    [Senate Hearing 113-631]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 113-631

                                                       Senate Hearings

                                 Before the Committee on Appropriations
    ______________________________________________________________________

                              Department of the Interior,

                                        Environment, and

                                        Related Agencies

                                        Appropriations

                                              Fiscal Year 2015

                                  113th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

                                                        H.R. 5171

    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

         Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
                        Appropriations, 2015 (H.R. 5171)

                                                            S. Hrg. 113-631

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                                   H.R. 5171

       AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
    ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
                        30, 2015, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

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

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

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

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    87-250 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2015
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      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
    MARK PRYOR, Arkansas                 MARK KIRK, Illinois
    JON TESTER, Montana                  DANIEL COATS, Indiana
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico                ROY BLUNT, Missouri
    JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
    MARK BEGICH, Alaska                  MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
                       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                  RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama (ex
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland            officio)
      (ex officio)
                               Professional Staff

                                 Rachael Taylor
                                  Ginny James
                                   Ryan Hunt
                           Leif Fonnesbeck (Minority)
                             Brent Wiles (Minority)
                            Emy Lesofski (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                  Teri Curtin

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                           Wednesday, March 26, 2014

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

                            Wednesday, April 9, 2014

    Environmental Protection Agency..................................    83

                           Wednesday, April 30, 2014

    Department of Agriculture: United States Forest Service..........   127

              Statements and Letters of Nondepartmental Witnesses

    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   189

                                  Back Matter

    List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements.......  (i)
    Subject Index....................................................  (v)

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2014

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:19 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Reed, Feinstein, Leahy, Johnson, Tester,
    Udall, Merkley, Begich, Murkowski, Cochran, Alexander, Blunt,
    Hoeven, and Johanns.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            HON. MIKE CONNOR, DEPUTY SECRETARY
            HON. RHEA SUH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND
                BUDGET
            PAMELA K. HAZE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUDGET, FINANCE,
                PERFORMANCE AND ACQUISITION

                     opening statement of senator jack reed

        Senator Reed. Let me call the hearing to order. We will
    follow the early bird rule in recognizing my colleagues who are
    here, and we will have 6-minute rounds. And I want to welcome
    the Secretary and her colleagues.
        This is our first budget hearing of the year. It is a
    hearing to discuss the fiscal year 2015 budget of the
    Department of the Interior. I am very pleased to welcome
    Secretary Sally Jewell before the subcommittee this morning.
        Madam Secretary, we have a lot of ground to cover with your
    budget request, and we are looking forward to hearing you
    articulate your priorities for the Department.
        I would also like to recognize the Department's new Deputy
    Secretary, Mike Connor, who was unanimously confirmed by the
    Senate on February 27. Mr. Connor is a former commissioner of
    the Bureau of Reclamation. He is also an alumnus of the Senate
    Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. This is his first
    time testifying before the Interior subcommittee of the United
    States Senate in his new role.
        And welcome, Mr. Connor.
        Finally, I would like to recognize Ms. Rhea Suh, Assistant
    Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget; and Ms. Pam Haze,
    her deputy.
        We are happy to have you here before us, and we value the
    day-to-day work that we do with you and your terrific budget
    staff very much.
        Turning to the Department's budget request, the
    discretionary total funded by the subcommittee increases by
    about 1 percent over fiscal year 2014, for a total of $10.6
    billion. It is a relatively flat budget.
        Including the administration's new disaster cap proposal
    for firefighting, however, the total budget increases by almost
    4 percent for a total of $10.8 billion.
        I am hopeful that providing a new framework for
    firefighting funding will prevent the Department from running
    out of funds before the end of the fiscal year and having to
    borrow from other programs. I am also hopeful that it will
    prevent the subcommittee from being forced to make difficult
    cuts to other priorities to pay for emergency firefighting.
        It is worth noting that in fiscal year 2014, we provided
    $3.9 billion for firefighting, including $600 million to pay
    for fire expenses from the prior year. We acted similarly in
    the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution, where we provided
    more than $400 million for the fire expenses from the previous
    year.
        Congress was forced to pay for these additional costs with
    our regular discretionary appropriations because we did not
    have access to disaster funding. This means that, in the last 2
    years, we have had to reallocate resources from other
    discretionary programs to pay for emergency firefighting
    activities.
        Paying for firefighting has meant less for water and sewer
    projects, Land and Water Conservation Fund programs, resource
    conservation, improvements to energy permitting, and all the
    other activities we fund through this bill.
        I am very pleased to see that the President has focused on
    this issue and has included a new budget framework to alleviate
    some of the difficulties we face.
        I understand that this proposal would designate a portion
    of the fire funding to be disaster-related and, therefore, fall
    under the budgetary spending cap for disaster.
        I am looking forward to hearing your testimony on how we
    can expect this new funding stream to work, Madam Secretary.
        I am looking forward to discussion on the legislative
    strategy necessary to make disaster funding available to this
    subcommittee.
        The budget also contains modest increases to fund fixed
    costs that Interior bureaus invest in science and research
    programs and fund tribal priorities. I am pleased that it
    provides $40 million in discretionary funding to fund
    improvements in programs for national parks, as we gear up for
    the Park Service's centennial in 2016.
        This amount includes a $10 million request to reinvigorate
    the Centennial Challenge grant program and leverage non-Federal
    investments to improve park facilities and visitor services.
        Finally, I am particularly pleased that your budget request
    contains a $51 million request to fund youth education and
    employment programs to fund efforts to, in your words, Madam
    Secretary, play, learn, serve, and work. I know this initiative
    is personally important to you, Madam Secretary, and I look
    forward to hearing more from you about it this morning.
        And before we get started, let me turn to my ranking
    member, Senator Murkowski, for her remarks.
        Senator Murkowski.

                      statement of senator lisa murkowski

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, Madam Secretary.
        Good morning, and I, too, echo the chairman's comments in
    welcoming you to your new position, Mr. Connor. I know you have
    a lot of work to do there, and we appreciate that.
        Ms. Suh, Ms. Haze, also welcome to the committee.
        Fellow colleagues, I have asked the chairman for a bit of
    indulgence this morning in perhaps going a little bit longer in
    my opening statement than I otherwise would.
        I have had an opportunity to speak with the Secretary about
    an issue that is very close and very personal to me; to the
    people of King Cove, many of whom I know you have had a chance
    to visit with yesterday and who are here today; but truly, to
    the people of Alaska.
        And while I will direct most of my questions to the
    specifics within the budget, I wanted to take this opportunity
    as part of my opening statement to speak to an issue that has
    galvanized Alaskans, not just during this year with the recent
    decision made by the Secretary, but truly for the past several
    decades as the people of King Cove have sought an answer to
    their quest for a simple road to safety.
        Secretary, I will never forget the telephone conversation
    that you and I had on December 23 when I was sitting in the
    parking lot of the Fred Meyer store, waiting to go in and get
    gift wrap and other sundry things for the Christmas holidays.
    And you told me at that time that you were rejecting the
    lifesaving gravel access road to King Cove.
        I told you at that time and I have repeated, I cannot
    convey in words adequate to describe the frustration, the
    anger, the sadness with which I received that decision, how
    disheartened I knew the people of King Cove would be.
        And adding insult to injury, the fact that it was delivered
    the day before Christmas Eve, what should have been a joyous
    holiday time for the people of this small community, a break
    from the political rhetoric that goes on, it ruined the
    holidays for, certainly, the people of King Cove, certainly put
    a damper on all that I was doing, knowing how the people were
    going to bear the weight of this decision.
        I will never ever understand the timing of the decision,
    and I am still trying to reconcile the reasons behind your
    decision.
        I know, as I mentioned, the folks that are here from King
    Cove that have traveled over 4,000 miles to be here, to try to
    speak with you after many attempts and opportunities to discuss
    this issue. I am not certain that they feel any more convinced
    today than they have been about the prospects that they have as
    a people fighting for a small road up against an administration
    and a decision that seemingly makes no sense whatsoever.
        For my colleagues here, and those in the audience that may
    be unfamiliar with the history of this issue, with the Omnibus
    Public Land bill of 2009, we authorized the Interior Department
    to transfer over 60,000 acres of State and private land to the
    Izembek Refuge.
        And we did this in exchange for just over 200 acres. It was
    206 acres of Federal land. This is a 300 to 1 exchange. A 300
    to 1 exchange that had been negotiated with the folks from Fish
    and Wildlife, that had been negotiated with the native people
    of King Cove, with individuals from the State, with the
    delegation.
        It was a pretty remarkable exchange. And this was all done
    to provide the 965 residents of the King Cove community a safe
    and reliable access to the all-weather airport in Cold Bay, the
    second longest runway in the State of Alaska, built after World
    War II. And the exchange was not only extraordinarily lopsided,
    but what the people of King Cove agreed to was that they would
    not use this road for commercial purposes, because there were
    some who suggested that the processing facility there might
    want this road to make money. They agreed that it would be used
    for noncommercial use.
        So imagine, if you will, a 10-mile, one-lane, gravel,
    noncommercial-use road with barricades or cordons on either
    side, so that you cannot move off the road. Pretty specific
    road. That is it. It is not a major highway. We are not even
    going to pave it.
        King Cove is a community with a clinic, no hospital, no
    doctor. Residents have to fly from Cold Bay more than 600 miles
    to get to Anchorage where a hospital that can handle critical
    medical procedures exists.
        But the problem that we have in King Cove is that weather
    and very difficult geography doesn't allow for reliable access
    from the community of King Cove to Cold Bay, so that these
    flights are often canceled, weathered out, just don't happen.
        Since the decision was made December 23, there have been
    seven emergency medevacs out of King Cove, including four that
    have been performed by the Coast Guard.
        Just about a week and a half ago, there were two medevacs
    conducted in one day, a fisherman who had been crushed by a
    crab pot, crushed his pelvis and both legs. He was taken to the
    clinic there in King Cove, and while he was in the clinic,
    discovers that a 1-month-old infant who was there in
    respiratory distress and also needs to be medevaced out, that
    it is his son.
        So we have a father and a son in the clinic, waiting for
    evacuation. Through the grace of God and the bravery, the
    bravery, of the Coast Guard and the other responders, that dad
    and his baby are doing fine.
        The 63-year-old woman who was medevaced out by the Coast
    Guard on Valentine's Day, who was suffering heart conditions,
    is also doing fine.
        But as the Coast Guard will describe, and as the video
    describes, the conditions that the Coast Guard responded to
    were truly, truly life-threatening.
        Every Coast Guard flight risks the lives of at least four
    Coast Guard men and women, not to mention the patient that they
    are trying to evacuate.
        In the situation of the father and his young son, they had
    to wait hours. Sometimes folks have to wait days to receive
    these emergency medical evacuations.
        It is not without cost. It is not without risk. Each one of
    these Coast Guard evacuations costs a minimum of $210,000 to go
    from Cold Bay to King Cove.
        Those are taxpayer dollars. Those are Coast Guard men and
    women's lives at risk. And they take on the humanitarian issue
    and mission because that is who they are. But it is not the
    mission of the Coast Guard to provide for evacuation services
    to an airport for the residents of King Cove.
        There is a safe and easy way to help our fellow citizens.
    And the only thing that is standing in the way is our own
    Federal Government's decision to place a higher value on the
    birds than it does on the health and safety of my State's
    citizens. And that is simply wrong.
        Madam Secretary, your Department claims to honor the trust
    responsibility, and to improve the lives of our Alaskan
    natives, including the majority Aleut residents in King Cove.
    But the decision that you made in December flies in the face of
    this responsibility.
        The notion from your Department that you must protect
    Alaska from Alaska natives, our first people, is insulting. And
    that is the way that Alaskans feel. We feel insulted that we
    cannot care for the land and the animals and the birds, and
    still provide for a safe, reliable access.
        The people of King Cove have been living in this area for
    thousands of years. They rely on the birds. They rely on the
    wildlife. They have been stewards long before there was ever a
    refuge, long before there was ever a wilderness.
        When you announced your decision in December, you
    recognized the need for reliable methods of emergency transport
    from King Cove. You reaffirmed the Department's commitment to
    ``assist in identifying and evaluating options that would
    improve access to affordable transportation and health care.''
        But, Madam Secretary, we have seen none of this. I did not
    hear any clear direction from you yesterday when we met. I
    asked Assistant Secretary Suh during your confirmation hearing
    last month whether you could name an action, any one single
    action, that you or anyone at Interior has taken to protect the
    health and safety of King Cove residents since the road was
    rejected in December. I have seen nothing.
        The passage of time on this issue has not lessened my
    passion to see justice for the people of King Cove.
        I will not get over this issue. I am also unwilling to
    allow your Department to do nothing to help the Alaskans that
    it has promised to assist who, at this point, I believe we are
    seeing only further imperiled. Seven medevacs since the first
    of January.
        I think my colleagues need to know, I think the
    administration needs to know, I think, Secretary Jewell, you
    know very clearly, I will do everything, everything in my power
    for as long as I am here, to enable the people of King Cove to
    receive proper emergency access that the rest of us take for
    granted.
        If you are not going to reverse the decision that you
    announced on December 23, I believe that the least you can do
    is reopen the record of decision in order to reconsider the
    issue, because you need to know that I will not stand by and
    watch as more Alaskan lives are put at risk, put at risk,
    potentially, to die. I will not let this issue die.
        When I spoke before the Alaska Legislature in February, I
    spoke with great passion about this issue. Alaskans are very
    passionate about this issue. And I said maybe I need to channel
    my inner Ted Stevens, and everybody laughed, because they knew
    what that meant.
        When Ted was really agitated, and really going to let
    nothing stand in his way, he would wear his Hulk tie. Today, I
    have a Hulk scarf on, and I don't typically engage in much
    drama. I am not a message person. I am a person who wants to
    get something done.
        But I need you to carry the message to this administration
    that this road is nonnegotiable, that the health and safety of
    the people of King Cove is nonnegotiable. And that I will do
    everything, everything within my power, to make sure that the
    needs of these people are taken care of and put first, put
    first, because that is my charge, to take care of the people of
    the State of Alaska, for whom I work.
        Madam Secretary, as we discussed yesterday, it is
    important. It is important for you, it is important for me, and
    is important for my State, that we are able to work on issues
    together.
        I am not an unreasonable woman, and I believe you want to
    do right as well, and you have an opportunity to demonstrate
    that. And I would hope, again, that you would look at the
    facts, you would listen to the people of King Cove, you would
    listen to Alaskans, and you would listen to your heart in doing
    the right thing.
        I look forward to discussing some of the issues within your
    budget during our questions. But it was too important for the
    people that I represent that I take this time this morning to
    make very clear for the record, for my colleagues, for you, and
    for the administration, that we are not done with this issue.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Do any of my colleagues have very brief opening comments?
    Your statements will be made part of the record, by unanimous
    consent.
        If there are no opening statements, let me recognize
    Secretary Jewell.
        Madam Secretary.

                     summary statement of hon. sally jewell

        Secretary Jewell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
    Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee. I
    really appreciate you being here, and willingness to talk
    through the budget of the Department of the Interior, and for
    the effective way in which you represent your constituents from
    your various States.
        It has been a pleasure getting to know all of you in this
    almost 1 year that I have been in this position.
        For Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich, I do appreciate
    the commitment that you have to the citizens of the State of
    Alaska, and I understand your advocacy.
        I appreciated our meeting yesterday morning, Senator
    Murkowski, and Senator Begich, our meeting yesterday afternoon
    with the residents of King Cove. I, certainly, through the 300
    or so meetings and consultations that my Department has had on
    the King Cove issue continue to be a listener and look at the
    facts throughout this whole process.
        I appreciate the passion you have expressed, and I also
    appreciate the people who have traveled so many miles to be at
    this hearing today.
        I have with me, as you recognized, my newly minted Deputy
    Secretary. We appreciate your support for Mike in this
    position.
        One of the biggest issues that we face throughout the West
    is drought, severe drought. Mike is not only an expert in that,
    having been Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, but many
    other topics as well.
        Rhea Suh, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
    Budget, the Department's Chief Financial Officer, has done a
    terrific job these last 5 years in very complicated times for
    budgets, ably assisted by Deputy Assistant Secretary Pam Haze
    and the crew.
        I also want to recognize Rachael Taylor and Leif Fonnesbeck
    for your support of this committee and my team as we work
    together.
        It has been about a year since I met with you. It was an
    interesting year, 2013, with the sequestration and the
    shutdown. I want to express my sincere appreciation for a
    budget for 2014 that brings clarity and certainty to my
    teammates, even if the numbers are tight.
        Today, as we present our 2015 budget, I am going to share a
    few highlights and focus on areas of interest, I believe, to
    the subcommittee.
        First, from a big picture standpoint, it is a solid budget.
    It is responsible. It makes smart decisions in Interior's
    missions. It is within the budget caps agreed to by the
    Bipartisan Budget Act.

                                 wildland fire

        In total, including this subcommittee's oversight and some
    others, the budget is $11.9 billion. As Senator Reed mentioned,
    it is an increase of $275 million, or 2.4 percent, from 2014,
    but of that, $240 million is for emergency fire suppression.
        It is a new and prudent budget framework to ensure adequate
    funding to suppress severe catastrophic fires. I was just at
    the National Interagency Fire Center with Senator Merkley,
    Senator Wyden, Senators Crapo and Risch, to talk about this
    program.
        What we are doing is proposing to change how fire
    suppression costs are budgeted to treat extreme fire seasons in
    the same way as other natural disasters. We believe it is
    prudent and logical to do that.
        What is in the President's budget is very similar to what
    has been proposed by Senators Wyden and Crapo and in companion
    legislation in the House to balance post-fire remediation,
    fuels removal, like hazardous fuels, and suppression on a year-
    in, year-out basis, so we are not raiding these funds. It is
    modeled on the Federal Emergency Management Disaster Relief
    Program.
        There are no additions to the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency (FEMA) Disaster Relief program. It is all done within
    the disaster cap. We believe very strongly that it needs to go
    forward, and we will be working alongside you on the
    legislation to enable that.

                                 indian affairs

        Next I want to say that presentation of a robust program
    for American Indians and Alaskan natives has been a key goal
    for me. This budget includes full funding for estimated
    contract support costs, something the tribes have said is
    critical to them, and enables them to operate their federally
    funded programs.
        It also includes $11.6 million for a new Tiwahe, or family-
    based initiative, to address the interrelated problems of
    poverty, housing, violence, and substance abuse faced by Indian
    communities, as we have seen in a number of places across the
    country.
        This request is complemented by a proposal for education
    and economic development in Indian country as part of President
    Obama's Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative.

                        land and water conservation fund

        Next I want to turn to the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund, as the President seeks to fulfill a historic commitment
    to America's natural and cultural heritage through full and
    permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as
    originally envisioned when this legislation was enacted 49
    years ago. It was generated to take revenues from offshore oil
    and gas production and mitigate those impacts through
    supporting things in every county across the country, like
    access for hunting and fishing, creating ball fields and other
    places for kids to play and learn, to acquire land to reduce
    fragmentation and facilitate efficient land management, to
    protect Civil War battlefields, and to put conservation
    easements in place to take care of important habitat for
    species, while keeping farms and ranches working.

                           national parks centennial

        As Chairman Reed mentioned, in 2016, we celebrate the
    centennial of the National Park Service--obviously, a once in a
    lifetime event. This budget proposes a robust increase in
    multiple sources for the National Park system, $40 million in
    current appropriations in 2015. $10 million will be used to
    match private philanthropy, and there is a lot of private
    philanthropy interest in the parks. $30 million to support the
    visitor experience and critical needs to repair assets in the
    parks.
        We are also proposing a $1.2 billion permanent investment
    over 3 years at $400 million a year to support high-priority
    projects and further enhance the visitor experience, because we
    know a lot more traffic will be driven to the parks, both
    internationally and domestically, through the centennial.

                  opportunity, growth, and security initiative

        The President's Opportunity, Growth, and Security
    Initiative also adds additional money for the national parks to
    begin to address the issue of deferred maintenance on national
    parklands and other public lands.

                                     youth

        As Chairman Reed mentioned, for the health of our economy
    and our public lands, it is also critical we work now to
    establish meaningful and deep connections between young people
    from every background to nature and the great outdoors. The
    President's budget proposes $51 million across our bureaus to
    support partnership programs, hiring, and educational
    opportunities aimed at youth and veterans between the ages of
    18 and 30.
        It will also leverage private donations. I have been trying
    to raise private money to support this and support work with
    youth and veterans conservation corps, so we get young people
    connected to our public lands for the future.

                                     energy

        On the topic of energy, the budget proposes the President's
    national energy initiatives continue to be an area of focus to
    generate jobs and help the Nation achieve greater energy self-
    reliance. We have made good progress.
        In total, including all sources, the 2015 budget for energy
    programs is $753.2 million, just under a $41 million increase
    from 2014. It includes funding for both conventional and
    renewable energy development, basic science and applied
    research to understand the impacts of development on water, on
    habitat, on wildlife, and other natural resources.

                            landscape level approach

        Across the Department, we are taking a landscape level
    approach to development. We are modernizing programs and
    practices. We are streamlining permitting, strengthening
    inspection and enforcement, and ensuring a fair return for the
    American public.

                                    science

        Next, in the field of science, research and development,
    particularly conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey and other
    bureaus, is vital to help us understand and address important
    scientific questions. There is a $60 million increase in the
    budget from 2014 to improve our knowledge about issues such as
    climate change, hydraulic fracturing, Asian carp, white nose
    syndrome in bats, and other issues.
        As an example, Interior's climate science centers are
    developing regional drought impact scenarios. We are evaluating
    coastal flooding. We are studying the impacts on the Nation's
    wildlife and habitats, which will inform our land management
    decisions.

                                     water

        Last but certainly not least, and something that I am
    comforted having Mike Connor at my side over, is around water.
    We recognize the challenges of water supplies, especially
    during this time of extended drought in the West. I am very
    happy Mike was confirmed by you very recently as Deputy
    Secretary, because he has a very deep background on these
    issues.
        The 2015 budget will increase our WaterSMART programs
    around conservation, helping people conserve by $9.5 million.
    The Bureau of Reclamation, along with many partners, States,
    and stakeholders, is working on long-term solutions to address
    future water supply needs.

                                 climate change

        The President also announced a $1 billion Climate
    Resilience Fund. The Fund would support research on the
    projected impacts of climate change, help communities become
    more resilient, and fund breakthrough technologies.
        These efforts are specifically designed to address the
    challenges of changing climate on water resources.

