Indians, tribal members, and neighbors alike. This helps
our national economy grow from the ground up. Accordingly, we urge you
to honor our requests to fully fund Indian programs in fiscal year
2014.
Thank you for your consideration, and I will be glad to provide any
additional information the committees may request.
______
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 2014 budgets for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS). We strongly urge
for the sequester to be replaced since it threatens the trust
responsibility and reduces portions of the budget that are not major
contributors to the deficit. We further ask that you consider the
following requests:
tribal specific requests
$500,000 Shellfish Management Program
$2 Million to Build and Operate an Oyster and Clam Nursery for
Southern Puget Sound
$1.3 Million Increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC)
Residential Program in IHS
regional requests and recommendations
The Squaxin Island Tribe is actively involved in the collective
Northwest Tribal efforts and supports the requests and recommendations
of: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Indians, and Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board.
self-governance and national requests/recommendations
Squaxin Island Tribe requests that all Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) line items should be exempt from
any budget recessions and discretionary funding budget reductions. We
support the 2014 State of Indian Nations budget requests as presented
by the National Congress of American Indians.
bureau of indian affairs
+$8.9 million more than 2012 enacted to Fully Fund Contract Support
Costs
+10 percent for Tribal Priority Allocations over 2012 enacted level
Fully fund all of the provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act of
2010 and the Violence Against Women Act of 2012
Increase funding to the Office of Self-Governance to fully staff
the office for the increase of Tribes entering Self-Governance
indian health service
+$5.8 million and maintain the CSC status quo statutory language
enacted in fiscal year 2013
+$403 million for Mandatory Costs to maintain current services
+$9.4 million for Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention Services
+$171.6 million for Purchased/Referred Care Program (formerly
Contract Health Services)
Fully Fund the Implementation of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act
+$5 million for the IHS 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 the
Tribe is a signatory to the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. We were one of
the first 30 federally recognized tribes to enter into a Compact of
Self-Governance with the United States.
Our treaty-designated reservation, Squaxin Island, is approximately
2.2 square miles of uninhabited forested land, surrounded by the bays
and inlets of southern Puget Sound. 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 over 1,250 employees. The Tribe has
a current enrollment of 1,040 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
$500,000--Shellfish Management.--The Squaxin Island Tribes faces a
budget deficit to maintain and operate the shellfish program at the
current level. To effectively grow and develop the program, an annual
minimum increase of $500,000 to address the shortfall and ensure the
continuance of this program is requested.
Shellfish have been a mainstay for the Squaxin Island people for
thousands of years and are important today for subsistence, economic
and ceremonial purposes. The Tribe's right to harvest shellfish is
guaranteed by the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. It is important to
remember that these rights were not granted by the Federal Government.
They were retained by the tribe in exchange for thousands of acres of
tribal lands. On December 20, 1994 U.S. District Court Judge Edward
Rafeedie reaffirmed the Tribe's treaty right to naturally occurring
shellfish. Rafeedie ruled that the Tribe(s) has the right to take up to
50 percent of the harvestable shellfish on Washington beaches.
The Squaxin Island Natural Resources Department (SINRD) is charged
with protecting, managing and enhancing the land and water resources of
the Tribe, including fish and shellfish habitat and species. In so
doing, the Department works cooperatively with State and Federal
environmental, natural resources and health agencies. The shellfish
management work of the SINRD includes working with private tideland
owners and commercial growers; surveying beaches; monitoring harvests;
enhancing supply (prepping, seeding, monitoring beds) and licensing and
certifying harvesters and geoduck divers. We estimate that 20 percent
of treaty-designated State lands and 80-90 percent of private tidelands
are inaccessible to us due to insufficient funding.
In fiscal year 2011, the shellfish program represented only
$250,000 of the $3.3 million budget. The result is we are unable to
fully exercise our treaty rights due to lack of Federal support for
shellfish.
$2 Million--Build and Operate an Oyster and Clam Nursery for
Southern Puget Sound.--In the past few years, problems with seed
production have developed in the shellfish industry. These problems
have been primarily caused by weather and or other environmental
factors, and their effects on the industry have resulted in the lack of
viable and large enough seed for growers. The Squaxin Island Tribes
recognizes that it is uniquely positioned to develop a new nursery to
serve the shellfish growers of the South Puget Sound region. A
shellfish nursery is a capital project that is both proven and a cost
effective technology that takes small oyster and clam seeds and
provides a safe and controlled environment for the seeds to grow onto a
size that survive integration onto a regular beach placement. We have
an ideal location for a nursery because it will not be disturbed by
residents or recreational boaters.
Our efforts will be an extension of another project that was
created through a U.S. Department of Agriculture appropriation nearly
two decades ago for the Lummi Tribe, which created an oyster and clam
hatchery in Northern Puget Sound. The Lummi project over years has been
very successful and they have supplied not only their own beaches but
other Tribes' as well. The project would benefit not just Squaxin
Island Tribe. It would further improve the quality and quantity of seed
and make the seed process more effective for Tribal and non-Tribal
growers. The users of the facility would be the Squaxin Island Tribe,
other Tribes, and non-Tribal clam and oyster businesses that have been
largely unable to find sites for this type of operation.
The Tribe's project will be a joint venture with the Lummi Nation,
in that Lummi would be a primary larvae supplier. The project, with the
expected grow-out and expansion of the industry attributable to the
improved supply of seed, would offer jobs in a depressed employment
area. Once established, the venture would be fully self-sustaining
through sales of the product grown and at the nursery.
This project would be a capital cost of approximately $2 million.
The Tribal in-kind contribution to the efforts would include land and
shoreline and operating costs. Comparable land and shoreline, if
privately owned, would be easily valued in the millions.
$1.2 Million Increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC)
Residential Program in IHS ``D3WXbi Palil'' meaning ``Returning from
the Dark, Deep Waters to the Light''.--NWITC has not received an
adequate increase in its base Indian Health Service 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, the 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 over 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 $1,200,000 additional 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.
sequestration
Although we are submitting testimony on fiscal year 2014, we must
comment on the fiscal year 2013 sequestration of discretionary
programs. The tribal leaders of the Tribal Interior Budget Council
(TIBC) and the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) passed
unanimous resolutions that the trust and treaty obligations to Tribes
should not be subject to sequestration. The sequester reductions to
tribal programs undermine Indian treaty rights and obligations--
treaties which were ratified under the Constitution and considered the
``supreme law of the land.'' The ongoing contribution of tribal nations
to the U.S. economy is the land on which this Nation is built. In
exchange for land, the United States agreed to protect tribal treaty
rights, lands, and resources, including provision of certain services
for American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes and villages, which is
known as the Federal Indian trust responsibility. Indiscriminate cuts
sacrifice not only the trust obligations, but it thwarts Tribes'
ability to promote economic growth or plan for the future of Native
children and coming generations.
The fiscal year 2013 sequester and expected reductions due to the
Budget Control Act caps will hurt law enforcement, education, health
care and other tribal services, which have been historically
underfunded and have failed to meet the needs of tribal citizens. We
strongly urge that you replace the sequester since it threatens the
trust responsibility and reduces portions of the budget that are not
major contributors to the deficit.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the
Colorado River Commission of Nevada
As Congress continues work on the fiscal year 2014 budget, we urge
you to support as a priority the continued funding for the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program (Program) under the Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM) Soil, Water and Air Program. This includes fiscal
year 2014 Federal funding of $1.5 million for salinity-specific
projects to prevent further degradation of the quality of the Colorado
River and increased downstream economic damages.
Salinity concentrations of Colorado River water are lower by more
than 100 milligrams per liter (mg/L) since the initiation of the
Program. The concentrations of salts in the Colorado River cause
approximately $376 million in quantified damages in the Lower Basin
each year and significantly more immeasurable damages. Modeling by the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation indicates that quantifiable damages will
rise to approximately $577 million per year by 2030 without the
Program's continuation.
Colorado River water salinity increases from about 50 mg/L at its
headwaters to more than 700 mg/L in the Lower Basin. High salt levels
in the water cause significant economic damages downstream. For
example, damages occur from:
--increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector;
--a reduction in the useful life of 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;
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector; and
--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.
The Program reduces salinity by preventing salts from dissolving
and mixing with the Colorado River's flow. The Program benefits
Colorado River water users in both the Upper Basin through more
efficient water management, and the Lower Basin through reduced
salinity concentration of Colorado River water.
To deal with salinity level concerns, the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act (act) was signed into law in 1974. The act
provides for the Secretary of the Interior to develop a comprehensive
program for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from
lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. Geological
conditions and past management practices have led to human-induced and
accelerated erosion processes from which soil and rocks, heavily laden
with salt, are deposited in various stream beds or flood plains. As a
result, salts are dissolved into the Colorado River system causing
water quality problems for Lower Basin water users.
The Program has proven to be a very cost effective approach to help
mitigate increased salinity impacts on the Colorado River. Continued
Federal funding of this Basinwide Program is essential to the Southern
Nevada Water Authority and the Colorado River Commission of Nevada.
Again, we urge you to support continued funding of $1.5 million for
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program under the BLM's Soil,
Water and Air Program for fiscal year 2014 to prevent further
degradation of Colorado River water and increased Lower Basin economic
damages, and to provide improved drinking water quality to nearly 40
million Americans.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the
Colorado River Commission of Nevada
Waters from the Colorado River are used by nearly 40 million people
for municipal and industrial purposes, and also are 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 (Reclamation) has
estimated the current quantifiable damages at about $376 million per
year. 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 Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages would
rise to approximately $577 million per year by 2030 without
continuation of the Program. Congress 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 fiscal year
2014 is requested to prevent further degradation of the quality of the
Colorado River and increased downstream economic damages.
The Environmental Protection Agency (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,
much of which is administered by BLM, is federally owned. In
implementing the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (act) in
1974, Congress recognized that most of the salt load in the Colorado
River originates from federally owned lands. Title I of the act
addresses 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 users within the United States. This
testimony deals specifically with the title II efforts.
In 1984, Congress amended the 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, 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 increase BLM efforts in
the Colorado River Basin and to pursue salinity control studies and
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.
Concentration of salt in the Colorado River causes approximately
$376 million in quantified damages and significantly more in
immeasurable damages in the United States and results in poor water
quality for United States users. Damages occur from:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector;
--increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector;
--a reduction in the useful life of 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; and
--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.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
of gubernatorial appointees from the Basin States (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's Soil, Water and Air Program has proven to be a 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
control within this program will assist in preventing further
degradation of the water quality of the Colorado River and significant
increases in economic damages to municipal, industrial and irrigation
users. A modest investment in source control pays huge dividends in
improved drinking water quality to nearly 40 million Americans.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of New Mexico
I am requesting your support for fiscal year 2014 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 native Colorado River
fish such that they can each be removed from the Federal endangered
species list. Through these efforts, water use and development have
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 through the conduct of these recovery
programs. Recognizing the need for fiscal responsibility, I must also
point out the participants would all be spending much more in ESA-
related costs absent in 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 ``Recovery'' element item) for fiscal year 2014 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 ``Recovery'' element item) to allow FWS Region 2 to
continue its essential participation in the San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Program during fiscal year 2014.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the ``National Fish Hatchery System
Operations'' Subactivity item) for fiscal year 2014 endangered
fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray
National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral
to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
On behalf of the State of New Mexico, I thank you for your
consideration of this 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 the State of Wyoming
The State of Wyoming supports 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 have been successful collaborative conservation partnerships
involving Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Indian Tribes, Federal
agencies, water, power and environmental interests. This program works
to recover four species of endemic Colorado River fish such that they
can each be removed from the Federal endangered species list. Through
the programs, water use and development have continued in full
compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), State water and
wildlife law, and interstate compacts. Implementation of the ESA has
been streamlined for Federal agencies, tribes and water users.
On behalf of the State of Wyoming, I thank the subcommittee for its
past support and assistance to the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation
Program. The subcommittee's actions have facilitated the ongoing and
continuing success of multi-State, multi-agency programs for both the
recovery of the endangered fish and providing necessary water supplies
for the Intermountain West.
______
Prepared Statement of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley
Reservation
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Dennis Smith. I am the Chairman of the
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. On the
Tribes' behalf, I am pleased to submit testimony concerning the fiscal
year 2014 budget for the BIA, BLM and IHS.
I am here today with a heavy heart. Earlier this month, my Tribe
suffered a great loss. On April 4, 2013, my predecessor, Terry Gibson,
walked on. He was only 52 and suffered a heart attack. He was a proud
member of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and a strong defender of our
sovereignty. He worked very hard to improve the health and spirit,
education and economic condition of our Tribal members. That is where
he devoted his considerable energies, including time here in
Washington. We will carry on, but he will be deeply missed.
I will focus my testimony on the following priorities, priorities
that were important to Terry:
--Support and build on the President's budget request and increase
funding within the Public Safety and Justice, Human Services,
Education, Indian Guaranteed Loan and Construction accounts for
BIA to adequately staff, operate and maintain juvenile
detention facilities, and support and increase the President's
budget for the IHS Services account so that Indian tribes may
better coordinate health, substance abuse, mental health and
related programs and services in such facilities under the
Tribal Law and Order Act, Violence Against Women Act and
related Federal laws.
--Support an additional $1 million above the President's request for
the Bureau of Land Management to fund Tribal cultural
activities and to protect cultural sites and resources
important to the Tribes under the Owyhee Public Land Management
provisions of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, Public
Law 111-11, and support the President's fiscal year 2014 budget
request to fund our Water Settlement ($12 million) under the
same act.
--Support an increase to Contract Support Costs (CSC) funding within
the IHS budget of $140 million above the President's request.
--Oppose the administration's unilateral proposal to cut off our
contract support cost rights under the Indian Self-
Determination Act (ISDA)--rights we currently hold in common
with every other government contractor in America.
The Duck Valley Indian Reservation is a large, remote and rural
reservation that straddles the Idaho-Nevada border along the east fork
of the Owyhee River. The Reservation encompasses 450 square miles in
Elko County, Nevada and Owyhee County, Idaho. More than 1,700 tribal
members, out of 2,000 enrolled members, reside on the Reservation.
Tribal members make their living as farmers and ranchers, though many
are employed by the tribes. Since the mid-1990s, we have contracted the
duties of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service
(IHS) under Self-Governance compacts that we negotiated under the ISDA.
We also carry out other Federal programs on behalf of HUD and the
Federal Highway Administration.
We owe it to our members to provide them with a safe community with
adequate programs, services and facilities to meet their needs. We are
quite different from other communities as we do not have nearby
localities to shore up services and programs when Federal
appropriations are cut. The obligations of the United States to the
Nation's federally recognized Indian tribes are not discretionary acts
by the United States; these obligations are a direct product of the
trust responsibility arising from our treaties, as well as statutes,
Executive orders, and Federal court decisions that protect and
strengthen tribal governments and our members.
Sequestration.--I am very concerned about sequestration because it
dishonors the Federal trust responsibility. This year, Indian tribes
are taking a hard hit. Our federally funded programs--which do not have
enough money to begin with--are hit with a 5 percent sequestration cut.
This is money we cannot replace. We do not have a tax base, and when
our ISDA monies are cut, we lose other matching funds and third party
collections. If Congress does not replace sequestration by October 1,
2013, larger cuts will wipe out the President's proposed fiscal year
2014 funding increases, and drop our funding levels below fiscal year
2012 levels. Already we see the early retirement of many Federal agency
personnel who are not being replaced. How does the Federal Government
honor the trust responsibility when no one answers the phone or returns
an email?
Fund the Owyhee Initiative.--The Owyhee Initiative is a joint
effort by ranchers, recreationalists, county and State officials, and
the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes to protect, manage and appropriately use
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered lands in Owyhee County,
Idaho by designating the lands Wilderness Areas and the waters Wild and
Scenic Rivers. In 2009, Congress passed the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act of 2009, Public Law 111-11. Our subtitle of that act is
the Owyhee Public Land Management (sections 1501-1508); another is our
Water Settlement (sections 10801-10809). We are about to exhaust
nonrecurring funding and require $1 million to support important
cultural resource protection activities.
One of the objectives of the Owyhee Initiative is to allow the
Tribes to protect cultural and religious sites located on BLM lands in
Owyhee County through coordination with BLM and county officials, and
to permit the Tribes to gather native plants for food or ceremony and
to hunt and fish on these lands as we once did. Section 1506 of the
Omnibus Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate with
the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes to implement our Cultural Resources
Protection Plan, and to enter into agreements with us to ``protect
cultural sites and resources important to the continuation of the
traditions and beliefs of the Tribes,'' and to share in the management
of cultural resources. Section 1508 authorizes such sums ``as are
necessary.'' With $250,000 in non-recurring funding that we received
from BLM in 2010, and an additional $500,000 in non-recurring funding,
we purchased equipment (pickup trucks, an ATV, a UTV and two airplanes,
a Cessna 150 (2-seater trainer) and a Cessna 182 (4-seater), which we
hanger outside Boise, to patrol the wilderness lands and notify BLM
when we see activities near sacred sites. We hired a Chief Tribal
Ranger (the former Owyhee County Sheriff) and Tribal Cultural Director.
Owyhee County and Owyhee Initiative officials support our efforts. Due
to lack of funds, our activities have been severely curtailed.
It was Terry's wish to fund a Reserve Ranger Program for Tribal
youth this summer, so that Tribal youth could experience the wilderness
areas, be educated about the importance of these lands to the Tribes,
let them gather native plants for ceremonies, and enhance their
understanding and appreciation of the Shoshone-Paiute people, our
traditions and culture. In his last visit here, he asked for help to
fund the Youth Ranger Program with fiscal year 2013 funds. The fiscal
year 2014 budget includes a $1.5 million increase in the Wildlife
Management Program and $1.3 million increase in the Soil, Water, and
Air Management to support BLM's Youth in the Great Outdoors program.
The Reserve Ranger Program was Terry's way to help Tribal youth connect
to their roots. Please support additional funding to appropriate
programs within the BLM, BIA and Fish and Wildlife budgets to support
Shoshone-Paiute cultural programs and activities under the Owyhee
Initiative and make Terry's wish come true.
Duck Valley Juvenile Services Center and Tribal Headquarters.--
Infrastructure is in short supply on the Duck Valley Reservation. Due
to a black mold infestation, we must replace our Tribal government
buildings at a total estimated cost of $15 million-$16 million (2012
dollars). We now work out of trailers. To make the project affordable,
we have divided the project into six phases. We are also renovating the
Duck Valley Juvenile Services Center, a secure detention and treatment
facility, our first youth detention/treatment facility on the
Reservation. We were selected by the BIA this year to participate in a
pilot project to design and implement best practices to deliver
appropriate serves to incarcerated Tribal adults and juveniles.
However, both program and construction funds are inadequate. We need
help to finance construction to build infrastructure on the Duck Valley
Reservation. We oppose the President's cuts and ask for increases for
BIA Construction (cut $17 million), Federal loans/guarantees, and IHS
Mental Health ($80 million), Alcohol and Substances Abuse ($196
million) and Purchased/Referred Care programs.
As for construction, very few projects in Indian Country can be
built or reconstructed with only BIA or IHS construction funds alone.
And when they are built, and certificates of occupancy issued, it is
critical that staffing, operation and maintenance funds be available to
us so that the facilities open and do not sit idle. It is therefore
critical that Congress increase funding in the fiscal year 2014 budget
for the BIA's Public Safety and Justice, Human Services, Education,
Indian Guaranteed Loan and Construction accounts, and IHS and other
DHHS programs to ensure that agency funds are available to permit
Indian tribes to deliver all required program services in a
comprehensive manner. This is especially important for juvenile
facilities.
We are 140 miles south of Boise, Idaho, and 98 miles north of Elko,
Nevada. Poverty and unemployment are widespread. As a result, some of
our members struggle with alcohol and substance abuse, including our
youth. For over a decade, it has been our goal to construct a secure
juvenile detention and treatment service center on our Reservation,
rather than having our young members sent hundreds of miles to non-
Indian detention facilities, far from home, family and culturally
appropriate treatment. These transports also remove BIA law enforcement
officers from the Reservation, which contributes to crime and delayed
response times.
Next month, we will put out to bid the renovation of our existing
Duck Valley Juvenile Services Center. When built, it will provide a
modern and safe 19-bed youth detention and treatment facility so that
Tribal youth can be housed on the Reservation. But Federal funding is
inadequate to help coordinate Tribal, BIA, BIE, IHS, Justice Department
and DHHS's Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) stakeholders, and to implement these programs for adult and
youth offenders. Secretarial-level Memoranda of Agreements between
Justice, IHS and BIA will not work at the project level when there are
insufficient funds appropriated to the agencies and Tribes to deliver
well-coordinated programs and services.
IHS personnel have not been sufficiently engaged to coordinate
substance abuse, mental health and related health services for
incarcerated adult and youth offenders. SAMHSA officials are taking a
lead with BIA Law Enforcement officials, but a scheduled meeting on the
Reservation was postponed due to sequestration cuts. We need additional
health resources to recruit, hire and house substance abuse and mental
health counselors to treat Tribal youth when the detention facility
opens, as well as to house detention and law enforcement personnel.
Only by pooling available resources in a coordinated manner can we halt
and treat the behavioral issues that contribute to the cycles of
substance abuse, crime and recidivism on our Reservation.
We support the President's proposed increases of $17.8 million for
Public Safety and Justice, including $13.4 million to staff newly
constructed detention facilities; we oppose $10 million cuts to the
Human Services and construction budgets, which could fund more domestic
and child abuse programs, especially with enactment of VAWA. We oppose
the elimination of the BIA HIP Program ($12 million cut) as housing is
in short supply on the Reservation.
Contract Support Costs.--This subcommittee understands the
importance of CSC to tribal governments. The President's budget for
fiscal year 2014 again provides far too little for CSC funding for IHS.
By not paying the full CSC amount, IHS forces us to cut program
services or cut staffing to pay our fixed administration costs. This
only penalizes the people we serve. At last count, we were underpaid
over $600,000 in CSC funding--a huge sum in lost health care in our
small community.
The IHS (and the BIA) would compound the problem for fiscal year
2014. First, IHS has requested only $477 million when it admits it
needs at least $617 million to honor all contracts. Second, the IHS and
BIA propose to individually cap fiscal year 2014 payments of each
tribe, meaning we would lose all the damage claims we have under
existing law for the underpayments. This irresponsible and radical idea
was developed in secret and without any prior tribal consultation
whatsoever. We have already accumulated $3,154,312 in past losses,
following the $4 million settlement of our original claims in the
Cherokee-Shoshone-Paiute Supreme Court 2005 litigation; why in the
world would we agree to allow the Government to repeat past travesties?
Over a decade ago, I walked the halls of Congress to increase CSC
funding for Indian tribes. We were among the first to file suit against
the United States. We won in the Supreme Court, with a ruling that our
self-governance compacts are every bit as solid as any other Government
contract. It is bad enough that tribal contractors are the only
Government contractors that are regularly underpaid; it would add grave
insult to that injury to now cut off all recourse in the courts--
especially if the only reason is that we are Indians. This
administration is bound by its obligations to consult with Indian
tribes before making policy changes that impact tribes. This
subcommittee should oppose the administration's unilateral CSC proposal
and insist that the BIA and IHS consult with Indian tribes first before
changing in any manner the means by which CSC funds are paid to tribes.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
On behalf of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, I submit testimony
concerning the President's fiscal year 2014 budget for the American
Indian/Alaska Native programs within the Department of the Interior and
Indian Health Service. I would like to express our appreciation to this
subcommittee for its support of Indian tribes and to focus my remarks
on public safety, education, housing, healthcare, and infrastructure.
The Standing Rock Sioux Reservation encompasses 2.3 million acres
in North and South Dakota. The Reservation's population--approximately
8,500 tribal members and 2,000 nonmembers--reside in eight districts,
and in smaller communities. The Tribe's primary industries are cattle
ranching and farming. The Tribe struggles to provide essential
governmental services to our members. When the Tribe ceded millions of
acres of land to the United States, the Government promised to provide
us with the means to sustain ourselves on our Reservation. The Tribe
strives to provide jobs and improve the standard of living on our
Reservation. We operate two modest Tribal casinos; Rock Industries, a
small parts-on-demand operation; Standing Rock Propane; Standing Rock
Telecommunications; and a sand and gravel operation, which helps the
Tribe supplement services and programs for our members. Despite these
measures, our unemployment rate remains above 50 percent. In fact, more
than 40 percent of Indian families on our Reservation live in poverty--
more than triple the average U.S. poverty rate of 13.8 percent. The
disparity is worse for children, as 52 percent of the Reservation
population under age 18 lives below poverty, compared to 16 percent and
19 percent in North and South Dakota, respectively. The Federal
programs established to aid tribes and their members are essential. We
ask the Government to honor its commitments by maintaining Federal
programs enacted for our benefit, so that our members may live at a
standard equal to that enjoyed by the rest of the Nation. Our specific
recommendations are as follows:
BIA--Public Safety and Justice.--We strongly support the
President's proposal to increase funding for Public Safety and Justice
by $17 million above the 2012 enacted level, and urge Congress to
increase appropriations by at least that amount. Increased funding is
needed to hire more law enforcement officers and to staff detention
facilities. Standing Rock has seen first-hand that adequate law
enforcement staffing is the key to reducing crime.
Before 2008 at Standing Rock, there were only seven law enforcement
officers to cover the Reservation (an area close to the size of
Connecticut), and crime was rampant. Crime decreased as a result of
BIA's Operation Dakota Peacekeeper initiative which, in 2008, added 20
law enforcement officers on the Reservation. When that initiative
ended, the number of supplemental officers assisting the permanent law
enforcement officers was reduced and crime increased. Fortunately,
Standing Rock is one of the few Indian reservations where the High
Prior Performance Goals initiative (HPPG) has been implemented. In
2009, when HPPG started, the then 12 permanent law enforcement
positions were gradually supplemented by an additional 22 positions.
These 34 positions currently consist of a Chief of Police, 3-4
Lieutenants, 3 Criminal Investigators/Special Agents, 2 School Resource
Officers and 24 police officers.
Although not all 34 positions are filled at all times (due to
turnover and training leave), the increase in law enforcement has had a
significant positive impact. It facilitated police officer assignment
to each Reservation community, which means quicker response time to
calls. The increased law enforcement presence and patrols has deterred
crime and resulted in our members feeling safer. The data confirms
this. When compared to the number of violent crimes (homicide, rape,
robbery, assault) that occurred between 2007 and 2009, the additional
staffing reduced such crimes by approximately: 7 percent in 2010, 11
percent in 2011, and 15-19 percent in 2012.
These initiatives demonstrate the critical importance of adequate
law enforcement staffing. But HPPG is presently scheduled to end after
fiscal year 2013. More than 3,000 arrests were made during the 2012
calendar year. Data this year demonstrates that Reservation law
enforcement continue to receive more than 900 calls for assistance each
month. While the Tribe is fortunate to have 34 law enforcement
positions for the Reservation, an analysis of the number of officers
needed to provide effective 24-hour coverage indicates there should be
more. At current staffing levels, officers typically work 12-hour
shifts, 5 days a week, leading to officer burn-out and increased costs
for overtime. Only proper staffing levels will ensure the safety of our
communities and officers. We urge Congress to increase funding for law
enforcement personnel.
Funding is also essential for law enforcement equipment and
facilities maintenance. In December 2010, the Tribe successfully
completed construction of a secure 18-bed juvenile detention facility
on our Reservation so that Tribal youth offenders may remain on the
Reservation and receive culturally appropriate services while
incarcerated. The Tribe contributed $2 million of Tribal funds to
supplement $5 million in Justice Department funds to build this
facility. Over time this facility will save the BIA a great deal of
money that now pays other public authorities to house our youth
offenders. Unfortunately, while the BIA, in January 2011 and many times
thereafter, advised the Tribe that the facility was to be among those
BIA-operated facilities to receive operation and maintenance funding,
BIA delays have meant that, to date, the facility is not operational
and has received no maintenance funds. As a result, problems have
surfaced. Various systems in the building require repair but warranties
have expired. The Tribe is taking active steps to remedy these matters
using Tribal resources. Once these matters are cured, the BIA must act
promptly to assume operation of the facility and secure a share of the
operation and maintenance (O&M) funds needed to pay for utilities and
routine maintenance. Adequate levels of O&M funding are essential to
safely house our youth and safeguard the Tribe's and Federal
Government's investment in this facility.
BIA--Tribal Courts.--We urge Congress to increase the modest
funding appropriated for the Tribal Courts Program. Our Tribe cannot
effectively carry out criminal proceedings, let alone civil cases, with
our small BIA allocation, even when heavily subsidized by the Tribe.
Our Tribal courts are crowded, cramped and outdated and limit our
ability to administer a comprehensive criminal justice system on the
Reservation.
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).--We urge Congress to increase
fiscal year 2014 funding for BIE programs. As President Obama has
stated, education is the key to ending the cycle of poverty and lower
wages. Despite this, the administration's fiscal year 2014 budget would
hold constant or otherwise cut funding for programs that are critical
to the education of our youth.
Standing Rock relies on BIE funding for three Tribal grant
schools--the Standing Rock Community School (K-12), Sitting Bull School
(K-8), and Rock Creek School (K-8). The Standing Rock Community School
is jointly operated by the Tribe and a State entity, Fort Yates Public
School District, which, like other public schools on the Reservation
(Cannonball, Selfridge, McLaughlin, McIntosh, and Wakpala), depends on
Federal impact aid to cover the costs of the public school's share of
the school operations. The children in the schools on the Reservation
are among the most at-risk students in the Nation. At the Rock Creek,
Cannonball, Selfridge, and Wakpala schools, 100 percent of the students
receive free or reduced price school lunches because their families
live at or below poverty. At other schools, the percentage of children
receiving free or reduced price lunch is comparable--Sitting Bull, 98
percent; McLaughlin, 85 percent; Fort Yates, 80 percent; Standing Rock,
80 percent.
A critical source of funds for the operation of our Tribal grant
schools are the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Formula
funds. They cover salaries for teachers, teacher aides, school
administrative staff and other operational costs. ISEP has not seen any
meaningful increase in years, and as a result, it has become more
difficult to attract and retain qualified staff. Despite the clear
need, the administration proposes to cut ISEP funding by $16.4 million,
apparently to offset the cost of a new pilot program. We do not object
to a new pilot program, but no such program should be created at the
expense of existing needs. If the schools serving Indian children are
to be effective, ISEP funding should be increased.
The administration's near flat line funding for virtually all
aspects of BIE programs does not account for population growth,
increased costs, or inflation. Student Transportation funding, intended
to cover the costs of buses, fuel, maintenance, vehicle replacements,
and drivers, has stayed at the same level for years. The substantial
increases in fuel costs alone make it impossible to cover these costs.
For Standing Rock, funds are further strained because we are a rural
community, where bus runs for many of our students may take 1\1/2\ to 2
hours each way and can include travel on unimproved roads. These
factors result in higher maintenance costs and shorter vehicle life. A
substantial increase in funds for Student Transportation is long
overdue.
The same is true for School Facility Operations and School Facility
Maintenance which is nowhere near fully funded. In fact, O&M budgets
are currently constrained at 40 percent. With the constraint and the
cuts resulting from sequestration, it will be impossible for the
schools to operate. We also urge Congress to increase, or at least
maintain funding for Education Construction and reject the
administration's proposal to cut Education Construction funding by $18
million. While the administration claims this will allow it to
eliminate replacement school funding and redirect funds to Minor
Improvement and Repair (MI&R) programs, its budget contains no
comparable increase to MI&R. Without adequate funds for maintenance or
facilities repair our schools will deteriorate and pose serious safety
risks for our children. Indeed, part of one of our Tribal grant
schools, the Rock Creek School, is more than 100 years old and badly
needs to be replaced. Federal funds to replace ancient schools--like
Rock Creek--are essential. Funding for School Facility Operations and
School Facility Maintenance, as well as Education Construction should
be substantially increased.
We also urge Congress to increase funding for Scholarships. Because
of the unmet need, the Tribe spends $1 million in Tribal funds annually
to supplement this program and gives grants of $3,000-$3,500 to aid our
students attending colleges and vocational schools. But even with this,
most of our scholarship recipients have unmet financial need varying
from $100 to $17,000.
BIA HIP (Housing Improvement Program).--The Tribe opposes the
administration's proposal to completely eliminate funding for HIP. HIP
has long played a very important role in providing funds to low income
persons who have emergency or other specific needs to make home
repairs. While the administration states that Tribes can use HUD
NAHASDA funds to cover these costs, our Tribal members' needs for safe
and affordable housing are staggering. Even with both HUD and HIP,
there are now more than 200 families on the waiting list for housing,
150 families living in overcrowded conditions, and another 300 families
in substandard housing.
Indian Health Service.--We support the administration's fiscal year
2014 requested increase in IHS funding. We depend on IHS to care for
our 15,500 enrolled tribal members, many of whom suffer from diabetes,
heart disease and hypertension. With 5 percent cuts due to
sequestration, and 2 percent decrease in Medicare reimbursement, we
estimate there will be at least $800,000 in unmet need in fiscal year
2013. Unmet need will be more severe if sequestration recurs in fiscal
year 2014.
We recommend the subcommittee prioritize the IHS preventive
healthcare service programs, such as the diabetes grant program, and
increase funding for these programs above the administration's $150
million, while supporting and protecting the administration's other IHS
funding priorities, especially funding for healthcare personnel. In
many instances, if additional funding for clinical services and
preventive health programs can be made available, illnesses and
injuries could be treated at their initial stages, or prevented
altogether. This is especially important at Standing Rock, where many
of our members' health problems could be addressed if timely preventive
care were available. We also support the administration's request for
increases in Dental Health (as there is considerable need for dental
care) and Purchased/Referred Care (previously known as Contract Health
Services), which has been historically underfunded.
Infrastructure.--Infrastructure, like safe drinking water,
utilities, and well-maintained roads are essential to the well-being of
our people. But the primary funding source for road maintenance, the
BIA's Road Maintenance Program, has for the last 30 years, been funded
at only $25 million, making it impossible to carry out routine, much
less, emergency road maintenance. We urge Congress to reject the
administration's current proposal to again cut funding for this
program.
Equally vital is safe drinking water. Congress authorized the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's municipal, rural, and industrial (MR&I)
water system by the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986
and the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000. Substantial progress has
been made on the project: construction is nearly complete for core
facilities including a deep water intake and pump station, 13 miles of
raw water transmission pipeline, a main storage reservoir, a state-of-
the-art water treatment plant, and 49 miles of main transmission
treated water pipelines. Three treated water pipeline contracts
approach the bidding stage. When completed, they will connect the
Reservation's existing water infrastructure to the new facilities so
that more than 75 percent of the Reservation population will receive
clean drinking water. However, further pipeline construction, including
to residents currently without treated water supply, is in jeopardy due
to the recent dramatic cuts in appropriations. Proposed future
appropriations levels threaten to completely stop construction on the
project leaving a significant portion of the Reservation's residents
without access to safe, clean, dependable drinking water. We
respectfully request Congress restore funding the Dakota Water
Resources Act to fiscal year 2010 levels to allow completion of this
critical project within a reasonable time.
______
Prepared Statement of the Seismological Society of America
I thank you for this opportunity to provide the subcommittee with
the testimony on behalf of the Seismological Society of America (SSA).
SSA is an international scientific society devoted to the advancement
of seismology and the understanding of earthquakes for the benefit of
society. Founded in 1906, SSA is the largest and most respected society
of seismologists in the world and is an unbiased source of reliable
information for any governmental agency or official seeking sound
scientific advice.
We ask the subcommittee to continue to support and sustain the
critical geoscience work underway at the United States Geological
Survey (USGS), within the Department of the Interior. In the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill now under
consideration by this subcommittee, we ask for $1.2 billion for USGS,
to support their total mission area needs, including $57.924 million
for the Earthquake Hazards Program, $24.698 million for the Volcano
Hazards Program and $3.693 million for the Landslide Hazards Program.
These levels are much lower than those recommended by the National
Academy of Science in 2011, and represent a minimum appropriation
needed to prevent significant degradation of our national earthquake
program in the coming year.
Earthquakes are a threat to national security. They can cause
tremendous damage to critical infrastructure, hindering vital
Government services and operations, inhibiting the flow of goods and
services, and impacting interstate commerce. They cause loss of life
and property. Currently 75 million Americans in 39 States face a
significant earthquake risk. But all Americans would bear economic
consequences resulting from a major destructive earthquake occurring
anywhere in the country.
Although earthquakes occur less frequently in the Eastern United
States than in some other parts of the Nation, studies show that when
these earthquakes occur, urban areas in the East could face devastating
losses because severe shaking would affect a larger area than a similar
earthquake in the Western United States. Most structures in the Eastern
United States are not designed to resist earthquakes and residents are
not as well prepared for earthquakes as communities in the West.
In Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, along with Hawaii, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the effects of a destructive
earthquake can extend well beyond local impact by potentially creating
far-reaching tsunamis that impact low-lying coastal communities or have
subsequent ground shaking that creates landslides which results in
economic losses that could exceed any that have occurred from previous
earthquakes or tsunamis.
USGS provides the research, monitoring, and assessment that are
critically needed to better understand and respond to natural hazards,
and to build national economic, political, and general resilience. USGS
provides information products for earthquake loss reduction, including
rapid post-event impact evaluations, national hazard and risk
assessments, comprehensive real-time earthquake monitoring, and public
outreach. Virtually every American citizen and every Federal, State,
and local agency benefits either directly or indirectly from the
products and services provided by the USGS. 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.
``National Earthquake Resilience: Research, Implementation, and
Outreach,'' published by the National Academy of Sciences in 2011,
compiled cost estimates for 18 separate tasks in a program to achieve
resilience. The Earthquake Hazards Program is uniquely well-suited to
executing several of these tasks, including completion and operation of
the Advanced National Seismic System, development of Earthquake Early
Warning, and creation of a National Seismic Hazard model. In addition,
the Program can make critical contributions many of the other tasks,
including Physics of Earthquake Processes, Operational Earthquake
Forecasting, and Earthquake Scenarios. Seismologists understand that
even these few tasks cannot be fully funded this year. Nevertheless,
more than doubling funding for the Earthquake Hazards Program
progressively over the next 5 years and then sustaining a high level of
effort for 20 years would facilitate a well defined program that can
return benefits to the Nation outweighing the costs many times over.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Seminole Tribe of Florida
The Seminole Tribe of Florida submits these comments on the
administration's proposed fiscal year 2014 budget for the Indian Health
Service (IHS) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), with focus on the
proposal regarding contract support costs (CSC). Specifically, we
request:
--Rejection by Congress of the administration's proposed BIA and IHS
contractor-by-contractor caps on contract support costs.