                               prepared statement

        So in closing, I look forward to working with you this
    budget season on these issues. I would be delighted to answer
    your questions. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Hon. Sally Jewell
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
    present the 2015 President's budget for the Department of the Interior.
        This subcommittee remains an important partner in the
    accomplishment of Interior's mission and I appreciate our excellent
    working relationship, which allows us to resolve challenges and take
    advantage of opportunities. I appreciate the efforts of the
    subcommittee in the development of 2014 appropriations that alleviated
    the need for indiscriminate sequester of discretionary funds and
    minimized legislative riders.
        This budget is balanced and responsible and supports Interior's
    pivotal role as a driver of jobs and economic activity in communities
    across the country. It enables us to carry out core mission
    responsibilities and commitments. This budget allows Interior to uphold
    trust responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives, provides
    a new approach for responsibly budgeting for wildland fire suppression
    needs, invests in climate resilience, continues smart and balanced all-
    of-the-above energy development on and offshore, and bolsters our
    national parks and public lands in advance of the National Park
    Service's 100th anniversary in 2016.
        Interior's programs and activities serve as economic engines in
    communities across the Nation, contributing an estimated $371 billion
    to the economy in 2012 and supporting an estimated 2.3 million American
    jobs. Of this total, energy and mineral development on Interior-managed
    lands and offshore areas generated more than $255 billion of this
    economic activity and supported 1.3 million jobs. Recreation and
    tourism on Interior lands contributed $45 billion to the economies of
    local communities and supported nearly 372,000 jobs. Water supply,
    forage and timber activities, primarily on public lands in the West,
    contributed more than $50 billion and supported 365,000 jobs.
        The President's 2015 budget for the Department of the Interior
    totals $11.9 billion, an increase of 2.4 percent from 2014, which
    includes a cap exemption for fire emergencies. Without this exemption,
    Interior's budget totals $11.7 billion, a 0.3 percent increase, or
    nearly level with this year's funding.
        This budget features three key legislative proposals: a new
    framework to fund wildland fire suppression requirements; additional
    investment in the infrastructure and visitor experience at our National
    Parks and public lands; and full and permanent funding for the Land and
    Wildlife Conservation Fund (LWCF). Each of these proposals will
    significantly enhance our ability to conserve and manage the Nation's
    public lands.
        The budget proposes to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency
    Deficit Control Act of 1985, to provide stable funding for fire
    suppression, while minimizing the adverse impacts of fire transfers on
    other Interior programs, and allowing Interior to reduce fire risk,
    manage landscapes more comprehensively, and increase the resiliency of
    public lands and the communities that border them. In this proposed new
    framework, $268.6 million, or 70 percent of the 10-year average for
    suppression response is funded within the discretionary spending limits
    and $240.4 million is available as an adjustment above those limits, if
    needed based on a challenging fire season. In addition, it does not
    increase overall discretionary spending, as it would reduce the ceiling
    for the existing disaster relief cap adjustment by an equivalent amount
    as is provided for wildfire suppression operations.
        In advance of the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service in
    2016, the 2015 budget proposes a comprehensive Centennial Initiative
    investment in the parks and public lands. The funding would provide
    targeted increases for a multi-year effort to recommit to the
    preservation of these special places, to invest wisely in the park
    system's most important assets, to use parks to enhance informal
    learning, engage volunteers, provide training opportunities to youth,
    and enhance the National Park Service's ability to leverage
    partnerships to accomplish its mission.
        Finally, the President's budget continues to support full,
    permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, one of the
    Nation's most effective tools for expanding access for hunting and
    fishing, creating ballfields and other places for children to play and
    learn, protecting traditional uses such as working ranches and farms,
    acquiring inholdings to manage contiguous landscapes, and protecting
    Civil War battlefields. The 2015 budget proposes total funding of $900
    million for LWCF in Interior and the U.S. Forest Service. Within this
    total, $350 million is requested as current funding and $550 million as
    part of a permanent funding proposal. Starting in 2016, the proposal
    would provide $900 million annually in permanent funding.
        Complementing the 2015 budget request is $346 million identified
    for Interior programs as part of the President's Opportunity, Growth,
    and Security Initiative to spur economic progress and promote
    opportunity. If approved, these investments will enable significant
    progress to address long-term needs in the areas of national parks and
    other public lands, research and development, infrastructure and
    permitting support, climate resiliency, and education and economic
    development in Indian Country.
        The drought in California and other Western States underscores the
    importance of improving the resilience of communities to the effects of
    climate change. The President's Opportunity, Growth, and Security
    Initiative includes a $1 billion government-wide Climate Resilience
    Fund to invest in developing more resilient communities, and finding
    solutions to climate challenges through technology development and
    applied research. This Fund includes about $240 million for Interior
    programs that invest in research and development, assist Tribes and
    local communities in planning and preparing for extreme weather
    conditions and events, and support public land managers in landscape
    and watershed planning to increase resiliency and reduce risks.
                                  2015 budget
        The 2015 budget request includes $10.6 billion in current funding
    for programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior, Environment and
    Related Agencies subcommittee. This is a $104.9 million, or 1 percent,
    increase compared to 2014. Total funding for the Department includes $1
    billion requested for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah
    Completion Act, which are under the jurisdiction of the Energy and
    Water Development subcommittee.
        In addition to the proposals already discussed, the 2015 request
    sustains support for essential requirements and allows for targeted
    increases above the 2014 enacted level. Within the overall increase for
    2015, $54.4 million covers fixed cost increases for such things as
    Federal pay and rent. Reflecting the need to prioritize budget
    resources, this request includes $413.3 million in proposed program
    reductions to offset other programmatic requirements.
        Interior programs continue to generate more revenue for the
    American people than the Department's annual current appropriation. In
    2015, Interior will generate estimated receipts of nearly $14.9
    billion, a portion of which is shared with State and local governments
    to meet a variety of needs, including school funding, infrastructure
    improvements, and water-conservation projects. Also included with this
    request are revenue and savings legislative proposals estimated to
    generate more than $2.6 billion over the next decade.
        Putting this budget in context, Interior's complex 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 417 million visits to Interior-managed lands. The
    Department oversees the responsible development of over 20 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 2 million
    American Indian and Alaska Native peoples.
               celebrating and enhancing america's great outdoors
        Throughout American history, the great outdoors have shaped the
    Nation's character and strengthened its economy. The 2015 budget
    requests the resources and authorities to care for our public lands and
    prepare for the future. The budget invests in efforts to upgrade and
    restore national parks and other public lands areas, while engaging
    thousands of Americans, including youth, and veterans. The budget
    strengthens the President's commitment to the America's Great Outdoors
    initiative with a request of $5.1 billion in current funding for
    programs, including the operation of public land management units in
    the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS) and
    Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); the Land and Water Conservation Fund;
    and grants and technical assistance to States and others. This is an
    increase of $127.1 million compared to the 2014 enacted level.
        Coupled with these efforts is a historic commitment to America's
    natural and cultural heritage through Land and Water Conservation Fund
    programs. The budget includes a 2015 combined request of $672.3 million
    ($246 million discretionary and $426.3 million mandatory) for
    Interior's LWCF programs that conserve lands and support outdoor
    recreation. In current funding, the request for land acquisition is
    $147.9 million, with $39.5 million identified for Collaborative
    Landscape Planning projects. A total of $98.1 million is requested in
    current funding for LWCF conservation grants, including $48.1 million
    for LWCF stateside grants.
        I could not highlight our stewardship efforts without discussing
    the upcoming centennial of the National Park Service in 2016. Overall,
    the Centennial Initiative--including mandatory, discretionary, and
    Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative resources--will allow NPS
    to ensure that 1,700 (or 20 percent) of the highest priority park
    assets are restored to good condition. The effort creates thousands of
    jobs over 3 years, provides over 10,000 work and training opportunities
    to young people, and engages more than 265,000 volunteers in support of
    public lands.
        The request for the Centennial Initiative proposes a $40 million
    increase in current appropriations in 2015, plus an additional $400
    million in permanent funding each year for 3 years. That funding
    includes $100 million for a Centennial Challenge to match private
    philanthropy, $200 million for National Park Service facilities
    improvements, and $100 million for a Centennial Land Management
    Investment Fund to competitively allocate funds to meet land
    conservation and deferred maintenance needs among Interior's land-
    management agencies and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's U.S.
    Forest Service. The President's Opportunity, Growth, and Security
    Initiative identifies investments of $100 million for National Park
    Service deferred maintenance and an additional $100 million for the
    Centennial Land Management Investment Fund.
                          strengthening tribal nations
        Sustaining the President's commitment to tribal sovereignty and
    self-determination and honoring Interior's trust responsibilities to
    the 566 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes
    and more than 2 million people served by these programs, the 2015
    budget for Indian Affairs is $2.6 billion, an increase of $33.6 million
    above the 2014 enacted level. The budget invests in: advancing nation-
    to-nation relationships and tribal self-determination, supporting and
    protecting Indian families and communities, sustainable stewardship of
    energy and natural resources, and improving education in Indian
    Country.
        Recognizing this commitment to tribal self-governance and self-
    determination, the budget fully funds contract support costs Tribes
    incur as managers of the programs serving Native Americans. The budget
    requests $251 million, a $4 million increase over the 2014 enacted
    level, to fully fund estimated contract support needs in 2015.
        Supporting families and communities, the 2015 budget launches the
    Tiwahe Initiative, with an increase of $11.6 million in social services
    and job training programs to address the interrelated problems of child
    and family welfare, poverty, violence and substance abuse in tribal
    communities. Tiwahe is the Lakota word for ``family.'' Through this
    initiative, social services and job training programs will be
    integrated and expanded to provide culturally appropriate programs to
    assist and empower families and individuals through economic
    opportunity, health promotion, family stability, and strengthened
    communities.
        Promoting public safety and tribal community resilience, the 2015
    budget request includes resources to build on Bureau of Indian Affairs
    (BIA) Law Enforcement's recent successes in reducing violent crime. A
    pilot program will be implemented to lower repeat incarceration rates
    in tribally operated jails on three reservations--Red Lake in
    Minnesota, Ute Mountain in Colorado, and Duck Valley in Nevada--with a
    goal to materially lower repeat incarcerations. Through an Alternatives
    to Incarceration Strategy, this pilot will seek to address underlying
    causes of repeat offenses, such as substance abuse and lack of adequate
    access to social service support, through intergovernmental and inter-
    agency partnerships.
        The 2015 budget request is complemented by a proposal in the
    President's Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative to further
    invest in economic development and education to promote strong,
    resilient tribal economies and improve educational opportunities in
    Indian Country.
                              powering our future
        As part of the President's all-of-the-above energy strategy to
    expand safe and responsible domestic energy production, the 2015 budget
    provides $753.2 million for conventional and renewable energy programs,
    an increase of $40.7 million above the 2014 enacted level. The budget
    includes measures to encourage responsible, diligent development and a
    fair return for American taxpayers.
        Funding for conventional energy and compliance activities totals
    $658.4 million, an increase of $37.5 million over the 2014 level.
    Spending from fees and permanent funding related to onshore oil and gas
    activities increase $49.1 million from the 2014 level, primarily
    reflecting a proposal to expand onshore oil and gas inspection
    activities and to offset the Bureau of Land Management's inspection
    program costs to the taxpayer with fees from industry, similar to what
    the offshore industry now pays.
        The budget includes $169.8 million for the Bureau of Ocean Energy
    Management and $204.6 million for the Bureau of Safety and
    Environmental Enforcement to support domestic energy production,
    including new leasing, strong safety oversight of offshore operations,
    enhanced environmental enforcement functions, and expanded training and
    electronic inspection capabilities.
        The 2015 budget includes $94.8 million for renewable energy
    activities, a $3.2 million increase over the 2014 level. This funding
    maintains the Department's emphasis on strategic investments to advance
    clean energy and meet the President's goal to approve 20,000 megawatts
    of renewable energy on public lands by 2020 (relative to 2009 levels).
                          engaging the next generation
        The 2015 budget supports a vision to inspire millions of young
    people to play, learn, serve and work outdoors by expanding volunteer
    and work opportunities for youth and veterans. The budget proposes
    $50.6 million for Interior youth programs, a $13.6 million or 37
    percent increase from 2014.
        A key component of the Department's efforts will be partnering with
    youth organizations through the 21st Century Conservation Service
    Corps. The proposed funding includes an increase of $8 million to
    expand opportunities for youth education and employment across the
    National Park Service; an additional $2.5 million for the Fish and
    Wildlife Service's Urban Wildlife Refuges Partnership; and a total of
    $4.2 million in Indian Affairs for youth programs including $2.5
    million to engage youth in natural sciences. Support for the National
    Park Service Centennial will create thousands of jobs, and engage more
    than 10,000 youth in service and training opportunities and more than
    265,000 volunteers.
       ensuring healthy watersheds and sustainable, secure water supplies
        The 2015 budget addresses the Nation's water challenges through
    investments in water conservation, sustainability, and infrastructure
    critical to the arid western United States and its fragile ecosystems.
        The budget includes $66.5 million for WaterSMART programs in
    Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey, nearly a 17 percent
    increase from 2014, to assist communities in stretching water supplies
    and improving water management. In addition to $1 billion requested for
    the Bureau of Reclamation within the jurisdiction of the Energy and
    Water Subcommittee, the budget also requests $210.4 million for the
    U.S. Geological Survey's water programs to provide scientific
    monitoring, research, and tools to support water management across the
    Nation. This funding supports the Department's goal to increase by
    840,000 acre-feet the available water supply for agricultural,
    municipal, industrial, and environmental uses in the western United
    States through water conservation programs by the end of 2015.
        Interior extends this commitment to Indian Country, honoring Indian
    water settlements with investments totaling $171.9 million in
    Reclamation and Indian Affairs, for technical and legal support for
    water settlements. This includes $147.6 million for implementation of
    authorized settlements to bring reliable and potable water to Indian
    communities, more than a 9 percent increase from 2014. Among the
    investments is $81 million for the ongoing Navajo-Gallup Water Supply
    Project, which, when completed, will have the capacity to deliver clean
    running water to a potential future population of approximately 250,000
    people.
           building a landscape level understanding of our resources
        The 2015 budget fosters the sustainable stewardship of the Nation's
    lands and resources on a landscape level. Funding includes increases
    for scientific monitoring, research and tools to advance our
    understanding and ability to manage natural resources more effectively,
    while balancing important conservation goals and development
    objectives. Reflecting the President's ongoing commitment to scientific
    discovery and innovation to support decision making for critical
    societal needs and a robust economy, the budget proposes $888.7 million
    for research and development activities across the Department, an
    increase of $60.4 million over 2014. This funding will increase
    understanding of natural resources and the factors impacting water
    availability, ecosystem and species resiliency, sustainable energy and
    mineral development, climate resilience, and natural hazard mitigation,
    among others.
        Complementing this budget request are two components of the
    President's Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative: an investment
    of $140 million for Interior research and development as part of a
    Government-wide effort to jumpstart growth spurred by scientific
    discovery; and investments to address climate resilience to better
    prepare communities and infrastructure, and enable them to build
    greater resilience in the face of a changing climate.
        In ecosystems across the Nation, Interior will continue to work
    with local communities to leverage its efforts to improve resiliency
    and achieve improved environmental and economic outcomes.
                       major changes in the 2015 request
        Bureau of Land Management.--The 2015 request is $1.1 billion, a
    decrease of $5.6 million from the 2014 enacted level. The 2015 request
    assumes the use of $54.5 million in proposed offsetting fees, which
    when included provides an effective increase of $48.9 million above
    2014. The 2015 request includes $954.1 million for the Management of
    Lands and Resources account, and $25 million in current appropriations
    for Land Acquisition, including $2 million to improve access to public
    lands for hunting, fishing, and other recreation. The budget proposes
    $104 million for Oregon and California Grant Lands, which includes a
    $4.2 million decrease in Western Oregon Resource Management Planning,
    reflecting expected completion of six revised plans in June 2015.
        To advance America's Great Outdoors, the request includes $3.5
    million in program increases for recreation, cultural resources, and
    the National Landscape Conservation System to address the needs of
    recently designated units, implement travel management plans, improve
    visitor services, and address a backlog in cultural resources inventory
    and stabilization needs. The budget request also includes $4.8 million
    for Youth programs, an increase of $1.3 million from 2014, to put more
    young Americans to work protecting and restoring public lands and
    cultural and historical treasures.
        The BLM continues to support the President's all-of-the-above
    energy strategy on the public lands including an initiative to
    encourage smart renewable energy development. The 2015 budget includes
    $29.2 million, essentially level with 2014, for renewable energy to
    continue to aggressively support wind, solar, and geothermal energy
    development on BLM lands. Complementing this is a $5 million increase
    in the Cadastral, Lands and Realty Management program for
    identification and designation of energy corridors in low conflict
    areas to site high voltage transmission lines, substations, and related
    infrastructure in an environmentally sensitive manner.
        The 2015 request for Oil and Gas Management, including both direct
    and fee-funded appropriations, totals $133.7 million, an increase of
    $20.3 million in available program funding from 2014. In 2015, the
    budget proposes to shift the cost of oil and gas inspection and
    enforcement activity from current appropriations to inspection fees
    charged to industry. The proposed inspection fees will generate an
    estimated $48 million, providing for a $10 million increase in BLM's
    inspection and enforcement capability and allowing for a net reduction
    of $38 million in requested BLM appropriations. The request for Oil and
    Gas programs includes increases of $5.2 million for ongoing rulemaking
    efforts and to strengthen operations at BLM units and $4.6 million for
    oversight and permitting to better keep pace with industry demand and
    fully implement leasing reforms.
        In 2015, BLM will release six rapid eco-regional assessments, in
    addition to four planned for 2014. The BLM will conduct training on the
    use of the data from these assessments and will work with a number of
    Landscape Conservation Cooperatives to begin development of regional
    conservation strategies. The budget includes an increase of $5 million
    for Resource Management Planning to implement BLM's enterprise
    geographic information system and address high priority planning. The
    2015 budget maintains a $15 million increase to implement sage grouse
    conservation and restoration measures to help avoid the need for a
    future listing of the species for protection under the Endangered
    Species Act.
        Other program increases include $2.8 million in the Wild Horse and
    Burro program to implement recommendations of the National Academy of
    Sciences regarding population control; and $2.8 million in Abandoned
    Mine Lands to implement remediation plan efforts at Red Devil Mine in
    Alaska. The request includes $19 million for the Alaska Conveyance
    program. Although a decrease of $3.1 million from 2014, this funding
    coupled with efficiencies from an improved cadastral method, plots a
    course to complete all surveys and land transfers in 10 years.
        A proposed grazing administration fee will enhance BLM's capacity
    for processing grazing permits. A fee of $1 per animal unit month,
    estimated to provide $6.5 million in 2015, is proposed on a pilot
    basis. This additional revenue more than offsets a decrease of $4.8
    million in appropriated funds in Rangeland Management, equating to a
    $1.7 million program increase to help address the grazing permit
    backlog.
        Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.--The 2015 operating request is
    $169.8 million, including $72.4 million in current appropriations and
    $97.3 million in offsetting collections. This is a net increase of $3.4
    million in current appropriations above the 2014 enacted level.
        The 2015 budget maintains a strong offshore renewable energy
    program at essentially the 2014 level of $23.1 million for the total
    program. In 2013, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) held the
    first competitive Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) renewable energy lease
    sales, issued five other non-competitive commercial offshore wind
    energy leases, and approved the construction and operations plan for
    the Cape Wind project offshore Massachusetts.
        Offshore conventional energy programs also remain essentially level
    with 2014, with a total of $49.6 million in 2015. In 2013, BOEM held
    three sales generating over $1.4 billion in high bids, and three
    additional lease sales are scheduled during calendar year 2014. The
    request of $65.7 million for Environmental Programs includes an
    increase of $2.5 million for work on a Programmatic Environmental
    Impact Statement for the next Five-Year Program (2017-2022) for oil and
    gas leasing on the OCS.
        Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.--The 2015 budget
    request is $204.6 million, including $81 million in current
    appropriations and $123.6 million in offsetting collections, an
    increase of $2 million from 2014. The request for offsetting
    collections assumes $65 million from offshore oil and gas inspection
    fees. The 2015 request allows Bureau of Safety and Environmental
    Enforcement (BSEE) to continue to strengthen regulatory and oversight
    capability on the OCS and maintain capacity in regulatory, safety
    management, structural and technical support, and oil spill response
    prevention.
        The budget includes $189.7 million for Offshore Safety and
    Environmental Enforcement, an increase of $2.4 million. The request
    includes a program increase of $0.9 million to evaluate and test new
    technologies and update regulations to reflect improved safety and
    oversight protocols. Funding for Oil Spill Research is maintained at
    the 2014 level of $14.9 million.
        Office of Surface Mining.--The 2015 budget request for the Office
    of Surface Mining is $144.8 million, a decrease of $5.3 million from
    the 2014 enacted level. This includes a decrease of $13.4 million in
    grants to States and Tribes to encourage these regulatory programs to
    recover a larger portion of their costs from fees charged to the coal
    industry, and an increase of $4 million to provide additional technical
    support to State and tribal regulatory programs. The budget also
    includes an increase of $1.9 million for applied science to advance
    reclamation technologies. This request proposes $116.1 million for
    Regulation and Technology funding, $28.7 million for Abandoned Mine
    Reclamation Fund activities, and an additional $1.9 million in
    offsetting collections from recovered costs for services.
        U.S. Geological Survey.--The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) budget
    request is $1.1 billion, $41.3 million above the 2014 enacted level.
    The President's budget reflects the administration's commitment to
    investing in research and development to support sound decision making
    and sustainable stewardship of natural resources. This includes
    science, monitoring, and assessment activities critical to
    understanding and managing the ecological, mineral, energy, and water
    resources which underlie the prosperity and well-being of the Nation.
    The budget includes increases for priorities in ecosystem restoration,
    climate adaptation, invasive species, environmental health, and earth
    observations. Funding provides increased support to enhance sustainable
    energy development, address water resource challenges, increase
    landscape level understanding of the Nation's natural resources, and
    the Scientists for Tomorrow youth initiative.
        To support sustainable management of water resources, the USGS
    budget includes increases totaling $6.4 million for WaterSMART
    programs. This includes increases for State water grants, regional
    water availability models, and the integration and dissemination of
    data through online science platforms. The budget includes increases of
    $2.4 million to support implementation of the National Groundwater
    Monitoring Network and $1.2 million for the National Streamflow
    Information Program for streamgages to strengthen the Federal backbone
    at high priority sites sensitive to drought, flooding, and potential
    climate change effects.
        To better understand and adapt to the potential impacts of a
    changing climate, the USGS budget invests in research, monitoring, and
    tools to support improved resilience of natural systems. The National
    Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and Department of the
    Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSC) are funded at $35.3
    million, an increase of $11.6 million from 2014. This includes an
    increase of $3 million for grants focused on applied science and
    information needed by resource managers for decision making at regional
    levels. An increase of $2.3 million will enhance the leveraging of
    these investments with other Federal climate science activities and
    make the scientific information and products developed through these
    programs available to the public in a centralized, Web-accessed format.
    Program increases of $2.5 million will support applied science and
    capacity-building for tribal climate adaptation needs in the CSC
    regions, and $3 million will support additional research in drought
    impacts and adaptive management.
        The USGS budget invests in providing critical data and tools to
    promote understanding and managing resources on a landscape scale.
    Program increases in the National Geospatial Program include $5 million
    for the 3-Dimensional Elevation Program to collect Lidar data to
    enhance science and emergency response activities, resource and
    vulnerability assessments, ecosystem based management, and tools to
    inform policy and management. An increase of $1.9 million is requested
    for modernization of The National Map, which provides critical data
    about the Earth, its complex processes, and natural resources. The 2015
    budget includes a $2 million increase for the Big Earth Data initiative
    to improve access to and use of data from satellite, airborne,
    terrestrial, and ocean-based Earth observing systems. These investments
    will provide benefits in natural resource management and hazard
    mitigation, by improving access to critical information.
        To support the sustainable development of energy resources, the
    USGS budget includes $40.7 million for conventional and renewable
    energy programs, $8.1 million above the 2014 enacted level. A program
    increase of $1.3 million will be used to study geothermal resources and
    build on ongoing work on wind energy impacts. The request includes
    $18.6 million, $8.3 million over 2014, to support research and
    development to better understand potential impacts of energy
    development involving hydraulic fracturing. Conducted through an
    interagency collaboration with the Department of Energy and
    Environmental Protection Agency, this work addresses issues such as
    water quality and quantity, ecosystem, community, and human health
    impacts, and induced seismicity. Funding for other conventional energy
    programs, including oil, gas, and coal assessments, totals $15.6
    million.
        Supporting the sustainable management and restoration of
    ecosystems, the 2015 budget includes $162 million for ecosystems
    science activities, $9.2 million above the 2014 enacted level. Program
    increases include $2 million for research on new methods to eradicate,
    control, and manage Asian carp in the Upper Mississippi River Basin and
    prevent entry into the Great Lakes. Increases of $2.5 million are
    provided for ecosystem restoration work in the Chesapeake Bay,
    California Bay-Delta, Columbia River, Everglades, and Puget Sound.
    Another $2 million will support the science and integration of
    ecosystems services frameworks into decision making and efforts to
    assess and sustain the Nation's environmental capital. Program
    increases totaling $1.8 million will address native pollinators, brown
    treesnakes, and new and emerging invasive species of national concern.
        Supporting understanding, preparedness, and mitigation of the
    impacts of natural hazards, the budget provides $128.3 million for
    Natural Hazards activities, which is essentially level with 2014. This
    activity provides scientific information and tools to reduce potential
    fatalities, injuries, and economic loss from volcanoes, earthquakes,
    tsunamis and landslides, among others. The 2015 budget includes an
    increase of $700,000 in Earthquake Hazards for induced seismicity
    studies related to hydraulic fracturing.
        Fish and Wildlife Service.--The 2015 Fish and Wildlife Service
    budget includes $1.5 billion in current appropriations, an increase of
    $48.8 million above the 2014 level. This includes America's Great
    Outdoors related increases of $71.7 million in the Resource Management
    account. Among the increases proposed are: $6.6 million to address
    increased workload in planning and consultation for energy transmission
    and other projects, $7.7 million for cooperative efforts to recover
    imperiled species, $4 million to support conservation of the greater
    sage grouse across 11 western States, $2 million to investigate crimes
    and enforce laws that govern the Nation's wildlife trade, and $2.5
    million to establish an Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership program. This
    effort will encourage city dwellers to enjoy the outdoors by creating
    stepping stones of engagement to connect them to the outdoors on
    refuges and partner lands, through experiences which build on one
    another.
        Funding for FWS grant programs, with the exception of State and
    Tribal Wildlife Grants, remain level with 2014. In 2015, funding for
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants totals $50 million. The request also
    includes $55 million for Land Acquisition and $15.7 million for
    Construction. In addition to direct appropriations, an estimated $1.3
    billion will be available under permanent appropriations, most of which
    will be provided directly to States for fish and wildlife restoration
    and conservation.
        The budget proposes $16.7 million, an increase of $2.5 million, for
    activities associated with energy development. Of this increase, $1.4
    million supports scientific research into the impacts of energy
    transmission and development infrastructure on wildlife and habitat.
    The research will identify potential impacts associated with the
    development of energy infrastructure and strategies to minimize the
    impacts on habitat and species. An increase of $1.1 million for the
    Ecological Services Planning and Consultation program supports
    assessments of renewable energy projects proposed for development.
        The budget request for the Resource Management account continues
    support for key programs with program increases of $65.8 million above
    2014. The request provides $252.2 million in Ecological Services to
    conserve, protect, and enhance listed and at-risk species and their
    habitat, an increase of $30.3 million. Within this request are
    increases of $4 million to support conservation of the greater sage
    grouse across 11 western States and $10.5 million to implement other
    species recovery actions.
        The request includes funding within Law Enforcement and
    International Affairs to combat wildlife trafficking. The budget
    provides $66.7 million for the law enforcement program to investigate
    wildlife crimes, enforce the laws governing the Nation's wildlife
    trade, and expand technical forensic expertise, with program increases
    of $2 million over 2014.
        The budget includes $138.9 million for Fisheries and Aquatic
    Resource Conservation, a program increase of $8.2 million. Within this
    request is $48.6 million for operation of the National Fish Hatchery
    system to address top priorities, an increase of $1.9 million for fish
    hatchery maintenance, and $4.4 million to prevent the spread of Asian
    carp in the Missouri, Ohio, upper Mississippi Rivers, and other high
    priority watersheds.
        Funding for Cooperative Landscape Conservation activity is $17.7
    million, an increase of $3.2 million, and funding for Science Support
    is $31.6 million, an increase of $14.4 million. The budget supports
    applied science directed at high impact questions to mitigate threats
    to fish and wildlife resources, including $2.5 million to address white
    nose syndrome in bats, and an increase of $1 million to study
    biological carbon sequestration.
        The 2015 budget proposes to eliminate the current funding
    contribution to the National Wildlife Refuge fund, a reduction of $13.2
    million below 2014. An estimated $8 million in permanent receipts
    collected and allocated under the program would remain available to
    counties. The budget also proposes cancellation of $1.4 million in
    prior year balances from the Landowner Incentive and Private
    Stewardship Grant programs, which have not received new budget
    authority in several years.
        National Park Service.--The 2015 budget request for NPS of $2.6
    billion is $55.1 million above the 2014 enacted level.
        In 2015, a total of $2.5 billion is requested for NPS as part of
    America's Great Outdoors. This includes $2.3 billion for park
    operations, an increase of $47.1 million over 2014. Within this
    increase is $30 million to support the NPS Centennial Initiative. The
    Centennial increase includes $16 million for repair and rehabilitation
    projects to improve high priority projects throughout the parks, $8
    million in competitively managed funds to support enhanced visitor
    services in the areas of interpretation and education, law enforcement
    and protection, and facility operations, $4 million for 21 CSC youth
    work opportunities to engage youth in service and conservation
    projects, and $2 million to support expanded volunteer opportunities at
    the parks. Across these Centennial increases, the budget provides an $8
    million increase for youth engagement and employment opportunities, and
    continues the NPS' efforts to attract qualified veteran candidates to
    fill Federal positions. The request for Park Operations also includes
    increases of $15.7 million for increased fixed costs and $2 million to
    support new park units.
        Also in preparation for the Centennial anniversary of the parks,
    the 2015 request includes $10 million in a separate account for
    Centennial Challenge projects. This funding will provide a Federal
    match to leverage partner donations for signature projects and programs
    at the parks. This program will be instrumental in garnering partner
    support to prepare park sites across the country for the centennial and
    through the second century of the NPS.
        The 2015 request for the Historic Preservation Fund is $56.4
    million, level with 2014. Of this total, $46.9 million is requested for
    grants-in-aid to States and Territories, $9 million for grants-in-aid
    to Tribes, and $500,000 to be awarded competitively to address
    communities currently underrepresented on the National Register of
    Historic Places.
        The budget includes $52 million within the National Recreation and
    Preservation account, which includes $10 million for the Rivers,
    Trails, and Conservation Assistance program, essentially level with
    2014, and $1.2 million for American Battlefield Protection Program
    assistance grants, also level with 2014. The request includes a program
    reduction of $9.1 million from Heritage Partnership programs to
    encourage self-sufficiency for these non-Federal organizations.
        Programs funded out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund are a
    key component of America's Great Outdoors. The budget requests $104
    million for the Land Acquisition and State Assistance account, an
    increase of $5.9 million. This includes $48.1 million for the State
    Conservation Grants program, level with 2014, and $55.9 million for NPS
    Federal land acquisition, a programmatic increase of $5.8 million. Of
    this amount, $13.2 million supports Collaborative Landscape projects in
    the California Southwest Desert and areas within the National Trails
    System.
        Funding for Construction totals $138.3 million, essentially level
    with 2014. Of this amount, the budget includes $61.7 million for line-
    item construction projects, a $1.1 million program increase compared to
    2014. The request includes $6.7 million to reconstruct the historic
    cave tour trails in Mammoth Cave National Park and $3.9 million to
    stabilize and repair exterior walls of the historic Alcatraz prison
    cell house at Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
        Indian Affairs.--The 2015 budget includes $2.6 billion for Indian
    Affairs programs, an increase of $33.6 million from the 2014 enacted
    level. This includes an increase of $33.8 million for Operation of
    Indian Programs; and level funding of $35.7 million for Indian Land and
    Water Claim Settlements, $109.9 million for Construction, and $6.7
    million for the Indian Guaranteed Loan program.
        Within the Operation of Indian Programs, the budget includes full
    funding of $251 million for Contract Support Costs and the Indian Self-
    Determination Fund, an increase of $4 million from 2014. Consistent
    with the 2014 Operating Plan, the 2015 request provides full funding
    based on the most current estimated need. The availability of contract
    support cost funding is a key factor in tribal decisions to assume
    responsibility for operating Federal programs important to the
    furtherance of self-governance and self-determination. To further
    facilitate Tribal 638 Contracting, the budget includes an additional
    $1.2 million to increase services from the Department's Office of
    Indirect Cost Negotiations which negotiates indirect cost rates with
    non-Federal entities, including tribal governments. Consistent with
    subcommittee direction and in collaboration with the Indian Health
    Service (IHS), the Department held its first formal consultation on
    March 11, 2014 with tribes to discuss long-term solutions to Contract
    Support Cost issues. The Department remains committed to working with
    IHS, tribes, and Congress to develop a long-term strategy for
    addressing this important issue.
        The 2015 budget for Indian Affairs includes an increase of $11.6
    million for the Tiwahe or ``family'' Initiative. The initiative takes a
    comprehensive and integrated approach to address the interrelated
    problems of poverty, violence, and substance abuse in Indian
    communities. The initiative builds on and expands social service,
    Indian child and family welfare, and job training programs. In
    recognition that adequate housing is essential to building stronger
    families, the budget maintains the 2014 level for the Housing
    Improvement Program. The goal of the Tiwahe Initiative is to empower
    American Indian individuals and families in health promotion and family
    stability, and to strengthen tribal communities as a whole. To better
    target funding and evaluate outcomes in meeting social service needs in
    Indian Country, the budget includes $1 million as part of the
    initiative.
        The budget provides strong support for the sustainable stewardship
    of land and resources in Indian Country, sustaining funding for trust
    land management and real estate services at 2014 levels and proposing
    program increases of $3.6 million for the stewardship of natural
    resources. Funding supports the development of natural resource
    science, information, and tools for application in the development and
    management of energy and minerals, water, forestry, oceans, climate
    resilience, and endangered and invasive species. Demonstrating the
    administration's commitment to resolving tribal water rights and
    ensuring that tribes have access to meet their water needs, $171.9
    million is provided across the Department for implementation of, and
    technical and legal support for, Indian water rights settlements, an
    increase of $13.8 million over 2014. A program increase of $1 million
    is also provided in Indian Affairs for deferred maintenance on Indian
    irrigation projects to help address drought issues in Indian Country.
        The budget supports improving educational outcomes in Indian
    Country, providing $794.4 million for the Bureau of Indian Education
    (BIE), an increase of $5.6 million from 2014. The request includes an
    increase of $500,000 for Johnson O'Malley Education Assistance Grants
    to support a new student count in 2015 and funding to address the
    projected increase in the number of eligible students. The budget
    includes $1 million to support ongoing evaluation of the BIE school
    system to improve educational outcomes. Within education construction,
    an increase of $2.3 million supports site development at the Beatrice
    Rafferty School for which design funding was provided in 2014. The
    budget also includes $2.3 million in increases for BIE funded post-
    secondary programs including $1.7 million for post-graduate
    opportunities in science fields, and $250,000 for summer pre-law
    preparatory scholarships.
        Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs.--The 2015
    request for the Office of the Secretary is $265.3 million, an increase
    of $1.3 million from the 2014 enacted level. Of this, $122.9 million is
    for the Office of Natural Resources Revenue programs, an increase of
    $3.5 million, reflecting increases to strengthen production
    verification and meter inspections activities, including implementing
    an onshore production verification pilot and funding related data
    integration. Other changes include the proposed transfer of the Indian
    Arts and Crafts Board from the Office of the Secretary to the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs of $1.3 million, a decrease of $865,000 reflecting a
    shift from direct appropriations to fee for service for Indirect Cost
    Negotiations, and a program decrease of $266,000 in Valuation Services.
        The budget request for the Office of Insular Affairs is $92.2
    million, a decrease of $10.2 million from the 2014 enacted level. The
    budget includes an increase of $3 million to address urgent, immediate
    needs in the insular areas, and $1.8 million to improve safety
    conditions in insular school facilities. A decrease of $500,000
    reflects completion of an aerial bait system for brown treesnake
    control. Compact Impact is funded at $1.3 million, a decrease of $1.7
    million from 2014, and is supplemented by $30 million annually in
    permanent Compact Impact funding. Funding of $13.1 million for the
    Palau Compact Extension is not requested for 2015 as it is expected the
    Compact will be authorized and funded from permanent appropriations in
    2014.
        The Office of Inspector General (OIG) request is $50 million, a
    decrease of $784,000 from 2014. The budget includes a decrease of $2
    million reflecting completion of an effort to reduce OIG's physical
    footprint. Increases of $423,000 and $355,000 are included to support
    the council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency and
    provide additional full-time equivalents (FTEs) for information
    security audits, respectively. The Office of the Solicitor request is
    $65.8 million, equal to the 2014 enacted level.
        The Office of the Special Trustee request is $139 million, $648,000
    below the 2014 enacted level. The 2015 budget decreases Business
    Management funding by $1.6 million reflecting $922,000 in efficiencies
    from the transfer of some mailing and printing services to the U.S.
    Department of the Treasury, a reduction of $500,000 in litigation
    support, and a decrease of $200,000 in funding for the Office of
    Hearings and Appeals.
        The 2015 request for the Department-Wide Wildland Fire Management
    program is $794 million without the proposed fire cap adjustment, and
    $1 billion including the adjustment. The request includes $268.6
    million for Suppression within the current budget cap, which is 70
    percent of the 10-year suppression average spending. This base level
    funding ensures the cap adjustment of $240.4 million would only be used
    for the most severe fires, since it is 1 percent of the fires that
    cause 30 percent of the costs. The new budget framework for Wildland
    Fire Management eliminates the need for additional funds through the
    FLAME Act. The 2015 budget includes a program increase of $34.1 million
    for Preparedness activities to enhance readiness capabilities. The
    budget includes $146.3 million for Fuels Management activities,
    formerly known as Hazardous Fuels Management. This is equal to the 2014
    enacted level with an increase of $1.3 million for fixed costs.
    Complementing this request is $30 million for Resilient Landscapes, a
    new component of the Wildland Fire Management program, to support
    treatments that improve the integrity and resilience of forests and
    rangelands. Resilient landscape projects will be leveraged with bureau
    efforts to reduce fire risk and improve overall resiliency. The budget
    request also includes a $2 million increase for the Burned Area
    Rehabilitation program to address greater post-fire rehabilitation
    needs caused by the 2012 and 2013 fire seasons.
        The 2015 request for the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and
    Restoration Fund is $7.8 million, a program increase of $1.5 million.
    The increase includes $1 million for a Department-wide onshore Oil
    Spill Preparedness Program, and additional resources for Restoration
    support. The budget includes $10 million for the Central Hazardous
    Materials Fund, an increase of $412,000 from 2014 to support additional
    cleanup work.
        The Department's 2015 request for the Working Capital Fund
    appropriation is $64.3 million, an increase of $7.3 million from the
    2014 enacted level. Within this request is $53.9 million for the
    operation and maintenance of the Financial and Business Management
    System, an increase of $1 million to continue support of the
    Department's Cultural and Scientific Collections Management initiative,
    a decrease of $1 million from the Department's Service First
    initiative, and an increase of $8.4 million to support Interior's
    Office Consolidation strategy in the DC metropolitan area.
                              mandatory proposals
        The 2015 budget includes 15 legislative proposals affecting
    spending, revenue and available budget authority, which require action
    by the congressional authorizing committees. Revenue and savings
    proposals will generate more than $2.6 billion over the next decade.
    The 2015 budget includes four spending proposals with an estimated $9.9
    billion in outlays over the next decade.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund.--The 2015 budget proposes $900
    million in current and permanent funding in 2015, and proposes
    permanent authorization of $900 million in mandatory funding for LWCF
    programs in the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture beginning
    in 2016. During a transition to permanent funding in 2015, the budget
    proposes $900 million in total LWCF programs funding, comprised of $550
    million permanent and $350 million current funding, shared by Interior
    and Agriculture.
        Centennial Initiative.--The Centennial Initiative includes a
    legislative proposal to authorize $1.2 billion in permanent funding
    over 3 years beginning in 2015 in the following areas: $300 million
    ($100 million a year for 3 years) for a National Park Service
    Centennial Challenge fund to leverage private donations; $600 million
    ($200 million a year for 3 years) for NPS deferred maintenance; and
    $300 million ($100 million a year for 3 years) for a multiagency
    Centennial Land Management Investment Fund to competitively award
    grants to Interior land management agencies and the U.S. Forest Service
    for deferred maintenance and conservation projects.
        Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--The Agricultural Act of 2014 included a
    1-year extension of permanent Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) funding
    through 2014. The 2015 budget proposes to extend authorization of the
    program an additional year through 2015, 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. The cost of a 1-year extension is
    estimated to be $442 million in 2015. The 2015 budget for the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service includes a proposal to
    reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Program for a 5-year period,
    covering lands managed by the BLM.
        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 2015 budget assumes authorization of
    permanent funding for the Compact occurs in 2014. The cost for this
    proposal is estimated at $178.3 million for 2015 through 2024.
        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:
    advancing royalty reforms, encouraging diligent development of oil and
    gas leases, and 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.
        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 Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Fund.
    The proposal would return the fee to 35 cents a ton, the same level
    companies paid prior to the 2006 fee reduction. The additional revenue,
    estimated at $362 million over 10 years, will be used to reclaim high
    priority abandoned coal mines and reduce a portion of the estimated
    $3.9 billion needed to address remaining dangerous coal AML sites
    nationwide.
        Discontinue AML Payments to Certified States.--The budget proposes
    to discontinue unrestricted payments to States and Tribes certified for
    completing their coal reclamation work. This proposal terminates all
    such payments, with estimated savings of approximately $295 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 generate an estimated
    $1.8 billion to reclaim the highest priority hardrock abandoned sites
    on Federal, State, tribal, and private lands.
        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 net revenues to the U.S.
    Treasury of $80 million over 10 years, with larger revenues estimated
    in following 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 estimated savings of $4 million in 2015 and
    $42 million over 10 years.
        Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.--The Department proposes
    to reauthorize this act to 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, or Duck Stamps, are the
    annual Federal license required for hunting migratory waterfowl. The
    receipts generated from the sale of these $15 stamps are used to
    acquire important migratory bird areas for migration, breeding, and
    wintering. The Department proposes legislation to increase these fees
    which have not increased since 1991, to $25 per stamp per year
    beginning in 2015. This increase will add an estimated $14 million for
    migratory bird conservation annually.
        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 will expire in December 2015. 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.
               fire suppression and the discretionary budget cap
        The 2015 budget proposes to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency
    Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, to establish a new framework
    for funding Fire Suppression Operations to provide stable funding for
    fire suppression while minimizing the adverse impacts of fire transfers
    on the budgets of other programs, as well as reduce fire risk, manage
    landscapes more comprehensively, and increase the resiliency of public
    lands and the communities that border them. Under this new framework,
    the 2015 budget request covers 70 percent of the 10-year suppression
    average within the domestic discretionary caps and a portion is funded
    in a budget cap adjustment. Extreme fires requiring emergency response,
    fires threatening urban areas, or requirements of an abnormally high
    fire season, would be permitted to be funded through the adjustment to
    discretionary spending limits. The cap adjustment does not increase
    overall current spending, as it reduces the ceiling for the existing
    disaster relief cap adjustment.
                        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.
        New Fee for Onshore Oil and Gas Inspections.--Through
    appropriations language, the Department proposes to implement an
    inspection fee in 2015 for onshore oil and gas activities subject to
    inspection by BLM. The proposed fee is expected to generate $48 million
    in 2015, $10 million more than the corresponding $38 million reduction
    in requested appropriations, thereby expanding the capacity of BLM's
    oil and gas inspection program. The fee is similar to one already in
    place for offshore operations and will support Federal efforts to
    increase production accountability, human safety, and environmental
    protection.
        Grazing Administrative Fee.--The 2015 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 provision will generate an estimated $6.5 million in 2015 to
    assist BLM in processing grazing permits.
        National Wildlife Refuge Damage Cost Recovery.--The budget proposes
    appropriations language to authorize the Fish and Wildlife Service to
    pursue and retain recoveries from responsible parties, to be used to
    restore or replace damaged National Wildlife Refuge resources.
        Cost Recovery for Nontoxic Shot Approvals.--The budget proposes
    appropriations language to allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to
    retain and use fees collected for the review of nontoxic shot products.
    Nontoxic shot is a substitute for lead shot, banned for waterfowl
    hunting since 1991.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's 2015
    budget request for the Department of the Interior. This budget is
    responsible, and proposes to maintain core capabilities with targeted
    investments to 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. 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.

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
        We will do 6-minute rounds. We have votes at 11 o'clock. I
    assume we can get through one round, and if necessary, we will
    have a second round. I think we do have that time.

                          WILDLAND FIRE CAP ADJUSTMENT

        Madam Secretary, can you walk us through the fire disaster
    proposal, how it will work? The reality is, that is a huge
    issue we confront every year in this bill. We have to pay for
    the emergency fires. Can you walk us through that? How much
    will you provide for fire suppression? How did you arrive at
    the funding level? And are you confident that it will be
    enough?
        Secretary Jewell. I will give a high-level overview, and I
    am going to turn to my colleague, Rhea Suh, who really worked
    very, very closely with the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB) to craft this proposal in the President's budget
    alongside the companion legislation.
        In a nutshell, 1 percent of the most catastrophic fires
    consume 30 percent of our fire suppression budget. The proposal
    for fire suppression in the budget is 70 percent, which are the
    year-in, year-out regular fires. That is in the budget. The
    worst 1 percent of fires beyond that 70 percent number is what
    we are proposing to take off-budget into the emergency disaster
    relief. The 70 percent number is based on a 10-year suppression
    average of fires.
        What that enables us to do is consistently put money into
    hazardous fuels reduction and post-fire remediation so we don't
    end up in this negative spiral of robbing our accounts for
    hazardous fuel removal and post-fire remediation causing
    invasive species to come in, that causes worse fires in the
    future, so we have a downward spiral.
        I am going to turn it to Rhea to provide any additional
    details.
        Ms. Suh. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. I will just
    add a few more comments here.
        As you know, in the President's request, 70 percent of the
    10-year average for fire is included in the discretionary part
    of the budget. The remaining 30 percent is included in the cap
    adjustment, which we are requesting.
        The cap adjustment was based on the same type of analytical
    forecast that the Federal Land Assistance Management and
    Enhancement Act (FLAME) scientists prepare for this committee
    on an annual basis. That includes data about weather, climate,
    drought, and historical expenditures.
        All combined, that is the amount of money we have put into
    the cap.
        Again, just to echo the Secretary's comments, this is
    really only to treat those fires that are truly disasters as
    disasters, and to allow both Interior and the Forest Service to
    be able to access those emergency funds.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        Madam Secretary, in order to implement this program, you
    have to get changes in the Balanced Budget and Emergency
    Deficit Control Act from the Budget Committee, I have been
    told, and also the FLAME Act from the Energy and Natural
    Resources Committee. And I just want your acknowledgment that
    you are aware of that and you are working on it; is that
    correct?
        Secretary Jewell. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We very
    much modeled the President's request off of the bipartisan
    legislation that has been introduced in both houses. In the
    Senate, it is sponsored by Senator Wyden and Senator Crapo.
    That particular legislation specifically does amend the Budget
    Control Act.
        We are having conversations with staff around amendments to
    FLAME that would potentially be able to more clearly articulate
    the triggers involved in accessing those emergency funds.
        On both of those streams of work, we are very much aware
    and actively engaged with members in this house.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.

                            NATIONAL PARK CENTENNIAL

        As we have all noted, this is the hundredth year centennial
    just almost upon us, 2016, for the national parks. But we also
    have the National Heritage areas, and I note with some chagrin
    that the budget in this area has been decreased.
        In order to make this a truly national celebration, I think
    every State should have a sort of vested interest in this.