--Full funding of IHS contract support costs, estimated to be $617
million, or $140 million above the administration's proposed
cap.
--Full funding of BIA contract support costs, estimated to be $242
million, or $12 million above the administration's proposed
cap.
--Protect the IHS budget from sequestration.
reject the contract support costs proposal
Indian tribes nationwide were taken aback by the administration's
fiscal year 2014 proposal to statutorily cap every individual tribe's
payment of CSC (for both the IHS and the BIA payments). The clear
intent of this proposal is to limit the Federal Government's liability
for tribal recovery of CSC shortfalls through Contract Dispute Act
claims in court. The individual tribal caps would be imposed by tables
created by the agencies and incorporated by reference into the
appropriations act. The proposal, which the administration describes as
a ``short term'' plan, is in reaction to the Supreme Court decision in
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter which said that contract support costs
should be paid in full.
Since the administration's proposed budget was released in April,
the House Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs have had budget hearings at
which there was testimony from many tribal leaders strongly critical of
the substance of the CSC proposal and of the lack of tribal
consultation on this matter.
The administration is not retreating from its proposal, as
evidenced by a Department of the Interior (DOI) official's comment at a
May 8 hearing of the Senate Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee that we need to solve the ``problem'' of
contract support costs. The problem is not the Ramah decision, it is
the Federal Government's view that obligations to tribal contractors,
unlike other Government contractors, are just a budget line item and
need not be paid in full.
fully fund ihs and bia contract support costs
The authority afforded tribal governments under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act to flexibly design and
operate programs in place of the Federal Government has proved to be a
great success. More than half of the IHS budget is now allocated to
tribes through Self-Determination agreements; the figure for (DOI)
Indian Affairs is 65 percent. Every tribe in the Nation has at least
one self-determination agreement. At the heart of the implementation of
the Self-Determination Act is whether tribes have the resources to
cover the administrative and overhead portions of the programs that
would otherwise be borne by the Federal Government. Tribes have had to
utilize program funds when contract support funds are inadequate or
scale back their planned services to tribal members. We thank the
Interior Appropriations subcommittees and Congress for increases in
recent years for CSC--it has made a positive difference--and now ask
that the job be completed with full funding for contract support costs:
$617 million for IHS and $242 million for BIA.
We also point out that the IHS and BIA budgets are not, especially
in recent years, receiving funding for built-in costs--pay increases,
inflation, and population growth. This, along with underfunding of CSC,
puts a real strain on tribal government services.
protect the indian health service from sequestration
The fiscal year 2013 sequestration resulted in a $220 million cut
in funding to the IHS for fiscal year 2013--roughly 5 percent of the
IHS's overall budget which is concentrated in the last half of the
fiscal year. IHS lost $195 million for programs including hospitals and
health clinics services, contract health services, dental services,
mental health and alcohol and substance abuse services. Programs and
projects necessary for maintenance and improvement of health facilities
felt these same impacts. These consequences are then passed down to
every Indian Self-Determination Act contractor.
The fiscal year 2014 budget proposal for IHS would not restore the
sequestration. Of the $124 million increase proposed for the IHS, most
of it is for staffing of new facilities and inflation for the Purchase/
Referred Care (formerly Contract Health Services). These are necessary
increases but they do not constitute a general increase for tribal or
IHS health programs.
We cannot understand why the U.S. trust responsibility for the
health of American Indian and Alaska Native people was taken less
seriously than the Nation's promises to provide healthcare to our
veterans. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) was fully exempt from
the sequester for all programs administered by the VA. See Sec. 255 of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA), as
amended by Public Law 111-139 (2010). Also exempt are State Medicaid
grants, and Medicare payments are held harmless except for a 2 percent
reduction for administration of the program. Yet the IHS was subject to
the full cut. We thus strongly urge the Appropriations Committees to
support amendment of the BBEDCA to fully exempt the IHS from any
sequestration procedures, just as the VAs and other health programs are
exempt. We recognize that the President's proposed budget is designed
to eliminate future sequestrations, but Congress will work its will on
that proposal, so we seek an amendment to exempt the IHS from
sequestration.
conclusion
Ensuring full funding of tribal programs at the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the Indian Health Service is important not only to tribes,
but to the communities around them. We recognize the economic hardships
facing the country, but remind Congress that funding our programs
enables us to create more jobs for Indians, non-Indians, tribal
members, and neighbors alike. This helps our national economy grow from
the ground up. Accordingly, we urge you to honor our requests to fully
fund Indian programs in fiscal year 2014.
______
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 2014 appropriations
for American Indian/Alaska Native programs within the Interior
Department, Indian Health Service and Environmental Protection Agency.
The Skokomish Indian Tribe is responsible for providing essential
governmental services to the residents of the Skokomish Indian
Reservation, a rural community located at the base of the Olympic
Peninsula with a population of more than 2,000 people, including
approximately 700 Tribal members. The Tribe provides services through
various departments--Tribal Administration, Community Development,
Information Services, Early Childhood Education (including Head Start),
Education, Health Clinic, Housing, Legal, Natural Resources, Public
Safety, Public Works, and Tuwaduq Family Services. The Tribal
government also works closely with community members to identify needs
and prioritize services. Adequate Federal funds are critical to the
Tribe's ability to address the extensive unmet needs of our community.
bureau of indian affairs
Law Enforcement.--We support the President's proposal to increase
funding for BIA Public Safety and Justice Programs. The Skokomish
Department of Public Safety (SDPS) provides 24/7 law enforcement
services for the Tribe. SDPS is responsible for patrolling and
enforcing justice both within the Tribe's 5,300-acre Reservation, and
throughout the Tribe's 2.2-million-acre Treaty area where the Tribe has
Treaty-protected hunting, fishing and gathering rights. SDPS currently
has a Chief of Police, seven full-time officers, and one part-time
officer. Despite SDPS's best efforts, it cannot meet all of its
responsibilities unless staffing is increased.
Officers respond to all manner of calls for police services
including a wide range of felonies and misdemeanors. They patrol both
land and water in Hood Canal Basin, enforcing Tribal laws, treaty
rights, court orders, and Federal and State statutes. Staff is
stretched thin. In addition to its primary responsibilities in
patrolling the Reservation and the usual and accustomed areas where
Tribal members make their living fishing and hunting, the SDPS performs
other necessary duties. For example, the SDPS officers (who are cross-
deputized) assist the Mason County Sheriff's Office and the Washington
State Patrol. The SDPS is also tasked with first response in the event
of a natural disaster or emergency management situation.
But with only four officers available for day-to-day patrol duties,
individual officers often work alone. Understaffing exposes both the
community members in need of assistance and SDPS officers to undue
danger. Unfortunately, this is SDPS's reality. To meet mandated
responsibilities, staffing must be increased. Vacancies due to illness,
training and other leave force the Chief of Police to handle patrol
duties. Budget limitations severely restrict overtime. Often gaps in
shift coverage go unfilled relying on an ``On Call'' response. This
gravely increases the risk to the safety of the community and creates
service gaps affording opportunities for increased criminal activity. A
memorandum of understanding with the Mason County Sheriff's Office
helps to fill some of these gaps on an as-needed basis. However, the
costs are significant and there are times when a Deputy simply is not
available.
The SDPS strives to get the most from every dollar spent and is
constantly working to improve in every aspect. An outdated Records
Management System (RMS) was recently replaced. The new RMS will provide
more succinct statistical crime data and will be instrumental in the
proactive deployment of SDPS personnel. A new community policing plan
is also in place, as well as a new training plan. But because of
limited funds, progress is slow.
Today, the Skokomish Reservation faces many of the same issues as
other communities. Domestic violence and substance abuse critically
impact the Tribe. The Skokomish Tribe also hosts visitors from the
surrounding communities as well as a large tourist trade. This is the
avenue through which narcotics are brought into the Reservation. With
the drug trade comes many other associated undesirable issues--theft,
burglary and poaching, to name a few. There is a sense of helplessness
in the community, resulting in crimes often going unreported. SDPS does
not have the resources to effectively stem the tide of this illicit
activity.
In order for the Skokomish Tribe to ensure safety, service and
protection of the community, an immediate and dramatic increase in
staff is needed. To properly carry out its responsibilities SDPS needs
another seven officers. Dedicated resources for investigations,
community policing and crime prevention alone require a minimum of
three additional officers. The Tribe simply cannot provide these
resources so necessary for the protection of our community without the
additional funding assistance of the Federal Government.
Tribal Court.--The Skokomish judiciary handles a high volume of
cases relative to our community's population. The Court currently has
more than 262 open criminal, civil, and family court cases. The
Skokomish Tribal Court is in the midst of a major restructuring project
as a result of the Tribe's unwavering commitment to providing
meaningful access to justice for all of its community members.
Specifically, the Tribe has recently begun providing public defense
services to its Tribal members who are facing criminal charges. In
addition, the Tribe has recently recruited a new prosecutor, probation
officer, and a pool of Tribal Court judges who are actively working to
encourage alternatives to incarceration, while reducing criminal
recidivism.
We support the President's proposal to increase funding for Tribal
Courts, but the increase proposed is not enough. To protect the Tribes
from the adverse impacts of sequestration and the demands on our
courts, we respectfully request that Congress increase funding
substantially so that the Tribal Court in cooperation with the Public
Safety Department can continue its momentum in improving our judiciary
to reflect the needs and values of the Skokomish community. This
includes fully implementing the Tribe's retrocession from Public Law
280, consistent with the standards for implementation of the Tribal Law
and Order Act of 2010, and ensuring that our most vulnerable community
members are fully protected through proper implementation of the newly
amended Violence Against Women Act.
Natural Resources.--We strongly support the President's proposal to
increase funding for Trust-Natural Resources Management programs by
$34.4 million more than fiscal year 2012 levels. Increased funding to
foster sustainable stewardship and development of natural resources and
support fishing, hunting and gathering rights on and off-reservation,
is essential to our people who depend on natural resources for their
livelihood.
For example, the Pacific Salmon Treaty grant supports the Tribe's
federally mandated salmon sampling program. Throughout the entire
salmon season, and to ensure proper management of the resources, we
must collect scale and coded-wire tag samples from Chinook and Coho,
and scale samples from Chum on 20 percent of our catch. This
information is used to determine run size and allows fisheries managers
to properly structure the fisheries. Current funding levels have been
sufficient to achieve this goal; however, with sequestration, we are
facing cuts in fiscal year 2013. Without proper funding for this
program, it will become very difficult, if not impossible, for the
Tribe to ensure the safety of ESA-listed salmon which may result in a
loss of a Treaty-reserved resource and our members' ability to support
themselves from that resource. We urge Congress to increase the current
level of funding for this vital program.
Hatchery cyclical maintenance funds are also invaluable for
supporting the Federal Government's investment in Tribal hatcheries.
Most Tribal hatcheries are underfunded and each year brings more decay
to the facilities. Here too, adequate funding for hatchery maintenance
is imperative to prevent these important pieces of the salmon
restoration puzzle from crumbling away. Because of habitat destruction,
the only reason we continue to have salmon for Treaty-harvest
activities is the operation of salmon hatcheries. Congress cannot allow
the main pillar of this all important Treaty right to take a reduction
in funding.
Five years ago the Tribe was able to cobble together a wildlife
program consisting of one biologist and one technician. The program is
partially funded by Timber, Fish, and Wildlife funds of about $95,000;
the Tribe supplements the program with an additional $35,000. The
Tribal program needs additional funding to staff three dedicated
wildlife enforcement officers who will not only enforce the Tribe's
regulations, but ensure that poaching of the Tribe's wildlife resources
does not occur from outside entities who sometimes fail to recognize
the Tribe's Treaty rights. Sequestration will make it all but
impossible for us to continue to properly manage our resources. We
request additional funds in the amount of $240,000, so we will have
stable funding for a complete wildlife program.
Transportation.--The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
(Map-21) bill was enacted in July 2012. The legislation requires that
Federal grant funds be awarded through State DOTs. In the past, we had
the option of receiving funding through the BIA as a 638 contract. We
are finding with our two current Scenic Byways grants that going
through the State DOT costs more and the projects take twice the amount
of time to complete. The Tribe would like to see an amendment to Map-21
that reinstates our right to either directly receive funds or have the
funds come through the BIA.
indian health service
The Skokomish Tribe supports the President's proposal to increase
funding for the Indian Health Service. We have a Tribally operated
Ambulatory Health Center located in a relatively remote geographic area
and continue to face financial barriers to the effective provision of
healthcare services. Our Contract Health Service (CHS) funds are
insufficient to meet needs and we urge that Federal funds be increased
in light of the rising cost of healthcare and the serious health issues
our patients face such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.
Among the problems are the increases we are seeing in oral health
costs on the Reservation. Federal funding has not kept pace. Dental
problems are common among low income households and drug users. In many
instances, when dental problems are finally dealt with they require
specialized dental care, which the Tribe lacks resources to provide.
Further compounding the problem is if our CHS funding is spent, Tribal
members without dental insurance are more likely to forego the
necessary specialized dental care. Instead, we are seeing an increase
of individuals with oral health issues seeking alternative relief
through over-the-counter analgesics or visiting the emergency room of
the local hospital. Since emergency rooms are not staffed for dental
treatment, Tribal members are given narcotics to control their pain,
but the need for treatment still remains. Poor oral health can lead to
negative effects on general health. With an already stretched CHS
budget here at Skokomish we are in need of funding to address the rise
in negative healthcare costs.
The increase in oral healthcare problems further confirms the
extensive ongoing health problems arising from substance abuse. Federal
funds are needed not only for drug and alcohol treatment, but also to
address the medical and dental needs that the addiction has caused.
In addition, 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. We urge 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.
national park service, tribal historic preservation programs
In 1995, 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 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 141 Tribes operating the program, each
receiving less than $51,000. We fully support the President's proposal
to increase funding for the Historic Preservation Fund.
environmental protection agency
EPA has long lacked sufficient funds for State and Tribal
Assistance Grants (STAG). These funds provided grant money for a
wastewater treatment plant. We still need approximately $12 million to
fully build our core Reservation plant. The President's fiscal year
2014 budget would reduce funding for some STAG grants with small
increases to others. We urge Congress to increase funding for these
grants as that would be a tremendous benefit to the Tribes.
contract support costs--bia and ihs
We are very concerned that the President's proposed budget would
cap contract support costs for tribally contracted services with the
BIA and IHS in this and future years. We urge Congress to fully fund
all contract support costs and to resolve all outstanding BIA and IHS
contract support costs claims.
conclusion
The Tribe thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to present
testimony on these important issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tanana Chiefs Conference
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the honor of presenting
this testimony.
My name is Julie Roberts and I am the Vice President of the Tanana
Chiefs Conference and the President of Tanana Tribal Council. TCC is a
nonprofit intertribal consortium of 39 federally recognized Tribes
located in the interior of Alaska. 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.
TCC is a co-signer of the Alaska Tribal Health Compact, awarded
under title V of the Indian Self Determination Act. I will be
testifying on two matters. First, I will provide an overview of the
Joint Venture Construction Program and specifically address TCC's Joint
Venture 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 requires its full staffing package in fiscal year 2014, which
is already 1 year past what was contractually 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 followed the direction of Congress and 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 Congress for fiscal year on the same basis as IHS requests funding
for any other Facilities.'' Given that IHS has requested funding for
the various JV projects across the country at different percentages and
not in correlation to clinic opening dates, it appears that IHS has not
requested funding on the same basis across all facilities.
TCC is deeply appreciative of the subcommittee's efforts to secure
some fiscal year 2013 funding for joint venture projects,
notwithstanding the general sequestration. We thank every member of
this subcommittee for the remarkable accomplishment. At the same time,
it is a fact that funding for our Joint Venture project in fiscal year
2013 will only be one-third of the total staffing package IHS owes TCC
(or around $10 million). TCC had to invest in new program staffing to
be ready to open our doors--including staffing for labs, radiology,
facility maintenance and support--which does not include the additional
clinical staffing that was added to meet the current demand. The
additional staffing cost TCC approximately $9 million. When added to
the $5.4 million bond payments and the $600,000 in utility payments,
TCC's total deficit is $15 million this year. Even accounting for the
$10 million for TCC in this year's budget, we will still have $5
million in operational deficit.
According to the agreement with IHS, TCC's staffing package funding
should be $29.4 million--requiring an increase of $19.4 million above
our fiscal year 2013 funding level. If the President's proposed $77
million staffing increases for fiscal year 2014 are supported and
applied to the fiscal year 2013 increases, this will make right the
wrong TCC experienced. But if, as IHS indicates, they are above the
fiscal year 2012 levels, they are woefully insufficient.
Last year IHS justified paying less because it believed we would
not be able to staff up fast enough to spend the funds. But we have
long been fully operational and the only barrier to hiring staff is
IHS's failure to honor its commitment. This is clear from the fact
that, in order to open our doors, TCC invested $9 million in new
staffing and several providers are currently interested in working for
us.
IHS has written that our Joint Venture partnership is a model for
what can be achieved between Tribal Health Organizations and IHS to
improve access to care for American Indian and Alaska Native people.
TCC is holding up our end of the Joint Venture agreement. We need IHS,
and Congress, to hold up the Government's end. This will require $19.4
million in fiscal year 2014. This will be 1 year late, but at least the
commitment will finally be honored.
The administration's contract support cost request will worsen the
national CSC shortfall and require further program cuts for Self-
Determined Tribes; the burden will fall especially hard on Tribes
operating recent new facilities.
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 that perform
contracts on behalf of the United States pursuant to the Indian Self-
Determination Act. ``Contract support costs'' are the fixed and fully
audited costs which we incur and must spend to operate IHS's programs
and clinics. The law and our contracts say that these costs must be
reimbursed. The Supreme Court, twice, has so ruled.
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 ours will provide in our
communities.
The problem is that for 2014, IHS has requested only a $5.8 million
increase over fiscal year 2012 levels, up to $477 million. Yet, the
current shortfall is $140 million, with a total projected $617 million
due all tribal contractors. At that, the IHS projected shortfall does
not include contract support costs associated with facilities staffed
up in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014. Against these numbers, a
$5.8 million increase is not just inadequate; it is shameful.
When contract support costs are not paid, we have no choice but to
take the shortfall in funding out of the programs themselves. Letting
the CSC shortfall increase, on top of underfunding TCC's JV staffing
requirements, will end up punishing tens of thousands of 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 which the Government, by contract, has committed
to pay. We are not expecting a favor; we are expecting the Government
to hold up its end of the bargain.
It is not only illegal but immoral for IHS (and BIA, too) to
structure their budgets in such a way that they cut only tribally
administered IHS and BIA programs--not IHS-administered or BIA-
administered programs, but only tribally administered programs--in
order to meet the agencies' overall budget targets. The thousands of
Alaska Native patients and clients who we serve should not be punished
because those services are administered under self-governance compacts
instead of directly by IHS or the BIA.
As I mentioned last year, I am particularly concerned about this
issue as we plan for fiscal year 2014. In fiscal year 2014 TCC projects
an increased contract support cost requirement of $6 million associated
with the new clinic. As it is, remember that IHS has only committed to
staff TCC's clinic at 85 percent of capacity. If none of TCC's contract
support cost requirements to operate the new clinic are covered, the
resulting $6 million cut in staffing will drop the clinic to 65 percent
of staffing capacity--even if the full JV staffing package is funded,
and much less if it is not. This will severely compromise TCC's ability
both to administer the new facility and to meet our debt obligations.
Worse yet, services to our people will be gravely compromised.
We understand that the dollars required to finally close the gap in
contract support cost requirements are large, but this is only because
the problem has been allowed to snowball over so many years. Once a
budget correction is made to finally close the contract support cost
gap inside both agencies, maintaining full funding of contract support
costs on a going-forward basis will be much more manageable.
This is why TCC respectfully requests that the IHS appropriation
for CSC be increased by $140 million above the President's recommended
level, to $617 million, and that the BIA appropriation for CSC for
fiscal year 2013 be similarly increased to $242 million.
Whatever the subcommittee chooses to do, the answer is,
unequivocally, not to legislatively amend the Indian Self-Determination
Act to cut off our rights to compensation for IHS's contract under-
payments. Yet that is precisely what the President's budget proposes--
cutting off the rights which currently exist under section 110 of the
act to sue the Government when we are not paid.
This is rank discrimination--racial discrimination--and it must
stop. No other contractor in the United States performs work for the
Government only to be told that it has no right to be paid. The very
suggestion is ludicrous. Last year the Supreme Court in the Ramah and
Arctic cases said so, and they said that our contracts are just as
binding as any other contract. That is the law. The answer to those
rulings is not to change the law. The answer is to honor the contracts.
We are shocked to see the administration unilaterally propose
changing the law so radically, and to see the administration actually
suggest that we be paid only what the administration tells the
subcommittee it will pay us, in a secret table it will provide to the
subcommittee sometime next year. The very suggestion is enough to make
us consider turning these contracts back over to IHS. Let's see if IHS
can do as good a job for our Tribal people as we do.
The fact is, IHS cannot do this work. All we ask is to be treated
fairly, just like other contractors. The Government sets our indirect
cost rates--not us--and just like other contractors the Government
should pay those rates in full. If it cannot, or will not, prioritize
those payments, then just like other contractors we must continue to be
able to vindicate our rights under the Contract Disputes Act. Anything
else is un-American, forcing us to do work without paying us what is
due.
The Supreme Court has not once, but twice, told the Government what
to do: honor our contracts. The time is here to do just that.
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the honor of presenting
testimony today.
______
Prepared Statement of The Conservation Fund
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf
of The Conservation Fund for the subcommittee's public witness hearing.
The Conservation Fund (TCF) supports full funding of the President's
budget request of $600 million in fiscal year 2014 for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (which includes the land acquisition programs
of the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund). Additionally, TCF supports full
funding of the President's request for the FWS's North American
Wetlands Conservation Fund ($39.4 million) and USFS's Community Forest
and Open Space Conservation Program ($4 million).
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 over 7.2 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--each of these projects is driven by landowners. 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.
As the subcommittee crafts its Interior and Related Agencies
appropriations bill, there are several key points we respectfully
request you to consider, listed below. Each of the funding amounts
below reflects the fiscal year 2014 President's budget request.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $600 million.--Funding
at the recommended $600 million is critical for the Nation's premier
conservation program, a bipartisan agreement from almost 50 years ago.
As the lists of ready LWCF projects below show, there are many
opportunities that will be lost without this funding. We also strongly
believe that LWCF should be funded at the full authorized level of $900
million by fiscal year 2015 due to the clear need that has been
demonstrated across the Nation and the promise to the Nation that
proceeds from offshore oil and gas development would help protect the
public trust.
The LWCF budget includes four Collaborative Landscape Program (CLP)
areas that we ask you to support: Crown of the Continent, National
Trails System, California Desert, and Longleaf Pine. In each CLP,
several Federal land agencies are partnering with local groups,
nonprofits and private interests to support conservation and make a
lasting impact.
Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition at $48.926 million.--The
BLM and its National Conservation Lands provide some of our Nation's
best recreation and historic areas. From fishing at the North Platte
River in Wyoming to exploring Pueblo ruins at Canyons of the Ancients
in Colorado, we request funding for the following projects:
--Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Colorado, $1.703
million, #2 ranking;
--California Desert CLP: Johnson Canyon ACEC, California, $1.06
million, #11 ranking;
--Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon, $2 million, #11
ranking;
--North Platte River SRMA, Wyoming, $900,000, #16 ranking;
--National Trails CLP: Lewis and Clark NHT and Nez Perce NHT,
Montana, $1.6 million, #17 ranking; and
--Aqua Fria National Monument, Arizona, $110,740, #20 ranking.
National Park Service Land Acquisition at $90.586 million.--Hosting
more than 275 million visitors every year, the over 400 National Parks
provide an economic boost to their local communities and those employed
directly and indirectly. Funding for NPS LWCF will help protect key
access points for recreation, historic areas, trails and more, from the
lakeshore at Sleeping Bear Dunes in Michigan to the historic trails
that allow the public to experience our Nation's heritage. We
respectfully request funding for the following projects:
--Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Michigan, $5.296 million,
#2 ranking;
--San Antonio Missions National Historic Park, Texas, $1.76 million,
#3 ranking;
--California Desert Collaborative: Joshua Tree National Park and
Mojave Preserve, California, $7.595 million, #7 ranking;
--Greenways and Blueways, $4.745 million, #8 ranking;
--Sand Creek Massacre, Colorado, $319,000, #9 ranking; and
--National Trails Collaborative, Multiple States, $25.002 million,
#10 ranking.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition at $106.330
million.--USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and other USFWS areas are our
Nation's protectors of clean water, clean air, abundant wildlife and
world-class recreation. Funding for fiscal year 2014 USFWS LWCF will
help preserve grizzly bear territory of the Rocky Mountain Front in
Montana to protect a key river and wildlife corridor at the Neches
River NWR in Texas. We respectfully request funding for the following
projects:
--Crown of the Continent Collaborative, Montana, $11.94 million, #1
ranking;
--Dakota Grasslands, North Dakota/South Dakota, $8.65 million, #2
ranking;
--Everglades Headwaters, $5 million, #3 ranking;
--Longleaf Pine Collaborative, Georgia/Florida/South Carolina, $9.481
million, #4 ranking;
--Neches River National Wildlife Refuge, Texas, $3 million, #6
ranking;
--Dakota Tallgrass Prairie WMA, North Dakota/South Dakota, $3
million, #7 ranking;
--Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR, Texas, $1 million, #13 ranking;
--Blackwater NWR, Maryland, $1 million, #16 ranking; and
--National Trails Collaborative, Pennsylvania/New Mexico/Washington,
$12.66 million, #18 ranking.
U.S. Forest Service Land Acquisition at $57.934 million.--USFS LWCF
funds help with forest management by protecting key inholdings and
reduce fire threats. From the longleaf pine in the southeast to the
North Carolina Threatened Treasures to the Missouri Ozarks, we are
working with willing landowners at the following projects areas and
respectfully request funding:
--Crown of the Continent Collaborative, Montana, $31 million, #1
ranking;
--Missouri Ozarks-Current River, Missouri, $1.76 million, #4 ranking;
--Disappearing Wildlands, Georgia, $1.435 million, #10 ranking;
--California Desert Collaborative, California, $10.39 million, #11
ranking;
--North Carolina Threatened Treasures, North Carolina, $1.25 million,
#13 ranking;
--National Trails Collaborative, Multiple States, $8.925 million, #15
ranking; and
--Cube Cover, $1 million, #16 ranking.
LWCF State Grant Programs--Section 6 and Forest Legacy.--We
encourage the subcommittee to fully fund the fiscal year 2014
President's budget request for:
--FWS' Section 6 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund--
$84 million; and
--USFS' Forest Legacy Program--$84.8 million; project highlights
include:
--Gilchrist State Forest, Oregon, $3 million, #1 ranking;
--Mahoosuc Gateway, New Hampshire, $5.715 million, #3 ranking;
--Brule-St. Crox, Wisconsin, $4.5 million, #7 ranking;
--Blood Run National Historic Landmark Area, South Dakota, $1.205
million, #9 ranking;
--Klickitat Canyon Working Forest, Washington, $3.5 million, #10
ranking;
--Rocky Hammock at Broxton Rocks, Georgia, $2 million, #17 ranking;
--Bobcat Ridge, Texas, $2.37 million, #22 ranking;
--Windham Region Working Forest, Vermont, $2.185 million, #23
ranking; and
--Liberty Hill Phase I, South Carolina, $2 million, #25 ranking.
Priority Land Acquisition Programs.--TCF encourages the
subcommittee to fund:
--FWS' North American Wetlands Conservation Fund--$39.425 million;
and
--USFS' Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program--$4
million.
Reauthorization of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act
(S. 368).--We request your support to reauthorize the Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) this Congress. The FLTFA program
is now expired and we support the fiscal year 2014 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. Over 90 groups are working together to support
Congress' efforts to reauthorize FLTFA.
Department of the Interior's Natural Resource Damage Assessment and
Restoration Program at $12,539,000.--The Restoration Program leads the
national response for recovery of natural resources that have been
injured or destroyed as a result of oil spills or releases of other
hazardous substances. Recoveries from responsible parties can only be
spent to implement restoration plans developed by the Trustee Council
for each incident. These funds are 100 percent private and represent
the amount needed to restore environmental resources or compensate for
lost public use since the damage in question. The fiscal year 2014
funds would allow the Program to add carefully targeted staff allocated
to Interior bureaus and offices through its Restoration Support Unit in
order to accelerate restoration activities.
The Conservation Fund stands ready to work with you to secure full
and consistent funding for the LWCF, Forest Legacy, and the other
critically important programs that help protect the environment,
economies, forests, and community values across our Nation. Thank you
for the opportunity to provide this testimony and your consideration of
our request.
______
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 494 not-for-profit member theatres across the country
and the 34 million audience members that the theatre community serves.
We urge you to support funding at $155 million for the National
Endowment for the Arts for fiscal year 2014.
Indeed, the entire not-for-profit arts industry stimulates the
economy, creates jobs and attracts tourism dollars. The not-for-profit
arts generate $135.2 billion annually in economic activity, support
4.13 million jobs and return $9.59 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:
In order to create a lasting impact on the field and promote
burgeoning playwrights, the Alliance Theatre based in Atlanta, Georgia
received a $40,000 Art Works grant to support the world premiere
production of ``Bike America'' by Mike Lew, the winning play of their
National Graduate Playwriting competition. Recounting the story of an
unlikely athlete's journey by bicycle from the Atlantic to the Pacific
Ocean, this winning script captures the restlessness of a millennial
generation that will go to any lengths to find a place that is always
just out of reach. The National Graduate Playwriting Competition is a
one-of-a-kind national competition that transitions student playwrights
to the world of professional theatre, and has resulted in high profile
partnerships for the Alliance Theatre with institutions and
associations such as Fox Theatricals, the Kennedy Center, the Lark
Theatre and the National New Play Network. In addition to programs that
launch the careers of emerging writers, the Alliance annually reaches
more than 200,000 audience members and positively impacts more than
70,000 students through their performances and in-school education
programs.
With a $10,000 Art Works grant from the NEA, Cleveland Public
Theatre (CPT) will produce ``Earth Plays,'' the second work in The
Elements cycle. The Elements is a series of four plays--each focused on
a distinctive aspect of sustainability--and a fifth ``bridge play''
that integrates the work. The first play, ``Water Ways,'' was a multi-
media work about the fragility of our great resource--water, through a
collaboration between CPT and Oberlin College and Conservatory. For
``Earth Plays,'' 9 creator/directors, 20 actors, 3 designers and an
extensive production team have devised 12 short plays that illuminate
our ever-changing relationship with the environment. These provocative
works, which range from comedic to tragic--surreal to very real,
immerse audiences in a theatrical experience that propels them out of
their seats and moves them through the theatre space. Through 11
performances, ``Earth Plays'' reached an audience of 1,500. The other
two plays in the cycle, ``Air Waves'' and ``Fire,'' are scheduled for
the 2013-14 season.
An Art Works grant of $35,000 from the NEA has allowed Seattle
Children's Theatre (SCT), one of this country's most prominent creators
of new theatrical work for young audiences, to engage artistic
organizations and audiences far beyond the Pacific Northwest with a
production of ``The Edge of Peace'' by Suzan Zeder. This poignant story
speaks to the impact of military service on family members, and is the
culmination of a dramatic trilogy which explores the role of the deaf
within American society. ``The Edge of Peace'' is a collaboration among
artists from throughout the United States. The initial workshop took
place at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and was further
developed and first produced at the University of Texas (UT) at Austin.
SCT's Artistic Director, Linda Hartzell, included several MFA
candidates from UT in public and school show performances which will
reach approximately 1,350 patrons in Austin and another 7,425 children,
teachers and parents in Seattle.
With a $15,000 Art Works grant from the NEA, Idaho Shakespeare
Festival was able to grow their Access Program and open the door for
more than 30,000 people ages 5 to 100 to enjoy the professional theatre
arts, many of whom would not be able to attend otherwise. The program
includes a tour with more than 100 performances that includes an
engaging new script with full set, costumes and sound to elementary
students across the State of Idaho. Additionally, the program creates
access for students of all ages, the deaf and hard-of-hearing, elderly
on fixed income, at-risk youth, refugees, wounded veterans (as well as
their families) and volunteer service providers to attend the
Festival's mainstage season. By integrating those with special needs
into the broader audience, the Access Program has significantly
broadened the demographic makeup and interest of those able to
experience performances.
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
2014 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 2013 budget which was reduced
due to sequestration; however, it has never recovered from a 40 percent
budget cut in fiscal year 1996 and its programs are still underfunded.
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.
Thank you for considering this request.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit The Nature
Conservancy's recommendations for fiscal year 2014 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 2014 budget cycle and another year of a
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 2013 funding levels for
Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service conservation
programs. As this subcommittee begins to tackle yet 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
reflect a balanced approach with funding levels consistent with the
President's budget request or, in rare instances such as wildland fire,
reflect specific program needs. 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 this 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 fiscal year 2014 President's
budget proposes, for the first time, the establishment of a dedicated
source of long-term funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
In the proposal, the President's budget includes $400 million for LWCF
activities through ``discretionary funding'' or traditional
appropriations and then an additional $200 million in ``mandatory''
LWCF funding along with an accompanying request for Congress to
authorize mandatory funding for the program. The budget then proposes
to reach the $900 million funding level for the program by fiscal year
2015.
The Conservancy supports this phased shift to mandatory funding for
the LWCF Program. However, we believe the administration must work
closely with the Senate Appropriations Committee, the House
Appropriations Committee and the appropriate authorizing committees to
move this proposal forward. Further, the Conservancy supports a
balanced approach in funding for ``core'' LWCF projects selected
through Federal agencies traditional ranking processes and the
administration's new focus on ``collaborative'' projects. These
collaborative projects emphasize community-driven conservation efforts
that benefit agricultural, ranching and forest-based landscapes;
support recreational access; and leverage limited Federal dollars with
State, county and private funding. Projects in the Longleaf Pine region
of the Southeast will benefit greatly from this collaborative LWCF
emphasis, along with existing projects in the Crown of the Continent
and new project sites in the SW Desert of California and Trails
nationwide. We also understand areas in the Southern Appalachians; the
Great Lakes; and Arizona/Colorado/New Mexico are teeing up to take
advantage of this funding stream in the near future.
Due to our long-term holding status of projects in Montana (Montana
Legacy Project, USFS--ongoing need of $33 million to complete) and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service projects in Florida (St. Marks and
Everglades Headwaters NWR&CA), the Conservancy is strongly supporting a
robust LWCF funding level including both the collaborative and core
components of the administration's fiscal year 2014 LWCF request. Some
of our other priorities include the John H. Chafee NWR, Silvio O. Conte
NFWR within a four State integrated landscape, and the Francis Marion
NF in South Carolina. We are also supportive of annual funding this
year for LWCF investments in support of 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.
Additionally, the Conservancy is strongly supportive of the fiscal
year 2014 President's Department of the Interior budget and its focus
on America's Great Outdoors National Blueways. Last year, the
Connecticut River Watershed--covering areas of Vermont, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts and Connecticut--was designated as the Nation's first
National Blueway and a second river, the White River in Arkansas, was
added to the list at the end of the year. National Blueways recognize
and support existing local and regional conservation, outdoor
recreation, environmental education and restoration efforts by
supporting these efforts through technical assistance and funding
prioritization. This ongoing effort, combined with the Department's
other efforts to leverage local, State, and regional funding through
grant programs and technical assistance for river conservation and
restoration, are of great import for the thousands of communities and
businesses dependent upon these river systems for their livelihoods,
public drinking water, flood protection, recreational access and
general quality of life nationwide.
Finally, the Conservancy supports as strong a funding level as
possible for the inholding and emergency land acquisition accounts for
each of the Federal land management agencies. These accounts are
critical for agencies to address land conservation priorities that
arise quickly from willing sellers and may be utilized to acquire
properties that may otherwise not be picked up under the agencies'
traditional ranking processes. Often, these high-value properties are
under significant threat of development, provide key recreational
access points to Federal lands or are critical inholdings within a
Federal unit. These properties are typically placed on the market
quickly due to a sudden death or become available due to a multitude of
other scenarios that arise in the real estate marketplace. The
inholding and emergency accounts provide Federal real estate managers
with a small discretionary amount of funding to acquire these priority
properties.
Forest Legacy.--We support $60 million for the Forest Legacy
Program in discretionary funding and the additional $24.8 million in
permanent funding (with our aforementioned caveats) with a focus on
five projects--Pascagoula River Conservation Lands (Mississippi),
McArthur Lake East (Idaho), Rocky Hammock at Broxton Rocks (Georgia),
Clear Creek Conservation (Montana) and Carter Mountain Working Forest
Conservation Easement (Tennessee)--totaling $14.73 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 local residents and visitors.
Endangered Species.--The Conservancy supports a funding level of at
least $56 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
Fund (CESCF), and also requests the subcommittee give consideration to
the additional fiscal year 2014 President's budget request of $28
million in permanent funding for the program per our earlier request
for negotiations to occur between administration and relevant
congressional committees on a path forward for this funding. The
Conservancy and its partners have used the Habitat Conservation
Planning (HCP) Assistance and Recovery Land Acquisition Grants 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.
Colorado River Basin Recovery Programs.--The Conservancy supports
the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Colorado River
Basin recovery programs, including endangered species 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. These
highly successful collaborative efforts are vital to the recovery of
the endangered fish and the ecosystems that support them and to
providing water for the fast-growing Intermountain West in full
compliance with the Endangered Species Act, State water and wildlife
law, and interstate compacts.
Wildlife Planning.--The Conservancy supports the Western Governors'
Association (WGA) request for the subcommittee to consider issuing a
recommendation to land management agencies within its jurisdiction to
utilize State fish and wildlife data and analyses to inform the land
use, land planning and related natural resource decisions of those
agencies. In an 2011 addendum to a 2009 Memorandum of Understanding
between WGA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture,
and the Department of the Interior, those Federal agencies agreed to
seek to use State information on crucial wildlife habitats and
corridors ``as a principal, though not sole, source to inform their
land use, land planning and related natural resource decisions.'' We
recommend that report language from the subcommittee include a
directive to the agencies that reflect this important agreement. As an
example of strong State-led data systems, WGA has partnered in recent
years with the Federal Government to develop Statewide GIS mapping
tools to identify crucial wildlife habitat and migratory corridors.