                                 HERITAGE AREAS

        Can you comment on the role of these heritage areas as they
    connect to the parks and allow people to be outdoors? I think
    we shared the Blackstone Valley National Heritage together in
    kayaking, although I apologize the equipment did not come from
    REI, but forgive me.
        Secretary Jewell. Well, Senator, I did enjoy the kayaking,
    and the Blackstone River corridor as such a historic place is a
    great illustration of the potential of National Heritage areas.
    It is one that I have been working on personally for over 20
    years.
        The great thing about heritage areas is they engage the
    community in identifying areas of cultural, historic, and
    natural significance. In many cases, the local communities are
    who provide support for those initiatives.
        Yes, the budget was cut. Part of that is in recognition of
    the need for us to work closely with the communities on getting
    local support for National Heritage areas. The budget is
    tighter than we would like it to be as it relates to national
    parks overall, and we had to make some tough choices.
        We continue to work with you on heritage areas, and a path
    forward that engages private philanthropy and local community
    involvement to support these places, to earn the arrowhead logo
    but also the heritage status we believe is important to them.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                 KING COVE ROAD

        Secretary Jewell, just a question, one question on the King
    Cove road issue, when you issued your release in December, you
    stated that the Department's commitment to assist in
    identifying and evaluating options would improve access to
    affordable transportation and health care for the citizens of
    this remote Alaska community.
        As I mentioned in my opening comments, I have not seen
    anything specific from you or from the Department in terms of
    what progress has been made in either identifying or evaluating
    options that would improve access.
        Can you outline for me the specific areas that you would
    propose in terms of alternatives, alternatives that would be as
    reliable and safe as a road, and affordable? And if you can
    identify any specific funding proposals that are included in
    the President's budget that would allow for improvement of the
    situation in King Cove?
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you, Senator.
        As we discussed yesterday, I very much appreciated the
    opportunity to meet with you, and to also meet with the
    residents of King Cove.
        We need suggestions from the people who live in the area on
    what alternatives would be potentially viable to them, if a
    road does not go through. It is very clear from my conversation
    in King Cove, as you and I made our visit there, and to Cold
    Bay, that the community feels very strongly that they want a
    road, as do you.
        I continue to be open to all conversations about
    alternatives.
        My team has had conversations with the Coast Guard about
    the 10 months of the year where they typically have a
    helicopter stationed in Cold Bay. I know they are very brave
    men and women that do this work, whether it is rescuing people
    on the high seas or facilitating humanitarian missions that you
    described earlier on land.
        I also know there are many villages in Alaska that are a
    long way away from medical care, and this clearly is an example
    of that, being 600 miles from Anchorage.
        We have had conversations with the Coast Guard. We will
    continue to do that. We have a conversation scheduled with the
    Corps of Engineers later on this week to better understand the
    alternatives they believe may be possible in that area, and I
    remain open to suggestions from the community, as we discussed
    yesterday afternoon, on areas they would like us to pursue that
    they believe would be viable for us to consider beyond the
    road, which clearly is your preferred alternative and that of
    the residents.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, as I mentioned yesterday, your
    search for viable alternatives is one that has been reviewed
    for decades now. And we are at this point where you have such
    unanimity in the community about the preferred alternative
    being the road because all other solutions have been tried and
    failed, or have been analyzed and determined too costly or not
    feasible given the situation.
        And I appreciate that you are new to the issue of King
    Cove, but I hope you would also appreciate that to them, this
    has been almost a lifetime of struggling to get this short
    connector road, a reliable, safe and secure, and affordable
    alternative in order to gain access.
        I would ask that you do more digging into the Coast Guard
    as a solution. I have talked not only to the admiral in the
    17th District, Admiral Ostebo, but also to Admiral Zukunft, who
    will be taking over as commandant. And I think it is very, very
    clear that the Coast Guard not only does not view this as a
    mission, it is not a mission that they wish to take on.
        In order to accommodate the people of King Cove on a
    somewhat reliable basis, they would require two additional
    helicopters at $26.1 million apiece. You would have to have an
    additional 20 personnel in order to allow for a level of safety
    for the pilots and the maintenance crew. Just the per diem
    alone to house them in Cold Bay would be a half million dollars
    on annual basis. That is just for the per diem.
        So, Madam Secretary, I encourage you to do your due
    diligence. But I will note that there has been nothing included
    in the President's budget for even the slightest alternative.

                                ARCTIC STRATEGY

        Let me turn very quickly here, this is a question that I am
    asking all Cabinet members. The national strategy for the
    Arctic region came out. We have the implementation plan for the
    national strategy, and within the implementation plan, the
    Department of the Interior has been designated as the lead
    agency in five different areas.
        Can you tell me what funding is included in the President's
    budget for the five areas that the Department of the Interior
    is tapped to be the lead agency for? You are also the
    supporting agency for numerous other projects. So I am trying
    to divine how much attention the administration is actually
    placing on the Arctic implementation plan.
        Secretary Jewell. Senator, and I know we are out of time,
    so I will make the answer very brief. I do not have a crosscut
    on all of the Arctic programs. I will be happy to get that to
    you very quickly. It wasn't one of the numbers that I prepared
    in advance for this gathering.
        But I will say the Arctic is very important to the United
    States of America, clearly very important to Alaska. We are
    very pleased to be involved with you and others in our Arctic
    strategy.
        From a scientific research standpoint, from a defense
    standpoint, from an oil and gas development standpoint, and the
    geopolitical standpoint, we think it is very important that we
    be at the table. I know that the Arctic Council will be meeting
    in Canada this year, that the United States will be hosting the
    following year, and we intend to fully engage in Arctic
    strategy issues, and we will get back to you with specifics.
        [The information follows:]
                                Arctic Programs
        The Department of the Interior is committed to full participation
    in the implementation of the National Strategy for the Arctic. This
    commitment involves the breadth of Interior's bureaus and offices with
    equities in the Arctic region with support from a myriad of programs
    and activities. The Department does not have a dedicated budget for
    Arctic activities but instead is supporting implementation of the
    Strategy by leveraging a diverse set of programs with multiple
    authorities and funding sources. Thus, there is not crosscut that
    identifies discrete funding for the Arctic Strategy, instead the
    Department is tracking actions and outcomes that are supported by
    Interior in total.

        Senator Murkowski. If you can get me those, I would
    appreciate it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you all for your presence and helping us
    understand this budget.

                       OREGON AND CALIFORNIA GRANT LANDS

        One of the things that I wanted to address was the budget
    for the O&C lands that are in Oregon. We have millions of acres
    of second growth forest that needs to be thinned, needs to have
    hazardous fuel reduction work, restoration work, needs to be
    prepared for the work done for the various sales that would
    come out of it.
        But the budget has been cut by $10.5 million. So if we are
    going to go forward on resource management plans, which require
    significant additional resources, and if the budget is cut, and
    if the current projects in the forest are greatly underfunded
    as it is, doesn't this mean just further lack of management and
    more problems for the O&C lands?
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you, Senator.
        There are a number of things that are mixed in with the
    Oregon and California Railroad Revested Lands (O&C) budget. One
    of the things is that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
    completed a resource management plan in prior years, so that
    will not be repeated, and part of the budget cut has to do with
    that.
        I know we are working with your team in Oregon on a
    sustained yield level, and we have a plan in place to cut about
    200 million board feet a year. Is that the right number? I
    think it is, 200 million board feet a year.
        In this year it is going to be a little bit higher, because
    of some salvage logging that is going to be supported.
        We know it is a very important program to Oregon. We know
    it is an important source of funding for schools in Oregon, as
    is the Secure Rural Schools. We will continue to support what
    we believe in the BLM to be a sustainable forest yield level of
    200 million board feet.
        With the resource management plan completion, we don't
    think we will need as much money as we had last year to do an
    equivalent job, and that is the basis of the budget.
        Senator Merkley. OK, I will just leave that as a concern I
    have for that particular area and the challenges that are faced
    in managing it appropriately, because it is suffering from many
    decades of underinvestment as it is currently.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        I want to turn to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and
    specifically, there have been projects from all over the
    country that involve particularly sensitive pieces of land for
    acquisition. And now largely the funds go to what are referred
    to as collaborative landscape projects. There seems to be a lot
    of mystery as to how these are created and designated, kind of
    a black box.
        Oregon doesn't have one. We keep inquiring how it could
    come to have one.
        But what it means, essentially, is only a couple States
    really benefit from the mass majority of these funds. And yet,
    these funds were meant to enable sensitive projects to be
    acquired all over the Nation.
        So could you just give us a little background on this
    collaborative landscape strategy, and why it makes sense to
    ignore most of the U.S. for just a couple projects?
        Secretary Jewell. Senator, for specifics, I will turn to
    Rhea, in terms of how the money is spent. Let me give you a
    high-level overview, because there are two places these
    landscape cooperative areas that you reference, that I have
    personally been to, one very recently is in Montana, the Crown
    of the Continent region around Glacier National Park.
        This is one of the largest intact landscapes in the United
    States. Much of the land is managed by ranchers and they would
    like to keep those lands in working ranches. But they are
    highly developable otherwise, which would very much impact the
    ability of many migratory species, such as elk, grizzly bears,
    and others.
        We work cooperatively with Canada, which has set a lot of
    land aside and taken some out of mining development, for
    example, and our private landowners in that region to really
    work collaboratively on putting those landscapes in
    conservation while maintaining them in ranching.
        Similarly, in the headwaters in Everglades, it is another
    major area where we have done that. We have prioritized part of
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) money, but by no
    means all of the LWCF money in those projects, because we know
    they are critical. If we don't focus, it is sort of a peanut
    butter spread, but we are not able to take care of some very,
    very threatened ecosystems throughout the country.
        Longleaf pine in the Southeast is another area, but by no
    means does this limit our willingness or ability to invest in
    individual projects, which does continue.
        Rhea, do you have any quick things, because I know time is
    short?
        Ms. Suh. Sure. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
        The collaborative projects, and the process we created
    several years ago now, are really designed to enable the
    Federal land management agencies to look across their
    jurisdictional boundaries and to identify national priorities
    that deserve the opportunity to work across those
    jurisdictions.
        Every year we have a competitive process that is vetted at
    a very technical level by each of the real estate functions of
    the land management agencies, elevated to the bureau director
    level of the four land management agencies, and collectively
    adjudicated in a process that outlines priorities.
        The priorities that show up in the budget are not
    necessarily all of the priorities we had, and the priority
    lists are much longer than the budgets we can actually afford.
        I would like to say I think part of what the administration
    is asking for in the Land and Water Conservation Fund full
    funding proposal is an ability to get more landscapes, both
    collaborative and core, onto the list in any given year.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. I will be following
    up about that process. I do feel like there are a lot of very
    sensitive landscapes that have fallen off the list in recent
    years.

                          WILDLAND FIRE CAP ADJUSTMENT

        I am out of time, but just compliments on the fire
    suppression strategy of putting the big fires, essentially,
    into the emergency side. The Forest Service has been decimated
    by this continuous raiding of often fire prevention funds in
    order to fight fires, and thank you very much.
        Senator Reed. Senator Alexander.
        Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski,
    for the hearing.
        Welcome, Madam Secretary, to you and your team.
        I listened carefully to Senator Murkowski's passionate
    comments. I have known her a long time. I don't think I have
    ever heard her quite so strong in her comments. And I saw the
    Senator from California come in. It reminded me of an episode
    we had in our subcommittee, of which she is the chairman, where
    the general of the Army Corps of Engineers was trying to do the
    right thing, he thought, which was to close fishing below the
    dams on the Cumberland River. I thought that made no sense at
    all, because the dams aren't dangerous when the water is not
    coming through them, and the tracks aren't dangerous when the
    train is not coming. And he stuck to his guns, and we literally
    changed the law.
        But what Senator Feinstein said to him at that time was:
    Senator Alexander is a reasonable member; I would suggest you
    work something out.
        My thought is this, I have said in Tennessee, and I have
    said here, that I think you are one of the President's most
    able appointees. I think you will do a tremendous job as
    Interior Secretary. I know that Senator Murkowski is one of the
    most able and respected members of the United States Senate.
    And, except for this issue, the two of you would likely be
    close allies on a great many issues, so I hope you can work
    something out.

        JOINT CURATORIAL FACILITY AT GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

        I want to ask you in my time three or four pretty quick
    questions. One, I want to thank you for your visit to the Great
    Smoky Mountains National Park, and to you and your team for
    improving the joint curatorial collections that is half Federal
    dollars and half private funding. And I heard many good things
    about your visit. I thank you for that.

                                LAKE CUMBERLAND

        Also, I know that Senator McConnell, Senator Paul, Chairman
    Rogers, and Senator Corker, and I, appreciate the work that Dan
    Ashe of Fish and Wildlife and you did in putting a priority on
    getting Lake Cumberland back up to its proper level of water in
    time for the houseboat season. That may not seem like an
    important issue to many people, but it is to Chairman Rogers
    and the people in that part of Kentucky, because the water has
    been down for a long time. And you got done in what looks like
    35 or 45 days what could have taken 135, I think, something
    like that. And that is appreciated.

                                FISH HATCHERIES

        Now a couple of other issues, we are working together, the
    States of Tennessee and Georgia, the Tennessee Valley Authority
    (TVA), and Fish and Wildlife, again, Mr. Ashe, to try to come
    up with a plan for saving the fish hatcheries in Tennessee, the
    two of them. And TVA stepped in to do what it could, and that
    kept the fish hatcheries open. And that same group is now
    meeting to find a way for a permanent solution.
        This is important to the fishermen of Tennessee. It is
    important to the outdoors recreation of Tennessee, and to our
    tourism and jobs.
        So my question for you is, will you agree not to close down
    the two fish hatcheries in Tennessee during fiscal year 2015
    until you give this working group, including the two States,
    the TVA, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, a chance to come up
    with a solution that would have Congress pay for through the
    appropriate agencies the fish that were for sports fishing. In
    other words, we would separate the mitigation fish and the
    sports fishing.
        I would like to get a commitment not to close that down
    while we are trying to get a result.
        Secretary Jewell. Senator, thanks. I appreciate the
    importance of fish hatcheries on the sport fishery and on
    recreational fishing. And you know the challenges we have
    overall in the budget and the difficult decisions we have to
    make.
        We will not be closing any fish hatcheries in 2014. I do
    appreciate the TVA and the Army Corps stepping up to support
    their obligations, in terms of mitigation from their activities
    in terms of support for some of these hatcheries, which are for
    the downstream cold water sport fishing, as opposed to
    hatcheries that are necessary to maintain the integrity of
    species.
        Where we have people working together, cooperating on a
    long-term solution, is the kind of program we are very
    committed to supporting.
        I don't want to commit on any specific hatchery. It is my
    team that is working on that list, and they are working very
    cooperatively in Tennessee with other players. I think that is
    going to bode well for the hatcheries where there is
    cooperation. We are encouraging people in other States that
    have high-priority hatcheries for them to work with local and
    State partners to find long-term funding solutions.
        It feels a little like the base closure act when we talk
    about fish hatcheries.
        Senator Alexander. I am about out of time.
        Secretary Jewell. Oh, OK. Sorry. Go ahead.
        Senator Alexander. No, that is all right. But we understand
    what the Department's parameters are, and Mr. Ashe is working
    toward that, and we just want time to complete that. And the
    working group is pretty good because it has already had one
    success.

                       REIMBURSING STATES DURING SHUTDOWN

        The other one, Senator Flake has a bill to reimburse the
    States, which in our case were the counties, for the money lost
    that they spent reimbursing during the Government shutdown.
        My question is, will you support that legislation as it
    moves through Congress, to reimburse the State of Tennessee and
    the counties of Blount and Sevier for what they spent as a
    result of the Federal Government shutdown?
        Secretary Jewell. It is very clear the economic value of
    the national parks to local communities was evident during the
    shutdown. I will say I worked pretty much around the clock with
    very limited staff to facilitate the States' requests. We did
    some economic analysis, and it looks like close to a 10 to 1
    return that the States got for that investment.
        All unobligated funds were returned to the States. I did
    say at the time of these agreements that I couldn't obligate
    the Federal Treasury, and that it had to be congressional
    action, so I am supportive of the congressional action going
    forward. The decision will rest in your hands in terms of
    whether or not that happens.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        I will submit in writing, if I may, Mr. Chairman, a
    question about white nose syndrome in bats, which you referred
    to in your statement.
        Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
        Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Madam Secretary, thank you very much.

                               CALIFORNIA DROUGHT

        My statement and questions are going to be on drought and
    water in California.
        As you know, the Governor has called a state of emergency
    with respect to the drought. The snowpack is at 24 percent as
    of March 23. Shasta, Lake Oroville, San Luis Reservoir are all
    below 50 percent capacity.
        The California Farm Bureau estimates that a half-million
    acres are in the process of being fallowed, and that we will
    lose more than 100,000 head of cattle.
        It looks like 10 or more communities are going to run out
    of drinking water in the next few months.
        Now, a storm is approaching California right now, and this
    is the surge storm of the season. It is very important.
        I have asked my staff to bring down a copy of a letter that
    you have received from water contractors, so that you might
    look at it, as of yesterday. And they would like you and
    Secretary Pritzker to be on a conference call at 4 p.m. this
    afternoon.
        What is being asked, essentially--well, let me just give
    you a few data points. Salvage data from your agencies as of
    March 19 show no Delta smelt taken, 276 out of an allowed
    24,237 winter run salmon taken, and 148 out of an allowed 3,000
    steelhead taken.

                                 WATER PUMPING

        So I think this data supports the notion that more water
    pumping can occur without jeopardizing fish species.
        And what I am essentially asking you to do is immediately
    consider emergency measures, which can increase pumping
    sufficiently to take advantage of this storm right now
    approaching our coast.
        It is really very important. This may be the one chance we
    have to pick up some additional acre-feet of water. So I would
    like to ask that now, of both you and your distinguished
    Commissioner of Reclamation.
        Secretary Jewell. Who has become my distinguished Deputy
    Secretary.
        Senator Feinstein. Excuse me, distinguished Deputy
    Secretary.
        Secretary Jewell. I will take a very high level. I was
    shown the letter by Mike in the car on the way here, so I
    haven't had time to fully digest it.
        [The letter follows:]
               Letter From the San Joaquin River Water Authority
                                            San Joaquin
                                         River Water Authority,
                                         Los Banos, CA, March 25, 2014.
        Re Request for Emergency Relief Due to Impending Storm Events.

    Hon. Sally Jewell, Secretary,
    Department of the Interior,
    C Street NW, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Penny Pritzker, Secretary,
    Department of Commerce,
    Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
        Dear Secretary Jewell and Secretary Pritzker: We are writing to you
    under the most urgent circumstances. As you are well aware, California
    is plagued by one of the worst droughts in its history. Water year
    2013-14 thus far has proven to be the second worst water year since
    recordkeeping began in 1850. While not quite as bad as 1977 standing
    alone, it comes on the heels of 2 prior years of extremely dry
    conditions. Yet, while the opportunities existed over the past 6 weeks
    to get more water to people and into storage south of the Delta,
    inaction has resulted in the loss of 225,000-450,000 acre-feet (af) of
    water supplies. Meanwhile, over 700,000 af flowed to the ocean. The
    situation for many in California is desperate.
        Now is the time that action is needed. The State cannot afford to
    lose another round of water supplies due to less than full
    implementation of proactive measures that are available to the State
    and Federal agencies.
        The Departments of Commerce and the Interior are in the unique
    position of having many of your stakeholders being those directly and
    profoundly impacted by this drought while at the same time having the
    ability to implement emergency measures that will provide a modicum of
    relief. The situation is as follows.
        Regulations imposed on the State Water Project (SWP) and Central
    Valley Project (CVP) (together ``Projects'') through biological
    opinions issued by your Departments are having a real-time adverse
    impact on California's water supply. With storms about to hit
    California, the Projects are collectively in the position of being able
    to capture significant amounts of water without adversely impacting
    listed fisheries.
        The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been working with
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and their State counterparts
    to examine opportunities to provide flexibility to meet crucial water
    supply needs in the urban and agricultural sectors. Despite efforts to
    date, the Silicon Valley, which Secretary Pritzker recently visited and
    pledged to partner with to promote greater benefits for our economy and
    our citizens, is only receiving 75,000 acre-feet of the over 200,000
    acre-feet which it would be entitled under from State and Federal water
    sources. As a result, the local water district has requested its retail
    customers to reduce usage by 25 percent. Economic impacts of water
    rationing are severe. Similarly, in the agricultural sector, much of
    which is served by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Sacramento and San
    Joaquin Valleys are being devastated. Over 3 million acres of the
    Nation's most productive farm lands are receiving a zero surface water
    allocation this year. Permanent crops such as trees and vines are
    literally being ripped out due to lack of water. Hundreds of thousands
    of acres of permanent and annual crops will go fallow. The loss of
    permanent crops takes 5-10 years to restore. Annual crops fill
    irreplaceable supply chains that provide about 50 percent of the
    Nation's fruits and vegetables. Unemployment in the valleys will soar.
    Banks loans and insurance will become more expensive if the integrity
    of the water system is not maintained.
        The Endangered Species Act provides NMFS and USFWS with the tools
    necessary to support the emergency response actions necessary to
    provide much-needed relief that California needs and avoid the imminent
    loss of hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of irreplaceable water.
        Weather predictions indicate that another storm is heading to
    California today or Wednesday. We request that you allow for the
    maximum pumping of the flow that is going to develop from this storm
    based on the following conditions.
        Currently, protected fisheries in the Delta have experienced
    historically low take at the State and Federal water pumps. The nominal
    take is consistent with the monitoring data that has consistently and
    clearly demonstrated a lack of presence of protected fish in the
    central and south Delta in 2014. Because of this, we believe that
    maximizing pumping for the limited time that uncontrolled Sacramento
    River flows are elevated due to the storm is unlikely to jeopardize
    listed species. However, to ensure adequate levels of protection, we
    propose that if take reaches the levels of concern identified in the
    species specific incidental take statement, implementation of this
    emergency action be reassessed.
        As we explain on the attached pages, a temporary adjustment to the
    Delta smelt and Chinook salmon biological opinions (BiOps) would allow
    pumping--subject to take of fisheries--up to the full 11,280 cubic feet
    per second (cfs).
        Time is short. The storm is approaching and, practically speaking,
    we need a decision by close of business on Thursday, before Sacramento
    River flows arrive at the Delta. We therefore request that conference
    calls be set up for Wednesday and Thursday so that the situation may be
    addressed in real time with the most senior resource managers from both
    the State and Federal sectors as well as the water user and
    environmental communities.
        Once this storm series passes, and thinking ahead to the rest of
    this water season, the State is installing salinity barriers in the
    Delta. Further, State and Federal water managers are confident that
    they can control salinity in the Delta with fairly minimal flow amounts
    this summer, generally around 2,500 cfs. Water managers are proposing a
    longer term action plan that is being finalized. Continued real-time
    management will allow for improvements of water supply and protection
    of the upstream and Delta ecosystems.
        This letter is also being delivered to a number of other State and
    Federal officials that have a key role in California water decisions.
    We request that each of them become engaged in this rapid
    decisionmaking process and participate directly or through their
    delegates in these conference calls. However, we believe your direct
    leadership is necessary at this time and hope that you will participate
    personally. We have taken the liberty of setting up a conference line
    for the first call on Wednesday at 1 pm PDT (4 pm EDT). For
    convenience, we propose the same time be used for Thursday.
        The opportunity presented by this storm is upon us. We cannot
    afford inaction by either State or Federal regulators or water
    managers. We need your authority to impress upon your Departments and
    others that this is truly an emergency situation that requires
    immediate action. Failure to take action becomes a decision in and of
    itself and we are not likely to have another opportunity this year to
    help relieve this dire situation.
                Urgently and gratefully yours,
                                       Steve Chedester, Executive Director,
                                               San Joaquin River Exchange
                                                   Contractors Water
                                                   Authority.
                                       Daniel G. Nelson, Executive
                                           Director,
                                               San Luis & Delta-Mendota
                                                   Water Authority.
                                       Ronald Jacobsma, General Manager,
                                               Friant Water Authority.
                                       Chase Hurley, General Manager,
                                               San Luis Canal Company.
                                       Randy Houk, General Manager,
                                               Columbia Canal Company.
                                       Christopher L. White, General
                                           Manager,
                                               Central California
                                                   Irrigation District.
                                       Jeff Bryant, General Manager,
                                               Firebaugh Canal Water
                                                   District.
        Enclosures.
                                foregone pumping
    Upcoming storms commencing March 23, 2014
        Currently the Projects are operating to a combined 2,000 cubic feet
    per second (cfs) export level resulting in about 5,500 cfs Delta
    Outflow and an Old and Middle River reverse flow limitation (OMR) of
    about -1,600 cfs. The export/inflow (E/I) ratio is about 25 percent,
    and San Joaquin River stream flow is about 700 cfs. Storms to Northern
    California are forecast to begin Tuesday evening and will bring
    precipitation throughout the week and into the weekend. It is
    anticipated that these storms will result in unregulated runoff within
    the Sacramento Valley similar in response to the storms experienced
    earlier in the month, resulting in excess flow in the Delta which
    potentially is available for delivery and storage south of the Delta.
    Although there are uncertainties in the timing and magnitude of the
    storm events, the following provides an explanation of the constraints
    upon exports that will result in foregone pumping in the near future.
        Without immediate relaxation of several pumping and outflow
    constraints the capture of a significant amount of the excess flow will
    be foregone, up to 125,000 acre-feet, similar to what has occurred
    during each of the storms of the last 2 months. The graphic below
    illustrates projected operations beginning today, through April 9. Of
    immediate issue are the OMR and E/I constraints. As inflow to the Delta
    increases due to the storms, pumping will increase. However, almost
    immediately pumping will be constrained by a maximum OMR flow of -5,000
    cfs and a maximum E/I ratio of 35 percent. While available pumping
    capacity is about 11,280 cfs, the pumps will be running at only about
    6,600 cfs, foregoing over 9,000 acre-feet of excess flow per day for
    several days. This effect is compounded by an outflow requirement of
    7,100 cfs for X2 which limits the amount of excess outflow that can be
    pumped, but which however, under the dire drought circumstances has
    been reduced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) this
    year with the concurrence of State and Federal fishery agencies.
    Notwithstanding the SWRCB order, separate, but of significant impact on
    water supplies, will be the effect of the Reasonable and Prudent
    Alternative (RPA) condition in the Biological Opinions regarding the
    San Joaquin River Inflow to Export Ratio that would be exercised
    beginning April 1 and continuing through May. This action requires
    exports to be no greater than the inflow entering the Delta from the
    San Joaquin River (1:1), currently about 700 cfs. This action would
    constrain exports even lower than the actions already constraining the
    exports to 6,600 cfs, resulting in an additional 11,000 acre-feet per
    day of foregone pumping.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Secretary Jewell. I will say that the National Marine
    Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have
    exercised great flexibility so far this year in interpretation
    of their biological opinions to pump additional water,
    significantly more than last year.
        I also know the balance with the State needs and the
    salinity needs of the Delta, it is not just Delta smelt and the
    salmonids that are impacted.
        I am going to turn it to Mike to get into the specifics of
    this request and where we are with this incoming storm.
        Mr. Connor. Thank you, Secretary Jewell.
        Senator Feinstein, I can confirm that David Murillo, our
    regional director, will be participating in the call. We are
    still confirming availability of the key folks with Fish and
    Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) fisheries in the discussion today.
        I would just note the discussion is really an ongoing
    discussion that has been going on over the last couple months.
    The precipitation event we have now happening in California is
    the third, as you referenced.
        We have taken significant measures and improved measures,
    quite frankly, improved our interpretation in our application
    of those biological opinions. As you remember in 2013 when we
    had similar events, and we can pump in the range of 5,000 to
    6,000 cubic feet per second (CFS). In 2013, we were down around
    2,000 to 2,500 CFS. That was the reference that a lot of people
    had to lost water.
        This year, in both of the events, we have maximized our
    pumping under the biological opinions. When Secretary Jewell
    was up there about 10 days ago, we were at 5,800 CFS. We
    actually got up to about 7,000 CFS of pumping at the high
    points during that runoff period. We intend to do the same with
    this runoff period.
        We are looking at some other additional measures we can
    take, and that is an ongoing discussion amongst the five
    agencies, the three Federal and two State agencies.
        We will engage the water users in that as part of the
    discussion today and continue to try to maximize how to make
    use of the runoff that comes during these precipitation events.
        Senator Feinstein. Mike, this may be the last opportunity
    we have to get enough additional water to make the five points
    in the drought bill that Senator Boxer and I have introduced
    that we are now trying to put together 60 votes on, to produce
    an additional 300,000 to 600,000 acre feet.
        So this storm is really important that we maximize the
    ability to save that water.
        Mr. Connor. Yes, absolutely. I would note several of those
    measures that are in your legislation are measures that we have
    taken this year that have significantly helped us increase the
    pumping.
        I think we can probably do more within the parameters of
    the biological opinions and the State permit we operate under.
    Those are the two constraints that we operate under, and we
    will do as much as we can.
        Can we get up to the 11,500 CFS maximum capacity of the
    pumps? I don't know that we can get there, but we are,
    certainly, going to try to keep moving up.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, what I have to say, you know, I am
    a lifelong Californian, I have never seen the level of
    desperation that exists all down the center of our State.
        And the unemployment rate is going up. The food lines are
    building. It is really a problem.
        We flew over with the President for 100 miles and just saw
    the devastation of the absence of water in that valley.
        So I know you are sincere. I know you want to do it. Please
    make that push now.
        Thank you, Madam--Mr. President--Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. You honor me.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman, yourself.
        Senator Udall.
        Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Chairman Reed.

                OREGON MOUNTAINS-DESERT PEAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT

        And, Secretary Jewell, let me thank you very much for your
    visit to southern New Mexico. I know that you spent a couple
    days there. You had the opportunity to get around and see the
    Oregon peaks and Oregon Mountains-Desert Peaks National
    Monument and get the opportunity to get out and hike a little
    bit. And I hope that was fruitful for you.
        And I think it really prepares us to move forward with
    legislation on the monument, so I appreciate that visit.
        And it is always good to see Mike. Mike is a New Mexican,
    and we are very proud of you.

                                    DROUGHT

        And as you are well-aware, Mike, New Mexico is suffering
    the same kind of drought that has been talked about here. In
    some areas, 13 years that we have been in drought, and it is
    severely impacting farmers and ranchers and people that live
    off the land, our tribes. And I know that the Bureau of
    Reclamation (BOR) has been working very diligently on that with
    all the groups have been involved.
        It really hit me in a way when I was out near Tucumcari,
    and there is a project out there that has been organized in a
    way where the community is involved and the Bureau of
    Reclamation is involved. And since the Great Depression, when
    the project was built, they always had water for farmers and
    ranchers.
        The last 2 years, not a single drop of water. And these are
    families with livestock and crops. They have to have water. If
    they can afford to haul water, they can do that, but it is
    obviously much more expensive.
        So we are in that difficult situation, too. And I
    appreciate all your work on that.

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Secretary Jewell, last year your Office of Natural Resource
    Revenue (ONRR) had determined that revenue paid to the States
    under the Mineral Leasing Act were subject to sequestration.
    You and I talked about that, and I asked you to reevaluate your
    position. And I really want to thank you for directing the ONRR
    to reverse its position and not sequester the funds.
        This revenue is vital to States such as New Mexico. It
    funds necessary items such as public schools, community
    colleges, emergency response activities, and basic
    infrastructure projects. So it was critical that these funds
    not be impacted by sequestration. We appreciate your attention
    to that.

                           PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

        And I also would like to share my concerns regarding
    another form of critical support for local governments. That is
    the program Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or PILT. As you know, the
    PILT program provides critical funding to communities in New
    Mexico, like Cibola County, San Juan, Otero, Eddy counties,
    just to name a few of our 33 that get these funds.
        And I am very concerned there might be a lapse. We have
    been able to work in the appropriations process to get a 1-year
    extension. But I am wondering if you could share with me your
    thoughts on how we can make sure we have the funds there and
    how we can get congressional-executive cooperation to see that
    we have PILT funding in 2014 and beyond.
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you, Senator. It was a pleasure to
    visit your State. It was the first time I have seen a tarantula
    on the trail, so that was interesting.
        We are strong supporters of PILT as well as Secure Rural
    Schools. We recognize when Federal lands are in local
    communities, it takes them off the tax rolls, and that is the
    purpose of PILT.
        There is, in the President's budget, a 1-year
    reauthorization. As you know, for 2014, it passed on the farm
    bill.
        We would love to see a permanent fix. I think as we look at
    the authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
    potentially putting that together with PILT is an appropriate
    way of looking at a longer-term, permanent source of funding
    for both programs, which are so important for the reasons that
    I talked about in my opening statement, and in answers.
        I am happy to work with you. I think that makes sense for a
    rational path forward.
        Senator Udall. And I was going to ask also about the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund, but you hit on both of those. And
    they are absolutely key programs to the West and very much
    appreciate your help there.

                                 PILOT OFFICES

        I wanted to also ask about the BLM pilot offices. As you
    know, the 2005 energy bill designated several pilot offices to
    receive extra resources to expedite permitting processing and
    conduct much-needed environmental oversight.
        These offices, which include the Carlsbad and Farmington
    offices in New Mexico, are already understaffed and overworked.
    But the looming expiration of this program at the end of 2015
    would further burden these offices.
        Can you provide some insight into the importance of this
    pilot program as it relates to the responsible energy
    development in States like New Mexico? And how does the
    investment in energy development translate into revenue for the
    American taxpayer?
        Secretary Jewell. In a quick nutshell, because I know we
    are running out of time. The pilot offices were a great
    experiment, but they went along political lines, along State
    lines, and oil and gas exploration resources don't know
    political boundaries.
        There is support in the 2015 budget for extension of the
    pilot office authority, but it also includes flexibility to be
    able to relocate the offices, to meet the demands of
    permitting.
        We have had dramatic reductions in the amount of time taken
    to process authorizations for permits to drill. We have
    improved the inspections, because of the investment in these
    pilot offices.
        We do find that there is sometimes a mismatch between where
    the pilot process is and where the demand has moved to because
    of the development. The offices have had a good return on
    investment, and we believe that is important to our strategy
    going forward, in addition to asking companies to pay for a
    portion of what it costs us, particularly in inspections and
    safety.
        There are some revenue proposals in this budget that enable
    us to charge fees to industry to inspect, and that will also
    help us fund these offices in terms of supporting future
    development.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Senator Reed. Senator Johnson.
        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Chairman Reed. I share the
    concerns about the PILT program.

                                    LANDSAT

        Secretary Jewell, I applaud you, the U.S. Geological Survey
    (USGS), and, in particular, the Eros Data Center in South
    Dakota for the extraordinary success of the Landsat program.
    With last year's launch of Landsat 8 and the inevitable
    expiration of Landsat 7 in a few years, the continuity of this
    imagery into the future will become a critical question.
        As such, Congress included language in the committee report
    to the fiscal year 2014 funding bill directing USGS and the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to
    collaborate and develop a new path forward for the Landsat
    program.
        Can you give me an update about the status of those
    discussions, and how the short timeline for needing to launch
    the Landsat 7 replacement is factoring into these plans?
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you very much, Senator, for the
    questions.
        I did have an opportunity about 2 months ago to meet with
    NASA to talk about this program. It is very critical that we
    replace Landsat 7 before its batteries run out. It gives us, I
    think, an 8-day gap in data, which is very, very important.
        Landsat 8 provides a lot of new information that helps us
    deal with things like evapotranspiration, which are very
    important to understanding the impacts of drought and water
    across a lot of the country, and many other things.
        We are working closely with NASA on the potential of a
    clone to Landsat 8, and also an interim solution that gives us
    the data we need that NASA presented to us at our meeting.
        We are very committed to a path forward. We appreciate the
    support in the legislation and will continue to work with
    Congress on making sure we don't have a data gap on this
    support program.
        Senator Johnson. I appreciate your attendance at the Eros
    Data Center recently.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        The Land and Water Conservation Fund has supported several
    recent projects in South Dakota, including an expansion of Wind
    Cave National Park, protection of grasslands in the Prairie
    Pothole Region, and the acquisition of key portions of the new
    Good Earth State Park.
        These projects have boosted tourism, protected our ranching
    heritage, and provided additional opportunities for hunting,
    fishing and other outdoor recreation.
        The administration budget has identified four priority
    projects for land or easement acquisition in South Dakota in
    fiscal year 2015 as a part of the Grasslands/Prairie Potholes
    Cooperative Landscape Partnership.
        However, much of the funding for these projects, and many
    others around the country, is proposed to come from a permanent
    funding mechanism that I support but does not yet exist. Should
    this funding mechanism not be enacted, what is your perspective
    on funding the projects on the list designated for permanent
    funding?
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you, Senator.
        The proposal for 2015 has $350 million in the current
    appropriations, and the balance, to the $900 million would
    require a legislative approval. The legislative proposal also
    includes full and permanent funding at $900 million in 2016 and
    beyond.
        There is $350 million in this proposal, in the budget
    proposal that you have before you.
        There are many projects that exceed what we have in LWCF
    funding, and we prioritize them according to their ability to
    address the biggest challenges we have and the biggest
    opportunities we have. The number of willing sellers who want
    to sell us land relative to our ability to buy them, and there
    are a lot more people that want to sell us land than we have
    money for.
        I know we have $7 million for the Dakota Grasslands
    Conservation Area, $3 million in the Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife
    Area, and $574,000 for Wind Cave.
        Rhea or Pam, do you know where those are within the $350
    million as opposed to the $900 million. And where they stack
    up?
        And if we don't know right away, Senator, we will get back
    to you with details on that.
        [The information follows:]
                         LWCF Projects in South Dakota
    The following projects are included in the $350 million discretionary
    request:

        FWS.--Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area,
    $3,000,000; Dakota Grassland Conservation Area, $7,000,000.

    The following projects are included in the $550 million mandatory
    request:

        FWS.--Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area,
    $3,887,000; Dakota Grassland Conservation Area, $7,000,000.
        NPS.--Wind Cave National Park, $574,000.

        Senator Johnson. Please do.
        Secretary Jewell. But the Prairie Pothole, the Nation's
    duck factory, it is really, really critical habitat and, as you
    know, disappearing very quickly from agricultural development,
    as well as other forms of development. It is very important to
    us.
        Senator Johnson. In South Dakota, visitor spending in and
    around our six national park units totaled $160 million in
    2011, and it supported more than 2,500 jobs.
        With the importance of the national park system to our
    national, State and local economies, we cannot continue to push
    deferred needs to the future without substantial risk.