Funding provided by the subcommittee has helped support development of
these geospatial mapping tools, which provide access to credible,
broad-scale scientific data--compiled and analyzed by the States--for
use in public land management and in the pre-planning of projects such
as transmission lines and conservation initiatives. WGA is currently
developing a West-wide GIS mapping tool called CHAT (Crucial Habitat
Assessment Tool) that will knit together the efforts of the States for
presentation of wildlife data and analysis on a regional landscape
level. Our Arizona TNC Chapter has been very integrated in the
development and enhancement of the Arizona data system (HabiMap)--a
decision support system--which is the basis for our work on mitigation,
habitat assessments and land planning in the State.
Invasive Species.--The Conservancy supports the President's fiscal
year 2014 budget request of $141 million for the FWS' Fisheries and
Aquatic Resource Conservation program, including $5.9 million to
address the invasion of Asian carp in the Great Lakes and priority
watersheds, including the Missouri, Ohio, and Upper Mississippi River.
Commercial and sport fishing represent a $61.7 billion industry. Asian
carp poses an existential threat to aquatic native species, the very
species commercial and sport fishermen rely upon. Asian carp are
voracious filter feeders that can consume up to 20 percent of their
body weight per day, in plankton, and have been known to grow upwards
of 100 pounds. In less than two decades carp have migrated from our
southern most States to our northern most. The urgency of the problem
is clear across the Great Lakes System and its watersheds.
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 the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), the
Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, and the FWS 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.--The international conservation programs
appropriated annually within the Department of the Interior are
relatively small but are effective and widely respected. They encompass
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Multinational Species
Conservation Funds, the FWS Wildlife Without Borders regional and
global programs, the U.S. National Park Service International Program,
and the U.S. Forest Service International Program (USFS-IP). All of
these programs already have been cut since the fiscal year 2009 or
fiscal year 2010 years, typically by about 20 percent. The fiscal year
2013 spending levels for these programs remain somewhat uncertain,
depending as they will upon a degree of administration flexibility
within the ceiling of the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution. But
they all start out further reduced (from fiscal year 2012 levels) by
the 5 percent of the sequester. All have a great record of achievements
and of leveraging matching funds from host governments and private
conservation groups. These programs are past investments that the U.S.
Government has made toward conservation in the developing countries.
The unmet needs for conservation in those countries remain great. The
proper management of their natural resources is not only a matter of
biodiversity, it relates directly to their sustainable economic
progress, domestic peace, and security. We urge that these programs
receive in fiscal year 2014, at a minimum, level funding with fiscal
year 2013.
Climate Change.--Fish, wildlife, and their habitats are and will
continue to be profoundly impacted by climate change, regardless of our
successes in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If we are to get out
ahead of such change to avoid disastrous losses in critical habitat and
the species that depend on that habitat, we must develop the place-
based science to make informed, cost-effective management investments.
The Conservancy appreciates the President's commitment to respond to
the global climate challenge, and this subcommittee's sustained
leadership in supporting cooperative, science-based programs to respond
to the global climate challenge help ensure resilient land and
seascapes. In particular, we welcome this subcommittee's 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 Migratory Bird Joint Ventures and National Fish Habitat
Partnerships.
National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Conservancy supports the
Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement Coalition's request,
consistent with the President's fiscal year 2014 budget, of $499
million for Refuge System O&M. Found in every U.S. State and territory,
national wildlife refuges conserve a diversity of America's
environmentally sensitive and economically vital ecosystems, including
oceans, coasts, wetlands, deserts, tundra, prairie, and forests. This
represents the funding necessary to maintain management capabilities
for the Refuge System.
USFS Forest Health Management (FHM) Program.--Close to 500 species
of tree-damaging pests from other countries have become established in
the country, and a new one is introduced, on average, every 2 to 3
years. At least 28 new tree-killing pests have been detected in the
United States in just the last decade. Some of these are capable of
causing enormous damage. For instance, Thousand cankers disease
threatens black walnut trees across the East; the value of walnut
growing stock is estimated to be $539 billion. Already, municipal
governments across the country are spending more than $2 billion each
year to remove trees on city property killed by non-native pests.
Homeowners are spending $1 billion to remove and replace trees on their
properties and are absorbing an additional $1.5 billion in reduced
property values.
The USFS FHM Program is a critical resource supporting efforts to
prevent, contain, and eradicate dangerous pests and pathogens affecting
trees and forests. Further, FHM leads the Federal Government's efforts
to counter forest pests which have become widespread, including gypsy
moth, hemlock woolly adelgid, white pine blister rust, Port-Orford-
cedar root disease, thousand cankers disease, oak wilt, and others.
However, USFS funding for many of these vital pest programs has been
cut severely, for example, the emerald ash borer account by nearly 60
percent since fiscal year 2010. Any further cuts to this program 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 the Asian Longhorned Beetle, Emerald
Ash Borer, Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, Thousand Cankers Disease, Western
Bark Beetle and other deadly pests.
USFS Research and Development (R&D) Program.--The USFS Research and
Development Program (R&D) provides the scientific foundation for
developing effective tools to detect and manage forest pests and the
pathways by which they are introduced and spread. We consider it
vitally important to conduct research aimed at improving detection and
control methods for the Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid,
Sudden Oak Death, Thousand Cankers Disease, Gold-spotted Oak Borer and
other non-native forests pests and diseases. USFS research scientists
have had the leading role in developing detection traps and evaluating
treatments that make walnut lumber safe to continue moving in commerce.
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration.--The Conservancy
appreciates the subcommittee's support for the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Program, which demonstrates that
stakeholder collaboration can facilitate large-scale management that
benefits people, economies and the environment. We recommend that
fiscal year 2012 funding be sustained for CFLR 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 also encourage your support for the Landscape Scale
Restoration program proposed at $18 million in the fiscal year 2012
State and Private Forestry (S&PF) budget. We believe this program could
provide a valuable compliment to CFLR by facilitating restoration
treatments on non-Federal land in priority landscapes. We also
recommend reauthorization of stewardship contracting, a vital tool for
forest landscape restoration.
Wildland Fire Management.--The President's fiscal year 2014 budget
proposes $201 million for the USFS for Wildland Fire Management which
is at least a 25 percent reduction and $96 million for DOI which is an
even more devastating 48 percent reduction. The Hazardous Fuels program
provides critical funding for the agencies to proactively manage
Federal forests for both wildfire risk reduction and longer term
ecological resilience versus continuing to spend billions on reactive
emergency fire response. The Conservancy appreciates Congress' ongoing
support for a balanced approach to wildland fire management--one that
emphasizes proactive hazardous fuels reduction and community
preparedness along with a commitment to safe and cost-effective
wildfire response strategies. In light of this approach, we believe it
is essential to maintain at least the fiscal year 2012 funding level
for Hazardous Fuels Reduction and urge you to repeat your instructions
in the fiscal year 2012 conference report regarding the allocation of
funding to priority landscapes in both WUI and wildland settings. A
public investment in improving forest health and decreasing hazardous
fuels before a damaging wildfire occurs can pay tremendous dividends by
reducing the need for multi-million dollar emergency wildfire
suppression efforts and subsequent post-fire rehabilitation and
response. We also urge your support for level funding of the State Fire
Assistance (SFA) program, which enables States and other non-Federal
land managers to pursue complementary hazardous fuels reduction and
wildfire preparedness activities. Focusing both Hazardous Fuels and SFA
dollars on communities that have taken steps to reduce their own
exposure to wildfire will further increase the benefits of these
programs. We are encouraged by the potential of the Fire Adapted
Communities program to facilitate this kind of coordinated community
and land management action. Finally, we recognize that even with a
robust, proactive approach to land management, Federal wildfire
preparedness and suppression resources will need to be maintained at an
effective level to protect life, property and natural resources. We
urge you to fund Federal wildfire suppression at the 10-year average,
at a minimum, and to maintain a sufficient balance in the FLAME reserve
account so that the need for funding transfers from critical non-fire
programs can be reduced. We also strongly support the use of naturally
ignited fire as a cost-effective and ecologically beneficial tool for
accomplishing resource management objectives whenever safe and
effective to do so.
Integrated Resource Restoration.--We appreciate the subcommittee's
support for an Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) pilot, which has
allowed three Forest Service Regions to test an integrated budget
approach. The Conservancy continues to follow implementation of this
pilot; we hope and expect to see an increase in restoration outcomes as
a result. The Conservancy believes it is premature to take this pilot
national, but supports continuation of the pilot for a third year. We
understand that plans are underway for an external third-party review
of IRR implementation. We strongly support this review as a way to
capture lessons learned and determine whether full implementation is
warranted.
Legacy Road and Trail Remediation.--Roads are a key source of
threats to water quality and watershed health. Despite recent progress
in the number of roads repaired and decommissioned, a sizeable backlog
of high priority roads and trails that degrade water quality remains.
We recommend that Legacy Roads and Trails be funded at the fiscal year
2012 enacted level to ensure that these actions are taken in a timely
manner to protect our critical watersheds.
Sage Grouse Conservation.--The Conservancy supports the President's
fiscal year 2014 budget request of $15 million for the Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM) focus on sage grouse conservation. Greater sage
grouse populations have experienced a precipitous decline across the
West in recent years due to a number of impacts. The FWS is currently
scheduled to make a final decision on whether or not to list the
species under the Endangered Species Act by 2015. As a result, this
funding is critical now for BLM's ability to implement regulations and
proactive conservation and restoration measures to help prevent the
future listing of this species. In particular, funds will be used to
incorporate sage grouse conservation measures into BLM's planning
process including 98 resource management plans that cover 68 planning
areas in 10 western States. This process will include integration of
State-led planning efforts. It will also cover broad-scale monitoring
activities to ascertain the effectiveness of habitat management and
land use authorizations. This is a collaborative effort that also
involves the FWS, USFS, and NRCS. Avoiding ESA listing of the sage-
grouse will ensure that activities on BLM lands--recreation, hunting,
grazing, and energy and mineral development--will be able to continue
without the need for implementation of ESA protections as well as
maintain flexibility for private landowners. Funding to support these
activities is needed to continue this smart, collaborative, and
proactive conservation effort to avoid listing.
New Energy Frontier and BLM Regional Planning.--The Conservancy
supports the administration's recommended fiscal year 2014 funding for
DOI's ``New Energy Frontier'' which includes an additional $26.4
million over 2012 enacted levels ($99.9 million total) for advancing
responsible renewable energy development, and $71 million ($771.6
million total) for improving conventional energy development. This
program provides important funding not only for advancing domestic, low
carbon, renewable energy production but also for increasing the safety
and environmental performance of renewable and conventional energy
development. Additionally, by supporting activities such as landscape-
scale energy planning, baseline studies, and expanded consultation and
permit review capacity, this program will help ensure projects avoid
and minimize conflicts with other important uses and allow planning and
project-level review to go forward without delay.
Renewable Energy.--This section includes $29.1 million for BLM to
support environmentally sound development of renewable energy sources
on public lands and offshore, including a $7.1 million program increase
to identify additional renewable energy zones and implement near-
complete renewable energy plans. This builds off the important work
that BLM completed as part of the Western Solar Energy Plan, which
identified 17 solar zones in six States. It also directs $34.4 million
to BOEM for responsible siting of offshore wind farms, such as through
the thoughtful ``Smart from the Start'' framework. This funding would
also support timely project consultation and permit reviews by
increasing capacity in FWS ($14.1 million) and USGS ($9.9 million).
Conventional Energy.--This section includes funding for BOEM to
conduct environmental assessments and ecological baseline research, and
funding to numerous agencies to increase inspection and compliance
capacity. Of particular importance is an additional $13 million to
support an interagency research and development effort among DOI, DOE
and EPA to assess and develop mechanisms for reducing environmental and
health impacts from hydraulic fracturing.
In addition to funding characterized in the New Energy Frontier, we
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.
Bureau of Reclamation.--The WaterSMART program helps implement the
SECURE Water Act, a law that authorizes water and science agencies to
work together with State and local water managers to plan for drought,
climate change, and other threats to water supplies. WaterSMART is
critically important to communities struggling to maintain drinking
water supplies and sustain ecosystems in the face of ongoing drought in
the western United States. Congress should avoid disproportionate cuts
to this forward-thinking program, which addresses in a collaborative,
cost-effective manner the stark challenges identified in Reclamation's
recent Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study.
Specifically, we request that funding for WaterSMART be restored from
$12.5 million in the President's budget to the pre-sequestration level
of $30.75 million.
Environmental Protection Agency.--TNC acknowledges that reductions
in EPA's budget are necessary to support national deficit reduction.
However, Congress should remain mindful of the relatively small size of
EPA's discretionary budget as it considers where additional budget cuts
should occur Government-wide. 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.
We also 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.
Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit recommendations
for fiscal year 2014 appropriations. 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 2014 budget cycle and another year of a
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 2013 funding levels for
Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service conservation
programs. As this subcommittee begins to tackle yet 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
reflect a balanced approach with funding levels consistent with the
President's budget request or, in rare instances such as wildland fire,
reflect specific program needs. We look forward to working with this
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 fiscal year 2014 President's
budget proposes, for the first time, the establishment of a dedicated
source of long-term funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
In the proposal, the President's budget includes $400 million for LWCF
activities through ``discretionary funding'' or traditional
appropriations and then an additional $200 million in ``mandatory''
LWCF funding. The budget then proposes to reach the $900 million
funding level for the program by fiscal year 2015. The Conservancy
supports this phased shift to mandatory funding for the LWCF Program.
However, we believe the administration must work closely with the
appropriate appropriations and authorizing committees to move this
proposal forward. Further, the Conservancy supports a balanced approach
in funding for ``core'' LWCF projects and the administration's new
focus on ``collaborative'' projects. Projects in the Longleaf Pine
region will benefit greatly from this collaborative emphasis, along
with existing projects in the Crown of the Continent, California and
Trails nationwide. Our priorities this year include the Montana Legacy
Project ($33 million to complete), the John Chafee NWR, Silvio O.
Conte NFWR, the Francis Marion NF, and 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.
Forest Legacy.--We support $60 million for the Forest Legacy
Program in discretionary funding and the additional $24.8 million in
permanent funding (with our aforementioned caveats) with a focus on
five projects--Pascagoula River Conservation Lands (Mississippi),
McArthur Lake East (Idaho), Rocky Hammock at Broxton Rocks (Georgia),
Clear Creek Conservation (Montana) and Carter Mountain Working Forest
Conservation Easement (Tennessee)--totaling $14.73 million.
Endangered Species.--The Conservancy supports a funding level of at
least $56 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
Fund (CESCF), and also requests the subcommittee give consideration to
the additional fiscal year 2014 President's budget request of $28
million in permanent funding for the program per our earlier request
for negotiations to occur between administration and relevant
congressional committees on a path forward for this funding.
Colorado River Basin Recovery Programs.--The Conservancy supports
the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Colorado River
Basin recovery programs, including endangered species 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.
Wildlife Planning.--The Conservancy supports the Western Governors'
Association (WGA) request for the subcommittee to consider issuing a
recommendation to land management agencies within its jurisdiction to
utilize State fish and wildlife data and analyses to inform the land
use, land planning and related natural resource decisions of those
agencies. In a 2011 addendum to a 2009 Memorandum of Understanding
between WGA, the Department of the Energy, the Department of
Agriculture, and the Department of the Interior, those Federal agencies
agreed to seek to use State information on crucial wildlife habitats
and corridors ``as a principal, though not sole, source to inform their
land use, land planning and related natural resource decisions.'' We
recommend report language from the subcommittee include a directive to
the agencies that reflect this important agreement.
Invasive Species.--The Conservancy supports the President's fiscal
year 2014 budget request of $141 million for the FWS' Fisheries and
Aquatic Resource Conservation program, including $5.9 million to
address the invasion of Asian carp in the Great Lakes and priority
watersheds, including the Missouri, Ohio and Upper Mississippi River.
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.--We urge the subcommittee to fund the President's request for
such established and successful programs as the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act (NAWCA), the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures, and the
FWS 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.
International Programs.--The international conservation programs
appropriated annually within the Department of the Interior are
relatively small but are effective and widely respected. They encompass
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS's) Multinational Species
Conservation Funds, the FWS Wildlife Without Borders regional and
global programs, the U.S. National Park Service International Program,
and the U.S. Forest Service International Program (USFS-IP). We urge
that these programs receive in fiscal year 2014, at a minimum, level
funding with fiscal year 2013.
Climate Change.--The Conservancy appreciates the President's
commitment to respond to the global climate challenge, and this
subcommittee's sustained leadership in supporting cooperative, science-
based programs to respond to the global climate challenge help ensure
resilient land and seascapes. In particular, we welcome this
subcommittee's ongoing commitment to both the USGS-led Climate Science
Centers as well as DOI's Landscape Conservation Cooperatives.
National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Conservancy supports the
Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement Coalition's request,
consistent with the President's fiscal year 2014 budget, of $499
million for Refuge System O&M. Found in every U.S. State and territory,
national wildlife refuges conserve a diversity of America's
environmentally sensitive and economically vital ecosystems, including
oceans, coasts, wetlands, deserts, tundra, prairie, and forests. This
represents the funding necessary to maintain management capabilities
for the Refuge System.
USFS Forest Health Management (FHM) Program.--The USFS FHM Program
is a critical resource supporting efforts to prevent, contain, and
eradicate dangerous pests and pathogens affecting trees and forests.
Further, FHM leads the Federal Government's efforts to counter forest
pests which have become widespread, including gypsy moth, hemlock
woolly adelgid, white pine blister rust, Port-Orford-cedar root
disease, thousand cankers disease, oak wilt, and others. However, USFS
funding for many of these vital pest programs has been cut severely,
for example, the emerald ash borer account by nearly 60 percent since
fiscal year 2010.
USFS Research and Development (R&D) Program.--The USFS Research and
Development Program (R&D) provides the scientific foundation for
developing effective tools to detect and manage forest pests and the
pathways by which they are introduced and spread. We consider it
vitally important to conduct research aimed at improving detection and
control methods for the Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid,
Sudden Oak Death, Thousand Cankers Disease, Gold-spotted Oak Borer and
other non-native forests pests and diseases.
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration.--The Conservancy
appreciates the subcommittee's support for the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration (CFLR) Program, which demonstrates that
stakeholder collaboration can facilitate large-scale management that
benefits people, economies and the environment. We recommend that
fiscal year 2012 funding be sustained for CFLR with $40 million to
restore large forest landscapes, provide jobs that sustain rural
economies, reduce the risk of damaging wildfire, improve wildlife
habitat and decommission unused, damaging roads. We also encourage your
support for the Landscape Scale Restoration program proposed at $18
million in the fiscal year 2012 State and Private Forestry (S&PF)
budget. We also recommend reauthorization of stewardship contracting, a
vital tool for forest landscape restoration.
Wildland Fire Management.--The President's fiscal year 2014 budget
proposes $201 million for the USFS for Wildland Fire Management which
is at least a 25 percent reduction and $96 million for DOI which is an
even more devastating 48 percent reduction. The Conservancy appreciates
Congress' ongoing support for a balanced approach to wildland fire
management--one that emphasizes proactive hazardous fuels reduction and
community preparedness along with a commitment to safe and cost-
effective wildfire response strategies. In light of this approach, we
believe it is essential to maintain at least the fiscal year 2012
funding level for Hazardous Fuels Reduction and urge you to repeat your
instructions in the fiscal year 2012 conference report regarding the
allocation of funding to priority landscapes in both WUI and wildland
settings. We also urge your support for level funding of the State Fire
Assistance (SFA) program. Finally, we urge you to fund Federal wildfire
suppression at the 10-year average, at a minimum, and to maintain a
sufficient balance in the FLAME reserve account so that the need for
funding transfers from critical non-fire programs can be reduced.
Integrated Resource Restoration.--We appreciate the committee's
support for an Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) pilot, which has
allowed three Forest Service Regions to test an integrated budget
approach. The Conservancy continues to follow implementation of this
pilot; we hope and expect to see an increase in restoration outcomes as
a result. The Conservancy believes it is premature to take this pilot
national, but supports continuation of the pilot for a third year. We
understand that plans are underway for an external third-party review
of IRR implementation. We strongly support this review as a way to
capture lessons learned and determine whether full implementation is
warranted.
Legacy Road and Trail Remediation.--Roads are a key source of
threats to water quality and watershed health. Despite recent progress
in the number of roads repaired and decommissioned, a sizeable backlog
of high priority roads and trails that degrade water quality remains.
We recommend that Legacy Roads and Trails be funded at the fiscal year
2012 enacted level to ensure that these actions are taken in a timely
manner to protect our critical watersheds.
Sage Grouse Conservation.--The Conservancy supports the President's
fiscal year 2014 budget request of $15 million for the Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM's) focus on sage grouse conservation. Greater sage
grouse populations have experienced a precipitous decline across the
West in recent years due to a number of impacts.
New Energy Frontier and BLM Regional Planning.--The Conservancy
supports the administration's recommended fiscal year 2014 funding for
DOI's ``New Energy Frontier'' which includes an additional $26.4
million more than 2012 enacted levels ($99.9 million total) for
advancing responsible renewable energy development, and $71 million
($771.6 million total) for improving conventional energy development.
This program provides important funding not only for advancing
domestic, low carbon, renewable energy production but also for
increasing the safety and environmental performance of renewable and
conventional energy development.
Environmental Protection Agency.--TNC acknowledges that reductions
in EPA's budget are necessary to support national deficit reduction.
However, Congress should remain mindful of the relatively small size of
EPA's discretionary budget as it considers where additional budget cuts
should occur Governmentwide. We also 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.
Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of The Trust for Public Land
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony
on behalf of The Trust for Public Land in support of programs under
your jurisdiction for the fiscal year 2014 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 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, as evidenced by polls and results in various ballot
initiatives and questions in November 2012, where 53 of 68 measures
passed creating nearly $800 million in new State and local funding for
conservation.
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 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
2014 for LWCF of $600 million. This amount includes $356.2 million for
Federal land purchases, $60 million for grants to States for parks and
outdoor recreation, $84.8 million for the Forest Legacy Program and $84
million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation program,
and $15 million for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program
(UPARR). 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 (NAWCA) and the Community Forest Program.
land and water conservation fund
For almost 50 years the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been
the cornerstone that sustains our Federal public lands heritage and
remains today a compelling and urgently needed program. When 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.
The fiscal year 2014 budget proposes $600 million for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, with $400 million from discretionary sources
and $200 million in mandatory funds. The budget anticipates providing
the full $900 million that is authorized by Congress in mandatory funds
in future fiscal years. Since the beginning of the LWCF program, more
than $18 billion of funds intended for conservation purposes from OCS
receipts have been diverted for unrelated purposes. The President's
fiscal year 2014 proposal encourages honest budgeting for LWCF and
ensures that its multiple benefits to natural resources, the national
and local economies, and outdoor recreation will be felt by the
American people.
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 2011 Federal interagency study determined that 90 million
people annually spend $144.7 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 $646 billion annually to the U.S. economy,
supports nearly 6.1 million jobs across the United States, and
generates $39.9 billion in annual national tax revenue.
Among the recreation destinations whose economic and natural
resource values might be significantly compromised without sufficient
LWCF funding in fiscal year 2014 are numerous outdoor recreation and
natural resource protection projects in the national forests of
California, New Mexico, Washington and Colorado, at the California
Coastal National Monument, where continued acquisition 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 Crooked National Wild
and Scenic River in Oregon, the new Valle de Oro National Wildlife
Refuge in New Mexico--where LWCF funds have leveraged more than twice
that amount in other funding, Red Cliffs National Conservation Area in
Utah, and the Tahoe National Forest in California. In addition, a
number of partially completed projects at Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area and Saguaro National Park, and the Carson,
Uncompaghre and Superior national forests await further funding to be
completed and are included in the fiscal year 2014 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
priority recreational access projects as proposed in the fiscal year
2014 President's budget for the National Park Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and Forest Service. TPL has pending projects eligible
under each of these categories and stands 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 2014
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations 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 LWCF Grants.--Since 1965, the State and local
assistance grant 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. These 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.
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program.--The President's budget
for fiscal year 2014 proposes $15 million to re-establish the Urban
Park and Recreation Recovery program (UPARR). This program has not
received appropriations since 2002. Funding UPARR would enable the
National Park Service to issue competitive grants for increasing
recreational opportunities at parks in urban areas across the country.
The residents of cities and urbanized counties often lack the
availability of parks and green spaces that are safe and close-to-home.
This proposed targeting of funds to areas most in need of new and
rehabilitated 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 the Department of the Interior's fiscal year 2014 budget
proposal for UPARR. 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, work and recreate. For
example a UPARR grant to the city of Newark in 2001 for the Mildred
Helms Park leveraged significant community investment and involvement
that continues today. This experience can be replicated in cities
throughout the nation, and we urge your support for this renewed
investment in cities.
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 over $630 million
in non-Federal matching funds. For fiscal year 2014, 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. The Trust for Public Land urges your continued support for
sustained investment in this strategic conservation program. Included
in the fiscal year 2014 budget are four projects where we are working
in partnership with the States of Maine, Colorado, New Mexico, and
California 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.
u.s. fish and wildlife service--land conservation grant programs
We are grateful for the subcommittee's historic support for U.S.
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. In fiscal year 2012, TPL successfully worked with
the States of Wisconsin, California, and Texas to protect species
habitat. We also urge your support for program funding at the
President's budget level of $84 million in fiscal year 2014. 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.
u.s. forest service--community forest program
Last but not least, we urge your continued support for the
Community Forest Program (CFP) which has received appropriations since
fiscal year 2010. The Forest Service awarded its first grants, totaling
nearly $4 million, in fiscal year 2012 for community forest projects in
eight States. This program complements 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 is evenly matched by funding
from State, local, and private sources. The response to the first grant
round was substantial and the program has generated significant
interest from local entities concerned about the future of their close-
to-home forests. 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 2014 bill.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this 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 2014 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 2014 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 nearly 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 habitats worldwide. The Wildlife Society is committed to
strengthening all Federal programs that benefit wildlife and their
habitats on agricultural and other private land.
u.s. 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
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 species in every State. Although we appreciate the President's
request for level funding from fiscal year 2013, previous budget
reductions and sequestration have had a serious and disproportionate
impact on State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. As such, we recommend
Congress appropriate $70 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
in fiscal year 2014. We also ask that Congress not shift additional
funds directed to States through formula grants to a competitive
allocation. This funding is critical for maintaining wildlife diversity
programs at the State level and a further reduction in the formula
grants may have dramatic consequences.
The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) is a diverse
coalition of 22 wildlife, sporting, conservation, and scientific
organizations representing over 14 million members and supporters. A
comprehensive analysis by CARE determined the National Wildlife Refuge
System 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 urge Congress to match the
President's request and provide $499.2 million in fiscal year 2014 for
the Operations and Maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
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 support the President's request of
$39.5 million and encourage Congress to match this request for fiscal
year 2014.
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. To achieve success, this
program should be funded at or more than $6.5 million. However,
recognizing the current fiscal climate, The Wildlife Society recommends
Congress maintain level funding for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act at $3.78 million in fiscal year 2014.
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. FWS,
with the help Federal and State agency partners has been working to
implement new strategies to increase the efficiency and effectiveness
of this program and to reduce the regulatory burden on private
landowners and industry partners. To support these actions and the
increased emphasis on consultation and recover, we recommend Congress
match the President's request for the Endangered Species Program and
provide $185.45 million in funding in fiscal year 2014.
The voluntary Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW) provides
financial and technical assistance to private landowners across the
country to restore degraded habitat and to safeguard against potential
regulatory burdens associated with endangered species listings. 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 ecosystems. For example, working under a new MOU
with the Natural Resource Conservation Service, PFW has been critical
in engaging private landowners to restore and maintain habitat for the
greater-sage grouse in States like Idaho and Nevada; potentially
removing the need for a future listing. We urge Congress to provide $60
million in support of PFW 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 Congress to match
the President's request of $13.5 million in support of FWS
International Affairs.
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 non-wildlife 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 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
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 Congress to increase overall funding for BLM's endangered
species program to $33 million in fiscal year 2014.
The Wildlife Society appreciates the commitment of BLM to
addressing the problems associated with Wild Horse and Burro
Management. We support the requested increase of $2 million for
implementation of the National Academy of Sciences recommendations and
findings and continued research and development on contraception and
population control. However, with more than 10,000 horses above
Appropriate Management Levels on the range and over 50,000 horses in
off-site long- and short-term holding facilities The Wildlife Society
is concerned about BLM's emphasis on fertility control alone. The
current language limiting the use of humane euthanasia for unwanted or
unadoptable horses should be removed to allow BLM to use all necessary
management tools to bring populations of on- and off-range wild horses
and burros within manageable range and additional funding should be
requested to correct the habitat damage that has occurred due to
overpopulation of these animals. The requested $77.245 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 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, 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 2014.
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 strives to
maximize research and support for comprehensive biological and
ecosystem based needs. The Wildlife Society supports the President's
request of $180.77 million for USGS's Ecosystems Department in fiscal
year 2014. Within Ecosystems, we support the request of $50.78 million
for the Wildlife Program. Additionally, we appreciate the requested
addition of $1.5 million to support research and surveillance of White
Nose Syndrome and of $2 million for research on the impacts of future
energy development on wildlife sustainability.
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, Congress fully funded the
CFWRUs, allowing unit productivity to rise to record levels. Since
then, budgetary shortfalls have continued to cause 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 2014 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 2013 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 Congress fund the National Climate Change and
Wildlife Science Center at the requested $35.3 million in fiscal year
2014.
u.s. 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 Forest Service 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 continue to be
concerned with this merger because it makes accountability to
stakeholders and Congress more difficult. However, with these
reservations noted, we urge Congress to support the request of $757
million for the Integrated Resource Restoration program in fiscal year
2014.
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 Congress to match the President's request of
$310 million in fiscal year 2014 for Forest and Rangelands to support
this high-quality research.
Thank you for considering the recommendations of wildlife
professionals.
______
Prepared Statement of the USGS Coalition
Summary.--The USGS Coalition appreciates the opportunity to provide
testimony about the fiscal year 2014 budget for the United States
Geological Survey (USGS). The fiscal year 2014 budget request includes
$1.167 billion for the USGS. This level represents an increase of $98.8
million above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. This funding level
represents a modest increase for one of the Nation's premiere
scientific research agencies.
The USGS is uniquely positioned to provide information and inform
responses to 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 ecosystems
and combat invasive species that can threaten natural and managed
environmental systems and public health.
The USGS Coalition is an alliance of over 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 Congress as a branch of the Department of the
Interior in 1879, the U.S. Geological Survey has a national mission
that extends beyond the boundaries of the Nation's public lands to
positively impact the lives of all Americans. The USGS plays a crucial
role in protecting the public from natural hazards, assessing water
quality and quantity, providing geospatial data, and conducting the
science necessary to manage our Nation's living, mineral, and energy
resources. Through its offices across the country, the USGS works with
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
the USGS' valuable work are provided below.
The Survey collects scientific information on water availability
and quality to inform the public and decisionmakers about the status of
freshwater resources and how they are changing over time. During the
past 130 years, the USGS has collected streamflow data at over 21,000
sites, water-level data at over 1 million wells, and chemical data at
over 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 an important 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 that are used by aviation officials to prevent planes from
flying into volcanic ash clouds. Data from the USGS network of stream
gages enable the National Weather Service to issue flood and drought
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 provides 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, 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 decisionmakers
across the country.
A major challenge currently facing the USGS is budget
sequestration. Not only has the agency's budget been cut by $61
million, but the USGS faces further funding reductions as other Federal
agencies scale back reimbursable activities, which represent roughly
$400 million of USGS' annual operating budget.
Among the sequestration-induced impacts to USGS science:
--USGS will stop delivering stream flow information from its national
stream gauge network. This will hinder informed decisionmaking,
but is less costly than turning off the stream gauges and
losing data altogether.
--Maintenance of real time status of stream gauges and seismic
networks will diminish, potentially resulting in data gaps.
--Decreased monitoring of volcanoes and delayed warnings about
volcanic activity. The Federal Aviation Administration relies
upon this information to route planes safely in Alaska and
elsewhere.
--Fewer early warnings will be issued about emerging wildlife
diseases. This could jeopardize natural resource managers'
abilities to respond to threats in a timely manner.
--Energy assessments will take longer to be completed. These delays
could slow economic development and the Nation's efforts to
utilize more domestic energy.
The USGS has also implemented a hiring freeze, disallowed overtime,
and cancelled all training and non-essential travel. Contracts and
grants are being reviewed internally to determine the feasibility of
delay, re-scoping, or termination.
Employee furloughs of up to 9 days are also possible. The employees
of the USGS are hardworking and committed individuals dedicated to
serving the American public. They routinely work in harsh conditions
and with limited resources. Unpaid furloughs threaten to further
diminish employee morale.
In addition, USGS suspended employee attendance at 27 conferences
in February, March, and April. Although this may save money in the
short term, scientists must be able to exchange ideas and information
freely. Scientific conferences are a highly productive mechanism for
the transfer of information among scientists and engineers.
USGS has identified ways to cope with its diminished budget in the
short term, but the agency's ability to deliver science over the long-
term is in jeopardy. We are especially concerned about long-term data
sets, as information gaps cannot be filled later.
The USGS is a science agency. Much of its budget is dedicated to
salaries and equipment that must be maintained and updated to ensure
the continuity of data acquisition and to ensure that the data gathered
are reliable and available for future scientific investigations. We
believe that the leadership of the USGS is doing all it can, and has
been for a number of years, to contain costs while continuing to
deliver high quality science. We are concerned, however, that agency
managers have few options left and that the science will soon begin to
suffer.
conclusion
We recognize the financial challenges facing the Nation, but losing
irreplaceable data can increase costs to society today and in the
future. Data not collected and analyzed today is data lost forever.
This is particularly significant for environmental monitoring systems,
where the loss of a year's data can limit the scope and reliability of
long-term dataset analysis. The USGS Coalition requests that Congress
work to provide at least the $1.167 billion requested by the
administration for fiscal year 2014.
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 United States Section 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 Congress:
``Fund the tribes' program at a restored funding level of
$4,800,000 for tribal research projects and participation in the United
States-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty process, an increase of $681,000
over fiscal year 2012 enacted level. This funding level represents
status quo funding plus adjustments to meet increased obligations under
the 2009-2018 Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement. The funding for tribal
participation in the United States/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 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 of $75,000 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 committee. The budget summary justifies the
funding we are recommending today. All of the funds are needed for
critical data collection and research activities directly related to
the implementation of the Treaty and are used in cooperative programs
involving Federal, State, and Tribal fishery agencies and the
Department of Fisheries in Canada. The monetary commitment of the
United States is matched by the commitment of the Government of Canada.
The U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission is recommending
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 United States 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. A new chapter is expected
to be adopted in May.
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 UNITED STATES-CANADA PACIFIC SALMON TREATY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2012 enacted 2014 Increase
appropriation recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights $4,119,000 $4,800,000 $681,000
Implementation.................................................
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anadromous Fisheries............ 657,000 732,000 75,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of United Tribes Technical College
For 44 years, with the most basic of funding, United Tribes
Technical College (UTTC) has provided postsecondary career and
technical education, job training and family services to some of the
most impoverished, high risk Indian students from throughout the
nation. With such challenges, some colleges might despair, but we have
consistently had excellent retention and placement rates and are a
fully accredited institution. We are proud to be equipping our students
to take part in the new energy economy in North Dakota and proud to be
part of building a strong middle class in Indian Country by training
the next generation of law enforcement officers, educators, medical
technicians and ``Indianpreneurs.'' We are governed by the five tribes
located wholly or in part in North Dakota. We are not part of the North
Dakota State college system and do not have a tax base or State-
appropriated funds on which to rely. The requests of the UTTC Board for
the fiscal year 2014 Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)/Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) are:
--One-time BIE funding to forward fund United Tribes Technical
College, approximately $3.4 million.
--$7 million in BIE funding for UTTC for our Indian Self-
Determination Act contract.
--Congressional support for a tribally administered law enforcement
training center.
A few things of note about United Tribes Technical College. We
have:
--Renewed unrestricted accreditation from the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools, for July 2011 through
2021, with authority to offer all of our full programs online.
We have 26 Associate degree programs, 20 Certificate and three
Bachelor degree programs (Criminal Justice; Elementary
Education; Business Administration).
--Services including a Child Development Center, family literacy
program, wellness center, area transportation, K-8 elementary
school, tutoring, counseling, family and single student
housing, and campus security.
--A projected return on Federal investment of 20-1 (2005 study).
--A semester retention rate of 85 percent and a graduate placement
rate of 77 percent. Over 45 percent of our graduates move on to
4-year or advanced degree institutions.
--Students from 75 tribes; 85 percent of our undergraduate students
receive Pell Grants.
--An unduplicated count of undergraduate degree-seeking students and
continuing education students of 1,200 and a workforce of 360.
--A dual-enrollment program targeting junior and senior high school
students, providing them an introduction to college life and
offering high school and college credits.
--A critical role in the regional economy. Our presence brings at
least $34 million annually to the economy of the Bismarck
region. A North Dakota State University study reports in that
the five tribal colleges in North Dakota made a direct and
secondary economic contribution to the State of $181,933,000 in
2012.
Positioning Our Students for Success.--UTTC is dedicated to
providing American Indians with postsecondary and technical education
in a culturally diverse environment that will provide self-
determination and economic development for all tribal nations. This
means offering a rich cultural education and family support system
which emphasizes enhancement of tribal peoples and nations, while
simultaneously evaluating and updating our curricula to reflect the
current job market. The ramifications of the North Dakota Bakken oil
boom are seen throughout the State. We saw the need for more certified
welders in relation to the oil boom and so expanded our certified
welding program. We are now able to train students for good paying, in-
demand welding jobs. Similarly, our online medical transcription
program was designed to meet the growing need for certified medical
support staff. Other courses reflect new emphasis on energy auditing
and Geographic Information System Technology.
We are in the midst of opening up a distance learning center in
Rapid City, South Dakota, where there are some 16,000 American Indians
in the area. We are also working toward establishment of an American
Indian Specialized Health Care Training Clinic.
We also understand the importance of culturally and legally
competent law enforcement on Indian reservations. Our Criminal Justice
program offers 2- and 4-year degrees, and prepares graduates for
employment as Federal, State or tribal law enforcement, correction,
parole and probation, and transportation safety officers; victim
advocates; U.S. Customs, Homeland Security, Military Investigative
Services and private security agents. UTTC wants to expand our
endeavors to help meet the critical law enforcement need in Indian
Country. Given our experience with our Criminal Justice program, our
location, and our campus resources, we propose the establishment of a
Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy.
Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy.--We appreciate that
the President requested increased funding in the fiscal year 2014
budget to hire additional BIA and tribal law enforcement officers.