                              MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

        The administration has proposed a substantial investment in
    our parks in the fiscal year 2015 budget, but it is clearly
    only a down payment, given the nearly $11 billion maintenance
    backlog nationwide. With flat or declining budgets and the
    upcoming centennial of the park system, what approaches do you
    see to redeem our stewardship responsibilities and address this
    backlog in an efficient and effective way over the next decade?
        Secretary Jewell. Senator, thank you very much for the
    question. This is a topic I am passionate about, and something
    where we only have one shot at the centennial.
        We know there will be increased visitation, and the
    National Park Foundation is working to raise awareness about
    the importance of national parks to all Americans and drive
    tourism, both domestically and abroad.
        The parks have prioritized the assets they have that need
    the most maintenance that are likely going to see the most
    visitors. We have a $40 million increase proposed in the
    budget. $10 million of that is for a matching fund, because
    there is a lot of private philanthropic interest, and that will
    be one way forward, to raise private money because people do
    love their national parks and are willing to support them. The
    match will help leverage those dollars even further.
        But it is just a down payment, as you point out. Even with
    the $1.2 billion recommendation we have in the President's
    budget for mandatory funding for the national parks over 3
    years, we are still not going to make a material difference in
    the maintenance backlog.
        The National Park Centennial will give people an
    opportunity to recognize these special places, and we believe,
    as the public speaks in a democracy, we will have the
    opportunity for additional support.
        I also just want to reference that in the Helium bill,
    Senator Murkowski was able to add additional $50 million for
    maintenance of the national parks, and we appreciate those
    efforts. They all add up.
        Senator Johnson. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator.
        We will begin a second round.

                                     YOUTH

        Madam Secretary, we have a common goal, which is to get
    young people involved in the outdoors through education. I have
    introduced, on several occasions, the No Child Left Inside Act.
    Your budget identifies almost $51 million in funding for youth
    engagement programs. Actually, it is a 37 percent increase
    since fiscal year 2014.
        Could you please walk us through the specifics on how you
    intend to use these funds, and how you measure success in this
    investment?
        Secretary Jewell. Thanks for the question.
        We have a four-tiered plan, if you will. We have a
    generational transformation going on in the country right now.
    The millennial generation is already larger than the baby boom
    generation. They came of age during a tough economy. Many of
    them have been more disconnected to nature and the outdoors
    than before, and yet we really need them to be in the kinds of
    positions that are necessary for the overall stewardship and
    development of our public lands.
        Part of this program is to engage that generation, but it
    is also a continuum, recognizing that the best introduction to
    nature and the outdoors comes in the form of play for children.
    Part of this budget supports programs in our regions to partner
    with 50 cities on increasing opportunities for children to play
    on public lands.
        Examples might be urban wildlife refuges, which are already
    incredible assets in urban areas. Some of the money will go to
    support connecting children to those places, and the next tier,
    which is learn.
        We have a goal of getting 10 million children engaged in
    playing on public lands and 10 million children learning on
    public lands. This recognizes and supports the ongoing programs
    and emphasizes them further.
        Then there are two more components, serve and work. Public
    service on public lands, volunteering on public lands, enables
    young people to never look at those lands in the same way. I
    make it a point of doing service projects regularly, to get out
    on the land, to work with my hands and to work with young
    people.
        Those efforts oftentimes are led by young people working in
    Youth Conservation Corps, and there is nothing I like better
    than being told what to do by a twentysomething who is working
    on a Youth Conservation Corps, who can teach me the difference
    between poison ivy and English ivy as I remove it in Rock Creek
    Park, or things like that across the country.
        We have a goal to engage by the end of this term a million
    hours of volunteer service on public lands--that is triple
    where we are right now--and a goal to create 100,000 jobs over
    4 years on public lands through working collaboratively with
    Youth Conservation Corps.
        We are very committed to this effort, and we will be
    building a new generation of young people that care and
    understand these resources and can learn from those who are
    already in these kinds of jobs.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

                            HURRICANE SANDY FUNDING

        Before I recognize Senator Begich for his first round, let
    me ask one more question, and that is, Hurricane Sandy was
    devastating to my region, and there is about $100 million,
    which the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is helping to
    administer through your office, in terms of grants.
        If you could get us up-to-date in terms of when do you
    anticipate these awards being made, and talk about the demands
    for these grants? And, indeed, what long-term goals are you
    trying to achieve through the grants?
        Secretary Jewell. Starting with the last question, we think
    that competitive grants that provide people with an opportunity
    to think how we can leverage these funds most effectively to
    achieve the objectives have just been very successful in other
    areas. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is
    administering them for us, and I appreciate the four letters
    you sent me on projects--I think it is four, maybe more--in
    your region.
        We had 378 proposals submitted, totaling $568 million for
    the $100 million in grants. It includes 10 proposals
    exclusively for the State of Rhode Island for $11.3 million. We
    have a panel of experts who are working through these proposals
    who really know these issues, and they expect to make a final
    decision by June of this year.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Senator Begich.
        Senator Begich. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am
    sorry, I had to step out there for a few minutes. But let me,
    if I can, I want to recap.

                                 KING COVE ROAD

        I know we had a meeting yesterday, and I want to thank you
    for that, Madam Secretary, joining myself and the King Cove
    community in having the discussion, which I think was scheduled
    for a half-hour and ended up a little over an hour. And I
    appreciate the time that you took there.
        And I know the community laid out additional concerns, as
    well as some concerns with alternatives, and I want to walk
    through just a couple things, just to make sure to put it on
    the record for all of us.
        In the meeting, we talked about the King Cove community
    coming back by April 15 with information or additional
    information that they would like to present to you in regards
    to potential options that may be out there and the problems
    with those options. And I want to make sure I put that on the
    record and confirm that is your understanding, that by April
    15, they will be coming forward to you and to the delegation,
    but directly to your office, I think it was through Pat
    Pourchot, if I recall right, to give you kind of a list of
    concerns they would have with many of these alternatives that
    are being talked about or considered as an alternative to the
    road. Is that your understanding?
        Secretary Jewell. Yes.
        Senator Begich. On top of that, there is a letter that they
    sent to you, I think it was early January, and they had not
    received a response yet in regards to their concerns with the
    Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the actual elements of
    it. The commitment was, after that information was additionally
    given to your office after April 15, simultaneously, I should
    say, during that period of time, you will review with legal
    what your ability is to respond to that letter, how in depth or
    how minimal it will be, but you would not respond until this
    additional information comes in, so you might incorporate
    responses also to that. Is that your understanding?
        Secretary Jewell. It is my understanding they will be
    getting me additional information, and I need to consult with
    legal counsel. There are really complicated laws involved here
    that I am not familiar with. The timing of my response relative
    to the information I get is something I need to talk over with
    legal counsel. Because we met until late yesterday, I haven't
    had a chance to talk with them yet today on a path forward.
        Senator Begich. No problem. But I want to make sure that,
    one way or another, it may be a very short letter, it may be a
    very long letter, but there will be a response to the
    correspondence they sent in to you the beginning of January
    regarding the EIS.
        You may not be able to go into detail on it, because legal
    may tell you not, but they may tell you, sure, go ahead and
    respond. But either way, after April 15, once additional
    information is provided, you will have some sort of response to
    the original letter and the additional information. It may be
    limited or it may expanded, depending on what legal tells you;
    is that correct?
        Secretary Jewell. Yes, I will provide a response in both
    cases.
        Senator Begich. OK.
        And can I say that your conversation yesterday, that you
    were not closed to hear these issues with these alternatives
    that may be kicked around, but you wanted factual--for example,
    we talked about the weather conditions that would not allow
    some port activity because of the icing, and so forth. One of
    the concerns, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you
    wanted to make sure that the data that comes from the King Cove
    community shows exactly why this would not work, which I agree
    with that. I mean, I would argue the King Cove community will
    give you plenty of information, why it ices up, why these
    conditions will just never allow this alternative.
        But your understanding is that you want to see that in data
    form on some site. Is that fair? I am trying to summarize here
    in a public forum what we talked about.
        Secretary Jewell. There are lots of facts that were
    incorporated into the record of decision. I haven't read the
    detailed EIS. I read an awful lot of material.
        There are legal parameters around records of decision that
    I don't fully understand. If there are additional facts and
    information, I am, certainly, willing to review those facts and
    information, particularly with regard to alternatives in
    supporting the residents of King Cove, and their needs for
    medical evacuation.
        Senator Begich. OK. And I think it is fair to say that the
    delegation's view, the King Cove community view, is there is
    one alternate. It is the road. Is that a fair, from your
    viewpoint at this----
        Secretary Jewell. Yes, in all of my communications with the
    community, and I think it is probably fair to say in the 300 or
    so consultations that have happened over the years, the
    community has been consistent in only wanting to assess one
    alternative, which is a road.
        Senator Begich. Let me, if I can because I will have more
    on that as we move down the process here, but I will have some
    additional stuff for you later, but let me ask you a couple
    quick things in regards to the budget.

                    SITE CONTAMINATION AT TRANSFERRED LANDS

        I know I sent a letter in regard to contaminated lands that
    were transferred to the Alaska Native Corporation through the
    Alaska Native Lands Claims Settlement Act. This was an issue. I
    think there are 600 of these sites, or plus.
        There were six recommendations made in 1998. We sent you a
    letter to ask your Department to review these recommendations
    and what action you would take or not take in regard to these
    contaminated lands. It is almost, as you know, over 15 years
    since these recommendations.
        If you can give me a quick update on the status of
    responding to that letter in regard to those recommendations,
    for the record?
        Secretary Jewell. Are these regarding the legacy wells and
    the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska?
        Senator Begich. No. These are lands that were transferred
    to native corporations. Some were polluted lands. They were BLM
    lands. And they were other type of contaminations.
        Secretary Jewell. OK, I am sorry, I don't have information
    on that, so let me get back to you for the record on that.
        [The information follows:]
                    Site Contamination at Transferred Lands
        Secretary Jewell responded to Senator Begich's letter (co-signed by
    Senator Murkowski and Representative Young) on January 10, 2014.
    Secretary Jewell's letter explained that, among other things, the
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is reviewing the sites listed in the
    1998 BLM Report to Congress (``Hazardous Substance Contamination of
    Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Lands in Alaska'') to better
    determine if the lands were Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
    conveyances. Since January, BLM-Alaska has organized a team to
    specifically focus on the contaminated lands conveyance issue in
    Alaska. This group is currently working to gather data and understand
    the scope of the issue. They are going through BLM's data to determine
    what contaminated lands may have been conveyed to whom, and whether
    potentially contaminated lands were contaminated prior to being
    conveyed or after, and by whom. A database of this information is being
    developed. BLM-Alaska is working cooperatively with the Alaska Native
    Village CEO Association on this issue and meeting regularly with them
    as it gathers information and compiles the inventory. The BLM's goal is
    to complete the inventory by August of this year.

        Senator Begich. I would appreciate that. That would be very
    important.
        Again, it is a direct letter that I wrote, but that would
    be very helpful.

                             CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

        Also, I do want to say your comments in regard to the BIA
    and the Indian Health Service funding and full funding, one,
    BIA, I will say, has done a good job on this in the sense of,
    one, getting this cap resolved, but also moving forward on
    settling the past due.
        Indian Health Services, they are not here today, because
    they are not part of this, has not done a very good job on
    this. But the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has done a good
    job, and I just want to give you credit on that, because these
    are monies owed. It is not a question of if they are owed, and
    the money is there, and Treasury has it in the legal fund in
    order to pay these. So I thank you for kind of aggressively
    moving.
        We are not done with this issue, as you know, because we
    need to make sure it is not just a 1-year, 2-year off issue
    that we are fully funding. We need to make sure that this is
    100 percent into the future, because these are contracted
    services that are being provided throughout the country for
    Indian Health Services or health care for first people in this
    country. So I want to just note that.

                             INDIAN AFFAIRS FUNDING

        And last, Mr. Chairman, and if I can, one note I want to
    put on the record, and maybe a response of why this is, but out
    of all the different major areas over the last decade, the BIA
    has had the smallest increase compared to any other unit within
    the Department of the Interior. I think it has only been, of
    the six largest units, it is the smallest increase.
        And we get this concern from our tribes on a very regular
    basis. Why are they--and I say ``they'' collectively--always on
    the backend in the increases that happened in the six largest
    areas in the Interior Department.
        And again, if you can answer now, that is great. I know I
    am out of time, but if you want to respond in writing, that
    would be fantastic.
        Secretary Jewell. Do I have time for a quick response, Mr.
    Chairman?
        Senator Reed. Yes, ma'am.
        Secretary Jewell. OK, thanks.

                             CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

        First on contract support costs, we fully support that. I
    have been asked by the White House to chair the White House
    Council on Native American Affairs. I can tell you from talking
    to my colleague, Kathleen Sebelius, and many other Cabinet
    secretaries, there is strong support for Indian country across
    the board. I think that forum gives us a chance to remind all
    of the bureaus and agencies about the role they play in
    upholding trust and treaty obligations to tribes.
        In terms of the budget, there is an increase in budget for
    Indian Affairs and Indian Education. It is higher than some and
    lower than others in this budget. I also want to say there is
    another I think $612 million across all of the bureaus to
    support programs in Indian country, whether it is the mineral
    development, because part of the BLM's responsibility is the
    mineral estate under tribal lands, or invasive species or fire.
    It is an important component of the fire budget as well.
        It needs to be taken holistically, but I am very
    appreciative of the President's budget and its support for
    Indian country. It is never enough, just as we have a backlog
    on our facilities and national parks, and it feels like you
    don't catch up, but it is, certainly, a strong statement about
    the administration's support. I am behind that and will
    continue to push.
        Senator Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I will send you a document from our tribes in southeast
    that I want to share with you and BIA. And I think it would be
    very important to see the comparisons, and I will share that
    with you in a follow-up letter.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                 KING COVE ROAD

        And, Secretary, as you are evaluating the information that
    the community of King Cove will provide to you prior to the
    15th of April, I want to make sure that you have a copy of the
    report that was conducted, I guess just completed the 24th of
    March, regarding the suitability of the landing craft as well
    as a letter from PeterPan Seafoods, in terms of a complete
    denial of any interest, recognizing that they would have no
    interest nor opportunity in a road, as well as information from
    Coast Guard that we are compiling. I think that that would be
    helpful for you.
        And I just also wanted to note that you made a comment
    about the fact that there are many communities in Alaska that
    experience difficulties in gaining access to medical care. That
    is absolutely true. But the difference between so many of them
    and the situation in King Cove, is King Cove is the only
    community that has a viable alternative right in front of them,
    or maybe 10 miles away from them.
        So I would hesitate to suggest that because other rural
    communities don't have good access, that that is somehow a
    reason to deny King Cove, because two wrongs don't make a
    right. I just wanted to add that.

                         ARCTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF

        I just wanted to ask very quickly, with my remaining time
    here, as we wrap up this hearing, about Arctic Outer
    Continental Shelf (OCS). As you know, Shell canceled its
    exploratory drilling program up in the Chukchi for this summer,
    based in part on the Ninth Circuit decision that came out that
    determined the EIS for the lease sale was deficient, and also
    failure to provide regulatory certainty from the Department, as
    far as how to move forward in the Arctic.
        So as I have talked with Shell, what they are hoping for,
    and what I am hoping to understand from you this morning, is
    how the Department intends to proceed with this. Will it be
    kind of a dual-track process where the Department will work to
    remediate the EIS that the Ninth Circuit struck down while at
    the same time committing to evaluate the exploration programs
    so that Shell can proceed with work in 2015, because the
    concern, of course, is that we just work on the legal track,
    but we are not working the regulatory track at the same time.
        Can you tell me how that is going forward and when you
    might expect that the regulations for offshore exploration
    might be released?
        Secretary Jewell. Thank you. Just to be clear, Senator, the
    decision that Shell made to not go forward was not based, from
    their conversations with us, on regulatory uncertainty.
        My colleague Brian Salerno, a former Coast Guard admiral
    who is running the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
    Enforcement, has been working hand-in-glove with Shell,
    including looking at its subsea containment system and working
    closely with them on a plan to pursue their activities in the
    Arctic that we consider to be a good illustration of where the
    regulations will come out. We are not slowing down the process
    of their ability to drill based on waiting for the regulations
    to come out.
        Senator Murkowski. No, and I wasn't suggesting that you
    were slowing down.
        Secretary Jewell. OK.
        Senator Murkowski. What I know is not complete, is that
    these regulations have not been released, so as Shell is trying
    to determine how they do proceed, they need some certainty. So
    I am just curious as to how we are coming with the timing of
    that, and how that is tracking with dealing with the deficient
    lease sale.
        Secretary Jewell. They are in the process of writing up the
    regulations consistent with what Shell was already checking
    for, and we expect to have them published in the Federal
    Register this year, so there should not be difficulty, if there
    is a green light through the Ninth Circuit Court, and the
    supplemental EIS, for them to proceed, as long as the court is
    satisfied.
        We understand the very limited drilling season. We
    understand the challenges of logistics and staging. We are
    working closely with the courts on what they expect of us, in
    terms of an update to the EIS. We are continuing to stay in
    close contact with Shell and Conoco Phillips on their interest
    in pursuing this.
        I do not anticipate the regulations that are being
    formulated to have any impact at all on their ability to
    operate once the courts have agreed on a path forward.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, just know that we are monitoring
    very carefully in terms of when these regulations will come
    out. Initially, it was anticipated that they would be out well
    by this point in time. You have now indicated that they will be
    done sometime this year. Just for planning purposes, knowing
    what the rules of the road are is critically important.

                          BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI LEASES

        You mentioned the short drilling season that we have up
    North, another thing that we are facing is that many, if not
    all, as I understand, of the leases in the Beaufort and the
    Chukchi will expire before we can reasonably expect oil
    production to be brought online. And so while it may be a
    little premature at this point in time to talk about extension
    of those leases, I think it is something that the
    administration is going to have to look at in terms of its
    commitment to working with those who have leases in the Arctic,
    recognizing the challenges that we face with any kind of
    expiration opportunity up there, both on the environmental
    side, both on the regulatory side.
        But if there is a true commitment from this administration
    to advance Arctic expiration offshore, I think that is going to
    be a situation that we will have to look at, because the timing
    is not coming together as one might hope in terms of the
    lifetime of the leases and the ability to advance with
    exploration and the production. So I just put that in front of
    you.
        Secretary Jewell. Senator, I know my colleagues at the
    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and
    Environmental Enforcement are working closely with the
    operators there. The suspensions of leases are in active
    discussions. We understand that there are time delays. If an
    EIS isn't done right the first time, it throws you back and
    impacts the regulatory certainty for operators. It is
    unfortunate that occurred, but we are working actively with the
    companies up there in what they desire and what we think is
    appropriate for the American people as well.
        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a whole host of additional questions.
    As you well know, the Interior Department, the Secretary of
    Interior, have a great deal of influence in play in my State. I
    refer to the Department of the Interior and the Secretary's
    role as being effectively one as landlords, so we have
    pertinent issues as they relate to oil and gas development;
    legacy wells, as the Secretary mentioned; contaminated lands;
    national parks; Brooks Camp, what we are doing up there. So I
    will submit those in writing and look forward to responses.
        But I thank the Secretary and the other members of the
    panel this morning.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        The record will remain open until April 2 for additional
    statements or questions by any of my colleagues.
        And I would ask you, Madam Secretary, to respond as quickly
    as possible. We thank you, Madam Secretary, for your testimony,
    and your colleagues. Thank you very much.
        [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
                           youth and veteran programs
        Question. Secretary Jewell, you recently committed to raise up to
    $20 million in private funding for youth engagement programs to
    leverage the Department's contributions. How do you plan on
    accomplishing this? Does the Department have the authority to solicit
    and hold private funding for these programs? How do you plan on
    administering the private funds you raise?
        Answer. The Take Pride in America Act authorizes the Secretary to
    carry out a number of activities, including: partnering with public and
    private organizations to promote participation in volunteer efforts
    through a public awareness campaign, soliciting and accepting donations
    in furtherance of the Take Pride in America Act, and accepting
    volunteer services from individuals and organizations. Interior's
    bureaus also have authority to accept volunteer services. Interior has
    partnered with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation)
    for the $20 million fundraising goal. Secretary Jewell and the
    Department will work to increase awareness of the opportunity to
    support youth and veteran engagement opportunities and inform
    prospective donors of the opportunity to make donations to the
    Foundation. The Foundation has established a separate fund (the
    Interior 21st Century Conservation Service Corps Account) to receive
    the funds, distribute those funds to nonprofit corps partners and be
    responsible for annual reporting on the associated projects and
    results.
        Question. Your budget also emphasizes making connections between
    veterans and land management agencies but doesn't provide many details
    on how you will accomplish that goal. How is the Department moving
    forward with veterans' programs? Are you partnering with the Veterans
    Administration or non-profit organizations?
        Answer. Since 2010, the Department has been active in establishing
    long-term relationships with Federal agencies, schools, veterans'
    organizations and military organizations. The Department and our
    bureaus have entered into formal agreements with the Department of
    Veterans Affairs and the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve. The
    Department was the first Federal agency to sign an agreement with the
    Office of the Chief, Army Reserve that focused on connecting reserve
    service members to employment opportunities; connecting military youth
    and families to America's great outdoors, history and culture; and
    expanding recreational opportunities for community-based wounded
    warrior programs. The Department also has partnerships with non-profit
    organizations such as Veterans Green Jobs and Mt. Adams Institute, to
    connect America's veterans to conservation and land management. These
    partnerships expand opportunities for veterans (and military families)
    to learn the importance of natural resource management and explore
    potential careers within land management agencies. Interior's work with
    these organizations is a critical aspect of our success in hiring
    veterans over the past 3 years, which reached 40 percent of our
    permanent hires in fiscal year 2013. Our goal is to continue building a
    talent pipeline of our Nation's veterans, by continuing and enhancing
    partnerships with the Department of Veterans Affairs, veteran service
    organizations and other non-profit organizations.
        The President's fiscal year 2015 budget for the Department of
    Veterans Affairs also includes $1 billion in mandatory funding to
    create the Veterans Job Corps program that would put thousands of
    veterans back to work over the next 5 years protecting and rebuilding
    America. The Department of Veterans Affairs proposal would authorize
    and provide funding to coordinate an interagency process and transfer
    up to $1 billion in mandatory funding over 5 years to establish the
    Veterans Job Corps. Funding will enable veterans to leverage skills
    developed in the military in jobs on the country's public lands and in
    its communities, ranging from conservation and infrastructure projects
    to law enforcement and first responder jobs, such as park rangers,
    police officers, and firefighters.
                        national park service centennial
        Question. The centennial of the National Park Service (NPS) in 2016
    is deservedly a major focus of your budget request. Specifically, you
    have requested $40 million for this proposal, including $30 million in
    visitor service and facilities projects and $10 million for Centennial
    Challenge grants to match Federal funding for infrastructure needs with
    contributions from non-Federal partners. How will these funds be
    allocated among park units? Where are your focus areas?
        Answer. The President's request includes a discretionary increase
    of $40 million to prepare for and celebrate the Centennial. This
    requested increase includes $30 million for operations to support
    visitors during the 2016 Centennial celebrations and to provide a
    stronger foundation for visitor services and infrastructure investments
    in its second century of preserving the parks for ongoing usage and the
    future enjoyment of visitors. Of the $30 million increase for
    operations, $4 million would support 21st Century Conservation Service
    Corps youth work opportunities to educate and engage the next
    generation; $2 million would support volunteer opportunities for young
    people to expand the capacity of the NPS to manage volunteers in parks;
    $8 million in competitively managed funds would support enhanced
    visitor services in the areas of interpretation and education, law
    enforcement and protection, and facility operations; and $16 million
    would support improvement in the condition of high priority park
    assets, such as visitor use facilities, historic structures, and
    trails. Across these centennial increases, the budget provides an $8
    million increase for youth engagement and employment opportunities, and
    continues the NPS' efforts to attract qualified veteran candidates to
    fill Federal positions.
        The remaining $10 million of the $40 million discretionary request
    is for the Centennial Challenge program, which would leverage Federal
    funds with partner donations for signature projects and programs at
    national parks. Preference would be given to projects that have a clear
    and immediate visitor benefit as well as a higher partner match. The
    Challenge will require at least a one for one match from non-Federal
    entities, with some projects leveraging more. While many parks and
    partners have expressed interest, projects would not be selected until
    funds are appropriated.
        In addition to this discretionary request, the President's budget
    also proposes $400 million a year for 3 years for Centennial activities
    to be provided as mandatory funding through authorization legislation.
    This includes $100 million a year for 3 years for Centennial Challenge
    projects and programs, $200 million a year for 3 years for deferred
    maintenance projects, and $100 million a year for 3 years for the
    multi-agency Centennial Land Management Investment Fund, which will
    provide an opportunity for all of Interior's public lands bureaus and
    the U.S. Forest Service to address conservation and infrastructure
    project needs.
        Question. How will the Centennial Challenge grant proposal actually
    work? Do you already have partners who are looking to match their funds
    for specific projects?
        Answer. Similar to the 2008 appropriation, once funding was known,
    an announcement would be made soliciting project ideas and partner
    matches. Preference would be given to projects that have a higher
    partner match, and clear visitor benefit. In order for a project to be
    chosen, a commitment letter from the partner is required as well as
    demonstrated park support. There is strong evidence of support for
    partner matching projects; several partners have already indicated
    willingness to match Federal funds for projects. The NPS is aware of
    potential partners from both large and small parks as well as local and
    national organizations.
                        land and water conservation fund
        Question. It is clear that the Department has taken notice of
    Committee direction about the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
    and has assembled a more geographically diverse list of projects
    proposed for discretionary funding. Do you believe this budget balances
    the need to conserve smaller tracts in urban areas and larger
    landscapes?
        Answer. The 2015 budget requests funding for a diverse portfolio of
    projects through the Land and Water Conservation Fund's many programs,
    and were thoughtfully designed to ensure we balance the conservation
    and recreational access needs of diverse communities and landscapes
    across the country. For example, the budget requests a total of $100.1
    million ($48.1 million discretionary and $52 million mandatory) for the
    NPS-administered State and Local Assistance Grant program, which will
    provide grants to States and localities to plan for, acquire, and
    develop facilities for close-to-home recreation in communities in every
    State and territory. The budget requests a total of $100 million ($50
    million discretionary and $50 million mandatory) for Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS)-administered Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
    grants, which will support State efforts to develop and implement plans
    for endangered species recovery and habitat conservation. These grants
    support small scale efforts in a wide variety of settings, including
    near developed communities and in rural areas.
        Across the discretionary and mandatory requests, the budget
    includes funding for 125 unique bureau land acquisition projects in 36
    States. This portfolio of projects reflects the reality that
    conservation and recreation needs vary widely across the Nation, and
    proposes funding strategies that are responsive to the unique needs of
    local communities and landscapes. The budget includes support for land
    acquisition projects that range from fee simple acquisition of a 5-acre
    inholding at Maine's Acadia National Park to the FWS easement
    acquisition of 30,000 acres--through conservation easement partnerships
    with multiple landowners--in the Dakota Grasslands of North Dakota and
    South Dakota.
        Question. Diversity in the project lists is key to engendering
    support nationally for LWCF, particularly as it needs to be
    reauthorized next year. What is the Department's plan for
    reauthorization? When should we expect to see a full legislative
    proposal and a concerted effort to engage the authorizing committees?
        Answer. The 2015 budget includes four mandatory spending proposals,
    of which one is mandatory funding for the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund. We are currently working within the administration, including
    with the Department of Agriculture, to ensure the reauthorization
    proposal is comprehensive and relevant to 21st century conservation
    needs.
        The administration anticipates working in collaboration with
    legislators and staff to develop a plan to authorize $550 million in
    mandatory funding for 2015, and to reauthorize the program permanently
    with full mandatory funding beginning in 2016. The administration looks
    forward to working with Congress on the details of legislation that
    would advance our LWCF proposal.
        Question. I am concerned about how Congress, and more specifically,
    the Appropriations Committee, will remain involved in this process if
    LWCF is switched to a mandatory program. The Committee has a
    longstanding role in determining how land acquisition funds are
    allocated and how priorities are set, and we value that role. How is
    the administration planning to continue to involve Congress in land
    acquisition decisions through your mandatory proposal? And
    specifically, what role do you foresee the Appropriations Committee
    playing if funds are made mandatory?
        Answer. The administration anticipates close collaboration with
    Congress as we develop a plan for reauthorizing LWCF with mandatory
    funding. The administration recognizes and values the role the
    Committee has historically played providing oversight to ensure the
    wise expenditure of LWCF funds, and looks forward to working with
    Committee staff to develop procedures for implementation of a mandatory
    funding regime which provides appropriate avenues for continued
    congressional input and oversight.
        Question. As you have traveled the country over the past year as
    Secretary of the Interior, including our trip to Rhode Island in May, I
    know you have seen the great diversity in our Federal lands and the
    great need to protect threatened lands for conservation. Those of us in
    the East are just as worried about protecting small inholdings in our
    urban centers as those in the West are in protecting our Nation's most
    dramatic landscapes. What do you see as your mark on the Land and Water
    program?
        Answer. One of my highest conservation priorities is securing
    reauthorization of the LWCF and ensuring the program is fully funded
    with mandatory funding. Authorizing permanent mandatory funding for the
    LWCF would realize the original intent of this law: to set aside a
    meaningful portion of the royalties that companies pay for developing
    America's offshore oil and gas reserves, and reinvest those funds in
    land and water conservation for the benefit of all Americans and future
    generations. Without mandatory funding, it appears likely we will
    continue to underinvest in land and water conservation programs as
    funding for these programs must compete directly with a wide range of
    other programs with varying objectives as part of the annual
    appropriations process. Mandatory funding will provide greater
    certainty this portion of our offshore royalties are used for their
    original intended purpose: to support the national endowment of lands
    and waters which provide our cities with clean drinking water, provide
    our children with safe places to play, and protect the way of life of
    our farmers, foresters and ranchers.
        Each community's vision for conservation of their lands and waters
    will be unique to its community, but our cities, towns and rural areas
    across the country all share a common need for resources to invest in
    public open space and conservation. A fully funded LWCF will provide
    the resources we need to fund the full spectrum of conservation and
    recreational access projects that communities want to invest in. We can
    fund city parks so kids can get outside and play in their own
    neighborhoods, and we can fund landscape scale conservation,
    collaborating with private landowners on conservation easements that
    keep working lands in production while protecting habitat, wildlife
    migration corridors and clean drinking water.
        Question. I am concerned that we continue to hear the unsupported,
    shopworn argument that securing more conservation land adds unduly to
    Federal land management and maintenance costs. Can you please provide
    the subcommittee with a fuller understanding of the ways that land
    conservation through LWCF improves management and reduces operating
    expenses for the Department? Can you highlight a few specific examples
    where LWCF spending has reduced operating and maintenance costs? What
    are the broader positive impacts of LWCF on agency budgets?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior LWCF programs work in
    cooperation with local communities, rely on willing sellers, and
    maximize opportunities to partner with private landowners on
    conservation easements where conservation and management objectives can
    be achieved without fee simple acquisition. Proposed Federal land
    acquisition projects are developed with the support of local
    landowners, elected officials, and community groups.
        Because there is a recognized need for funding to address
    maintenance needs on existing federally managed lands, the President's
    fiscal year 2015 budget proposes discretionary funding (a portion of
    the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative) to address
    maintenance backlog needs for all natural resource agencies, and an
    additional $200 million in mandatory funding for the National Park
    Service to help prepare for the National Park Service Centennial in
    2016.
        Acquisition of inholdings does not generally require additional
    operating costs as no new staff or equipment is required to manage new
    lands within existing boundaries. Occasionally, agencies may incur up
    front costs to remove existing improvements (fences, buildings, etc.)
    from an acquired property. By removing unwanted structures on newly
    acquired land, agencies avoid adding to ongoing operations and
    maintenance (O&M) requirements.
        In fact, acquisition of inholdings can greatly simplify land
    management for Federal managers and neighboring landowners. Eliminating
    checkerboard ownership within Federal units simplifies nearly every
    aspect of land management:
      --Wildland fire managers can apply appropriate fuels reduction,
            planned burns, and fire suppression treatments more easily
            across an unfragmented landscape; fire management is more
            challenging and costly when private inholdings and developed
            properties are intermixed with federally managed forests and
            public lands.
      --Law enforcement and public safety personnel can more easily patrol
            and respond to emergencies when public ownership is
            consolidated. An unfragmented unit allows unified signage, road
            networks, and other infrastructure that will best enable safe
            public access and allow for the efficient movement of emergency
            personnel and vehicles to locations frequented by visitors.
      --Recreation managers can more easily provide access for the public
            to enjoy their public lands. In some cases checkerboard
            ownership can cause confusion among the public about acceptable
            land uses, and can restrict the public's ability to access some
            areas of public land.
      --Natural resource management is simplified in an unfragmented
            landscape. When checkerboard ownership is eliminated,
            biologists, geologists and other natural resource professionals
            can move freely across the land that they are responsible for
            surveying, and natural resource management actions can be
            applied more efficiently across a landscape in single
            ownership.
        Examples of enhanced management resulting from land acquisition
    include:
        St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge.--St. Vincent National
    Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is an island off the panhandle coast of Florida
    in Apalachicola Bay, off the Gulf of Mexico. Acquisition of the 5-acre
    tract on the mainland of Apalachicola Bay provides permanent deep water
    mooring with launch site, secure parking and equipment storage. An
    important point is that dredging and channel maintenance are allowed in
    Apalachicola Bay. The lease at Indian Pass, the current deep water
    mooring and launch site, was ending and would not be renewed as the
    owners were looking to develop the mainland at the launch site. In
    addition, the upland portion of the leased Indian Pass site had been
    significantly reduced due to severe, continuing, and progressive
    erosion that the land owner failed to address.
        As the refuge is only accessible by water, the new deep water
    mooring and launch site reduces staff travel time from the refuge
    office to transfer supplies and heavy equipment. Daily boat access for
    St. Vincent NWR staff is required 24/7 for all island management
    activities, such as sea turtle nest monitoring and protection, habitat
    management, prescribed burning, hunting and fishing management and
    protection, and response to visitor emergencies.
        With the acquisition of the mainland deep water boat mooring and
    launch site, the Fish and Wildlife Service eliminates the annual
    $12,000 lease and has significant savings in fuel for vehicles. Staff
    traveling to and from the work site and hauling equipment to
    Apalachicola Bay from the refuge office, had to travel 20 miles to
    Indian Pass, then travel by watercraft to St. Vincent Island. At the
    end of each day, traveling was reversed back to the refuge office.
    Adequate parking for heavy equipment and vehicles is available at the
    new site.
        Prior to the acquisition of the deep water mooring and launch site,
    the Service conducted a critical review and analysis of deep water
    mooring and access options in the general vicinity of the refuge. Only
    two or three options were possible, with the acquisition of the
    acquired site being the most cost effective and safest for staff. The
    other sites involved longer nautical travel distances at nine miles,
    were more costly as public boat launch sites, and did not offer the
    security needed for refuge equipment.
        Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge.--The Service acquired five
    tracts totaling 480 acres within the Yukon Flats National Wildlife
    Refuge in Alaska. One tract contains prime river frontage along the
    Porcupine River with cliffs containing important nesting habitat for
    peregrine falcon. The other tracts contain frontage along Beaver Creek,
    Rock Slough, and the Black River. Most of these properties contain high
    quality wetland complexes and were isolated inholdings surrounded by
    Refuge land. Acquisition of these parcels greatly benefits Refuge
    wildlife management and provides a cost savings to the Government due
    to decreased fire management expenses.
        Canyons of the Ancients National Monument.--The Bureau of Land
    Management purchased the 800-acre Alexander (a/k/a Yellow Jacket
    Canyon) parcel within Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (NM)
    with funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund on April 16,
    2014. This purchase is completely surrounded by Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM)-owned land within the boundary of the Monument. Just
    northwest of Cortez, Colorado, the 173,000-acre Monument was
    established to protect cultural and natural resources on a landscape
    scale. These remarkable cultural resources have been a focal point of
    explorers and researchers for 130 years.
        Approximately 45,000 visitors annually explore these ancient sites
    and camp, hike, horseback ride, mountain bike, use all-terrain vehicles
    (ATVs), hunt and view wildlife within the Monument. The Monument is
    important to Native Americans who maintain close ties to the sites
    occupied by their ancestors. The BLM estimates the Alexander/Yellow
    Jacket Canyon parcel may contain as many as 170 cultural sites
    associated with Yellow Jacket Pueblo, one of the largest and best
    studied Ancestral Puebloan sites in the Southwest. Purchase of this
    parcel also simplifies maintenance of the Monument as well as fire
    activities.
        Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park.--The National Park
    Service acquired 41.55 acres at the Kennesaw Mountain National
    Battlefield Park in October 2013. It was the last privately owned
    parcel in the park and was slated for development through subdivision.
    Acquisition of this parcel allows the park to manage these lands in a
    way that preserves the battlefield resource of earthworks that marked
    both the Union and Confederate lines during the battle. The park
    contains the best set of earthworks of any Civil War site, and these
    would have been bulldozed to make way for development of a suburban
    housing tract. Acquisition of this land directly contributes to the
    reason this unit was created. Additionally, this land has served as an
    unofficial access point for equestrian trails, and with the acquisition
    this access can be managed to conserve the resources (landscape, flora,
    water quality in the nearby stream). Making this access official has
    already saved law enforcement costs in both time and fuel as rangers
    can now easily access the formal park trails that are adjacent to this
    land and more effectively monitor looting and poaching activities which
    have been known to take place in this area.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
        Question. California is in one of the worst droughts in its
    history. With most of the rain season behind us, the State reported
    that much of California has received only about 50 percent of normal
    precipitation. The snowpack is at 24 percent of normal as of March 23.
    Shasta, Lake Oroville, and San Luis Reservoir are all below 50 percent
    of capacity. The California Farm Bureau estimates that 500,000 acres of
    farm land are being fallowed, and more than 100,000 heads of cattle
    could be lost. Ten or more communities could run out of drinking water
    within the next few months.
        The Interior Department, specifically the Bureau of Reclamation and
    the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, play crucial roles in
    managing and regulating water operations in California.
        You have stated many times that you are looking to operate and
    manage the water system with flexibility. What specific steps have you
    taken to maximize operational flexibility?
        Answer. Reclamation has been coordinating with the California
    Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Department of Fish and
    Wildlife (DFW), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS), and the State Water Resources Control Board
    (SWRCB) to make the best use of water available in the system for water
    supply while protecting the fishery. Much of this coordination has been
    in the Real Time Drought Operations Team (RTDOT). Actions have included
    modifying both Endangered Species Act (ESA) and water rights permit
    objectives to improve our operational flexibility and increase Delta
    exports. The Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP)
    have also shifted operations between the two projects to minimize
    impacts to the fish while exporting more water from the Delta and the
    CVP has delayed construction activities to accommodate operational
    flexibility.
        Question. Do I have your personal commitment that you will be
    deeply involved in finding ways to maximize operational flexibility so
    that more water can be provided to California water users?
        Answer. Yes, the drought will continue to be a high priority
    activity in the Department.
        California is experiencing another storm this week. This is only
    the third sizable storm to arrive in California in over a year. A group
    of water contractors wrote Secretary Jewell and Secretary Pritzker
    yesterday, urging emergency action to allow for more water to be
    captured during this storm.
        [The letter follows:]
               Letter From the San Joaquin River Water Authority
                                            San Joaquin
                                         River Water Authority,
                                         Los Banos, CA, March 25, 2014.
        Re Request for Emergency Relief Due to Impending Storm Events.

    Hon. Sally Jewell, Secretary,
    Department of the Interior,
    C Street NW, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Penny Pritzker, Secretary,
    Department of Commerce,
    Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
        Dear Secretary Jewell and Secretary Pritzker: We are writing to you
    under the most urgent circumstances. As you are well aware, California
    is plagued by one of the worst droughts in its history. Water year
    2013-14 thus far has proven to be the second worst water year since
    recordkeeping began in 1850. While not quite as bad as 1977 standing
    alone, it comes on the heels of 2 prior years of extremely dry
    conditions. Yet, while the opportunities existed over the past 6 weeks
    to get more water to people and into storage south of the Delta,
    inaction has resulted in the loss of 225,000-450,000 acre-feet (af) of
    water supplies. Meanwhile, over 700,000 af flowed to the ocean. The
    situation for many in California is desperate.
        Now is the time that action is needed. The State cannot afford to
    lose another round of water supplies due to less than full
    implementation of proactive measures that are available to the State
    and Federal agencies.
        The Departments of Commerce and the Interior are in the unique
    position of having many of your stakeholders being those directly and
    profoundly impacted by this drought while at the same time having the
    ability to implement emergency measures that will provide a modicum of
    relief. The situation is as follows.
        Regulations imposed on the State Water Project (SWP) and Central
    Valley Project (CVP) (together ``Projects'') through biological
    opinions issued by your Departments are having a real-time adverse
    impact on California's water supply. With storms about to hit
    California, the Projects are collectively in the position of being able
    to capture significant amounts of water without adversely impacting
    listed fisheries.
        The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been working with
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and their State counterparts
    to examine opportunities to provide flexibility to meet crucial water
    supply needs in the urban and agricultural sectors. Despite efforts to
    date, the Silicon Valley, which Secretary Pritzker recently visited and
    pledged to partner with to promote greater benefits for our economy and
    our citizens, is only receiving 75,000 acre-feet of the over 200,000
    acre-feet which it would be entitled under from State and Federal water
    sources. As a result, the local water district has requested its retail
    customers to reduce usage by 25 percent. Economic impacts of water
    rationing are severe. Similarly, in the agricultural sector, much of
    which is served by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Sacramento and San
    Joaquin Valleys are being devastated. Over 3 million acres of the
    Nation's most productive farm lands are receiving a zero surface water
    allocation this year. Permanent crops such as trees and vines are
    literally being ripped out due to lack of water. Hundreds of thousands
    of acres of permanent and annual crops will go fallow. The loss of
    permanent crops takes 5-10 years to restore. Annual crops fill
    irreplaceable supply chains that provide about 50 percent of the
    Nation's fruits and vegetables. Unemployment in the valleys will soar.
    Banks loans and insurance will become more expensive if the integrity
    of the water system is not maintained.
        The Endangered Species Act provides NMFS and USFWS with the tools
    necessary to support the emergency response actions necessary to
    provide much-needed relief that California needs and avoid the imminent
    loss of hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of irreplaceable water.
        Weather predictions indicate that another storm is heading to
    California today or Wednesday. We request that you allow for the
    maximum pumping of the flow that is going to develop from this storm
    based on the following conditions.
        Currently, protected fisheries in the Delta have experienced
    historically low take at the State and Federal water pumps. The nominal
    take is consistent with the monitoring data that has consistently and
    clearly demonstrated a lack of presence of protected fish in the
    central and south Delta in 2014. Because of this, we believe that
    maximizing pumping for the limited time that uncontrolled Sacramento
    River flows are elevated due to the storm is unlikely to jeopardize
    listed species. However, to ensure adequate levels of protection, we
    propose that if take reaches the levels of concern identified in the
    species specific incidental take statement, implementation of this
    emergency action be reassessed.
        As we explain on the attached pages, a temporary adjustment to the
    Delta smelt and Chinook salmon biological opinions (BiOps) would allow
    pumping--subject to take of fisheries--up to the full 11,280 cubic feet
    per second (cfs).
        Time is short. The storm is approaching and, practically speaking,
    we need a decision by close of business on Thursday, before Sacramento
    River flows arrive at the Delta. We therefore request that conference
    calls be set up for Wednesday and Thursday so that the situation may be
    addressed in real time with the most senior resource managers from both
    the State and Federal sectors as well as the water user and
    environmental communities.
        Once this storm series passes, and thinking ahead to the rest of
    this water season, the State is installing salinity barriers in the
    Delta. Further, State and Federal water managers are confident that
    they can control salinity in the Delta with fairly minimal flow amounts
    this summer, generally around 2,500 cfs. Water managers are proposing a
    longer term action plan that is being finalized. Continued real-time
    management will allow for improvements of water supply and protection
    of the upstream and Delta ecosystems.
        This letter is also being delivered to a number of other State and
    Federal officials that have a key role in California water decisions.
    We request that each of them become engaged in this rapid
    decisionmaking process and participate directly or through their
    delegates in these conference calls. However, we believe your direct
    leadership is necessary at this time and hope that you will participate
    personally. We have taken the liberty of setting up a conference line
    for the first call on Wednesday at 1 pm PDT (4 pm EDT). For
    convenience, we propose the same time be used for Thursday.
        The opportunity presented by this storm is upon us. We cannot
    afford inaction by either State or Federal regulators or water
    managers. We need your authority to impress upon your Departments and
    others that this is truly an emergency situation that requires
    immediate action. Failure to take action becomes a decision in and of
    itself and we are not likely to have another opportunity this year to
    help relieve this dire situation.
                Urgently and gratefully yours,
                                       Steve Chedester, Executive Director,
                                               San Joaquin River Exchange
                                                   Contractors Water
                                                   Authority.
                                       Daniel G. Nelson, Executive
                                           Director,
                                               San Luis & Delta-Mendota
                                                   Water Authority.
                                       Ronald Jacobsma, General Manager,
                                               Friant Water Authority.
                                       Chase Hurley, General Manager,
                                               San Luis Canal Company.
                                       Randy Houk, General Manager,
                                               Columbia Canal Company.
                                       Christopher L. White, General
                                           Manager,
                                               Central California
                                                   Irrigation District.
                                       Jeff Bryant, General Manager,
                                               Firebaugh Canal Water
                                                   District.
        Enclosures.
                                foregone pumping
    Upcoming storms commencing March 23, 2014
        Currently the Projects are operating to a combined 2,000 cubic feet
    per second (cfs) export level resulting in about 5,500 cfs Delta
    Outflow and an Old and Middle River reverse flow limitation (OMR) of
    about -1,600 cfs. The export/inflow (E/I) ratio is about 25 percent,
    and San Joaquin River stream flow is about 700 cfs. Storms to Northern
    California are forecast to begin Tuesday evening and will bring
    precipitation throughout the week and into the weekend. It is
    anticipated that these storms will result in unregulated runoff within
    the Sacramento Valley similar in response to the storms experienced
    earlier in the month, resulting in excess flow in the Delta which
    potentially is available for delivery and storage south of the Delta.
    Although there are uncertainties in the timing and magnitude of the
    storm events, the following provides an explanation of the constraints
    upon exports that will result in foregone pumping in the near future.
        Without immediate relaxation of several pumping and outflow
    constraints the capture of a significant amount of the excess flow will
    be foregone, up to 125,000 acre-feet, similar to what has occurred
    during each of the storms of the last 2 months. The graphic below
    illustrates projected operations beginning today, through April 9. Of
    immediate issue are the OMR and E/I constraints. As inflow to the Delta
    increases due to the storms, pumping will increase. However, almost
    immediately pumping will be constrained by a maximum OMR flow of -5,000
    cfs and a maximum E/I ratio of 35 percent. While available pumping
    capacity is about 11,280 cfs, the pumps will be running at only about
    6,600 cfs, foregoing over 9,000 acre-feet of excess flow per day for
    several days. This effect is compounded by an outflow requirement of
    7,100 cfs for X2 which limits the amount of excess outflow that can be
    pumped, but which however, under the dire drought circumstances has
    been reduced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) this
    year with the concurrence of State and Federal fishery agencies.
    Notwithstanding the SWRCB order, separate, but of significant impact on
    water supplies, will be the effect of the Reasonable and Prudent
    Alternative (RPA) condition in the Biological Opinions regarding the
    San Joaquin River Inflow to Export Ratio that would be exercised
    beginning April 1 and continuing through May. This action requires
    exports to be no greater than the inflow entering the Delta from the
    San Joaquin River (1:1), currently about 700 cfs. This action would
    constrain exports even lower than the actions already constraining the
    exports to 6,600 cfs, resulting in an additional 11,000 acre-feet per
    day of foregone pumping.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Question. What is Reclamation doing in response to this storm so
    that the maximum amount of water can be captured before it flows out to
    the ocean?
        Answer. Our response has been primarily through the RTDOT. The
    agencies evaluate both the water supply that can be captured as well as
    the biological effects of the actions.
        Question. What are the pros and cons of invoking emergency
    consultation with the fish agencies to allow for even higher levels of
    water pumping?
        Answer. Emergency consultation allows for immediate action if there
    is an imminent threat of loss of life or property. However, a
    traditional consultation must ultimately be completed and mitigation
    actions implemented. Potential benefits are quick action, as in the
    case of a flood when an emergency flood wall must be constructed. If
    however the impacts of the action are extensive, extensive mitigation
    could be required.
        Salvage data from the agencies as of March 19, 2014 show that no
    Delta smelt has been taken; 276 out of an allowed 24,237 winter run
    salmon have been taken; and 148 out of an allowed 3,000 steelhead have
    been taken.
        Question. Does the data support the notion that more water pumping
    can occur without jeopardizing fish species?
        Answer. Take limits associated with the Incidental Take Statement
    in a biological opinion (BiOp) identify the amount of take that can
    occur while operating consistent with the BiOp and implementing the
    reasonable and prudent actions in a jeopardy BiOp. Jeopardy
    considerations include not only take at the pumps but also access to
    quality spawning and rearing habitat including in-stream temperatures
    and flows to improve out-migration of smolts. Through the RTDOT
    process, the project operators and regulatory agencies are doing all
    that is possible to improve exports while protecting the species.
        Question. What other emergency measures can be implemented within
    your discretion to maximize water supplies without jeopardizing
    endangered species? And are you prepared to implement those measures
    immediately?
        Answer. Reclamation and DWR continue to work in collaboration with
    the regulatory agencies (NMFS, FWS, DFW, SWRCB) through the RTDOT
    process to ensure that exports are maximized while protecting species
    of concern. The RTDOT participants are willing to implement measures
    that improve exports while protecting species.
        Question. How will the need for carryover storage affect the water
    projects' ability to export more water as opposed to storing it?
        Answer. There will be some tradeoff between releasing water from
    storage for water supply and retaining some in storage to maintain
    operations in a continuing drought.
        Question. How much carryover storage is needed going into the 2015
    water year?
        Answer. We are planning the operations to satisfy the regulatory
    objectives in 2014 and maintain a carryover storage that should carry
    us through a dry 2015 in the event that the drought might continue. We
    are assuming that if the drought continues there will be extraordinary
    operations similar to what we are experiencing in 2014.
        Question. California must expand water storage to capture water
    from the wet years for the dry years, so that we have a better chance
    of getting through conditions such as the ones we are experiencing now.
        However, Reclamation's feasibility studies for new storage projects
    have been going on for over a decade and have cost over $91 million
    with no results yet.
        Meanwhile, California is likely to vote on a water bond this year
    that could make up to $3 billion available starting mid-2015 for
    storage projects that have completed feasibility studies and favorable
    benefit-to-cost ratios.
        What will it take to get all storage studies completed by the end
    of 2015?
        Answer. Reclamation has completed public review and comment on
    draft Feasibility Reports for expanding Shasta Lake and increasing
    storage in the Upper San Joaquin River basin. The draft Environmental
    Impact Statement (EIS) for Shasta was released for public review and
    comment last summer, and the draft for Upper San Joaquin is due out
    this summer. Both studies to support Federal decisionmaking are on
    track to be completed by the end of 2015, with Shasta completed by the
    end of 2014.
        All four storage studies have been affected by a significant
    reduction of non-Federal funding and ability to participate. As a
    result, while the Draft EIS for both Shasta and Upper San Joaquin meet
    the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the State is
    unable to release a Draft EIR for these two projects at this time. In
    addition, the North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage Investigation
    (NODOS) and continued study of Los Vaqueros Expansion (LVE275) are
    delayed due to a lack of non-Federal cost share. In the past, the State
    has provided an estimated 90 percent and 50 percent of the funding for
    these studies respectively. These two projects would require
    significant non-Federal funding and resources.
        Question. Do you see any obstacle that would delay the completion
    timeframe beyond 2015?
        Answer. Endangered Species Act consultations may continue beyond
    2015 for Upper San Joaquin. The lack of non-Federal cost sharing
    presents significant obstacles to completing NODOS and LVE275.
        Question. What are those obstacles, and what can be done to
    mitigate or remove them?
        Answer. Non-Federal cost sharing partnerships could mitigate the
    obstacles, particularly when cost shares are provided via in-kind
    services. Many potential cost share partners are contributing
    significant funding to other projects, have been impacted by the State
    economy, and are fully engaged in drought activities. Reclamation will
    continue to seek non-Federal cost sharing opportunities.
        We clearly need some leadership and accountability at the top level
    of the Department to get these feasibility studies done.
        The initial and partial construction cost estimate for expanding
    San Luis Reservoir is $360 million; about two-thirds are for seismic
    repairs that must be done regardless of whether storage is expanded.
    Therefore for an incremental cost of approximately $120 million, the
    project could yield additional average annual Delta exports of 43,000
    acre feet.
        We clearly need some leadership and accountability at the top level
    of the Department to get these feasibility studies done.
        Question. Can you commit to completing all the studies by the end
    of 2015 so the projects could potentially be eligible for State funding
    if worthy?
        Answer. As described above, Reclamation can commit to completing
    the studies for Shasta and Upper San Joaquin by the end of 2015. Also
    noted in previous responses is the lack of non-Federal cost share for
    NODOS and LVE275.
        Question. Can you please share with me your overall schedule for
    completing the San Luis feasibility study?
        Answer. A detailed schedule is still being completed and a non-
    Federal cost-share agreement is still being negotiated, but it is
    reasonable to assume the studies could be completed as early as
    December 2017. Data and analysis to support the Safety of Dams risk
    reduction will be analyzed this summer, including an evaluation of the
    strength of the dam and potential response to seismic activity. This
    information is also required for reservoir expansion alternatives.
        Question. As you may know, the proposed Cadiz water project in the
    Eastern Mojave Desert has been a longtime concern for me because of its
    potential impact on the Mojave National Preserve, pristine public lands
    that surround it and the plant and wildlife that depend on rare desert
    water supplies. The project proposes to extract between 50,000-75,000
    acre feet of water from the desert aquifer for sale to municipal water
    users in Southern California. However, independent studies estimate a
    recharge rate between 2,000 and 10,000 acre feet per year.
        The Cadiz project had hoped to use the Arizona & California
    Railroad's Right-of-Way to construct a 43-mile-long pipeline connecting
    their project site with the Colorado River Aqueduct. However, based on
    a November 4, 2011 opinion from the Interior Department's Solicitors
    office (known as the M Opinion) which stipulates that railroad
    companies lack authority to permit activities along their right-of-way
    unless the projects directly benefit railroad operations, it is my
    understanding that the Bureau of Land Management thus far denied Cadiz
    permission to use the right-of-way.
        Can you provide me with an update of the status of this project?
        Answer. The BLM's evaluation of the project is on hold and is
    awaiting publication of additional guidance by BLM on the
    implementation of the M Opinion.
        Question. It is my understanding that the BLM is currently
    developing guidelines for implementing the M Opinion. What is the
    status of those guidelines?
        Answer. The guidelines for implementing the M Opinion have been
    drafted and the BLM is coordinating within the Department to finalize
    the guidelines.
        Question. Once those guidelines are completed, does the BLM intend
    to issue a decision on whether the Cadiz project's proposed pipeline is
    within the scope of the Arizona & California Railroad's Right-of-Way?
        Answer. Once the guidance is issued the BLM California will
    complete its evaluation of the proposed Cadiz project and determine if
    the activity derives from or furthers a railroad purpose. Once the
    evaluation has been completed, the BLM will notify the party
    undertaking the activity of its determination of whether additional
    approvals are required from the BLM prior to undertaking the project.
        Question. There are an estimated 500,000 abandoned mine lands
    throughout the United States, many on public lands managed by the
    Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service and the National Park
    Service. According to the Mine Safety and Health Administration, every
    year about 20 to 30 people die in accidents that occur in abandoned
    mines across the United States.
        This has been an enduring concern for me, given that California is
    home to roughly 50,000 abandoned mines. That is why I pushed for
    language that was included in the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus
    Appropriations bill to prioritize the closure of abandoned mines which
    present the greatest threat to public safety, in particular those mines
    with dangerous vertical shafts that pose risks to unsuspecting
    visitors.
        I understand that the President's budget proposes creating a
    Hardrock Mining and Abandoned Mine Cleanup program, which would fund
    abandoned mine clean-up by rescinding a 2006 reduction in fees paid by
    coal mines. While this is estimated to generate an additional $53
    million in 2014, this proposal has been made in previous budgets but
    has failed to gain traction in Congress.
        Can you tell me how many abandoned mines were closed by the
    Department of Interior last year? How many of these were in California?
        Answer. The BLM closed 4,947 abandoned mine land features in fiscal
    year 2013; 99 of those sites were in California. There were no known
    abandoned mine land closures completed on National Park Service (NPS)
    lands in 2013. It should be noted that a single mine may have numerous
    features.
        Question. How is Interior prioritizing closure of abandon mines?
        Answer. The BLM uses a comprehensive approach to determine which
    sites are addressed first based on the readiness of Federal and State
    partnerships and risks to public health, safety, and the environment.
    High priority sites include physical safety sites such as mine shafts
    and adits that are in close proximity to populated places such as
    residences, schools, and recreational areas. Sites impacting water
    quality are a similarly high priority because mine waste or tailings
    may threaten human health and the environment.
        Priorities are established annually with project funding
    distributed to State offices on a competitive basis. The Abandoned Mine
    Lands (AML) Program priorities are documented in the AML Program
    strategic plan, including State office Annual Work Plans. Typically,
    the AML Program strives to complete ongoing projects before undertaking
    new projects. Where appropriate, temporary mitigation measures, such as
    posting appropriate signage and using fencing, may be used until
    permanent or long-term remediation actions can be completed. In some
    cases, an imminent risk to public safety may require the BLM to take
    urgent action in order to address conditions at a site not previously
    identified or prioritized as a high risk site.
        The NPS completed an on-site AML inventory in 2013 where inspectors
    rated each AML feature for degree of hazard, accessibility (likelihood
    of visitation), resource significance (both natural and cultural), and
    resource impacts. Features with a likelihood of serious injury or death
    were ranked high.
        Question. Can Interior please provide me an inventory of the
    abandoned mines on Federal lands in California, and estimated cost and
    schedule to close them?
        Answer. The BLM Abandoned Mine Site and Cleanup Module database
    identified 1,672 AML sites containing 5,643 physical safety features in
    California. The average cost to mitigate each physical safety hazard
    feature is $19,400. It would cost approximately $110 million to close
    all identified physical safety features in the State. The 2015 budget
    request continues the legislative proposal to create an Abandoned Mine
    Lands Program for abandoned hardrock sites that will be financed
    through the imposition of a new AML fee on hardrock production on both
    public and private lands. These fees would provide resources to allow
    the BLM to more aggressively address the highest priority abandoned
    sites on Federal, State, tribal, and private lands nationwide.
        The NPS has 27,900 features at 1,211 sites in 13 NPS units in
    California. Of those, 793 features have been mitigated and 2,298
    features at 632 sites remain at an estimated cost of $32 million for
    mitigation. Shovel-ready projects in California (those where National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning and compliance are complete)
    are estimated at $9.9 million. There is no schedule for this work at
    this time.
        Question. The National Park Service recently released its final
    environmental impact statement (FEIS) relating to the Merced Wild and
    Scenic River Plan. The plan is the third in the last decade and was
    necessary to comply with the Ninth Circuit's 2008 opinion requiring the
    Park Service to protect the river's ``outstanding remarkable values.''
        Responding to over 30,000 public comments, the Final EIS attempts
    to balance resource protection and visitor access in Yosemite Valley. I
    appreciate the National Park Service's efforts to develop a plan that
    complies with the requirements of the Wild and Scenic River Act but
    also protects much loved recreation activities, historic structures and
    visitor service facilities in Yosemite Valley.
        I am glad to see that the new plan will allow continued bike, river
    rafts and horse rentals and winter ice skating and retain the historic
    Sugar Pine stone bridge and the Ahwahnee and Yosemite Lodge swimming
    pools. I applaud the Park Service's efforts to resolve this dispute,
    but would like to know more about the budget assumptions and schedule
    to implement the plan while meeting other obligations at Yosemite
    National Park.
        Given the estimated $210 million cost to implement the FEIS, can
    you explain the National Park Service's funding expectations and
    schedule to implement the changes proposed in the Merced River FEIS?
        Answer. Potential funding to implement the plan will be derived
    from three primary sources: (1) Recreation fee program (entrance and
    camping fees); (2) concessions franchise fees; and (3) other Federal
    sources such as Federal lands transportation programs.
        Both recreation fee revenue and concession franchise fees are
    annual revenue sources collected by the park. Over the course of the
    next 20 years, assuming reauthorization of recreation fee authority,
    the park anticipates that both of these fund sources (currently the
    park collects approximately $18 million in fees annually) will be
    available to implement the changes proposed. Based on projected
    revenues, the park is confident there will be financial resources to
    implement a myriad of projects within the next 15-20 years for all
    three plans mentioned.
        During the first 5 to 10 years of implementation, the focus will be
    to improve the transportation system to alleviate traffic congestion
    and to conduct ecological restoration of high use areas to better
    accommodate visitor use. Projects include adding and modifying parking,
    realigning failing intersections and restoring eroded riverbanks.
    Concurrent to the improvements to transportation/parking, the park will
    work towards creating additional camping opportunities and replacing
    tent cabins with hard sided lodging.
        Question. The new location of some facilities was not identified in
    the FEIS, such as the new bike racks, river rafting facilities and
    maintenance buildings. When and how will the location of the facilities
    be chosen and how will the public have an opportunity to engage in that
    process?
        Answer. The locations of minor facilities, such as bicycle rental
    stands and raft rental operations, will be located outside of the
    quarter-mile river corridor boundary, yet remain within the primary
    visitor services nodes. The park does not anticipate further
    environmental review and public involvement for these actions. The
    minor shift of the location of these facilities outside the corridor is
    an operational decision that will be determined after the 2016
    concessions contract is awarded. The cost is expected to be minimal.
        Question. How will other Yosemite obligations be affected (deferred
    maintenance--$500 million, implementation of the Mariposa Grove Plan--
    $36 million and the draft Tuolumne River Plan--$64.5 million) while
    implementing the Merced River plan?
        Answer. Implementation of both river plans will be completed
    simultaneously over a 15-20 year period. The Mariposa Grove project
    will be completed in the next few years, and relies heavily on
    financial support from the nonprofit Yosemite Conservancy, supplemented
    with other revenues from recreation fees and transportation funds. As
    noted above, project revenue will allow the park to make a substantial
    investment in major actions called for in the plans, as well as
    continue to address a significant number of deferred maintenance needs.
    For example, by implementing some of the major transportation
    improvement components such as road realignments and expanded day use
    parking lots, much of the deferred maintenance for these areas will be
    addressed. In addition, the park will continue to prioritize cyclic
    maintenance, operational funding, and repair and rehabilitation funding
    to strategically reduce deferred maintenance priorities.
        Question. How do you intend to prioritize the needs identified in
    these plans?
        Answer. As noted above, the first priority for plan implementation
    will be to alleviate traffic congestion and to restore riverbanks and
    meadows. Once these steps are accomplished, current levels of
    visitation can be managed more successfully. Concurrently, other
    priorities will be implemented to enhance the visitor experience by
    providing additional campsites and increasing the availability of year-
    round visitor accommodations.
        Priority projects seek to accomplish four major goals:
      --Correct identified impacts to river resources to ensure continued
            protection;
      --Alleviate crowding and congestion and provide for easy access to
            key park facilities and shuttles;
      --Enhance camping opportunities and winter lodging; and
      --Replace temporary non-code compliant employee housing.
        Question. Can you explain what the cumulative impact of all these
    plans is expected to be on the current visitor experience?
        Answer. All of the plans address long standing issues with visitor
    use and user capacity management in the most heavily visited
    destinations within the park, most notably by calling for actions that
    will improve the efficiency of the transportation system. Key actions
    such as relocating and retrofitting day use parking areas, adding
    campsites, and increasing the amount of year-round lodging in Yosemite
    Valley, will improve access and the overall quality of the visitor
    experience. In addition, the wide array of recreational opportunities
    available throughout the park will be maintained and boating
    opportunities will be expanded. Once implemented, the plans will
    provide for a higher quality visitor experience by improving access to
    the most popular areas in Yosemite and by providing lasting protection
    for the natural features within those areas. Overall, the park expects
    implementation to improve the visitor experience.
        Question. I applaud the National Wildlife Trafficking Strategy that
    your Department put forward as part of the President's Taskforce on
    Wildlife Trafficking.
        Wildlife crimes are a global threat to conservation and put iconic
    species like African elephants and rhinoceroses at risk of extinction.
    What is equally disturbing is that wildlife crimes are also driving and
    funding transnational criminal networks and global terrorism.
        It is clear to me that the current criminal penalties for these
    crimes are too weak and that congressional action is needed to address
    the wildlife poaching crisis.
        This is why I am drafting legislation to make wildlife trafficking
    crimes a predicate offense under Federal racketeering and money
    laundering statutes, as well as under the Travel Act. Law enforcement
    already uses these laws to crack down on other major crimes like drug
    trafficking.
        Secretary Jewell, how important will these strengthened tools be in
    helping your Department end the practice of wildlife trafficking?
        Answer. Strengthening enforcement tools for those that enforce our
    wildlife trafficking laws is extremely important. Doing so would
    rightly elevate the stature of wildlife crimes within the U.S.'s
    judicial system to be on par with other serious crimes. Some judicial
    districts and U.S. Attorneys' Offices are reluctant to act upon
    wildlife crimes, such as cited in the Lacey Act, Endangered Species
    Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
    because they view them as less serious, especially when they are
    legislatively structured as weaker and sometimes even ``petty''
    offences that have weak penalties and cannot serve as predicates for
    laws that thwart organized crime. This ill informed view has often
    frustrated us at Interior because our agents have long known that
    wildlife trafficking violations are not isolated infractions worthy of
    a misdemeanor.
        Wildlife crimes are serious crimes that have insidious effects upon
    society. In addition to destabilizing the ecology that human
    communities depend upon, wildlife that is poached from iconic national
    parks and world heritage sites robs the surrounding communities of
    steady income, encourages corruption, and facilitates other crimes.
    More recently, we are even told of links to terrorism. Additionally,
    many lives are being lost in the war that is being waged to extract
    rare wildlife for consumption. Scores of park rangers have been
    murdered in recent years across Africa and Asia in their noble and
    nearly futile attempts to protect their wildlife from international
    crime syndicates. What used to be viewed as mere subsistence poaching
    has morphed into activity by highly motivated and ruthless criminal
    organizations that willfully murder park rangers on the lands they
    protect in order to slaughter and extract wildlife. Wildlife
    trafficking crimes are intrinsically organized trans-border crimes that
    undermine the general rule of law and the integrity of communities and
    rob them of their ability to manage and benefit from their natural
    resources. Our judicial system responds to the priorities set by the
    legislative system. Strengthening our wildlife trafficking laws would
    send a clear signal throughout the justice system from officers in the
    field to judges on the bench that these laws matter.
        Question. What other resources would be useful to the Department in
    addressing this issue?
        Answer. The United States is among the world's largest consumers of
    wildlife, both legal and illegal. As with any black market trade, it is
    difficult to determine the exact market value or rank the U.S. role in
    comparison to other nations. However, we remain a significant market
    for wildlife and wildlife products, including elephant ivory.
        On February 25, 2014, the Service issued a Director's Order to help
    protect populations of elephants and other endangered or threatened
    species that are subject to illegal trade. Poaching and illegal trade
    have been decimating African elephant and rhinoceros populations in
    recent years. The changes in the Director's Order are among a set of
    administrative actions specifically called for under the National
    Strategy on Combating Wildlife Trafficking, which was issued by
    President Obama on February 11, 2014.
        The most significant gaps in the regulatory regime in place before
    the National Strategy was announced was the continued allowance of some
    commercial imports and the largely unregulated domestic trade of
    African elephant ivory. The administrative actions we are taking or
    have taken include listing the Southern White Rhino under the
    Endangered Species Act based on similarity of appearance to other
    listed endangered rhino species, implementing a prohibition on all
    commercial imports of African elephant ivory regardless of age,
    implementing a prohibition on the sale of African elephant ivory across
    State lines, and implementing stricter controls over sale of elephant
    ivory within the United States, including within States.
        The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests the subcommittee's
    support of a $3 million increase for its Law Enforcement and
    International Affairs programs as part of the administration's new
    National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. The funding will
    be used to combat expanding illegal wildlife trafficking and support
    conservation efforts on the ground in Africa and across the globe. The
    budget includes important funding to expand wildlife forensic research
    to produce key advancements needed to pinpoint the origin of illegal
    wildlife products which is critical information necessary to prosecute
    criminal activity.
        We believe that these actions will dramatically reduce the U.S.
    role in the illegal ivory trade and position the Nation to encourage
    other major ivory consuming countries to take similar actions. In
    addition, we continue to evaluate whether there are additional tools
    that could be used to combat wildlife trafficking.
        Question. Secretary Jewell, you are no doubt familiar with the
    March 17 earthquake that struck the Los Angeles area. It is my
    understanding that this 4.4 magnitude earthquake is one of the
    strongest earthquakes to hit Southern California in recent years.
        I firmly believe that it is a matter of when, and not if, our next
    significant earthquake event will occur.
        In fact, the Southern California Earthquake Center estimates that
    California has a 99.7 percent chance of having a magnitude 6.7 or
    larger earthquake within the next 30 years. The chance of having a
    catastrophic earthquake with a magnitude greater than 7.5 during this
    period is nearly 50 percent.
        Given the millions of lives and billions of dollars at risk of the
    next major earthquake, can you give me an update on the status of
    developing an earthquake early warning system for the West Coast?
        Answer. Since 2003, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has funded
    university research on earthquake early warning (EEW), and has invested