However, we ask Congress to be more visionary than that and to
seriously look at the problem of addressing crime in Indian Country
with an eye toward establishment of a campus-based academy for training
of law enforcement officers in the Northern Plains area of Indian
Country. There are cultural and legal reasons why such training should
be tribally directed in order to be appropriate for the realities of
tribal communities. And with the advent of expanded tribal authorities
under the Tribal Law and Order Act and the Violence Against Women Act,
2013, the need has grown. At the same time, we realize that State and
national training resources have an important role in this new
endeavor.
Basic law enforcement training is currently provided through the
BIA's Indian Police Academy in Artesia, New Mexico. The BIA Academy can
train only three classes of 50 persons annually. The BIA is depending
on the basic training provided by State academies to supplement what is
provided at Artesia. We firmly believe UTTC is well positioned with
regard to providing both basic and supplemental law enforcement
training. An academy at UTTC would allow tribal people in the Great
Plains and other nearby regions a more affordable choice of training
locations, minimizing the distance and long separation of trainees from
their families.
In short, the BIA should be utilizing and enhancing the resources
of UTTC to make a real difference in the law enforcement capability in
Indian Country. We can offer college credit to trainees, and our
facilities include the use of a state-of-the-art crime scene simulator.
Maintaining safe communities is a critical component of economic
development for our tribal nations, and local control of law
enforcement training resources is a key part of that effort.
We are well positioned to continue to be an integral part of
building a strong middle class in Indian Country but we face challenges
including lack of reliable, on-time BIE funding.
Forward Funding.--We have wanted BIE forward funding for some time,
and our experience this past year with the continuing resolutions,
sequestration and inexcusably slow and insufficient allocation of funds
really brings home this issue.
There was a glitch in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations process
which resulted in UTTC (and Navajo Technical College or NTC) not
receiving BIE forward funding. There is authority for forward funding
for tribal colleges under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and
Universities Act, 25 U.S.C. 1810(b)(1) and (2). This authority applies
to all colleges funded under that act, including UTTC and NTC. When the
administration requested $50 million for forward funding in its fiscal
year 2010 budget, they asked for it under the line item of ``tribally
controlled colleges and universities''--that line item includes 27
tribally controlled colleges. However, we are funded under a different
line item which is ``tribal technical colleges'' and thus when Congress
provided the requested $50 million for forward funding, UTTC and NTC
were left out.
Forward funding requires a one-time extra appropriation of three-
quarters of a year's funding; hence, we are requesting, in addition to
our regular fiscal year 2014 appropriation, $3,397,485 to forward fund
United Tribes Technical College (75 percent of $4,529,981--the fiscal
year 2012 BIE appropriation for UTTC--is $3,397,485). The total BIE
fiscal year 2012 appropriation for ``tribal technical colleges'' was
$6,761,165 ($4,529,981 for UTTC and $2,231,184 for NTC). To forward
fund both institutions would require $5,070,873 in addition to the
regular fiscal year 2014 funds.
The manner of distribution of fiscal year 2013 BIE funds has been a
disaster. We still do not know the precise amount we will receive for
fiscal year 2013. Between having funding provided via continuing
resolutions and held back due to the prospects of a sequestration,
planning has been very difficult. We are particularly disturbed that
the BIE allocated only 37 percent of our funding during the first 6
months of the year. The unprecedented uncertainty in terms of timing
and amount of funding this past year has taken a toll. New faculty feel
vulnerable because of the appropriations situation, and prospective
candidates are reluctant to accept positions due to the same
uncertainty. We have significantly reduced off-campus professional
development activities for faculty, and held back on upgrading
technology resources for our faculty and students. The oil boom in
North Dakota has led to a serious housing shortage and the rates for
local off-campus student housing have skyrocketed. While we have
campus-based housing, it has never been sufficient to accommodate all
our students and their families. Our students come from 75 tribes from
around the Nation; none of them can commute from their home
communities. Lack of housing has impeded our ability to accept as many
students as we would like.
Base Funding.--UTTC administers its BIE funding under an Indian
Self-Determination Act agreement, and has done so for 36 years. Funds
requested above the fiscal year 2012 level are needed to: (1) maintain
100-year-old education buildings and 50-year-old housing stock for
students; (2) upgrade technology capabilities; (3) provide adequate
salaries for faculty and staff (who did not receive a cost of living
increase this past year and who are in the bottom quartile of salary
for comparable positions elsewhere); and (4) fund program and
curriculum improvements.
Acquisition of additional base funding is critical as UTTC has more
than tripled its number of students within the past 8 years while
actual base funding for educational services, including Carl Perkins
Act funding, have not increased commensurately (increased from $6
million to $8 million for the two programs combined). Our BIE funding
provides a base level of support while allowing us to compete for
desperately needed discretionary contracts and grants leading to
additional resources annually for the college's programs and support
services.
The Duplication or Overlapping Issue.--We would like to comment on
the Government Accountability Office reports of March 2011 regarding
Federal programs which may have similar or overlapping services or
objectives (GAO-11-474R and GAO-11-318SP). Funding from the BIE and the
DOEd's Carl Perkins Act for Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career
and Technical Education were among the programs listed in the reports.
The full GAO report did not recommend defunding these programs; rather,
it posed the possibility of consolidation of these programs to save
administrative costs. We are not in disagreement about possible
consolidation of our funding sources, so long as program funds are not
cut.
BIE funds represent more than half of UTTC's core operating budget.
The Perkins funds supplement, but do not duplicate, the BIE funds. It
takes both sources of funding to frugally maintain the institution. In
fact, even these combined sources do not provide the resources
necessary to operate and maintain the college. We actively seek
alternative funding to assist with academic programming, deferred
maintenance, and scholarship assistance, among other things. The need
for postsecondary career and technical education in Indian Country is
so great and the funding so small, that there is little chance for
duplicative funding.
There are only two institutions targeting American Indian/Alaska
Native career and technical education and training at the postsecondary
level--UTTC and NTC. Combined, these institutions received less than
$15 million in fiscal year 2012 Federal operational funds ($8 million
from Perkins; $6.7 million from the BIE). That is not an excessive
amount for two campus-based institutions who offer a broad (and
expanding) array of programs geared toward the educational and cultural
needs of their students and who teach job-producing skills.
Closing.--UTTC offers services that are catered to the needs of our
students, many of whom are first generation college attendees. Our BIE
and Perkins funds are central to the viability of our core
postsecondary programs. Very little of the other funds we receive may
be used for core career and technical educational program; they are
competitive, often one-time supplemental funds which help us provide
support services but cannot replace core operational funding. Thank you
for your consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the United Tribes Technical College
For 44 years, with the most basic of funding, United Tribes
Technical College (UTTC) has provided postsecondary career and
technical education, job training and family services to some of the
most impoverished, high risk Indian students from throughout the
Nation. With such challenges, some colleges might despair, but we have
consistently had excellent retention and placement rates and are a
fully accredited institution. We are proud to be equipping our students
to take part in the new energy economy in North Dakota and proud to be
part of building a strong middle class in Indian Country by training
the next generation of law enforcement officers, educators, medical
technicians and ``Indianpreneurs.'' We are governed by the five tribes
located wholly or in part in North Dakota. We are not part of the North
Dakota State college system and do not have a tax base or State-
appropriated funds on which to rely. Section 117 Carl Perkins Act funds
represent a significant portion of our operating budget and provide for
our core instructional programs. The request of the UTTC Board for
fiscal year 2014 is:
--$10 million for base funding authorized under section 117 of the
Carl Perkins Act for the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary
Career and Technical Institutions program (20 U.S.C. section
2327). This is $1.8 million above the fiscal year 2012 level.
These funds are awarded competitively and are distributed via
formula.
--$30 million as requested by the American Indian Higher Education
Consortium for title III-A (section 316) of the Higher
Education Act (Strengthening Institutions program). This is $5
million above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
--Maintain Pell grants at the $5,635 maximum award level.
A Few Things of Note About United Tribes Technical College.--We
have:
--Renewed unrestricted accreditation from the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools, for July 2011 through
2021, with authority to offer all of our full programs online.
We have 26 Associate degree programs, 20 Certificate and 3
Bachelor degree programs (Criminal Justice; Elementary
Education; Business Administration).
--Services including a Child Development Center, family literacy
program, wellness center, area transportation, K-8 elementary
school, tutoring, counseling, family and single student
housing, and campus security.
--A projected return on Federal investment of 20-1 (2005 study).
--A semester retention rate of 85 percent and a graduate placement
rate of 77 percent. Over 45 percent of our graduates move on to
4-year or advanced degree institutions.
--Students from 75 tribes; 85 percent of our undergraduate students
receive Pell grants.
--An unduplicated count of undergraduate degree-seeking students and
continuing education students of 1,200 and a workforce of 360.
--A dual-enrollment program targeting junior and senior high school
students, providing them an introduction to college life and
offering high school and college credits.
--A critical role in the regional economy. Our presence brings at
least $34 million annually to the economy of the Bismarck
region. A North Dakota State University study reports in that
the five tribal colleges in North Dakota made a direct and
secondary economic contribution to the State of $181,933,000 in
2012.
Positioning our Students for Success.--UTTC is dedicated to
providing American Indians with postsecondary and technical education
in a culturally diverse environment that will provide self-
determination and economic development for all tribal nations. This
means offering a rich cultural education and family support system
which emphasizes enhancement of tribal peoples and nations, while
simultaneously evaluating and updating our curricula to reflect the
current job market. The ramifications of the North Dakota Bakken oil
boom are seen throughout the State. We saw the need for more certified
welders in relation to the oil boom and so expanded our certified
welding program. We are now able to train students for good paying, in-
demand welding jobs. Similarly, our online medical transcription
program was designed to meet the growing need for certified medical
support staff. Other courses reflect new emphasis on energy auditing
and Geographic Information System Technology.
We are in the midst of opening up a distance learning center in
Rapid City, South Dakota, where there are some 16,000 American Indians
in the area. We are also working toward establishment of an American
Indian Specialized Health Care Training Clinic.
funding requests
Section 117 Perkins Base Funding.--Funds requested under section
117 of the Perkins Act above the fiscal year 2012 level are needed to:
(1) maintain 100-year-old education buildings and 50-year-old housing
stock for students; (2) upgrade technology capabilities; (3) provide
adequate salaries for faculty and staff (who have not received a cost
of living increase for the past year and who are in the bottom quartile
of salary for comparable positions elsewhere); and (4) fund program and
curriculum improvements.
Perkins funds are central to the viability of our core
postsecondary educational programs. Very little of the other funds we
receive may be used for core career and technical educational programs;
they are competitive, often one-time supplemental funds which help us
provide the services our students need to be successful. Our Perkins
funding provides a base level of support (averaging over the past 5
years in excess of 40 percent of our core operating budget) while
allowing the college to compete for desperately needed discretionary
funds leading to additional resources annually for the college's
programs and support services.
Title III-A (Section 316) Strengthening Institutions.--Among the
title III-A statutorily allowable uses is facility construction and
maintenance. We are constantly in need of additional student housing,
including family housing. We would like to educate more students but
lack of housing has at times limited the admission of new students.
With the completion this year of a new Science, Math and Technology
building on our South Campus on land acquired with a private grant, we
urgently need housing for up to 150 students, many of whom have
families.
While we have constructed three housing facilities using a variety
of sources in the past 20 years, approximately 50 percent of students
are housed in the 100-year-old buildings of what was Fort Abraham
Lincoln, as well as housing that was donated by the Federal Government
along with the land and Fort buildings in 1973. These buildings require
major rehabilitation. New buildings are actually cheaper rehabilitating
the old buildings that now house students.
Pell Grants.--We support maintaining the Pell grant maximum to at
least a level of $5,635. This resource makes all the difference in
whether most of our students can attend college. As mentioned above, 85
percent of our undergraduate students are Pell grant recipients. We are
glad to learn of the February 6, 2013 report of the Congressional
Budget Office that the Pell grant program is currently financially
healthy and can support full funding the maximum award levels for
fiscal years 2013 and 2014.
government accountability office report
As you know, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in March
2011 issued two reports regarding Federal programs which may have
similar or overlapping services or objectives (GAO-11-318SP of March 1
and GAO-11-474R of March 18). Funding from the Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE) and the Perkins Act for Tribally Controlled
Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions were among the programs
listed in the supplemental report of March 18, 2011. The GAO did not
recommend defunding these or other programs; in some cases
consolidation or better coordination of programs was recommended to
save administrative costs. We are not in disagreement about possible
consolidation or coordination of the administration of these funding
sources so long as funds are not reduced.
Perkins funds represent on average over 40 percent of UTTC's core
operating budget. These funds supplement, but do not duplicate, the BIE
funds. It takes both sources of funding to frugally maintain the
institution. Even these combined sources do not provide the resources
necessary to operate and maintain the college. Therefore, UTTC actively
seeks alternative funding to assist with curricula, deferred
maintenance, and scholarship assistance, among other things
We reiterate that UTTC and other tribally chartered colleges are
not part of State educational systems and do not receive State-
appropriated general operational funds for their Indian students. The
need for postsecondary career and technical education in Indian Country
is so great and the funding so small, that there is little chance for
duplicative funding.
There are only two institutions targeting American Indian/Alaska
Native career and technical education and training at the postsecondary
level--United Tribes Technical College and Navajo Technical College.
Combined, these institutions received less than $15 million in fiscal
year 2012 Federal operational funds ($8 million from Perkins; $7
million from the BIE). That is a very modest amount for two campus-
based institutions which offer a broad (and expanding) array of
training opportunities.
UTTC offers services that are catered to the needs of our students,
many of whom are first generation college attendees and many of whom
come to us needing remedial education and services. Our students
disproportionately possess more high risk characteristics than other
student populations. We also provide services for the children and
dependents of our students. Although BIE and section 117 funds do not
pay for remedial education services, we make this investment through
other sources to ensure our students succeed at the postsecondary
level.
Thank you for your consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Western Regional Aquaculture Center
Dear Chairman Reed and members of the subcommittee: The purpose of
this letter is to express concern with respect to language in the
fiscal year 2014 President's budget proposing a $400,000 reduction in
funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Aquatic Animal Drug
Approval Partnership (AADAP) program. AADAP is the Nation's only
program singularly committed to obtaining U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval of aquatic animal drugs needed by fisheries
professionals. AADAP provides many key services to the USFWS and its
partners by providing access to needed drugs and securing drug
approvals to ensure safe and effective drugs are available to treat
disease, aid spawning, and facilitate field research and fisheries
management activities. The proposed reduction in funding for AADAP
would have a significant, negative impact on the ability of the USFWS,
State natural resource agencies and commercial aquaculture. We strongly
encourage full support of the AADAP at a level of $1,790,000 in base
funding. This figure represents the amount previously dedicated to the
drug approval process in the Department of the Interior budget (fiscal
year 2010), adjusted to fiscal year 2014 dollars.
The Western Regional Aquaculture Center (WRAC) represents
aquaculture interests in the 12 Western States. The mission of WRAC is
to support aquaculture research, development, demonstration and
education, with the aim of increasing U.S. aquaculture production. One
of the challenges to U.S. aquaculture, and particularly to aquaculture
of new species, is the limited number of approved aquatic animal drugs
and the length of time to obtain approval. WRAC has been supportive of
research in this area and recognizes the importance of this program to
this industry.
The AADAP program has been very successful in obtaining approvals
for aquatic animal drugs, and attempts at cost-savings that diminish
this program diminish needed Federal leadership in this area and
jeopardize the success of the aquaculture industry. We strongly
encourage you to continue to fully support/fund AADAP. I would also
like to thank you in advance for your consideration of this issue.
______
Prepared Statement of the World Wildlife Fund
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
subcommittee, I submit this testimony on behalf of World Wildlife Fund
(WWF) to request your support for a number of important conservation
programs within the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). WWF is the largest private conservation
organization working internationally to protect wildlife and wildlife
habitats. WWF currently sponsors conservation programs in more than 100
countries with the support of 1.2 million members in the United States
and more than 5 million members worldwide. We respectfully request that
the subcommittee fund the following programs at the following levels:
--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of International Affairs at
the administration's request of $13.5 million;
--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Multinational Species Conservation
Funds at the administration's request of $9.8 million;
--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement at the
administration's request of $68.3 million, including $4.2
million for enforcement of the Lacey Act; and
--We also ask you to support the President's America's Great Outdoors
Initiative and the administration's proposal to permanently
authorize funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund at
$900 million by fiscal year 2015.
One of my organization's top priorities, and the one I would like
to focus on in my testimony, is to support efforts to curtail the
global illegal trade in wildlife and other living natural resources,
including timber and fish. Illicit wildlife trafficking alone is worth
$10 billion-$20 billion per year and ranked among the top five most
lucrative criminal activities worldwide. It is a serious crime with
clear links to transnational organized criminal organizations and other
criminal activities, such as arms and drug trafficking. Large-scale
illegal trade in wildlife, driving largely by soaring demand in Asia
for wildlife products, has sparked a poaching crisis that is pushing
some of our most iconic species toward extinction, including elephants,
tigers and rhinos. This crisis is also having a devastating impact on
local communities, regional security and economic growth in the
developing world, including in countries of strategic importance to the
United States.
African wildlife, in particular, is under siege. Last year alone,
roughly 30,000 elephants were killed illegally throughout Africa, with
Central African countries being hit the hardest. In the past 10 years,
the number of forest elephants in Central Africa has dropped by 62
percent, putting the species on the path to extinction in the near
future. In South Africa, the number of rhinos lost to poaching jumped
5,000 percent in 5 years, with a record 668 killed for their horns in
2012. As few as 3,200 tigers remain in the wild in all of Asia, due in
large part to poachers killing the animals for their skins, bones and
other body parts. Several of the agencies that this subcommittee helps
to fund play key roles in helping to combat these large-scale criminal
activities, which rob developing countries of much needed resources,
harm American businesses by flooding global markets with cheap illegal
products, and threaten U.S. security interests because of their role in
breeding corruption and their helping to finance organized crime, armed
insurgencies and even terrorism.
usfws office of international affairs
The USFWS Office of International Affairs contains the agency's
Wildlife Without Borders (WWB) and International Wildlife Trade (IWT)
programs, which provide critical support to on-the-ground species
conservation programs. The WWB Regional program supports species and
habitat conservation in priority regions, including Africa, Latin
America and the Caribbean 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, support signature initiatives to maximize long-term
impact, and address declines of critically endangered species, such as
amphibians. It also fulfills USFWS 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
2007 to 2011, the WWB Regional and Global Programs supported more than
800 conservation projects, awarded over $16 million in grants and
leveraged an additional $26 million in matching funds to provide
education, training and outreach in support of wildlife conservation.
IWT works to prevent illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products,
which not only threatens vulnerable wildlife populations but also
transmits diseases and invasive species, which negatively impact public
health and economic productivity in the United States--one of the
largest importers and exporters of wildlife products. IWT ensures trade
is legal and does not harm species in the wild while implementing
scientific and management requirements of laws and treaties for traded
species and issuing 15,000-20,000 permits per year. We recommend $13.5
million for the Office of International Affairs, as requested in the
administration's fiscal year 2014 budget request.
usfws multinational species conservation funds
Through the Multinational Species Conservation Funds (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 USFWS,
make targeted investments in conservation of several global priority
species. In 1989, 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. Rhino-Tiger
Conservation Fund (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 spite of rising demand for rhino horn on Asian black markets
and a sharp increases in the number of rhinos killed in South Africa
that same year. RTCF funding is also 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.