    approximately $10 million in research, system development and seismic
    network modernization in California and elsewhere so that the networks
    are capable of generating earthquake early warnings. In addition, in
    January 2012, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation awarded $6 million
    over 3 years to the University of California-Berkeley, Caltech, and the
    University of Washington to perform further research leading to a
    prototype EEW capability for the U.S. West Coast. As a result of these
    efforts, in January 2012, the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning
    system began sending test notifications to a small number of test
    users, which include California emergency response organizations,
    utilities, rail operators and a number of private companies.
        Before public warnings can be issued routinely, the current
    ShakeAlert test system must meet quality, speed and reliability
    standards. Those standards include having enough sensors to ensure
    coverage near earthquake sources. Currently there are not enough
    sensors in the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) network to
    provide fast and reliable alerts uniformly across the U.S. West Coast.
    Although the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay areas have better sensor
    coverage than other parts of the State, it is estimated that several
    hundred additional stations will be needed to cover all of the
    earthquake source regions.
        Question. What funding and assistance will your Department provide
    towards completing this critical project?
        Answer. In 2014, Congress appropriated an additional $850,000 for
    earthquake early warning development, which was added to a base funding
    amount of $600,000. As part of the 2015 President's budget
    justification, the Department's request for fiscal year 2015 maintains
    these amounts.
        Question. Secretary Jewell, I continue to be concerned about the
    management and well being of the wild horse populations on public lands
    managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
        It is my understanding that there are now nearly 50,000 horses in
    long- and short-term holding facilities, and that the population of
    horses that remain in the wild is expected to surpass 60,000 during the
    next fiscal year.
        It is my understanding that last year, the holding costs for horses
    was $46 million, more than half of the Wild Horse and Burro programs'
    annual budget.
        This practice of placing horses into costly holding facilities is
    not sustainable. Long-term solutions for managing the wild horse
    population in a humane and efficient manner are desperately needed.
        Secretary Jewell, how do you plan to ensure that BLM is on the
    right fiscal path in reducing the number of animals in holding
    facilities and meeting its goals with on-the-range management
    techniques?
        Answer. For the BLM to sustainably manage wild horses and burros,
    two things are absolutely essential: forging a path forward to slow
    population growth and finding homes for families that are already off
    the range. To immediately address these issues, the BLM is implementing
    key recommendations from the June 2013 National Academy of Sciences
    (NAS) report:
      --Population Growth Suppression.--Population growth suppression
            methods that are effective on western herds are needed to curb
            herd growth and reduce the need for removals. In April 2014,
            the BLM and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) initiated a
            second pasture research trial to evaluate the effectiveness of
            new formulations of the SpayVac vaccine, which is currently the
            most promising contraceptive vaccine available. The BLM has
            also issued a Request for Applications (RFA) for grant funding
            to support research projects developing techniques and
            protocols for contraception or the spaying/neutering of on-
            range male and female wild horses and burros. The RFA closes in
            May 2014.
      --Population Estimation.--The BLM has entered into a new Interagency
            Agreement with the USGS to acquire the technical expertise and
            assistance necessary to implement NAS-endorsed population
            survey (census) methods. In 2014, the BLM will survey one-third
            of its Herd Management Areas using the NAS-endorsed methods to
            help account for undetected animals. Accurate population data
            is critical for effective land use planning and herd
            management.
        The BLM is also collaborating with the White House Office of
    Science and Technology Policy to explore the feasibility of launching a
    prize challenge to inspire a scientific solution to wild horse and
    burro population management challenges. Through continued collaboration
    with stakeholders and an emphasis in developing effective population
    growth suppression methods built on the best available science, the BLM
    remains committed to reforming the Wild Horse and Burro Program and
    maintaining rangeland health on public lands.
        A key component to ensuring long-term program sustainability by
    reducing the number of animals in holding facilities. Toward that goal,
    the BLM is implementing the following actions to curb off-range holding
    costs and reduce holding facility levels.
      --Adoption Reforms.--The BLM is entering into new partnership
            agreements to increase the number of trained animals available
            for adoption. The BLM has finalized a new agreement with the
            Humane Society of the United States, and also launched the Wild
            Horse and Burro Inmate Training Initiative to increase the
            number of inmate training programs. The BLM is also in
            discussions with the Defense Services Cooperation Agency and
            Heifer International to explore the possibility of providing
            animals for humanitarian purposes in developing nations.
      --Lower Cost Holding Facilities.--The BLM continues to seek lower
            cost holding facilities and is currently reviewing three new
            ecosanctuary proposals. The BLM will also be issuing a new
            Request for Proposals for lower cost long-term holding
            contracts.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
        Question. According to the President's June 26, 2013, Executive
    Order, the White House Council on Native American Affairs was
    established to ensure that the Federal Government engages in a true and
    lasting government-to-government relationship with federally recognized
    tribes in a more coordinated and effective manner, including by better
    carrying out its trust responsibility. It states that this policy is
    established as a means of promoting and sustaining prosperous and
    resilient tribal communities, which includes promoting infrastructure
    to drive economic growth and security and to support special efforts to
    confront historic health disparities and chronic diseases.
        The Executive Order also states that the Council shall work across
    executive departments to improve the quality of life for Native
    Americans, and make recommendations to the President concerning policy
    priorities, including improving the effectiveness of Federal
    investments in Native American communities.
        The Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988 was enacted to ensure a safe and
    adequate water supply for the residents of the Pine Ridge, Rosebud and
    Lower Brule Indian Reservations. The Project delivers clean drinking
    water to the Reservations and the neighboring non-Indian communities.
    It is a significant Federal investment intended to improve the quality
    of life on the Reservations. The act clearly states that the United
    States has a trust responsibility to ensure that adequate and safe
    water supplies are available to meet the economic, environmental, water
    supply and public health needs of the Reservations. As you know, the
    health disparities between Native Americans and non-Indians are vast,
    with the Native Americans suffering from high rates of illness and low
    life expectancy especially on reservations such as those named above
    where poverty is rampant and access to healthcare is difficult.
        The Mni Wiconi Project is nearly complete, but remaining pieces
    still must be built on the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations to
    ensure the intended beneficiaries are served. Further, the existing
    community systems that are intended to become a part of the Project
    need to be upgraded and transferred into the Project. Also, the Project
    needs sufficient operation, maintenance and replacement funds to ensure
    the Project can function as intended especially given the United
    States' substantial investment in the Project to date.
        The Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation also has vast water
    infrastructure needs. The Federal Government, through the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development, has invested more
    than $65 million in the Mni Waste water system in recent years. This
    funding will replace and upgrade the core components of the water
    system, addressing an acute water shortage that threatens public health
    and safety and inhibits economic growth. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
    and surrounding communities also face longer term concerns about the
    state of water distribution infrastructure, however. The cost of major
    upgrades and an expansion of the distribution system to serve the
    approximately 7,000-acre service area in Dewey, Ziebach, Perkins and
    Meade counties could reach several hundred million dollars.
        It is clear to me that addressing infrastructure needs of this
    magnitude on Indian reservations will require substantial engagement
    and investment from a number of different Federal agencies.
        What will you do as Chairwoman of the White House Native American
    Affairs Council to ensure that these critical water infrastructure
    projects, which are intended to meet basic human needs on Indian
    reservations, are adequately considered and furthered by the Council?
        Answer. The United States has a unique legal relationship with
    Indian tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the
    United States, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and court
    decisions. The Federal Government has enacted numerous statutes and
    promulgated numerous regulations that establish and define a trust
    relationship with Indian tribes. Moreover, the administration
    recognizes that federally recognized Indian tribes are sovereign, self-
    governing political entities that enjoy a government-to-government
    relationship with the United States Government, as expressly recognized
    in the U.S. Constitution. The President is a strong supporter of the
    principle of tribal self-determination and he is committed to working
    toward fully enabling tribal self-governance.
        In my capacity as Chairwoman of the White House Native American
    Affairs Council, I will advise the President about the full range of
    issues affecting our Native American communities throughout the
    country, especially those issues addressing their health and safety.
    Critical water infrastructure leading to access to adequate potable
    water is an area on which I and my staff within the Department of the
    Interior have spent considerable time, especially given their
    importance. I am fully engaged in improving the circumstances of Native
    Americans and their access to clean water, though developing or
    improving water infrastructure projects, such as rural water projects
    with tribal components, and by coordinating the use of limited Federal
    resources by multiple Federal, State and local agencies.
        The Department of the Interior supports the goal of interagency
    cooperation and efforts to engage other agencies to participate in the
    Mni Wiconi Project utilizing their existing authorities. An interagency
    agreement, as proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation during the August
    8, 2012 Joint Consultation Meeting With Federal Agencies, has the
    potential to achieve this objective. The draft agreement discussed at
    that meeting provides that the agencies will meet quarterly during the
    first year to evaluate and prioritize potential system improvements.
    The agencies then would develop a schedule to fund and implement these
    improvements. By coordinating this effort, the agencies, utilizing
    existing authorities, could leverage multiple funding sources, and make
    more effective use of available Federal funds to accomplish the system
    improvements.
        This proposed interagency agreement and effort also meets the
    intent of the Memorandum of Understanding Among the Department of
    Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of
    Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Interior, and the
    Environmental Protection Agency To Better Coordinate the Federal
    Government Efforts in Providing Infrastructure and Promoting
    Sustainable Practices To Support the Provision of Safe Drinking Water
    and Basic Sanitation in American Indian and Alaska Native Communities
    signed in March 2013.
        Also within my Department, and in cooperation with the Office of
    Management and Budget, I have charged senior staff with coordinating
    and improving the planning for future and current operations of Indian
    water settlements. Staffs from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of
    Reclamation, the Office of Special Trustee, the Secretary's Indian
    Water Rights Settlement Office, and my immediate office are meeting to
    develop strategies to ensure the continuation of positive collaboration
    with tribal nations in successful resolving complex, contentious and
    longstanding litigation over water rights.
        The administration will continue to commit significant Federal
    resources to improving the lives of Native Americans, and the
    availability of potable water is at the top of my agenda.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                   wildfire cap adjustment emergency proposal
        Question. For more than a decade, this subcommittee has provided
    the Forest Service and Department of the Interior with 100 percent of
    the funds requested to fight fires. That amount has been equal to the
    10-year average. This has been an agreement between the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and
    the subcommittee. As the cost and severity of fires have increased, the
    agencies have run out of money mid-year and had to borrow money from
    other programs to pay for fire suppression. Fire borrowing has caused
    this subcommittee to appropriate additional funding the following year
    to back pay the borrowed accounts from the previous year. This has
    taken over $1 billion out of programs across the bill over the last 2
    years. We can all agree that this is an inefficient and problematic way
    to budget. I appreciate the proposal to create a wildfire cap
    adjustment to end fire borrowing, but there are many questions that
    remain unanswered.
        Under the new proposal, the Department of the Interior (DOI) and
    Forest Service would only need to request 70 percent of the 10-year
    average and any amounts above that would be eligible for disaster cap
    funding. Can you tell me why the administration chose the 70 percent
    level?
        Answer. In the proposed new budget framework, the administration
    wanted to limit the use of the cap adjustment to just extraordinary
    fire costs. The 70 percent level is representative of the amount of
    funding historically needed for wildfires which occur in the expected
    seasonal activity level. The other 30 percent, which would be covered
    in the cap adjustment, represents the level of funding historically
    necessary to cover the wildfires that are above expected seasonal
    activity. More to the point, roughly 99 percent of fires comprise 70
    percent of the costs in an average year, and thus requesting funding
    for 70 percent of the 10-year average within the discretionary budget
    caps is essentially funding all but extraordinary fires that carry
    outsized costs.
        The Department of the Interior and Forest Service derived the 70
    percent figure by analyzing their total number of fires for the years
    2008 through 2011 and categorizing them according to each fire's total
    cost. Specifically, Interior's universe of fires was grouped into total
    fire cost categories of $500,000 or less; $500,000 to $1 million;
    greater than $1 million; greater than $5 million; and greater than $10
    million. The Forest Service's (FS's) universe of fires was grouped into
    total fire cost categories of less than $2 million; $2 million to $3
    million; $3 million to $5 million; $5 million to $10 million; $10
    million to $15 million; $15 million to $20 million; $20 million to $30
    million; $30 million to $50 million; and over $50 million. The total
    number of Interior fires for the years 2008 thru 2011 was 42,719 fires.
    The number of fires less than $1 million in cost was 42,449 or 99
    percent of the fires. The total number of Forest Service fires for the
    years 2008 through 2011 was 28,642. The number of fires less than $10
    million was 28,596 or 99 percent of those fires.
        The total cost of Interior fires for the years 2008 to 2011 was
    $1,247,755,482 (in fiscal year 2013 dollars). The total cost of fires
    which were $1 million or less per fire was $784,791,923 (in fiscal year
    2013 dollars) in those same years, or 63 percent of the costs. The
    total cost of Forest Service fires for the years 2008 to 2011 was
    $5,127,000,000 (in fiscal year 2013 dollars). The total cost of fires
    which were $10 million or less per fire was $3,836,000 (in fiscal year
    2013 dollars) in those same years, or 75 percent.
        The averages when both Interior's and Forest Service's data were
    combined resulted in a percentage split of approximately 70/30. In
    other words, for the two agencies combined, 99 percent of fires
    consumed 70 percent of total suppression costs, while 1 percent of
    fires consumed 30 percent of total suppression costs.
        Question. For fiscal year 2014, the amount appropriated for fire
    suppression at DOI which was equal to the 10-year average was close to
    $400 million. Isn't it the case that under your new proposal you would
    have only had to request 70 percent of $400 million thereby freeing up
    funds (roughly $100 million) to be used elsewhere in your budget? In
    fact, you have touted that these funds can now be used for fire
    prevention activity.
        Answer. The new budget framework for suppression costs aims to stop
    the crippling fire transfers and create a more responsible way to
    budget for suppression operations that allows for improved agency
    planning and management. The budget includes increases of $34.1 million
    in Preparedness, $2 million in Burned Area Rehabilitation, $4.2 million
    for fixed costs increases, and $30 million to establish a new Resilient
    Landscapes program. It also funds the hazardous fuels reduction program
    at approximately the 2014 enacted level.
        Question. Have you considered continuing to use the 10-year average
    as the benchmark and only amounts above that level would be eligible
    for disaster funds?
        Answer. As reflected in its proposed new budget framework, the
    administration believes it is prudent to budget for wildfire
    suppression costs similarly to how the Federal Government budgets for
    other natural disasters. This means funding the more predictable
    suppression costs within the domestic budget caps and funding the
    unpredictable and extraordinary suppression costs through the cap
    adjustment. As explained in the response to the question above, the 10-
    year average includes the costs of all wildfires. This includes those
    wildfires that are above an expected seasonal activity level. The
    administration determined that funding 70 percent of the 10-year
    average within the discretionary budget caps is essentially funding all
    but extraordinary fires that carry outsized costs.
        The underlying premise of the new budget framework for suppression
    costs is to stop the crippling fire transfers and create a more
    responsible way to budget for suppression operations that allows for
    improved agency planning and management. The proposed 2015 framework
    also allows for significant investments in other components of the
    Wildland Fire Management program which, over the long term, will help
    control suppression costs. Limiting the budget cap adjustment to only
    costs exceeding the 10-year average would undermine both of these
    attributes of the 2015 President's budget proposal.
        Currently, the administration has not sent up any specific language
    on this issue but has instead been working with Senators Wyden and
    Crapo and Congressman Simpson on their companion bills.
        Question. Does the administration plan to send up a specific
    proposal of its own?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of
    Agriculture (USDA)/Forest Service, in conjunction with the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB), are meeting with appropriations and
    authorizing committees about the proposal. The administration has also
    offered technical assistance in drafting authorizing language.
        S. 1875, the Wildfire Disaster Fund Act of 2013, which would enact
    the proposed wildfire cap adjustment, has been referred to the Budget
    Committee, but last year the administration asked that we carry it in
    the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2014.
        Question. If the Budget Committee does not take action on this
    bill--which appears unlikely with Chairman Ryan's objection--would the
    administration request we do it as part of the Interior appropriations
    bill?
        Answer. The administration has been working closely with the
    committees of jurisdiction including the House and Senate Budget
    Committees. An amendment to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
    Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA) is needed to authorize the cap adjustment
    and this authorization must be enacted prior to enactment of any bill
    containing the appropriation of wildfire suppression cap adjustment
    funding. Thus, the amendment could be included in authorizing
    legislation or in an appropriations bill that advances ahead of the
    bill containing that appropriation.
        Question. If we were to do it on the fiscal year 2015 Interior
    bill, what would be the scoring impact?
        Answer. Although the language to amend BBEDCA to authorize the cap
    adjustment does not itself score, it must be enacted in advance of an
    Interior bill that contains an appropriation for wildfire suppression
    cap adjustment funding. This is because the language establishing the
    cap adjustment must already be in law prior to the consideration of the
    funding for the cap adjustment in order to permit the Budget Committees
    to increase the 302(b) allocation by the amount of such funding. If the
    amendment is included in the same bill that contains that
    appropriation, the Budget Committees will instead count the cap
    adjustment funding against the Interior subcommittee's 302(b)
    allocation for purposes of congressional enforcement.
        Question. Can you explain whether we could utilize the funding cap
    adjustment in 2015?
        Answer. Yes, as long as the amendment to BBEDCA authorizing the cap
    adjustment is enacted prior to the consideration of any bill containing
    the appropriation of wildfire suppression cap adjustment funding, the
    cap adjustment can be utilized in fiscal year 2015.
        Currently, CBO scores the Interior bill with the full outlays
    associated with the 10-year average. With your proposal, you would only
    be requesting 70 percent of the 10-year average.
        Question. Would CBO continue to score the bill with 100 percent of
    the outlays for the 10-year average, or how would this change under
    your proposal?
        Answer. Once the cap adjustment for wildland fire is enacted, we
    expect that CBO would continue to score budget authority and outlays to
    the Interior bill based on the total amount for that purpose provided
    in the legislation. However, only 70 percent of the 10-year average
    would be counted for purposes of enforcing the 302(b) allocation. The
    Budget Committee would permit an increase in the 302(b) allocation for
    the remaining funding provided for wildfire suppression as part of the
    cap adjustment, subject to the terms of the cap adjustment.
                             contract support costs
        Question. In fiscal year 2014, the administration proposed capping
    the amounts available to tribes for contract support costs, in what I
    believe was an effort to circumvent the tribes' victory in the Ramah
    case decided by the Supreme Court. Thankfully, my colleagues on both
    sides of the aisle and in the House and Senate determined this was not
    the right approach. Since then, the administration has announced it
    will pay full contract support costs for the current fiscal year and
    has also requested the full amount in the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    (BIA) and Indian Health Service budgets for fiscal year 2015. For BIA,
    this is $251 million. I have a few questions about this that go to how
    your budget is formulated so I'll ask Ms. Suh.
        How are these estimates for contract support costs estimated for
    your budget submission?
        Answer. Indian Affairs used a number of factors to estimate the
    Contract Support Cost (CSC) amount that is requested in the President's
    budget request. The factors included prior year CSC Shortfall reports,
    estimating the CSC need based on the amount of funding requested in the
    Operation of Indian Programs account, and estimating the potential
    change in the cost associated with administering new and expanded self-
    determination or self-governance compacts for tribes or tribal
    organizations. After this analysis, Indian Affairs estimates the total
    CSC need for fiscal year 2015 at $251 million ($246 million for
    Contract Support Cost and $5 million for the Indian Self-Determination
    Fund). This is similar to the methodology used to develop the CSC
    amount included in the Indian Affairs 2014 Operating Plan which was
    $247 million ($242 million for Contract Support Cost and $5 million for
    the Indian Self-Determination Fund).
        Question. For years, we've had shortfall reports which have come in
    after the fact and indicated that a sufficient amount was not
    appropriated in a particular year for contract support costs. How, if
    at all, has the process been improved to more accurately estimate the
    need in the upcoming year for contract support costs?
        Answer. The methodology for estimating the CSC shortfall amount and
    total CSC funding need has been refined over the years. With each
    subsequent year, with an additional year of data and greater
    experience, Indian Affairs has aspired to become more accurate in
    estimating these costs. In recent years, one refinement has been
    greater emphasis on basing the CSC estimate on the amount of funding in
    the Operation of Indian Programs account, which is a major driver of
    CSC.
        Question. Isn't it also the case that the need for contract support
    costs may change based on how Congress treats your budget? For example,
    if you get an increase in several program lines, that will also
    increase the need for the contract support costs that go to the tribes
    to deliver the programs.
        Answer. Yes, the total CSC funding need can vary based on the final
    appropriated amounts that Congress enacts. If Congress increases
    funding for program lines that call for CSC, the CSC need will rise. If
    Congress reduces program lines that call for CSC, the CSC need will
    also decrease.
            greater moose's tooth--national petroleum reserve-alaska
        Question. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is working to
    finalize the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
    Greater Moose's Tooth development project. This EIS tiers off the
    National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA) Final Integrated Activity Plan
    and EIS, and the Alpine Satellite Development Plan Final EIS. GMT-1, as
    it's referred to, will allow for the first oil production from the
    NPRA, which the administration has specifically stated is part of its
    all-of-the-above energy strategy. As with all development projects in
    Alaska, construction timelines are tight, and several permits must be
    in place before the project may move forward. Simply put, GMT-1 cannot
    move forward until the EIS is finalized, as subsequent permits will be
    based on this document.
        The public comment period on the Supplemental EIS is 60 days and
    does not close until April 22.
        Given that this is a Supplemental EIS and tiers off two other Final
    EISs, do you agree that 60 days is sufficient for public comment?
        Answer. The public comment period was not extended and the BLM
    expects to have ongoing public engagement.
        Question. After the public comment period closes, how much time
    (weeks, months?) does the Department expect to need to finalize the
    document?
        Answer. Public comments received will be reviewed and considered as
    the BLM prepares the Final Supplemental EIS.
        Question. When do you expect the Final EIS to be released?
        Answer. The BLM is working diligently to complete the Final
    Supplemental EIS; however, it is important to note this is a complex
    undertaking. The project continues to move forward as planned and will
    be released upon consideration of public comments and preparation of
    the Record of Decision.
        Question. Does the Department have adequate resources to make sure
    this project moves forward this year?
        Answer. The BLM has an interdisciplinary team focused on completing
    the requirements to move this project forward.
                    oil and gas development on public lands
        Question. Domestic oil and gas development plays a critical role in
    our Nation's economic and national security. We see daily evidence of
    this as we continue to watch events unfold in Ukraine. Unfortunately,
    rather than encouraging onshore development, Federal policies make
    public lands less attractive to investment when compared to State and
    private lands. This results in important resources, revenues, and jobs
    left in the ground. I think it is unfortunate that resource rich States
    and our Nation are not able to take advantage of the myriad benefits
    responsible domestic development provides.
        For perspective, for every dollar invested in onshore oil and gas
    development on public lands, $88 in revenue is generated. In 2012 this
    resulted in $3.5 billion in onshore lease and royalty revenues to
    American taxpayers.
        I was dismayed to see the Department's proposals for oil and gas
    development, which focus on increased fees, higher royalty rates, and
    shorter lease terms. Especially since activities designed to improve
    permitting, such as continued funding for pilot offices, were not
    prioritized and the leasing reforms put in place have primarily served
    to give anti-development interests another bite at the apple when it
    comes to litigation. Contrast this with the budget's request for
    renewable energy which is designed to ``continue to aggressively
    facilitate and support solar, wind, and geothermal energy
    development.'' I support responsible renewable energy development on
    public lands, but I do not support favoring it over traditional energy
    development.
        Do you know how much revenue is generated by the renewable energy
    industry on public lands compared to the onshore program on public
    lands?
        Answer. Total revenues from solar, wind, and geothermal
    authorizations and leases on public land were approximately $25 million
    in fiscal year 2012 and $25.5 million in fiscal year 2013. Revenues
    will increase substantially as construction is completed on many
    projects and these facilities enter operation and begin to deliver
    energy to the electric grid. Until recently, there were no commercial
    scale solar energy facilities operating on public lands managed by the
    Department.
        The total revenues from the onshore oil and gas program were
    approximately $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2012 and $3 billion in fiscal
    year 2013 from oil and gas royalties, rents, and bonus bids.
        Question. Do you believe we should also aggressively facilitate oil
    and gas development on public lands? Why or why not?
        Answer. Promoting the efficient, safe, and responsible development
    of public land energy resources is a critical part of the
    administration's broad all-of-the-above energy strategy. The BLM
    actively facilitates oil and gas development on public lands as a
    critical contributor to both the national economy and energy portfolio,
    while also continuing to meet various Federal environmental
    requirements, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
    Endangered Species Act (ESA). Following these mandates, the BLM
    supports vital oil and gas development activities which help our Nation
    achieve a more secure energy future.
        Question. Do you believe the budget proposal increases or decreases
    competitiveness of public lands?
        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 we 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.
        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.
        The President's 2015 budget request also includes a more than 20
    percent funding increase to strengthen the BLM's Onshore Oil and Gas
    Program and supports continued implementation of leasing reforms,
    enhanced oversight, and a strengthened inspections process. Leasing
    reforms launched in 2010 have cut the rate of protests from nearly 50
    percent in fiscal year 2009 to approximately 18 percent in fiscal year
    2013, leading to reduced costs and greater certainty for lessees. It is
    also important to note the BLM issued 1,468 leases in fiscal year 2013.
        Question. Given the constraints of our current budget, does the
    Department consider the impact to investment that increased fees and
    duplicative regulations have on generating revenue for taxpayers when
    making funding request decisions?
        Answer. The Department has not proposed duplicative or unnecessary
    regulations. Moreover, we believe that the modest fees proposed on oil
    and gas operations in the 2015 budget request will have a negligible
    impact on other revenue generation while providing important resources
    to fund the programs that support responsible oil and gas development
    on Federal lands.
        The BLM's 2015 budget request for authority to collect inspection
    and enforcement fees aligns onshore oil and gas inspections and
    enforcement with the authority the Congress has enacted annually since
    2010 for oil and gas inspection and enforcement on the outer
    continental shelf. The Department estimates the fees will generate $48
    million which will allow for a $38 million decrease in net BLM
    appropriations while still providing for an increase of $10 million for
    BLM to expand and strengthen onshore oil and gas inspection and
    oversight.
        The additional funding provided by the fee authority is necessary
    to improve the BLM's capacity for production accountability, safety,
    and environmental protection. The BLM will use the funds to expand
    capacity to correct deficiencies identified by the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) in a February 2011 report, designating
    Federal management of oil and gas resources as high risk. Funds from
    the fees will be used to increase inspections of Federal and tribal
    high risk oil and gas cases and complete more environmental inspections
    to ensure environmental requirements are being met in all phases of
    development. Expanding BLM's capacity to conduct production
    accountability inspections will better ensure American taxpayers are
    properly compensated for the value of oil and gas resources developed
    on the public lands.
        The proposed inspection fees would also enable the BLM to be more
    responsive to market demand. This funding will be used to hire new
    inspectors and improve the tools and systems necessary to implement the
    risk-based inspection program.
                    npra land planning/other land plan costs
        Question. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service more than 3 years ago
    began work on a new land management plan for the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge. The preliminary plan seemed to propose that most of
    the 19 million-plus-acre refuge, including all of the 1.5 million acres
    of the Arctic coastal plain that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
    predicts contains between 6.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil--
    America's largest on shore petroleum resource--would be proposed for
    wilderness, rather than just the 8 million acres already placed in
    wilderness by the Alaska lands act in 1980. In 2013, however, efforts
    to finish the land management plan seemed to have gone into suspended
    animation, which means the area is being managed as if the new land
    plan is already in effect.
        Where is the planning process at present and when is a final NPRA
    revised land plan likely to be unveiled?
        Answer. The BLM released the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
    (NPR-A) Final Integrated Activity Plan (IAP)/EIS on December 19, 2012.
    On February 20, 2013, the Record of Decision for the Final IAP/EIS was
    released and superseded previous land use plans in the management of
    the 23-million-acre reserve.
        As for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service published a draft revised Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement (CCP/EIS) for public comment on August 15, 2011. The CCP/EIS
    proposed six alternatives ranging from recommending Wilderness
    designation for the Brooks Range, the Coastal Plain, and the Porcupine
    Plateau and Wild River designation for the Atigun, Hulahula, Kongakut,
    and Marsh Fork Canning rivers to recommending current management
    practices remain unchanged. A preferred alternative was not identified.
    Over 612,000 public comments were received on the draft. These included
    communications by mail, e-mails, faxes, Web site submissions, and
    statements at public meetings. The Department is considering the
    comments received and continues to prepare a final CCP/EIS.
        Question. Also, can you supply for the record what both the Fish
    and Wildlife Service and the BLM are planning to spend in fiscal year
    2015 on updating land management plans in Alaska overall?
        Answer. The BLM funding allocation for updating land management
    plans in Alaska in fiscal year 2015 is $2.1 million and the Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS) estimates that it will spend $300,000 in fiscal
    year 2015 for updating Comprehensive Conservation Plans on National
    Wildlife Refuges in Alaska. The FWS will also provide section 7
    consultations to Federal agencies in Alaska in 2015, though the cost of
    these consultations is not tracked by agency.
        Question. There are at least three other plans throughout western
    and central Alaska in varying stages of updating/completion, some
    before their normal planning windows. I'm curious about what they are
    costing the Department.
        Answer. Following is a funding schedule for the Eastern Interior
    RMP, the Bering Sea/Western Interior Resource Management Plan (RMP),
    the Central Yukon RMP, and the NPR-A.

                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal year--
                   Plan name                ----------------------------------------------------------------  Total
                                               2009     2010     2011     2012     2013     2014   2015 \1\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Eastern Interior RMP...................     $763     $608      $44     $150     $300      $70       $50   $1,985
    Bering Sea/Western Interior RMP........  .......  .......  .......  .......      659      825       948    2,432
    Central Yukon RMP......................  .......  .......  .......  .......      561      675     1,020    2,256
    NPR-A..................................  .......      195      940      977      500  .......  ........    2,612
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Anticipated. Actual allocation may vary based on needs, scheduling, and competing priorities.

                              legacy well cleanup
        Question. Madam Secretary, we have spoken often about the need for
    the Department to speed up the cleanup of 136 abandoned oil and gas
    exploration wells in northern Alaska, wells drilled by the Government
    in both the 1940s and late 1980s and early 1990s. You had about $1
    million in your budget last year for such cleanups. Fortunately, in the
    Helium bill last fall we were able to increase your cleanup funding by
    $50 million so that the Department will be able to tackle the worst of
    the wells in coming years and gain efficiencies by being able to reduce
    mobilization costs and improve coordination of the cleanup efforts. But
    that $50 million will not solve all of the problems.
        Will the Department change its priorities and increase its regular
    budgetary funding to tackle environmental cleanups of abandoned Federal
    wells on an annual basis, since their cleanup truly is a Federal
    responsibility, so that we aren't back in the same position in 6 years
    of having insufficient funding to clean up environmental problems on
    Federal lands?
        Answer. The Department appreciates your role in the passage of the
    Helium Stewardship Act of 2013, which allows BLM to continue to provide
    stability to the helium market and support 21st century jobs and
    industry. The bill also provides a major funding source to address the
    worst abandoned oil and gas exploration wells. This funding will
    significantly increase the speed of remediation efforts at those high
    priority wells.
        When Congress transferred administration of the Naval Petroleum
    Reserve No. 4 in 1976 (legislatively renamed the National Petroleum
    Reserve-Alaska or NPR-A), the Department inherited a massive legacy of
    federally drilled oil and gas exploration wells. Some of these wells
    have never been properly plugged and closed and the workload was well
    beyond the scope of the DOI environmental cleanup budget. To date,
    nearly $90 million has been spent cataloging, monitoring and
    remediating these legacy wells.
        The BLM will continue to coordinate efforts with the State of
    Alaska and the North Slope Borough in addressing well plugging and
    cleanup activities so these wells can be closed in a manner consistent
    with State and Federal law. Although it is premature to discuss budget
    priorities for the years 2020 and beyond, the BLM will keep the
    subcommittee fully informed of its progress over time with the
    objective of ensuring no surprises as we work through this legacy
    workload.
                  national park service centennial initiative
        Question. The Department's budget contains a proposal in support of
    the Park Service Centennial in 2016. We all support the National Parks
    and recognize the importance of this event. The most significant
    feature of this proposal is the request for $300 million in each of the
    next 3 years in mandatory funding, $100 million to be matched by
    private partners, for what your budget describes as signature projects
    and $200 million for deferred maintenance projects. The budget also
    indicates that you plan to send up a legislative proposal for this
    initiative later this year.
        Can you explain to me what you mean by signature projects? In other
    words, what are the criteria for qualifying for a project with these
    funds?
        Answer. The minimum eligibility requirement for a project is that
    they have a one to one partner match to Federal funds. Preference will
    be given to projects with a higher partner match, a clear and immediate
    visitor benefit, and an ability to be obligated in a timely manner. The
    visitor benefit may include projects such as educational programing,
    providing increased visitor access, or rehabilitating a visitor use
    asset. All parks and partners are eligible.
        Question. Will these projects also address the backlog or will they
    be for new construction? My concern is that many folks who may give
    private donations may be interested in new facilities rather than
    fixing up many existing sites.
        Answer. These projects would support both infrastructure and non-
    infrastructure needs. There is evidence of strong partner support for
    projects other than new construction. For example, the Yosemite
    Conservancy is interested in repairing water lines to save the habitat
    of the giant sequoias, and the Gettysburg Foundation is interested in
    rehabilitating the Little Round Top visitor use area. These projects
    would be in addition to the deferred maintenance projects funded
    through the $200 million proposal, which will have specific performance
    measures to track the restoration of the highest priority park assets
    to good condition.
        Question. Will more rural States with less philanthropic resources
    be at a disadvantage in competing for funds against wealthier areas?
        Answer. Our partners are very diverse, and their ability to raise
    funds varies widely, but we feel we will be able to match our myriad
    Centennial efforts to an appropriate partner--or partners--as 2016
    approaches and the Centennial Initiative gains momentum. Our experience
    with managing the Centennial Challenge program from fiscal year 2008 to
    fiscal year 2010 does not indicate that rural States would be at a
    disadvantage. For example, successful projects were at rural parks such
    as Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve, Mesa Verde National Park,
    Redwood National Park, and Andersonville National Historic Site. Many
    parks in rural States have well established friends groups.
        Question. While I support efforts to address the backlog which $200
    million of this proposal does, what offsets will be used to pay for
    this new mandatory funding?
        Answer. The administration looks forward to working with Congress
    on the details of legislation that would advance the Centennial
    proposal, including the necessary offsets for this new spending. That
    includes revenue generating proposals in DOI's 2015 budget that are
    estimated to result in savings to the Treasury of more than $2.6
    billion over 10 years. While the fiscal climate requires prudence,
    national parks have a proven track record as economic engines. For
    example, the recently released, peer reviewed National Park Visitor
    Spending Effects report found that national parks across the country
    continued to be important economic engines, generating $26.75 billion
    in economic activity and supporting 243,000 jobs. In terms of
    leveraging Federal funds, for every dollar invested by taxpayers, $10
    is returned to the American economy.
        Question. As an appropriator, it always gives me pause when we move
    portions of an agency's budget offline. What role will this Committee
    have in overseeing how these funds are expended?
        Answer. The administration recognizes the help the Appropriations
    Committee has provided in addressing deferred maintenance in national
    parks, so we would want a legislative proposal to provide for
    appropriate oversight by this Committee. There are a number of options,
    such as consultations on criteria to be used and notifications now
    included in annual congressional justifications on the planned
    allocation of Recreation Fee permanent appropriations.
                           katmai/brooks camp bridge
        Question. Madam Secretary, your budget request includes $4.4
    million for the first phase of a $7.5 million project to replace the
    existing floating bridge at Brooks Camp in Katmai National Park with an
    elevated bridge and walkway. This new bridge will be a minimum of 10
    feet above the ground. The purpose is to minimize human-bear
    interactions which frequently cause lengthy delays for workers and
    visitors getting back and forth across the Brooks River.
        While these objectives may be worthwhile, I'm troubled by the fact
    that this bridge is part of what I view as an outdated Development
    Concept Plan (DCP) completed in 1996 that also calls for moving the
    entire existing Brooks lodge to the other side of the river. I
    completely disagree with that not only because it would be totally cost
    prohibitive, but also because of the historic significance of this
    facility. It was created by one of Alaska's aviation pioneers who built
    this camp before Katmai National Park was established. I don't want to
    see the construction of this bridge if it is part of an effort by the
    Park Service to move Brooks lodge.
        Is it still the DOI's position that the Brooks lodge facility must
    be moved to the other side of the Brooks River?
        Answer. The National Park Service (NPS) does not plan to move the
    historic Brooks lodge facility. Once the bridge is finished, the NPS
    will complete the supporting infrastructure at the Valley Road
    Administrative Area and move the majority of NPS housing to the south
    side. This combined effort will significantly reduce development on the
    north side, mitigating impact to cultural resources and bear use areas.
    It will greatly improve the visitor experience. The lodge, campground,
    cultural exhibits, and limited concessioner housing will remain on the
    north side.
        Question. Would the Department agree to go back and re-do the
    existing DCP so that it reflects the latest science and budget
    realities that we are operating under?
        Answer. The 2013 Brooks River Visitor Access EIS amended the 1996
    Development Concept Plan (DCP) by retaining existing floatplane access
    on Naknek Lake and Lake Brooks, and approving an elevated bridge and
    boardwalk system across Brooks River. It improves visitor safety by
    reducing the risk of bear interactions and provides for permanent,
    reliable access across the river.
        The NPS utilized scientific expertise in formulating the 2013 plan
    (Amended EIS). For instance, NPS convened a panel of State, Federal,
    and university brown bear experts to advise the planning team during
    project scoping. Other special studies of cultural resources, river
    hydrology, geotechnology, and bear movements informed the plan. The
    plan was vetted through full public involvement, including project
    scoping and meetings conducted in Anchorage, King Salmon, and Brooks
    Camp.
                    red devil mine/native land contamination
        Question. First, I want to thank the Secretary for proposing to
    include $2.7 million to speed remediation of mine waste at the old Red
    Devil Mine site in Southwest Alaska--a situation that has been under
    consideration between Interior and the State of Alaska for more than a
    decade. However, Red Devil also brings up the broader issue of
    environmental pollution and contamination on lands already conveyed to
    Alaska Natives under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
    Currently, there are more than 650 such sites on Native lands--lands
    contaminated prior to conveyance--where the Federal Government is
    statutorily responsible for the cleanup. In 1988, the Department
    studied the subject and proposed a six-point effort to speed up cleanup
    of such contamination but nothing happened. Last fall, I wrote and
    asked you about the Department's plans for cleanup. In January, you
    promised the Department would update its contaminated lands survey--and
    I understand you have assigned staff to update that survey.
        My question is how quickly might the updated survey be finished and
    more importantly, how quickly will the Department devote actual funding
    and resources to clean up contamination caused by Federal agencies?
        Answer. The Department shares your concern that contaminated lands
    may have been conveyed to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
    (ANCSA) corporations. As I stated in my January 2014 letter, the
    Department is committed to determining what sites identified were
    conveyed under ANCSA in order to continue follow up on the six
    recommendations. The BLM is working cooperatively with the Alaska
    Native Village CEO Association on this issue and meeting regularly with
    them to gather information and complete the inventory. The BLM's goal
    is to complete the inventory by late summer this year.
        Since January 2014, the BLM-Alaska has designated a full-time
    project manager to focus specifically on the contaminated lands. The
    project manager's group is reviewing the BLM's data to determine what
    contaminated lands may have been conveyed. A database of this
    information is being developed, which will allow us to prioritize
    future actions. Once the inventory is completed, the Department will be
    better able to assess the resources appropriate to remediate the
    contaminated lands.
                       alaska volcano observatory funding
        Question. The United States Geological Survey operates the Alaska
    Volcano Observatory, a joint entity with the University of Alaska. USGS
    operates five such observatories in the western United States. The
    observatory maintains a series of seismic monitors on volcanoes in
    Alaska, largely on the Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutian Chain, near
    the air corridor for flights to America from Asia. Ash from eruptions
    is particularly dangerous to such flights as shown by the near crash of
    a jumbo jet years ago.
        According to USGS's own count, many of the seismic monitors need to
    upgrade to digital technology, as well as the replacement of antennas
    and batteries since the stations are rapidly going off line. Not only
    is this causing a real health and safety issue not just for Alaskans,
    but international passengers on trans-Pacific flights. Your budget
    contains several increases, such as a $17.1 million increase just for
    climate change research, while it appears to contain roughly flat
    funding for the Natural Hazards Program, even though tracking and
    predicting earthquake and volcanic eruptions would seem to be one of
    the Department's most important health and safety responsibilities.
    Your budget seems to call for increases of just $314,000 for the
    Earthquakes Program--a sore subject in this the 50th anniversary year
    of the strongest earthquake in North American history--the Good Friday
    quake in Alaska in 1964--and just $187,000 for the Volcano Program,
    even though the estimate just to maintain just the Alaska seismic
    monitoring network will cost millions additionally a year for
    maintenance to keep the network from collapsing.
        I'm afraid we're going to reach a point in the very near future
    where we simply don't have enough information available to predict and
    monitor the volcanic activity in Alaska, which could have catastrophic
    consequences. The fiscal year 2014 Conference Report contained language
    noting these challenges and concerns.
        What is USGS doing to make sure that these monitoring systems don't
    collapse in the near future, as is predicted?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations report provides
    $400,000 toward rapid response to ash forming eruptions and network
    restoration activities. As proposed in the 2015 President's budget
    request, these funds will be applied toward installation of monitoring
    instrumentation at other U.S. volcanoes prone to ash-forming eruptions
    in Washington and Oregon. Restoration of existing Alaskan volcano
    networks is a long-term project with anticipated duration of 3 to 4
    years at the current funding level.
        The Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO) received an additional
    $119,000 in 2014 to support maintenance work on geophysical monitoring
    networks on Alaska volcanoes. Of this amount, the USGS will spend
    $73,000 on equipment and maintenance costs for ailing monitoring
    networks and $46,000 for helicopter support will be routed to the
    Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys through a
    cooperative agreement to support maintenance of monitoring networks.
    The high priority targets for AVO maintenance work in the summer of
    2014 will be the repair of instruments on Shishaldin, Westdahl, and
    Fisher volcanoes on Unimak Island, where all seismic instruments are
    operating at an impaired level. Shishaldin is experiencing an ongoing
    low level effusive eruption and seismic instruments are critically
    needed. Additionally, AVO plans network maintenance on the Katmai
    volcanoes of Spurr, Redoubt, Augustine, Akutan, Makushin, and Okmok in
    2014, where seismic instruments are also operating at an impaired
    level. No maintenance is planned in 2014 for Aniakchak or Four Peaked
    volcanoes where networks have recently failed. AVO hopes to re-engineer
    these networks so they will be more robust and cost effective to
    operate and plans to make repairs/upgrades in 2015 pending availability
    of funds.
        AVO is also partnering with a National Science Foundation (NSF)
    funded archeology project through the University of Kansas and Whitman
    College to place two new monitoring stations on Cleveland volcano.
    Cleveland volcano has been the most consistently active volcano in
    Alaska over the past 5 to 10 years and is currently not monitored with
    ground based instrumentation. This maintenance will lower the hazard
    risk posed to NSF-funded researchers and accompanying USGS scientists
    and provide the means to detect and warn of future eruptions of
    Cleveland much more rapidly than is currently possible. This
    partnership significantly lowers the logistical costs on placing
    monitoring instrumentation on this very active and very remote Aleutian
    volcano. Future commitments by the NSF GeoPrisms initiative suggest
    that cost effective ship and helicopter access for maintenance work
    will continue for at least several more years.
        Question. Could you provide this subcommittee with the current gaps
    in the monitoring infrastructure at the Alaska Volcano Observatory and
    the estimated costs to maintain a sufficient monitoring system?
        Answer. Currently AVO seismic networks on Aniakchak, Little Sitkin,
    Four Peaked, Wrangell, and Semisopochnoi volcanoes are not operational
    and seismic networks on Gareloi, Westdahl, Fisher, Shishaldin, Dutton,
    Peulik, Katmai, and Pavlof volcanoes are operating at an impaired
    level. To repair and consistently maintain these networks AVO would
    need an additional $2.5 million a year for an annual budget of $6.5
    million to $7 million. AVO currently has no ground-based monitoring at
    several moderate to high threat volcanoes including Kiska, Kasatochi,
    Seguam, Amukta, Yunaska, Carlisle, Cleveland, Herbert, Kagamil,
    Vsevidof, and Chiginagak and these volcanoes represent significant gaps
    in our ability to address volcanic hazards in Alaska and on North
    Pacific air routes.
        The Volcano Hazards Program (VHP) has to balance the high threat
    volcanoes in Alaska needing instrumentation with the Very High Threat
    volcanoes in the conterminous United States whose monitoring networks
    are inadequate for the threat they pose--most notably Glacier Peak,
    Washington (virtually no instrumentation); Baker, Washington; Mt. Hood,
    Oregon; Lassen Peak, California; and Mt. Shasta, California.
                        land and water conservation fund
        Question. Your fiscal year 2015 proposal asks for $550 million in
    mandatory spending for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
    program. The administration has been making similar requests to use
    mandatory funds for LWCF over the last several years and Congress has
    not enacted any of them. Your budget documents indicate that in fiscal
    year 2016, the administration will propose the fully authorized level
    of $900 million for LWCF, paid for entirely through mandatory
    appropriations. I wholly disagree with this. In a time of tight budgets
    and overwhelming debt, why should Congress, and especially this
    subcommittee support putting this program on auto pilot? LWCF has
    received roughly $300 million over the last few budget cycles in
    discretionary funds.
        Why should this program be placed above other critical priorities
    in the Interior bill like Indian schools and healthcare and receive
    guaranteed full funding?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior is entrusted with overseeing
    Federal lands for the benefit of current and future generations. The
    Land and Water Conservation Fund is an innovative program that has, for
    nearly 50 years, used revenues from offshore oil and gas development to
    enhance parks and open spaces in every county across the country. The
    LWCF Act has been one of our Nation's most effective tools for
    protecting our Nation's cultural resources, protecting important
    habitat, expanding access for hunting and fishing, creating ballfields
    and other places for kids to play and learn, and protecting Civil War
    battlefields.
        Congress passed the LWCF Act and established $900 million as its
    authorized funding level to ensure balance between the depletion of one
    national resource--our offshore oil and gas reserves--and the permanent
    conservation of our lands and waters. Authorizing mandatory funding for
    the LWCF would realize the original intent of this law: to set aside a
    meaningful portion of the royalties that companies pay for developing
    America's offshore oil and gas reserves, and reinvest those funds in
    land and water conservation for the benefit of all Americans and future
    generations. Mandatory funding will not remove all congressional
    discretion over the use of the funds, but will provide greater
    certainty that this portion of our offshore royalties are used for
    their intended purpose: to support the national endowment of lands and
    waters which provide our cities with clean drinking water, provide our
    children with safe places to play, and protect the way of life of our
    farmers, foresters and ranchers.
        Wisely utilizing the revenues that are deposited into the LWCF
    account has been a high priority for the Department across many
    administrations, regardless of political affiliation. However, it is
    one of many priorities that must be balanced. The administration is
    also committed to ensuring that Native American youth who attend Bureau
    of Indian Education-funded schools benefit from academically rigorous,
    culturally appropriate education that will prepare Indian students to
    be successful citizens and future leaders in their communities and help
    build safer, stronger, healthier, and more prosperous Indian
    communities and economies. Improving education and literacy in tribal
    nations is essential to vitalizing community life, stimulating economic
    development, increasing employment opportunities, and improving
    standards of living for future generations of Native Americans. A
    thriving educational system for American Indian students is a critical
    component of the broader initiative to strengthen tribal communities.
        Indian Affairs owns or provides funding for a significant inventory
    of buildings and other facilities across the Nation, including
    education facilities in Indian country. Currently, Indian Affairs
    provides funds for facility programs for 183 academic and resident-only
    campuses. From 2002 through 2014, over $2 billion, including $300
    million of funding made available in the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act, has been provided for construction, improvement, and
    repair projects that have reduced the number of schools in poor
    condition from more than 120 of the 183 schools to 63 today.
    Appropriations for education construction over the last 15 years has
    funded 42 complete school replacements and 62 major renovations, which
    are either completed, funded or under construction. The budget supports
    progress in completing the 2004 Replacement School Construction
    priority list, providing funding for the Beatrice Rafferty School.
                             alaska land conveyance
        Question. I was disappointed to see that the Department is once
    again proposing to cut funding for completion of Alaska land
    conveyances. The State of Alaska and the Alaska Native corporations are
    still awaiting conveyance and patenting of the 149 million acres
    promised them in 1959 and 1971 in the Statehood Act and the Alaska
    Native Claims Settlement Act. The last official numbers I saw showed
    that combined, the Government still owes the State and Natives interim
    conveyance of approximately 7 million acres and patents to about 46
    million acres.
        Only 4 years ago, the funding for these conveyances was roughly $34
    million, but the administration proposed to cut that by over 50 percent
    to just $16.6 million in fiscal year 2013. In fiscal year 2014,
    Congress provided $22 million, which should help to speed up the
    required land surveys. I was disappointed, then, when your fiscal year
    2015 budget request of only $19 million again proposes to cut funding
    for this important program. While $3 million may not seem significant,
    the extra funding could help complete conveyances within 5 to 10 years,
    instead of the 20 or 30 years that likely would be result if funding
    fell back to fiscal year 2013 levels.
        Why is the Department again seeking to cut conveyance funding when
    completing the conveyances is clearly a legal obligation under three
    different Federal laws?
        Answer. The BLM has innovated and modernized its survey and
    business practices in Alaska and is already achieving faster and
    improved outcomes with a smaller investment. Under previous processes,
    the remaining conveyances would have taken decades to complete (until
    approximately 2045). To accelerate the timeframe for completing the
    remaining survey and conveyance requirements, the BLM transformed its
    survey technique to expedite land transfers. The new approach reduces
    physical monuments in the ground and provides precise geospatial data
    for land boundaries, reducing the cost of surveys by up to 50 percent
    and accelerating timeframes for the final patenting of lands to the
    State. With this new initiative, the BLM will meet its obligation to
    the State and Alaskan Natives substantially sooner and more
    economically. The 2015 request level plots a course for completing all
    surveys and land transfers in 10 years.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. In February 2013 a study was released that estimated
    National Heritage Areas contribute $12.9 billion annually to our
    Nation's economy. The study also reported that the 49 National Heritage
    Areas across the country support 148,000 jobs and contribute $1.2
    billion in Federal taxes annually. Would the President's budget
    proposed 54 percent reduction in funding for the Heritage Partnership
    Program have an effect on the economic impact and jobs supported by
    National Heritage Areas?
        Answer. The reduction proposed in the President's budget supports
    the directive for the more established National Heritage Areas (NHAs)
    to work toward becoming more self-sufficient. This directive was
    provided in the House Report 111-180 for the fiscal year 2010 Interior
    appropriations bill. As NHAs develop other sources of non-appropriated
    funding to attain operational self-sufficiency, appropriated funds
    would still leverage significant economic benefits, including job
    creation, through tourism and visitor spending.
        The budget provides support to sustain critical functions of the
    National Park Service's (NPS') valued NHA partners, especially those
    areas that are in the process of developing and implementing their
    sustainability plans and forming networks of operational and financial
    partnerships. The performance-based funding formula currently in the
    process of being implemented for NHAs will, once fully implemented,
    reward NHA entities that bring in additional non-Federal investment and
    which have also developed a sustainability plan.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
                              white-nose syndrome
        Question. In February 2010, white-nose syndrome was confirmed in
    the State of Tennessee and continues to spread. I am very concerned
    about this because of the potential long-term impact it could have on
    Tennessee.
        Bats are consumers of enormous numbers of insects that threaten
    crops and forests. Because of the insects and the amount of insects
    that bats consume, economic analysis estimates that the value of pest
    suppression bats have per acre ranges from $12 to $173, with an average
    benefit of $74 per acre. The same study estimates the total annual
    agriculture benefit of bats ranging from $3 billion per year to $53
    billion per year, with the most likely annual benefit of $22 billion
    per year.
        As of 2011, agriculture and forestry industries in Tennessee impact
    the State's economy with $66.4 billion in total economic activity and
    more than 337,880 in employment according to the Tennessee Department
    of Agriculture. So the loss of these bats could severely damage the
    Tennessee economy.
        Would you provide an update on the research the Department has
    conducted on the spread of white-nose syndrome and what the
    Department's goals for white-nose syndrome are and how do you plan to
    achieve them?
        Answer. Since discovered in 2007, white-nose syndrome (WNS), caused
    by the fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans (Pd), has killed over 5
    million bats, and the disease has spread to 25 U.S. States and five
    Canadian provinces. The National Park Service has detected the fungus
    in 10 park units. Formally accepted in 2011, the National Plan for
    Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-nose
    Syndrome in Bats (National Plan) provides a framework for coordinating
    the WNS investigation and identifies research and management goals for
    the collective response to the disease. Numerous discoveries stemming
    from collaborative research conducted over the last several years at
    the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other centers, universities, and
    State and Federal laboratories have contributed to current
    understanding of WNS and the ability to closely monitor disease spread.
    The result of this research has enabled the USGS to develop an enhanced
    molecular method (real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction) to detect Pd,
    demonstrate that bat hibernacula serve as long-term reservoirs for Pd,
    characterize the influence of temperature on growth of Pd, determine
    that infection by Pd disrupts the physiology of hibernating bats, and
    demonstrate that Pd was likely introduced to North America from Europe.
        This fundamental understanding of WNS and the fungus that causes it
    has facilitated the USGS' ability to shift the focus of research from
    disease and pathogen characterization to disease management, in
    accordance with the goals identified in the National Plan. Some of the
    objectives defined below (e.g., enhanced disease surveillance) are
    sufficiently developed for immediate implementation, while others
    (e.g., vaccination of bats or implementation of a bio-control-based
    disease management) will require further development and longer-term
    investment. Ongoing and proposed management-based WNS research efforts
    at the USGS will:
      --Enhance disease surveillance to more precisely define where the
            fungus Pd occurs and monitor the efficacy of proposed
            management actions.
      --Investigate the role that environmental conditions play in the
            outbreaks of WNS to provide information to managers to
            manipulate the environment as a strategy to manage the disease.
      --Define the host (bat) response to infection by Pd and what causes
            the manifestation of the disease to support the development of
            a vaccine.
      --Develop and disseminate an edible vaccine to protect bats against
            infection by Pd.
      --Define a host (bat) response to fungal infection to support bio-
            control-based suppression of WNS by manipulation of microbial
            populations naturally found on bat skin (micro-biomes).
      --Characterize soil microbial communities that suppress Pd in
            underground bat hibernation sites to support a bio-control-
            based strategy to reduce pathogenic environmental reservoirs of
            the fungus.
      --Develop a coordinated bat population monitoring database (NABat) to
            support regional and range-wide inferences about trends in
            distributions and abundances of bat populations in North
            America facing mortality from stressors such as white-nose
            syndrome and wind energy.
      --Develop an online national wildlife mortality event reporting
            system that will facilitate the sharing of disease event
            information, such as outbreak onset and ending date, location,
            species involved, numbers involved, diagnoses, laboratory, and
            contact names.
        Question. Does the research partnership between multiple Federal
    agencies and State agencies provide the best platform to solving this
    issue of white-nose syndrome? Are we seeing signs of improvement or
    should there be a more aggressive approach to solving this issue?
        Answer. White-nose syndrome is still a significant problem and the
    continued spread of the disease is anticipated to threaten hibernating
    bat species throughout North America. The National Plan for assisting
    States, Federal agencies and tribes in managing WNS in bats was
    formally accepted in May 2011 and serves as the framework for the
    coordination of agency and partner efforts to respond to WNS. The
    multi-agency response to WNS has been greatly enhanced by operating
    collectively under the National Plan by providing a governance
    structure and mechanism for collaboration to ensure agency actions are
    coordinated, meeting the priority needs, and are not duplicative. A
    sister Canadian plan, adapted from the U.S. National Plan, has also
    facilitated research and response activities with many agency and
    academic partners in Canada. The National Plan identifies seven
    elements that are critical to the investigation and management of the
    disease and describes the goals, objectives, and action items of the
    working groups established to handle each element. Collectively, the
    objectives and actions identified in the base plan address the greatest
    needs and knowledge gaps that must be covered in order to manage the
    disease. The objectives also reflect a scientific approach that is
    solidly based in research, which is necessary when facing the many
    questions inherent in the response to the outbreak of an emerging
    disease.
        The response to WNS has been significantly enhanced by the
    partnerships and collaborations that have developed to combat this
    novel disease, and the participation of State and Federal agencies has
    been integral to the efforts. The progress that has been made since the
    discovery of the disease in 2007 is considerable, and is virtually
    unprecedented in a wildlife disease response of this nature. WNS has
    brought Federal and State agency researchers and managers together with
    academics and non-government researchers across multiple disciplines
    and multiple countries. State agencies are largely responsible for
    monitoring populations of susceptible bat species, most of which are
    State trust species, and for managing the disease at the local level.
    State agencies also provide critical support for research projects
    conducted by Federal and non-government researchers. Federal agencies
    fund and conduct research, facilitate cross-border collaboration, and
    promote consistent approaches among States and on Federal lands.
    Additionally, the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to make
    funds available to State and Federal agencies, as well as academic and
    other private researchers, has also helped to promote collaboration,
    maintain critical State activities, and further the research
    achievements.
        WNS has continued to spread, and observations this past winter
    suggest that impacts to bats may be just as severe in the Southeast and
    Midwest as they have been in the Northeast and eastern Canada. There is
    cause for hope, however, in that there is evidence of small numbers of
    little brown bats persisting in the affected area and the USGS is
    studying these populations to learn how and why they are surviving. The
    advancements to our understanding of disease mechanics and
    transmission, along with promising research into possible treatment
    options, are also cause for hope that the USGS will be able to develop
    new tools to manage the disease. These advancements have allowed
    researchers to shift their focus from basic science to management and
    conservation efforts. These efforts will continue to require attention
    and resources from all agencies and partners engaged in the
    international response, and will continue to be guided by the National
    Plan.
        The progress and successful collaborations fostered by the national
    response to WNS support the use of the WNS National Plan as a model for
    future wildlife disease response by formalizing this collaborative
    arrangement into a robust infrastructure to address emerging wildlife
    diseases. The USGS is working with partners to create a National Fish
    and Wildlife Health Network designed to build a collaborative,
    operational framework by which Government agencies, tribes,
    universities and professional conservation organizations will cooperate
    to assist tribal, State and Federal agencies in their responsibilities
    to manage wildlife diseases, and wildlife-associated pathogens. The
    mission of the Network will be achieved through collaborative
    partnerships and the collective, voluntary adoption of protocols and
    actions to address fish and wildlife health issues, such as has been
    seen with the response to WNS. As currently planned, a Coordinating
    Committee will oversee and coordinate implementation of the Network.
    The Network will consist of agencies and organizations with the
    technical expertise to implement the guidelines and plans. The primary
    stakeholders are the tribal, State, and Federal government agencies
    responsible for managing the health of free ranging fish, wildlife, and
    marine animal populations. Specific areas of focus for the Network will
    include: (1) wildlife diagnostic laboratory protocols; (2) disease
    information management and dissemination; (3) coordinated disease
    surveillance; (4) interagency communication and response plans; and (5)
    species specific health issues. The Network will endeavor to address
    deficiencies in fish and wildlife disease monitoring and prevention
    programs where they exist, and facilitate the work of existing systems.
    The creation of this Network will be an important step in addressing
    this critical need.
        In addition to interagency collaboration, the USGS has been working
    with non-governmental organizations in support of the Network,
    including the Marine Mammal Commission, the Wildlife Society, the
    American Fisheries Society, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife
    Agencies. Activities include hosting a successful subject matter expert
    workshop, developing a concept paper, and drafting a coordinating
    committee charter.
        The National Park Service (NPS) has detected the fungus in 10 park
    units. The NPS restricts access to caves serving as bat hibernacula or
    maternity roosts and restricts cave access to visitors which have been
    screened and hold permits or tour tickets. Show caves such as Mammoth
    Cave National Park remain open with screening and decontamination
    procedures in place. The NPS only approves requests for scientific or
    educational permits when benefits outweigh the risk.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
        Question. Secretary Jewell, when you came before this Committee on
    May 7, 2013, we discussed at length the CityArchRiver project in St.
    Louis. As you and Director Jarvis have both stated, public-private
    partnerships will be a part of the new vision for Park Service
    operations. I wanted to review the topics you addressed in the hearing
    last year. If you can please provide the subcommittee with a written
    response to these items I would appreciate it.
        You stated that:
      --You would visit the Arch soon. I appreciate that you and Secretary
            Foxx visited on August 2, 2013 for the highway groundbreaking
            allowing time to meet with local elected officials, Civic
            Progress, and Regional Business Council leaders and to tour the
            ground.
      --You would look into the pending agreement between the National Park
            Service and Bi State Development Agency, the long-term
            agreement having expired in December 2012. I am appreciative of
            your personal attention. The new agreement was signed finally 9
            months after in January 2014. However I have concerns the delay
            has cost the project time and money.
      --You would appoint one point person with whom the local partners can
            talk and help get decisions made. You stated that Peggy O'Dell,
            the Deputy Director was such a point person. Peggy O'Dell has
            been helpful and I know she is in charge of operations at the
            Park Service headquarters. However it is my understanding Ms.
            O'Dell is not the person who regularly interacts with the
            project partners, such as the Missouri Department of
            Transportation (MoDOT), Great Rivers Greenway or CityArchRiver.
            The partners need a facilitator who can provide consistent and
            transparent communication. The facilitator should meet in
            person with key partners to work through open issues, ensuring
            that decisions are timely. Project partners have brought an
            enormous amount of resources to the table. When the Park
            Service is inconsistent or not transparent in communicating and
            resolving schedule and policy issues, there are consequences,
            including financial impacts.
      --You were willing to look at public private partnerships ``in a
            different way'' and to understand partnerships only work in a
            collaborative way. I again want to stress that while I
            appreciate that the Park Service is in agreement with this
            goal, words must be put into action. Schedule delays because of
            slow legal reviews or document processing cost the project
            considerably. Current proposed schedule changes will already
            impact the schedule with a delay of 2 months to 1 year. I have
            been informed that extra costs resulting from these schedule
            delays could total approximately $8.7 million. In the joint
            report language accompanying the 2014 Omnibus Appropriations
            bill, the Committee included language encouraging the use of
            public-private partnerships. I will repeat it and ask that you
            include in your responses to these questions the Park Service's
            plans to meet this charge:

              The Committees encourage the use of public-private
            partnerships as an important tool in the successful operation
            of land management agencies. These partnerships, which leverage
            Federal dollars with State, local, nonprofit and philanthropy
            entities, have proven effective at achieving partner and
            Service goals and objectives. The Committees urge the
            Department and Service to reassess recent policy
            interpretations and review procedures to facilitate
            partnerships that have historically proven beneficial to
            national parks and partners.

        Answer. The National Park Service is extremely pleased to have
    successfully executed a new agreement with the Bi-State Development
    Agency. This 50-year partnership serves as one of the best partnership
    models in the Service and we look forward to a continued relationship.
    The delay in construction start, along with the associated financial
    impact, is not a result of the delay in the execution of the Bi-State
    Development Agency agreement. The project team, including
    representatives of all key partners and the National Park Service (NPS)
    project management and technical team, meet daily to work through
    design, schedule, and funding issues. The NPS team strives to
    communicate the legal and policy requirements of the project, and to
    explore all opportunities to expedite and benefit the project. We
    continue to work closely with the Foundation to help them develop an
    approach to fulfill their commitment to fund increased operation and
    maintenance (O&M) costs resulting from implementation of the proposed
    project. The Foundation-managed design process is also approaching
    completion. Once the Supplemental O&M Agreement with the Foundation is
    executed, completed designs are delivered, and construction funding is
    in place, we will be able to move forward into long anticipated
    construction phase. The Great Rivers Greenway-funded landscape
    construction is anticipated to begin soon, with the Foundation-funded
    Arch Visitor Center/Museum project following.
        Question. I understand that the Department of the Interior, through
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with other Federal agencies
    and the State of Missouri, is engaged in discussions with The Doe Run
    Company concerning their legacy liabilities in Southeast Missouri. I
    had a meeting with your Deputy, Michael Connor, on this topic before he
    was confirmed. Mr. Connor also assured me he would inform you of the
    issue, which I have been told he has. As I hope you will appreciate,
    Doe Run is vital to the regional economy of Southeast Missouri, and the
    continued viability of the company is a matter of keen interest and
    importance to me.
        Are you aware of the ongoing discussions involving your Department?
        Answer. Yes, I am aware of the discussions.
        Question. I would also like to ask for your personal assurance that
    you will pay close attention to this matter, and that you will make
    sure that Doe Run receives fair treatment, consistent with the
    importance of this company to the long-term economic interests of
    Southeast Missouri.
        Answer. The importance of Doe Run to Southeast Missouri is well
    understood by the Department, as it has been in operation for over 150
    years. Close attention is being paid to the Doe Run situation. Senator
    Blunt's concerns have been heard and Doe Run will receive fair
    treatment.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
        Question. You were recently quoted as saying that you anticipate
    releasing your new regulations for fracking on public land ``sometime
    in 2014.'' As you know, I have had serious concerns about new Federal
    regulations of hydraulic fracturing on Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
    lands, which is why I introduced the Empower States Act, allowing
    States and tribes the ability to regulate hydraulic fracturing on
    Federal lands, like BLM land.
        Our tribes still have concerns about the proposed regulation. On
    March 18, 2014, the Three Affiliated Tribes on the Fort Berthold
    Reservation participated in a consultation with the BLM and the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs (BIA) on the proposed rule for Hydraulic Fracturing
    on Federal and Indian Lands. Following the consultation, the Three
    Affiliated Tribes sent you a letter expressing their concern that your
    Department is not seriously considering the tribal impacts of the
    proposed rule.
        How does your Department plan to work with the tribes to develop a
    rule that affirms tribal self-determination and authority and to comply
    with the Department's tribal consultation policy?
        Answer. The goal of the hydraulic fracture (HF) rule is to ensure a
    consistent, minimum baseline standard for operations across all public
    and tribal lands that are available for oil and gas development, and
    aims to streamline and minimize the efforts required to comply with any
    new requirements, while also protecting Federal and tribal interests
    and resources. The BLM has revised the proposed rule to reduce some of
    the information requirements and avoid duplication with the
    requirements of States (on Federal land) and tribes (on tribal land).
    The BLM has included various options in the revised proposed HF rule to
    encourage streamlining, flexibility, and more efficient operation on
    both public and tribal lands. The BLM is committed to working closely
    with tribes to address any concerns on the impacts of the revised
    proposed rule for hydraulic fracturing. The BLM has been actively
    engaged in tribal consultations from the onset of this rulemaking
    effort.
        Question. North Dakota and other States regulate hydraulic
    fracturing on State, Federal, and private lands. Why do you believe we
    need the Federal Government to add additional regulations when the
    States regulate this area and FracFocus discloses the chemicals?
        Answer. The BLM has an important role to play in ensuring the safe
    and effective use of hydraulic fracturing techniques on Federal and
    tribal lands. The current rules covering these operations are 30 years
    old. The goal of the rulemaking is to ensure a minimum baseline
    standard for operations across Federal lands and for Indian trust
    minerals, including in States and on Indian reservations that are not
    regulating hydraulic fracturing. The BLM intends to continue to work
    with the State and tribal regulatory agencies to avoid duplication of
    requirements from certain States (on Federal land) and tribes (on
    tribal land), while also protecting Federal and tribal interests and
    resources. The revised proposed rule also adds a provision allowing the
    BLM to approve a variance that would apply to all lands within the
    boundaries of a State, a tribe, or described as field-wide or basin-
    wide, that is commensurate with the State or tribal regulatory scheme.
    The BLM must determine that the variance would meet or exceed the
    effectiveness of the revised proposed rule. States and tribes would be
    invited to work with the BLM to craft variances that would allow
    technologies, processes, or standards required or allowed by the State
    or tribe to be accepted as compliance with the rule. Such variances
    would allow the BLM and tribes to improve efficiency and reduce costs
    for operators and for the agencies.
        Question. The President's budget provides for $310 million for
    Public Safety and Justice, which funds law enforcement activities on
    approximately 56 million acres of Indian country in 35 States. Programs
    under this activity include investigative, police, and detention
    services; tribal courts; fire protection; and facilities maintenance.
        In North Dakota, we've had significant population growth in the
    Bakken, which includes the Fort Berthold Reservation, and the BIA
    recently assumed the child social services on the Spirit Lake
    Reservation.
        I need to know if you believe this money will help reduce crime on
    the reservations and help ensure children on the Reservation are safe.
        Answer. The 2015 budget includes a comprehensive and integrated
    approach to address the interrelated problems of poverty, violence, and
    substance abuse faced by Indian communities. In addition to continuing
    the robust funding support for public safety programs, the 2015 budget
    incorporates an increase of $11.6 million for social services and job
    training programs as part of the Tiwahe Initiative. As a longer term
    effort to address conditions that contribute to crime in Indian
    communities, the Tiwahe Initiative will support culturally appropriate
    services with the goal of empowering individuals and families through
    health promotion, family stability, and strengthening tribal
    communities as a whole.
        Beyond funding, the BIA Office of Justice Services constantly looks
    for ways to improve program effectiveness with other tools and
    resources. For example, the lessons learned from a successful pilot
    program to reduce violent crime at four reservations were published in
    a handbook in June 2012. This compendium of best practices serves as a
    valuable resource to guide law enforcement entities operating
    throughout Indian country. It includes strategies that proved effective
    and those that didn't. The information it offers ranges from general
    approaches to communities policing to detailed instruction on specific
    crime reduction plans.
        The BIA fully utilizes all resources at its disposal to help reduce
    crime and ensure children are safe in Indian communities across North
    Dakota, as well as throughout the Nation.
        Question. As you are aware, North Dakota's BLM Field Office in
    Dickinson has been facing a backlog of permit applications for drilling
    on Federal lands. I am pleased that my bill to create the Montana/
    Dakotas State Office became law last December. The BLM has also used
    innovative approaches to help tackle the workload--bringing in strike
    teams to the Miles City district headquarters, using teleworkers, and
    securing land for employee housing.
        In one notable example, the BLM has worked with the North Dakota
    (ND) Petroleum Council to facilitate extra funds from the oil industry
    to help pay salaries and benefits for five additional employees to
    process permits in the Bakken region. The agreement has important
    protections against favoritism, so no company receives expedited
    treatment. I commend BLM for finding creative solutions and fostering
    collaboration.
        In this time when additional Federal funding is limited, do you
    think that this model can be replicated to other areas and States
    across the country? Are there any other steps that can be taken to
    increase partnerships with other agencies--like the U.S. Forest Service
    and BIA--as well as industry stakeholders?
        Answer. The BLM remains committed to expediting the processing of
    applications for drilling permits nationwide and advancing the
    responsible development of oil and gas resources on public land. As
    part of this commitment, the BLM is expanding remote processing so
    additional staff are able to assist in reviewing permits, and
    establishing one-stop shops where resources are consolidated to further
    accelerate permit review. The BLM is conducting outreach to industry to
    reduce instances of incomplete permitting packages, thereby reducing
    labor costs and processing times. BLM has signed agreements with oil
    and gas associations that allow industry to provide supplemental
    financial support for agency permitting activities under certain
    circumstances; however, BLM would prefer to fund these activities
    through more traditional means (e.g., standardized user fees and/or
    discretionary appropriations) to avoid the potential for conflicts of
    interest. It should be noted that the President's 2015 budget request
    includes a more than 20 percent funding increase to strengthen the
    BLM's Oil and Gas Management program and supports continued
    implementation of leasing reforms, enhanced oversight, and a
    strengthened inspections process.
        Question. Another issue I am concerned about is the impacts of the
    proposed grazing administrative fee of $1 per animal unit month will
    have on our ranchers. How has the administration taken into account the
    impacts this new fee would have on ranchers?
        Answer. After analyzing several different fee proposals, including
    (1) a flat fee of $500/permit, (2) a graduated fee schedule based on
    labor spent by category, (3) a graduated fee schedule based on animal
    unit months (AUMs) billed by category, and (4) a fee based on AUMs
    billed, the BLM determined that No. 4, an administrative fee charged on
    the basis of actual grazing use, or animal unit months (AUMs), is the
    most equitable and fair for permittees. The impacts to ranchers would
    vary depending on their size, i.e. a rancher with 500 AUMs billed would
    have a $500 bill. This may not reflect the actual cost of doing the
    work; i.e. the cost to process a permit for a 100 AUM permit may be the
    same as a 5,000 AUM permit. The BLM will analyze potential impacts from
    the permit administration fee proposed in the President's fiscal year
    2015 budget request during the 3-year pilot period.
        Question. Grazing provides numerous environmental benefits such as
    managing vegetation. How have you taken into consideration the effects
    that could take place if fewer ranchers pay to graze in BLM lands due
    to increased cost?
        Answer. As a tool for improving the BLM's administration of grazing
    permits and use, the proposed fee would help the agency manage
    livestock grazing in a manner which achieves and maintains the health
    of public lands. The BLM will analyze potential effects from the permit
    administration fee proposed in the President's fiscal year 2015 budget
    request during the 3-year pilot period.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Mike Johanns
        Question. Last year I wrote to the Department of the Interior (DOI)
    about a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Proposed
    Niobrara Confluence and Ponca Bluffs Conservation Areas, first asking
    that the comment period be extended, and later asking follow-up
    questions and expressing strong concerns I was hearing from Nebraskans.
    My office continues to hear of strong concern from constituents in that
    region.
        What are the next steps on this project, and when will they occur?
        We have been told that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and
    the National Park Service (NPS) will complete a final EIS for the
    project sometime this summer--perhaps early this summer. Is that a
    correct understanding?
        After the submission of that final EIS, can we expect an open
    comment period and public meetings in Nebraska?
        Answer. The FWS and the NPS core planning team involved in
    developing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Land
    Protection Plan--Niobrara Confluence and Ponca Bluffs Conservation
    Areas--met in Yankton, South Dakota in February 2014 to review the
    extensive public comments received, develop responses, and discuss a
    proposed course of action. Due to overwhelming interest, the original
    comment period had been extended to a full 6 months.
        The planning team is continuing to look at the best way to complete
    the final EIS, taking into consideration the desire for additional
    public input. In early summer, a full briefing package will be sent to
    each member of the Nebraska and South Dakota congressional delegations
    to answer remaining questions on the overall status of the project and
    when the planning process is expected to be finalized. The current goal
    is to finalize the Land Protection Plan and complete a Record of
    Decision in summer of 2014.
        Question. For the current fiscal year or in the fiscal year covered
    by the fiscal year 2015 budget request, do you have any plans to make
    any designations under the Antiquities Act, or to consult or otherwise
    cooperate with the Executive Office of the President to identify
    properties for designation under the Antiquities Act?
        Answer. As I stated at the hearing, the Antiquities Act, as
    provided by Congress, has been used by Presidents of both parties for
    more than 100 years as an instrument to preserve and protect critical
    natural, historical, and scientific resources on Federal lands for
    future generations. As Secretary of the Interior, I do not have the
    authority to designate monuments under the Antiquities Act; that
    authority is vested in the President. I support the administration's
    interest in conducting an open, public process that considers input
    from local, State, and national stakeholders before any sites are
    considered for designation as national monuments through the
    Antiquities Act.
        Question. For fiscal year 2015, please explain the extent to which
    DOI budget resources will be used to help make or manage any
    forthcoming designations under the Antiquities Act and where these
    designations will be located.
        Answer. There are no specific funds set aside in the fiscal year
    2015 budget for unplanned yet possible new designations under the
    Antiquities Act. If necessary, the Department could rearrange 2015
    funding priorities to accommodate the costs associated with making or
    managing an unforeseen designation, as such costs would be very modest
    in the first year.
        Question. Are any Antiquities Act designations planned for either
    the State of Nebraska or in lands or waters contiguous to the State in
    the current fiscal year or in fiscal year 2015?
        Answer. I am not aware of any such planned Antiquities Act
    designations.
        Question. Is there any legal bar to DOI preparing statements of
    environmental impacts consistent with principles found in the National
    Environmental Policy Act for designations made by the President under
    authority granted to him in the Antiquities Act?
        Answer. As stated above, the administration supports conducting an
    open, public process that considers input from local, State, and
    national stakeholders before any sites are considered for designation
    as national monuments through the Antiquities Act. While land
    management agencies typically use the National Environmental Policy Act
    (NEPA) process in their development of management plans for new
    national monuments, I understand that NEPA does not apply to these
    discretionary decisions by the President because the President is not
    an agency.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Reed. And with that, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 10:59 a.m., Wednesday, March 26, 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 2015