The African Elephant Conservation Fund (AfECF) is supporting
improved protected area enforcement in several African countries,
including hiring and training of local ``ecoguards'' to protect
populations of elephants and other threatened wildlife. 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 Asian Elephant Conservation Fund (AsECF) has supported
improved wildlife law enforcement, established elephant population
monitoring systems, and helped to reduce conflicts between humans and
elephants. On the Indonesian island of Sumatra, AsECF support to World
Wildlife Fund has helped to establish ``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 and prevented retaliatory killings. They helped
reduce elephant mortality in the Riau region by 27 percent in 2009
compared to the previous 4 years.
Since 2008, the Great Ape Conservation Fund (GACF) has been
supporting conservation efforts in Virunga National Park--Africa's
oldest national park (established in 1925) which contains some of the
richest biodiversity of any protected area on the continent and one of
the largest populations of endangered mountain gorilla. Over the past 5
years, GACF funding has helped to improve law enforcement and training
for park rangers, develop alternative fuel sources to reduce the
destructive practice of charcoal creation from the park's forests,
increase aerial surveillance capacity, and grow the park's tourist
revenue through a chimpanzee habituation and tourism project that
generated nearly $1 million in 2011 alone. In the Solomon Islands of
the Pacific, the Marine Turtle Conservation Fund has supported WWF
conservation activities on important nesting beaches for endangered sea
turtles, including turtle tagging, DNA sampling, nesting beach
cleanups, hatchery construction, workshops on community-based
monitoring, and active monitoring of nests during the turtles' nesting
seasons. Hatchling success has grown each year since the program began.
Not only have these programs proven remarkably successful; they
have also consistently generated enormous constituent interest and
strong bipartisan support in Congress. The MSCF has awarded over 2,200
grants to more than 265 organizations for conservation projects in over
75 countries, and these small grants consistently leverage between 2 to
4 times as much in matching funds from public and private partners.
From 1990 to 2011, Congress appropriated a total of $88 million for
MSCF grant programs, which generated over $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. The U.S. Government
has been a consistent leader in international species conservation, and
the modest funding for these programs is more needed than ever in the
face of the worst poaching crisis we have seen in over two decades. We
recommend $9.8 million for the Multinational Species Conservation
Funds, as requested in the administration's fiscal year 2014 budget
request.
usfws office of law enforcement
The USFWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) investigates wildlife
crimes, enforces regulation of wildlife trade, helps citizens comply
with the law, and works with other international and U.S. Government
entities to carry out its mission. OLE's 143 wildlife inspectors are
the front line of defense in nearly 40 designated and non-designated
ports of entry around the country including in Alaska, California,
Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Tennessee,
Texas and Washington. In fiscal year 2011, they processed about 179,000
declared shipments of wildlife and wildlife products worth more than
$2.8 billion. OLE's 219 special agents are expert investigators that
break up smuggling rings, stop commercial exploitation of protected
U.S. species, and work with States to protect U.S. game species from
poaching that steals both State income and hunting and fishing
opportunities. In fiscal year 2011, OLE special agents investigated
more than 13,000 cases. OLE also runs the Clark R. Bavin National Fish
and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon, which is the only
lab in the world dedicated to solving wildlife crimes--a real life
``Wildlife CSI.'' OLE is playing a crucial role in tackling the illegal
trade in endangered species, including elephants and rhinos.
``Operation Crash'' is a nationwide, multi-agency effort led by USFWS
OLE to investigate and prosecute those involved in the black market
trade of endangered rhinoceros horns. So far, the operation has
resulted in 10 arrests and 9 convictions following the seizures of
dozens of rhino horns and millions of dollars in assets. In spite of
successes such as this one, OLE is severely underfunded to meet the
rapidly growing challenges it faces, including the need to place agents
at key posts around the world to assist in shutting down global
wildlife smuggling rings. USFWS OLE is also responsible for enforcement
of the Lacey Act, including its expansion to cover plants and plant
products. The agency has yet to receive funding to carry out this
additional mandate, however. Part of what makes the Lacey Act effective
is the deterrent effect it has on bad operators when they see the real
risk of being prosecuted or having illegal goods seized, and periodic
public enforcement cases are critical to making the law work. WWF
recommends $68.3 million for the USFWS Office of Law Enforcement,
including $4.2 million for Lacey Act enforcement, as requested in the
administration's fiscal year 2014 budget request.
america's great outdoors
WWF also recommends support for the President's America's Great
Outdoors (AGO) initiative, which supports Federal, State, and Tribal
conservation efforts and fosters interagency collaboration for
conservation. We are highly supportive of AGO programs that foster
partnerships between public land managers and private landowners
working toward conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat--
particularly the grasslands and wetlands of the Northern Great Plains
and the resident and migratory species that depend on a healthy prairie
ecosystem. We also recommend that the subcommittee support President
Obama's proposal to permanently authorize funding for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million by fiscal year 2015.
Dedicated funding for LWCF will provide the stability public land
managers need to plan for long-term and strategic investments in our
shared natural resources to support wildlife, outdoor recreation and
the outdoor economy.
We hope the subcommittee will consider our requests above alongside
the important conservation issues that these agencies are working to
address and their track record of success in doing so--in many cases
with limited resources. We respectfully ask the subcommittee to fund
these programs at the levels outlined above. Thank you for your
consideration.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Ad-Hoc Industry Natural Resource Management Group, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 207
Alaska Native:
Tribal Health Consortium, Prepared Statement of the.......... 221
Village CEO Association, Letter From the..................... 66
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Prepared Statement of the. 222
All Indian Pueblo Council, Prepared Statement of the............. 213
American:
Association of:
Fish Veterinarians, Prepared Statement of the............ 191
Petroleum Geologists, Prepared Statement of the.......... 193
Bird Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.................. 195
Fisheries Society:
Fish Culture Section Working Group on Aquaculture Drugs,
Chemicals, and Biologics, Prepared Statement of the.... 201
Prepared Statements of the.............................201, 202
Forest:
And Paper Association, Prepared Statement of the......... 199
Foundation, Prepared Statement of the.................... 197
Geophysical Union, Prepared Statement of the................. 206
Geosciences Institute, Prepared Statement of the............. 203
Gold Seafoods, Prepared Statement of......................... 205
Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the 210
Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the.. 208
Lung Association, Prepared Statement of the.................. 216
Society for:
Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the.................. 229
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Prepared Statement
of the................................................. 231
Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 236
Arctic Native Slope Association, Ltd., Prepared Statement of the. 219
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 233
Association of:
Art Museum Directors, Prepared Statement of the.............. 192
Joint Venture Management Boards, Prepared Statement of the... 216
Public and Land-Grant Universities, Prepared Statement of the 225
State Drinking Water Administrators, Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 226
Zoos and Aquariums, Prepared Statement of the................ 239
Back Country Horsemen of Washington, Prepared Statement of the... 242
Bat Conservation International, Prepared Statement of............ 243
Blunt, Senator Roy, U.S. Senator From Missouri:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 17
Statement of................................................. 17
Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, Prepared Statement of the... 239
Central Arizona Project, Prepared Statement of the............... 247
Children's Environmental Health Network, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 252
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Prepared Statement of the............ 255
Chugach Regional Resources Commission, Prepared Statement of the. 263
Civil War Trust, Prepared Statement of the....................... 268
Coalition Against Forest Pests, Prepared Statement of the........ 245
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi: Questions
Submitted by..................................................53, 128
Coeur D'Alene Tribe, Prepared Statement of the................... 251
Colorado River:
Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of the...... 259
Board of California, Prepared Statement of the............... 257
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 260
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 265
Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 249
Dance/USA, Prepared Statement of................................. 274
Defenders of Wildlife, Prepared Statement of the................. 271
Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 269
Edison Electric Institute, Prepared Statement of the............. 277
1854 Treaty Authority, Prepared Statement of the................. 276
Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government, Prepared Statement of the..... 279
Federal Forest Resource Coalition, Prepared Statement of the..... 283
Fire Suppression Funding Solutions Partner Caucus, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 292
Folger Shakespeare Library, Prepared Statement of the............ 365
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 280
Friends of:
Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 286
Rachel Carson NWR, Prepared Statement of the................. 288
The:
Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge,
Prepared Statement of.................................. 291
Refuge Headwaters, Prepared Statement of................. 288
Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges, Inc., Prepared
Statement of........................................... 294
Geological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the......... 299
Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 296
Hayes, David, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of the Interior..................................... 61
Haze, Pamela, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget, Finance,
Performance and Acquisition, Office of the Secretary,
Department of the Interior..................................... 61
Hoeven, Senator John, U.S. Senator From North Dakota, Questions
Submitted by..................................................55, 130
Humane Society of the United States--Humane Society Legislative
Fund, and Doris Day Animal League, Prepared Statement of the... 300
Independent Tribal Courts Review Team, Prepared Statement of the. 310
Inter Tribal Buffalo Council, Prepared Statement of the.......... 312
Interstate Mining Compact Commission, Prepared Statement of the.. 304
Izaak Walton League of America, Prepared Statement of the........ 314
Jamestown S'klallam Tribe, Prepared Statement of the............. 318
Jewell, Hon. Sally, Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of the Interior..................................... 61
Prepared Statement of........................................ 70
Summary Statement of......................................... 67
Johanns, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator From Nebraska, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 57
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 323
League of American Orchestras, Prepared Statement of the......... 320
Lummi Indian Business Council, Prepared Statements of the......326, 328
M.A.C.T. Health Board, Inc., Prepared Statement of the........... 332
Maniilaq Association, Prepared Statements of the...............329, 334
Marine Conservation Institute, Prepared Statement of the......... 339
Metlakatla Indian Community, Prepared Statement of the........... 341
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 343
Minnesota Citizens for the Arts, Prepared Statement of the....... 337
Mississippi State University, Prepared Statement of.............. 343
Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
Questions Submitted by.................................48, 124, 182
Statements of............................................3, 63, 133
National:
Association of:
Abandoned Mine Land Programs, Prepared Statement of the.. 345
Clean Air Agencies, Prepared Statement of the............ 349
Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 357
Congress of American Indians, Prepared Statements of the...351, 354
Ground Water Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 364
Humanities Alliance, Prepared Statement of the............... 365
Indian Child Welfare Association, Prepared Statement of the.. 368
Institutes for Water Resources, Prepared Statement of the.... 374
Parks Conservation Association, Prepared Statement of the.... 377
Recreation and Park Association, Prepared Statement of the... 380
Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition, Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 386
Trust for Historic Preservation, Prepared Statement of the... 389
Water Resources Association, Prepared Statement of the....... 399
Wildlife:
Federation, Prepared Statement of the.................... 392
Refuge Association, Prepared Statement of the............ 395
Natural Science Collections Alliance, Prepared Statement of the.. 383
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 376
Northern Forest Center, Prepared Statement of the................ 363
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the. 371
Norton Sound Health Corporation, Prepared Statement of the....... 384
Nuclear Energy Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 360
OPERA America, Prepared Statement of............................. 399
Oregon Water Resources Congress, Prepared Statement of the....... 403
Outdoor Industry Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 401
Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 405
Partnership for the National Trails System, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 405
Perciasepe, Bob, Acting Administrator and Deputy Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 9
Summary Statement of......................................... 7
Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Prepared Statement of the............. 409
Quantum Tides, Inc., Prepared Statement of....................... 414
Quinault Indian Nation, Prepared Statement of the................ 412
Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island:
Opening Statements of....................................1, 61, 131
Questions Submitted by.................................37, 115, 173
Roz Schnick Consulting, LLC, Prepared Statement of............... 415
Sac and Fox Nation, Prepared Statement of the.................... 416
Seismological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the...... 439
Seminole Tribe of Florida, Prepared Statement of the............. 439
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 433
Skokomish Tribe of Washington State, Prepared Statement of the... 441
Society:.........................................................
For Historical Archaeology, Prepared Statement of the........ 424
Of American Foresters, Prepared Statement of the............. 418
SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 421
Southcentral Foundation, Prepared Statement of the............... 422
Southern:
Illinois University--Carbondale, Prepared Statement of....... 317
Nevada Water Authority and the Colorado River Commission of
Nevada, Prepared Statements of the.......................430, 431
Squaxin Island Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.................. 427
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Prepared Statement of the............. 436
State of:
New Mexico, Prepared Statement of the........................ 432
Wyoming, Prepared Statement of the........................... 433
Suh, Rhea, Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget,
Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior............ 61
Susan Indian Rancheria, Prepared Statement of.................... 425
Tanana Chiefs Conference, Prepared Statement of the.............. 444
Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana, Question
Submitted by................................................... 181
The:
Conservation Fund, Prepared Statement of..................... 446
Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statements of.................450, 456
Trust for Public Land, Prepared Statement of................. 459
Wildlife Society, Prepared Statement of...................... 462
Theatre Communications Group, Prepared Statement of the.......... 449
Tidwell, Tom, Chief, United States Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 131
Prepared Statement of........................................ 139
Summary Statement of......................................... 137
USGS Coalition, Prepared Statement of the........................ 464
Udall, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From New Mexico, Questions
Submitted by.............................................45, 119, 181
United:
States Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 466
Tribes Technical College, Prepared Statements of the.......468, 471
Western Regional Aquaculture Center, Prepared Statement of the... 473
World Wildlife Fund, Prepared Statement of the................... 474
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
United States Forest Service
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 173
Administrative Grazing Fee....................................... 175
Air:
Taxi Service on the Tongass National Forest.................. 150
Tour Operations.............................................. 182
Airtankers......................................147, 154, 157, 160, 169
Anan Creek Float Dock Status..................................... 187
Budget Request and Focus Areas................................... 141
Challenges to Conservation....................................... 141
Collaboration.................................................... 171
Community Wildfire Protection Plans.............................. 180
Cost Savings..................................................... 145
Cube Cove Acquisition............................................ 182
Fire:
And Aviation................................................. 184
Aviation..................................................... 179
Forest and Rangeland Research.................................... 173
Future Outlook................................................... 146
Hazardous Fuels.................................................. 153
History of Timber Sales and Timeframes From Beginning to
Production..................................................... 158
Integrated Resource Restoration...........................166, 174, 185
Program...................................................... 162
Land:
Acquisition................................................162, 176
Projects................................................. 163
And Water Conservation Fund................................152, 166
Gilchrist Forest Update.................................. 153
Landscape Scale Restoration...................................... 161
Managing Wildland Fires.......................................... 144
National Forest System....................................133, 139, 174
Next Generation Large Air Tanker FAA Certification............... 169
Number of Forest Service Employees in SE......................... 188
Quincy Library Group............................................. 160
Restoration Partnerships......................................... 175
Restoring Ecosystems............................................. 142
Roadless Rule.................................................... 156
Secure Rural Schools............................133, 139, 146, 148, 157
State and Private Forestry................................132, 139, 173
Stewardship:
Contract..................................................... 152
Contracting.................................................. 151
Strengthening Communities and Providing Jobs..................... 143
Timber:
Budget Nationally............................................ 183
Harvest...................................................... 167
Management.................................................135, 158
Sales, Harvest, and Staffing in Region 10.................... 168
Staff Levels................................................. 159
Tongass National Forest, Forest Management Staff................. 172
Tourism.......................................................... 150
Value of the United States Forest Service........................ 140
Wildland Fire Management.............................137, 146, 161, 177
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
A Stronger Energy Future......................................... 72
Additional Committee Questions................................... 114
Affordable Care Act.............................................. 92
Alaska:
Conveyance................................................... 81
Legacy Wells................................................. 82
Arctic OCS Regulations........................................... 111
BLM Pilot Offices................................................ 122
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management/Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement New Arctic Regulations............... 124
California Water................................................. 89
Contract Support Costs........................................... 113
Ellis Island..................................................... 118
Fire Funding..................................................... 119
Firefighting Aircraft............................................ 85
Fiscal Responsibility............................................ 76
Fish Hatcheries.................................................. 105
Fulfilling the Trust............................................. 73
Great Smoky Mountains National Park..............................95, 97
Hazardous Fuels.................................................. 98
Heritage Areas................................................... 80
Hurricane Sandy.................................................. 79
Hydraulic Fracturing...........................................102, 103
Indian Programs.................................................. 69
Investing in America............................................. 71
King Cove Road................................................... 124
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.............................. 99
Land and Water Conservation Fund...........................68, 110, 120
Mandatory Proposals.............................................. 77
Mining Law Reform................................................ 94
Mississippi National Parks....................................... 106
National:
Heritage Areas............................................... 115
Marine Fisheries--Arctic OCS EIS............................. 125
Wildlife Refuge Fund/Payments in Lieu of Taxes............... 127
North Dakota Oil Reserve Assessment.............................. 102
Offsetting Collections and Fees.................................. 79
Offshore Wind.................................................... 106
Oil and Gas Permitting........................................... 102
Oil/Gas Development Public Lands................................. 126
Parks and River Management....................................... 122
Price's Dairy (Valle Del National Wildlife Refuge)............... 121
Red River Valley Water Supply Project............................ 101
Renewable Energy................................................. 83
Resource Management Plan......................................... 100
Rhode Island National Park....................................... 81
Science.......................................................... 68
Sea Lamprey...................................................... 104
Sequestration..........................................67, 91, 106, 117
And Mineral Revenue Payments................................. 94
In Indian Country............................................85, 93
Spirit Lake Nation Child Protective Services..................... 102
Spurring Growth and Innovation Through Science................... 75
St. Louis Arch................................................... 86
2014 Budget..............................................62, 68, 69, 71
2013 Appropriations.............................................. 70
Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery.............................. 108
Program....................................................107, 116
Water............................................................ 93
For a Growing America........................................ 76
White-Nose Syndrome in Bats.....................................96, 105
Wildland Fire................................................84, 89, 95
Wind Energy and Bonding..........................................97, 98
Youth............................................................ 109
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Additional Committee Questions................................... 37
Aerial Fights Over Feedlots...................................... 24
Authority Under CWA Section 404.................................. 14
Beaches Protection Categorical Grants............................ 41
Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment.................................13, 22
Completion................................................... 23
Brownfields...................................................... 16
Projects..................................................... 42
Citizen-Suit Transparency........................................ 57
Commercial Fishing Sector NPDES Problem.......................... 52
Cooling Water Intake Structures--CWA 316(b)...................... 59
Cost Benefit Analysis............................................ 36
DeSoto County Attainment......................................... 54
E-Enterprise Initiative.......................................... 41
E-Government..................................................... 32
Environmental Education.......................................... 40
Fertilizer Plant Explosion in West, Texas........................ 37
FOIA Disclosure.................................................. 57
Forest Roads/Silvicultural Exemption from CWA.................... 50
GHG Powerplant Rulemakings....................................... 51
Gulf of Mexico................................................... 21
Hurricane Sandy Supplemental..................................... 12
Hydraulic Fracturing.............................................44, 48
Information on Laws That Prevent the EPA From Going Electronic
(Electronic Filing) in Certain Cases........................... 33
Keystone Pipeline................................................ 48
Mine Screening................................................... 45
New Source:
Performance Standards........................................ 35
Review....................................................... 33
PM2.5................................................. 28
Radon Grants..................................................... 42
Regional Haze:
Program...................................................... 55
Rule......................................................... 52
Responsible Parties.............................................. 47
Rural Water Systems.............................................. 53
Sequester and Permitting Process................................. 31
Sequestration.................................................... 43
Southeast New England Coastal Watershed Restoration Program...... 40
State Revolving Funds....................................11, 27, 45, 53
Sulfur Content Rule for Gasoline................................. 51
Superfund Budget................................................. 46
Timing of EPA Action Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.... 20
Uranium Pollution--Indian Reservations........................... 15
Wetlands......................................................... 18
Veto Authority............................................... 19