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2014

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:25 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Reed, Leahy, Udall, Murkowski, Cochran,
    Hoeven, and Johanns.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    STATEMENT OF HON. GINA McCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY MARYANN FROEHLICH, ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                     OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

        Senator Reed. I would like to call the hearing to order and
    welcome everyone here, particularly Administrator Gina
    McCarthy. Thank you. Gina and I understand each other because
    she has an accent similar to mine, and she is a devout Red Sox
    fan, so the rest is sort of nice, but not important.
        So thank you for being here. And she is joined by the
    Acting Chief Financial Officer, Maryann Froehlich. Thank you,
    Maryann.
        The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request includes
    $7.9 billion for EPA, and that amount is $310 million, or 4
    percent, below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $8.2
    billion. Regrettably, this is the fourth year in a row that the
    administration has set up a declining budget request for the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and I want to express my
    disappointment frankly. We worked awfully hard, Senator
    Murkowski and I, to ensure that there were adequate resources
    for EPA facing significant challenges. And again, the
    administration sent up a budget that rolls that progress back.
        In addition to cutting the Agency's budget this year, the
    Agency is proposing a workforce reduction that will bring EPA
    down to its lowest staffing since 1989, and we will talk about
    that. But despite the overall cut, the budget makes some
    important investments: dedicating $200 million to addressing
    the threat from climate change, and providing an additional $23
    million for chemical safety work that will reduce the risk with
    the exposure to chemicals. The budget request also includes $70
    million for an issue called
    E-Enterprise, which will improve electronic data collection and
    availability for States and the regulated community.
        There are other encouraging fund increases. The request
    proposes $5 million for the geographic program to restore
    southern New England watersheds, and I thank the proposal for
    that. These funds will support the effort to protect, enhance,
    and restore the coastal watershed of southern New England,
    including Narragansett Bay and Rhode Island. The National
    Estuaries Program is funded at $26 million, an increase of $1.6
    million. And also an additional $76 million is provided for
    categorical grants to help States and tribes with their
    environmental problems and programs for a total of $1.13
    billion.
        Unfortunately, these very positive signs are undercut by
    the proposal with respect to clean water and drinking State
    revolving funds. Once again, I voice my strong disagreement
    with the proposed decreases to the State revolving funds. The
    largest reduction in EPA's budget request is to these funds,
    cutting them by $581 million, or 25 percent below the fiscal
    year 2014 enacted level. And if realized, this cut would
    translate into 32,000 fewer jobs and 270 fewer infrastructure
    projects nationally.
        This program is not only necessary to replace aging
    infrastructure and to create new environmentally sensitive
    infrastructure, but also directly cuts job creation. And I find
    that ironic because the President in February said one of the
    fastest and best ways to create new jobs is rebuilding
    America's infrastructure. And if we take this money, you impede
    the reconstruction of our infrastructure, and I am troubled to
    see this proposal, very troubled.
        And I believe the cuts to the State revolving funds will be
    a setback for the economy as well as the environment. This is
    one of those programs that is not just about environmental
    quality. That is central. But it is also about economic
    progress, and that is critical at this moment.
        So there is lots to discuss this morning, and again, I
    thank the Administrator. I commend the Administrator. She has
    brought extraordinary experience and dedication to her task,
    and she is someone that I respect immensely.
        With that, let me turn to the ranking member, Senator
    Murkowski, and ask her for any comments she might make.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
    Administrator. Mr. Chairman, I want to follow on your comments
    about the State revolving funds for water. You and I have had
    an opportunity to discuss the significance of these programs. I
    was reminded just yesterday in a video teleconference with
    residents in the Yukon-Kuskokwim region, and a woman came to
    the microphone. She was from a small village called Kalskag,
    and she spoke specifically to the importance of Federal funding
    to help with water and sewer infrastructure.
        She said in her community of Kalskag, they still lack basic
    infrastructure. It is not like we are trying to build out
    existing; there is none. And it is a situation where in her
    village they are still using honey buckets, which basically
    means that they have got to haul their human waste and dump it,
    oftentimes very--clearly very unsanitary conditions. But she
    reminded me that in many parts of Alaska, we continue to live
    in third world conditions. And so, I share your concern about
    the significance of funding for our water projects.
        Ms. McCarthy, I thank you for your willingness to come to
    Alaska last August to learn about our State. I got good
    feedback from some of your meetings. I think Alaskans were
    impressed with your candor. You clearly demonstrated a
    willingness to listen, to really try to get a feel for the
    nature of our land and our people. I think that you saw that we
    have got some pretty unique needs and resources, which present
    us with some very diverse challenges. And, of course, the hope
    is that when you have an opportunity to come and see, there is
    a greater understanding, a greater appreciation of who we are
    in the places that we call home.
        And I think it is unfortunate that you made some comments a
    couple of months ago, some unfortunate comments that showed
    some insensitivity not only Alaskans generally, but more
    particularly towards Alaska native culture, and I do appreciate
    that you have apologized for your remarks. But I think it is
    important that you recognize that the way this was then
    interpreted by Alaskans was that this was just yet one more
    example of how folks in Washington, DC, do not get us, do not
    understand our way of life, do not understand the issues that
    are so critical between Federal agencies and a State like mine.
        And then we have hearings like this where the agencies say
    we understand it. We get it. But when given an opportunity to
    make good on the word, oftentimes we do not see evidence of
    that. There are rules after rules of that that come out, and
    sometimes we feel like we are either ignored or disrespected.
        So I want to make clear to you how some of the statements
    and actions are being interpreted back home because I think
    that that is important for you to include into your calculus.
    Alaskans are looking for collaboration from the agencies that
    have such a significant impact on our State. We are clearly
    ready to partner with the EPA to continue what we believe is a
    proud record of resource production and environmental
    protection. But unfortunately, rather than collaboration, we
    have been on the receiving end of what we believe to be a
    regulatory onslaught that threatens our economy and, in certain
    cases, our way of life. And I think that this budget proposal
    is no exception to that.
        Last year when Deputy Administrator Perciasepe appeared
    before the subcommittee, we discussed the fact that for several
    years running I have heard more complaints from Alaskans about
    the EPA than any other agency out there. And that trend is
    still continuing. I am sure that this is the case for other
    colleagues as well. The sheer number of proposed rulemakings
    coupled with 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 is very, very
    frustrating to Alaskans and around the country.
        I could spend my entire time here talking about the many
    existing and proposed EPA regs that profoundly affect the
    livelihood of our families and our businesses, but one of the
    most troubling is the recent development with the EPA's
    proposal to change its application of the definition of
    ``Waters of the United States'' under the Clean Water Act. EPA
    claims that this would clarify the law, but in reality it
    promises to drastically increase EPA's reach.
        I have described this as a potential showstopper for new
    development in Alaska. Roughly two-thirds of our State is
    already considered wetlands, and this rule could dramatically
    expand the lands subject to regulation. So it is not hard to
    see it as a continuation of this administration's unofficial
    policy of what I have described as protecting Alaska from
    Alaskans. But in this case when it comes to this particular
    rule, I would suggest that it also has very serious impacts
    across the rest of the country as well.
        I would also note my concerns with rules that are proposed
    or expected for new and existing power plants--methane
    emissions and hydraulic fracking, among others. I am concerned
    that EPA continues to regulate without appropriate coordination
    with other agencies and impacted industry. I think that this
    agency, above others, could jeopardize the affordability and
    reliability of our energy supply. If we are not careful, I
    think its rules could cost jobs and force us to forego
    opportunities to create new ones.
        It is not an overstatement to say that recent actions taken
    by EPA would fundamentally change our economy and the lives of
    the people we are here to represent. And so, for this reason it
    is all the more critical that we here in Congress diligently
    exercise our oversight role.
        I do look forward to our discussion during the hearing. And
    again, thank you for your willingness to serve.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Senator Reed. Before recognizing the Administrator, does
    anyone have a brief statement? All written statements will be
    made part of the record.
        [No response.]
        If there are no opening statements by colleagues, without
    objection, all statements will be accepted into the record.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
        Administrator McCarthy, thank you for taking on one of the most
    important and challenging jobs in the United States. Your agency
    invokes a lot of strong reactions from the public, and certainly from
    Congress, but in its 43 year history the EPA has cleaned the country's
    drinking water, reduced our exposure to dangerous chemicals, and
    penalized polluters.
        Vermonters truly value the environment and the work of the EPA.
    From cleaner air, to conserving open spaces and wildlife, protections
    from exposure to toxic chemicals, to improving water quality and
    addressing climate change, I hear regularly from Vermonters about
    issues affecting all aspects of our environment.
        Right now, Vermonters are concerned about our ``great lake,'' Lake
    Champlain. They want and need a lake for swimming and fishing, and for
    drinking water. The Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce can tell you
    that a clean Lake Champlain attracts businesses and tourists to the
    region. It serves as a major driver of the State's economy.
        Lake Champlain is, overall, very clean, but some sections of the
    Lake at some times of the year can become seriously impaired with
    nutrient pollution. For this reason, your agency is requiring a new
    restoration plan, and is working closely with the State to review a
    phase one draft at this time. As we discussed in person late last
    month, success of the new plan will hinge on having a full suite of
    tools available to address the major sources of phosphorus pollution in
    the Lake including farms, rural town roads, culverts, river channels,
    as well as small town stormwater and transportation infrastructure.
        I hope that the EPA, and this Committee, understands that we face a
    unique challenge for Lake Champlain, compared with other, more
    urbanized, areas of the country. We have a small rural population
    spread across a largely undeveloped landscape, something I know our
    ranking member can easily relate to. Pollutants reach the lake from
    thousands of small, non-point sources rather than from easily
    identified discharge pipes. This is not a problem that can simply be
    solved by investments to improve wastewater treatment plants. Those
    plants contribute only 3 percent of the total phosphorus in Lake
    Champlain.
        Instead, we must have a broad mix of common-sense policy tools and
    coordinated education, outreach, and funding assistance to a dispersed
    rural population. Vermont cannot afford to handle these tasks on its
    own. We will need to partner with every Federal agency from the Army
    Corps of Engineers, to Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
    the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Agriculture, and of
    course the EPA in order to succeed in this cleanup, and I thank you for
    your support of those efforts.

        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator. Administrator McCarthy.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. GINA MCCARTHY

        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member
    Murkowski, and members of the committee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's
    proposed fiscal year 2015 budget. As the chairman indicated, I
    am joined at the table by the Agency's Acting Chief Financial
    Officer, Maryann Froehlich.
        EPA's budget request is $7.89 billion for fiscal year 2015
    which starts on October 1, 2014. This budget meets the
    challenges of domestic spending constraints while still
    fulfilling our mission to protect public health and the
    environment. The fiscal year 2015 budget reflects EPA's plans
    to take advantage of new technologies and new regulatory and
    non-regulatory approaches. It recognizes that EPA is part of a
    larger network of environmental partners, and State, and
    tribes, and communities.
        This budget will provide the support for a smaller
    workforce by focusing on real progress and priority areas in
    communities, climate change and air quality, toxics and
    chemical safety, and clean water. We are asking for $7.5
    million and 64 staff in fiscal year 2015 to help provide green
    infrastructure, technical assistance for up to 100 communities
    to promote cost-effective approaches for water management.
        In addition, this budget request continues our
    environmental justice efforts. We will do more to partner with
    States, tribes, and local governments, and other Federal
    agencies. Funding for State and Tribal Assistance Grants, or
    STAG, is once again the largest percentage of EPA's budget.
        Addressing the threat from climate change is one of the
    greatest challenges of this and future generations. The request
    designates $199.5 million specifically for this work. The
    Agency has added $10 million and 24 full-time equivalents
    (FTEs) in fiscal year 2015 to support the President's climate
    action plan with $2 million designated for adaptation planning.
        The Agency will focus resources in the development of
    common sense and achievable greenhouse gas standards for power
    plants, the single largest source of carbon pollution. When it
    comes to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the President's
    budget provides support for the States to help them implement
    the Clean Air Act.
        The EPA budget requests almost $663 million to support the
    work to improve chemical safety for all Americans and
    especially for our children. We are requesting $23 million and
    24 FTEs in fiscal year 2015 to support activities under the
    President's Executive order on chemical safety, as well as
    Agency efforts on chemical prioritization, air toxics, radon,
    and volatile, again, compounds in drinking water.
        The Nation's water resources are the lifeblood of our
    communities. We are requesting $1.775 billion for clean water
    and drinking water State revolving funds. The Agency is also
    directing $8 million and 10 FTEs to advance clean water
    infrastructure and sustainable designs like the Municipal
    Separate Storm Water Sewer System Programs for technical
    support to communities.
        E-Enterprise is a major initiative between EPA and our
    States to modernize our business practices, to get into the
    21st century, and to look towards the future. The benefits of
    implementing the e-Manifest system include annual savings
    estimated at $75 million for over $160,000 waste handlers.
        In fiscal year 2015, the Agency is requesting over $1.33
    billion to continue to apply effective approaches for clean up
    under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
    Superfund leaking underground storage tanks and other
    authorities. This strategy will ensure land is returned to
    beneficial use. $1.16 billion is requested for the Superfund,
    and you will see that it includes a $43.4 million increase from
    remedial work and an increase of $9.2 million for emergency
    response and removal.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget includes a total of $1.13
    billion for categorical grants. Within this total is over $96
    million for tribal general assistance grant programs, an $18
    million increase for pollution control, a $16 million increase
    for environmental information grants, and a $15 million
    increase for State and local air quality management.
        Lastly, science is the foundation of our work at EPA, and
    EPA is supported by the President's request of $537.3 million.
    Recognizing the importance of the two-year budget agreement
    Congress reached in December, the levels are appropriate for us
    to be requesting, but they are not sufficient to expand
    opportunities for all Americans and to really drive the kind of
    growth that we all would like to see. For that reason across
    the Federal Government, the budget also includes a separate
    fully-paid $56 billion initiative. Within this initiative is a
    Climate Resilience Fund, which includes $10 million for
    protecting and enhancing coastal wetlands, and $5 million to
    support urban forest enhancement and protection.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman, Chairman Reed, I thank you for the
    opportunity to testify, and I would welcome an opportunity to
    answer your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Hon. Gina McCarthy
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to
    discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed fiscal
    year 2015 budget. I'm joined by the Agency's Acting Chief Financial
    Officer, Maryann Froehlich.
        EPA's budget request of $7.890 billion for the 2015 fiscal year
    starting October 1, 2014 reflects our ongoing efforts to meet the
    challenges facing the agency today and into the future. Despite these
    challenges, we remain dedicated to protecting public health and the
    environment, and we know we must target staff and resources and find
    new ways to fulfill our mission. We will focus those resources in a way
    that will allow EPA to be more effective and efficient.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget reflects a strategic approach to our
    budget planning process, looking toward the future rather than
    continuing to simply react to tough budget choices with cuts across the
    Agency. The fiscal year 2015 budget request does this in the following
    ways:
      --It reflects EPA's incorporation of new technologies and new
            regulatory and non-regulatory approaches that can help us
            maintain our efficiency and effectiveness.
      --It strengthens EPA's partnership with public health and
            environmental protection partners in States, tribes and local
            communities with a focus on aligning our resources, avoiding
            duplication, and identifying and closing any gaps in the
            broader environmental enterprise system.
      --It invests our funds and leverages funds of our partners where it
            makes the most sense and gets the biggest bang for the buck.
        Following the framework of priorities laid out in the fiscal year
    2014-2018 Strategic Plan and working within our budget, we are
    committed to ensuring the staff we have in program areas and regions
    make the most sense and will have the most impact.
        EPA has already taken steps toward proactive management of our
    operating budget. Through the VERA/VSIP process, we have begun to
    accelerate attrition within EPA both at headquarters and the regions
    toward a ceiling of 15,000 nonrefundable full-time equivalents (FTE's).
        Our fiscal year 2015 budget relies on a reduced workforce focused
    on programs, policies, and regulations that matter most to public
    health and the environment. This is not simply about cutting the
    workforce to save costs. We are reshaping the workforce and our work to
    meet current and future challenges. Doing this includes making key
    investments.
        It makes long-term fiscal sense to invest the cost savings
    achieved--through a smaller workforce and improved use of technology--
    to work smarter and more effectively. This approach will keep EPA
    strong, focused on science and the law, and transparent in addressing
    environmental challenges and the results we have achieved.
        This budget will provide the support we need to move forward by
    targeting real progress in priority areas: communities, climate change
    and air quality, toxics and chemical safety, and clean water.
        Building on current work on the ground in our communities, we are
    asking for $7.5 million and 64 staff in fiscal year 2015 to work toward
    efforts that will make a difference in people's everyday lives and in
    their communities. Those efforts include providing green infrastructure
    technical assistance for up to 100 communities that will promote cost-
    effective approaches to water management.
        This budget request furthers our environmental justice efforts. The
    protections provided by our national environmental laws must be
    accessible to everyone. We will do more to partner with States, tribes,
    and local governments and other Federal agencies to better coordinate
    and leverage resources supporting community efforts.
        Addressing the threat from a changing climate is one of the
    greatest challenges of this and future generations. The request for
    climate change and air quality is $1.03 billion--over $41 million more
    than fiscal year 2014. And it designates $199.5 million specifically
    for climate change work.
        Building on existing efforts and base budget resources, the Agency
    has added $10 million and dedicates 24 FTE's in fiscal year 2015 to
    support the President's climate action plan. $2 million is designated
    for technical assistance for adaptation planning for water utilities at
    greatest risk from storm surges. Research and development efforts will
    focus on support tools for at-risk communities and tribes in preparing
    for the impacts of climate change.
        The Agency will focus resources on the development of common sense
    and achievable greenhouse gas standards for power plants--the single
    largest source of carbon pollution. The President's budget provides
    support for the States to help them meet their obligations under
    section 111 of the Clean Air Act with regard to cutting carbon
    emissions.
        This request also supports the President's interagency methane
    strategy and the President's recently announced directive to EPA to
    develop phase 2 fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy-
    duty vehicles. EPA also will be implementing a range of activities in
    support of the President's call to cut energy waste in homes,
    businesses, and factories.
        Chemicals and toxic substances are prevalent in our everyday lives.
    The EPA budget requests almost $673 million to support work to reduce
    the risk and increase the safety of chemicals and prevent pollution for
    all Americans and especially children.
        We are requesting $23 million and 24 FTE in fiscal year 2015 to
    support activities under the President's Executive order on chemical
    safety, as well as Agency efforts on chemical prioritization, air
    toxics, radon, and volatile organic compounds in drinking water. $5
    million in resources for air toxics work will enhance our capabilities
    to design effective regulations and continue developing the national
    air toxics assessment.
        The Nation's water resources are the lifeblood of our communities.
    The fiscal year 2015 budget recognizes the long-term benefits of
    healthy aquatic systems for all aspects of our daily lives.
        The Agency is directing $8 million and 10 FTE to advance clean
    water. Resources are also proposed for the municipal separate storm
    sewer systems program for technical support to communities that must
    develop effective stormwater permits for the first time.
        We are requesting $1.775 billion for the clean water and drinking
    water State revolving funds (SRFs). Although this is more than a $580
    million decrease over fiscal year 2014 levels, Federal capitalization
    of the SRFs totals over $22 billion since fiscal year 2009, if you
    include the fiscal year 2015 request. The fiscal year 2015 budget seeks
    to ensure that Federal dollars provided through the fund lead to the
    design, construction, and support of sustainable water infrastructure.
        The EPA is looking toward future ways to better serve the American
    people by employing technology where it can be used more effectively.
    E-Enterprise is a major joint initiative between EPA and States to
    modernize our business practices and to increase responsiveness. This
    effort holds the promise of increased effectiveness and savings for
    businesses as well as government. The agency is expanding efforts in
    the second year of the multi-year E-Enterprise business model including
    focusing people and resources to accelerate development of the E-
    Manifest system and associated rule-making work. For example, the
    benefits of implementing the E-Manifest system include annual savings
    estimated at $75 million for over 160,000 waste handlers. Transitioning
    from a paper-based system saves time and effort for every person who
    used to handle that paper.
        In addition, EPA is making changes to long-standing business
    practices such as contracts, grants management, and the regulation
    development process. One important area of emphasis is improving
    freedom of information act (FOIA) and records management.
        In fiscal year 2015, the Agency is requesting over $1.33 billion to
    continue to apply the most effective response approaches for cleanups
    under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund,
    Leaking Underground Storage Tank, and other authorities. This strategy
    will help ensure land is returned to beneficial use in the most
    effective way. $1.16 billion is requested for Superfund which includes
    a $43.4 million increase for remedial work and an increase of $9.2
    million for emergency response and removal.
        In this budget, we hold firm our priority support for State and
    tribal partners, the primary implementers and front line of
    environmental programs. Funding for State and tribal assistance
    grants--or STAG--is once again the largest percentage of the EPA's
    budget request and prioritizes funding for State categorical grants.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget includes a total of $1.13 billion in
    categorical grants--a net $76 million increase over fiscal year 2014.
      --Within that total is over $96 million for tribal general assistance
            program grants--a $31 million increase over fiscal year 2014.
      --We also included an $18 million increase for pollution control
            (section 106).
      --There is a $16 million increase for environmental information
            grants.
      --There is a $15 million increase for State and local air quality
            management in our request.
        Science is the foundation of our work at the EPA. And science is
    supported by the President's request of $537.3 million. In fiscal year
    2015, the EPA is focusing research on the most critical issues facing
    the Agency.
        These include efforts to: advance chemical prioritization and
    predictive toxicology, help communities make sustainable decisions
    regarding environmental protection and resilience, and inform regional
    and community level strategies for the use of green infrastructure and
    other innovative alternative practices.
        The EPA continues to focus on reducing its physical footprint and
    achieving greater energy efficiency. Since 2006, the EPA has released
    approximately 428 thousand square feet of space nationwide, resulting
    in a cumulative annual rent avoidance of over $14.6 million.
        The EPA continues to eliminate programs that have served their
    purpose, accomplished their mission, or are duplicative. The fiscal
    year 2015 budget eliminates a number of such programs totaling nearly
    $56 million. These include beaches protection categorical grants, State
    indoor radon grants, and diesel emissions reductions assistance grants.
        Recognizing the importance of the 2-year budget agreement Congress
    reached in December, which the President's budget adheres to, levels
    are not sufficient to expand opportunity to all Americans or to drive
    the growth our economy needs.
        For that reason, across the Federal Government, the budget also
    includes a separate, fully paid for $56 billion opportunity, growth,
    and security initiative. This initiative--split evenly between defense
    and non-defense funding--shows how additional discretionary investments
    in fiscal year 2015 can spur economic progress, promote opportunity,
    and strengthen national security.
      --Within the initiative is $1 billion for a climate resilience fund,
            through which the budget will invest in research and unlock
            data to better understand and prepare for impacts of a changing
            climate. These investments will also fund breakthrough
            technologies and resilient infrastructure.
      --Within the climate resilience fund, EPA will support a nation
            better prepared for the impacts of climate change--with $10
            million for protecting and enhancing coastal wetlands, and $5
            million to support urban forest enhancement and protection.
        We have made some very difficult choices in this budget. But we
    need to look realistically at challenges we face in the future and make
    sure we have the best tools and people in the right places to make the
    most difference. Our final fiscal year 2015 budget reflects a balanced
    approach to accomplishing this.
        Thank you for the opportunity to touch upon some of the highlights
    of EPA's fiscal year 2015 budget request in my testimony today. I look
    forward to answering your questions.

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Administrator. I
    will yield my time to Senator Leahy because he has to chair the
    Judiciary Committee at 10:00 this morning. Senator Leahy.

                       LAKE CHAMPLAIN GEOGRAPHIC PROGRAM

        Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy very
    much. And, Administrator McCarthy, we recently met in my
    office, but we have also, even more importantly, met at the
    celebration with the Red Sox at the White House.
        I have put a full statement in the record. It speaks about
    the EPA's geographic programs, and it speaks about Lake
    Champlain and what we have been doing to try to clear that up.
    This is the largest body of fresh water in the United States
    outside of the Great Lakes and borders New York State, Vermont,
    and Canada.
        The Federal funding for Lake Champlain that has been cut by
    more than 60 percent over the past 4 years just as we are
    undertaking a comprehensive lake restoration plan. So my
    question is, how can EPA better support and be involved with
    the work of the Lake Champlain Basin Program, which for 20
    years has convened all the Federal agencies working to restore
    and protect Lake Champlain. And how can EPA help to make the
    case to support Federal funding for the kind of assistance we
    need to do that restoration? And I know we have talked with the
    Governor and everybody else on that.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator Leahy, first I want to thank
    you for your leadership on recognizing as you do the value of
    Lake Champlain and how important it is to the region and to
    your State in particular. I know EPA shares your recognition of
    that value.
        We are going to be working pretty hard as a follow-up to
    the meeting. The concern is that we are in the process of
    working together on a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and
    getting that implemented, but all of these things do carry some
    costs associated with it. So we are working with our own EPA
    offices to look at how we can be more supportive, as well as
    look across at other agencies in the programs and the Federal
    funding that is available.
        But we will be following up with you, and we will do
    everything we can to make sure that we can work with you to
    restore Lake Champlain and maintain its beauty, resilience, and
    the economic vitality it brings to your region.
        Senator Leahy. Well, it has been authorized at $11 million
    per year. The need has never been greater than what it is going
    to be in 2016.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Senator Leahy. I would hope the EPA would support a larger
    funding request for the Lake Champlain Geographic Program in
    2016. We absolutely need it. It is one of the things we do not
    ever want to get into the position, for example, that Lake Erie
    did decades ago where they had much of the same headwaters in
    nature in their lake. And it became so polluted that one of its
    tributaries, the Cuyahoga River, caught fire. Here is a river
    on fire for a couple of days before they could put it out.
        We are at a point with a beautiful, pristine lake that we
    can keep it that way, but it is going to take some real
    efforts. So please work with us to request more money for that
    area.
        Ms. McCarthy. We are happy to work with you, Senator.

                         NATIONAL RESILIENCE TASK FORCE

        Senator Leahy. You know, in 2011 we had a catastrophic
    flood in Vermont that dumped nearly as many tons of polluted
    sediment into Lake Champlain in a matter of hours that we
    normally would see in a year or more. So I might ask, how will
    the proposed budget request for climate resilience support with
    our work in protecting Lake Champlain, particularly since EPA
    has mandated the new TMDL will be one of the first in the
    Nation required to account for climate change aspects?
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes. Well, our work on resilience is multi-
    faceted, and it is across the administration. Very directly, I
    know that the good folks in Vermont have been very closely
    working with the States that experienced the damage from
    Hurricane Sandy. They have been helping to advise us on how you
    respond to those challenges, as well as prevent them in the
    future.
        We have funds set aside to work with a number of
    communities, not only to look at resilience, but how that
    relates to green infrastructure and our opportunity to look at
    our waste water and water quality changes and our storm water
    challenges differently. We also have a National Resilience Task
    Force that the President has pulled together, and that is an
    opportunity to learn from across the country about the efforts
    that are underway to adapt to a changing climate.
        Each of the agencies, including EPA, has also developed
    their own adaptation plan so that while Vermont may be first,
    you are not going to be the last. We are going to look at
    actually how State Revolving Fund (SRF) funds can be better
    informed by the changing climate that we see.
        So there are a number of efforts underway, Senator, and we
    are very serious about working with communities to see how we
    can help them stay safe in a changing climate.

                           STATE REVOLVING FUND FUNDS

        Senator Leahy. A lot of these efforts cost money. The EPA
    budget seems to be a more and more bare bones request each
    year. For example, the grants to States for the Clean Water
    State Revolving Fund has been cut by $431 million. The Drinking
    Water State Revolving Fund, the Geographic Program, EPA cut
    that by $14.6 million. In a little State like ours, that
    clobbers us.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes, it is very difficult, Senator. There are
    some decisions that have to be made. I think we can all agree
    that the SRF is one of the most important to maintain health
    protections for our communities. We have done, I think, a good
    job over the past 5 years to really provide significant
    resources for these efforts.
        We again did the best job that we could in the 2015
    proposal to continue with that and to also recognize that the
    States have significant money available to them from the
    already-existing State revolving funds. We are hoping that the
    money that the States have available on this will be sufficient
    to continue to maintain progress moving forward.
        Senator Leahy. We will keep working on this.
        Ms. McCarthy. We will.
        Senator Leahy. And I appreciate your willingness to keep
    talking with us. But we do have a very critical moment in our
    State. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much for your
    courtesy.
        Senator Reed. You are entirely welcome, Senator. Senator
    Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am going to
    yield to my colleague who also has to go chair another
    Appropriations Committee hearing.

                                  FOREST ROADS

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And
    thank you to the Senator from Alaska.
        Let me ask you about forest roads. The U.S. Forest Service
    lands in our State of Mississippi, there have been some recent
    changes from EPA's decisions regarding forest roads as a point
    source of pollution and thereby requiring the filing of
    compliance with regulations or looking to other agencies
    besides the U.S. Forest Service for regulations in this area. I
    raise this because in my State we have some U.S. Forest Service
    lands, and logging is permitted, and has enjoyed an exemption
    really in many cases from the filing of compliance information
    with EPA.
        I would just ask you to look into that and be sure that it
    has not been abused or over zealously restricted the use of
    forest roads, which has been a tradition in the Forest Service
    by anybody, EPA included, in maintaining healthy forests. So I
    am hopeful that maybe you can work that out among the two
    agencies and come out with a solution that recognizes
    legitimate interest of the logging community.
        Ms. McCarthy. I will, Senator. This issue should have been
    resolved when we revised our storm water permitting program to
    recognize that you do not need National Pollutant Discharge
    Elimination System (NPDES) permits for those roads. If, in
    fact, we are also still continuing our interest in this in
    other ways, I will get on that right away, and we will make
    sure we work something out that is reasonable and appropriate.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much for that assurance.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. I will
    recognize Senator Udall now, and then return to my colleagues
    on that side of the aisle.

                       ABANDONED URANIUM MINES SETTLEMENT

        Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Reed. And I was pleased
    to see the announcement that the U.S. Government has entered
    into a settlement to clean up toxic remains of abandoned
    uranium mines on the Navajo Nation and elsewhere in the
    country. This is the largest environmental settlement, Madam
    Administrator, as you know, largest environmental settlement in
    history. And $1 billion of that will go towards clean up of
    abandoned uranium mines and mills on the Navajo Nation.
        Let me first say that I think this is really important
    progress, and it is a vindication of the polluter pays
    principle, which I think is a good, solid free market
    principle. For too long private industry and the Federal
    Government failed to ensure the safety of uranium miners, their
    families, and people affected by the hazards of exposure to
    radioactive materials.
        Uranium mining companies emerged overnight, left a legacy
    of sickness and contamination, and then tried to walk away
    leaving others to foot the bill. The Navajo Nation fought hard
    for fairness and settlement, and this settlement helps to right
    a historic injustice to the Navajo people and the surrounding
    communities, and I think will restore the environment.
        This is a big step forward, but we should remember we still
    do not know the full scope of the contamination. This remains a
    monumental injustice, and I want to work with you closely to
    follow the progress of the cleanup conducted with these funds
    to help the Navajo Nation until we are all satisfied that the
    job is done.
        So let me ask, have plans been developed already on how to
    use this settlement money, and when can we expect to see them,
    and when we will see new cleanup activities on the ground in
    the Nation using these funds?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, first let me thank you for
    raising this. I am pretty proud of this settlement and the work
    that our enforcement staff did on this as well as the
    Department of Justice (DOJ). $4.4 billion dedicated to cleaning
    up hundreds of contaminated sites is quite an accomplishment.
        The settlement was just announced. The court has to approve
    the settlement. There is a 30-day public comment period
    associated with that. We are very confident that the court will
    approve it, but it has to go through that step. We already have
    trusts established to transfer these funds so that they should
    become readily available in the shortest time possible.
        Senator Udall. And you are looking at doing that planning
    that needs to be done so after the court approves it, we can
    get the funds in the right hands.
        Ms. McCarthy. Absolutely.
        Senator Udall. Good.
        Ms. McCarthy. We have been working on these issues, and, in
    fact, 50 abandoned uranium mines are on our agenda to be one of
    the first orders of business in the Navajo Nation. So we are
    very excited.

                         WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PROJECT

        Senator Udall. Yes, that is great. Well, thank you. And as
    I said, I think this is historic, and I think it is going to
    make a big difference to the Navajo Nation and to many places
    where you have this uranium contamination.
        I wanted to ask you also about the Waste Isolation Pilot
    Project (WIP), and I would like to thank you, Janet McCabe, and
    Ron Curry for the important EPA presence in Carlsbad to add
    additional independent air monitoring and personnel. I
    appreciate that many in your Agency have made it clear that the
    radioactive releases from WIP have been at levels that are a
    public health danger. And I am hopeful that your monitoring and
    verification will continue to support that.
        Unfortunately, the facts are that two accidents have
    happened at WIP that were not supposed to happen, a fire in a
    mine and a radiological release. The Department of Energy (DOE)
    oversight has already been found to be lacking, and that is why
    it is important to the community that an independent public
    health agency like EPA be on the ground overseeing the recovery
    phase to ensure public health is protected. Can you give me an
    update on the EPA's arrival at WIP and their planned activities
    there? My understanding is that personnel arrived this week to
    coordinate their monitoring with the reentry of WIP.
        Ms. McCarthy. That is right. EPA's main job in this is to
    ensure that we are looking at any level that could have been
    exceeded in terms of protectiveness to the outside so that
    surrounding communities are aware of any concerns. We are
    monitoring that.
        So far, it looks like any release has been far below any
    levels that are necessary for protection, but we are there. We
    are on the ground. As you know, our region is doing a great job
    working with DOE because we know people have concerns. This is
    a big deal. So we have added our own monitors to DOE's. We are
    going to be monitoring independently so that we can verify
    those results. We can assure folks that we are doing the right
    thing and they have the information available to them that they
    need.
        Senator Udall. Thank you very much. And I cannot tell you
    how much it has been welcomed in the community that you are
    there and doing this monitoring. I think it has brought a
    comfort level in terms of health and safety to the community
    that we have the EPA being an independent monitor of these
    radiation releases. So I thank you for that.
        I just wanted to mention one thing before my time runs out
    here. Our State Environment and Health Department has brought
    to my attention a concerning reduction in the EPA budget on
    radon. And so, we want to work very closely with you on that as
    we go through the budgeting process with Chairman Reed.
        And I thank you again for all the things that you are
    working on. Very much appreciate the New Mexico presence. Thank
    you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator. Senator Murkowski.

                                  PEBBLE MINE

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. McCarthy, I
    want to start my questions with an issue that Alaskans have
    really been buzzing about, and this is the issue of the Pebble
    Mine. When you were up in Alaska, you had an opportunity to go
    out to the region. You spoke with people.
        I have reserved judgment on the potential Pebble Mine
    waiting for the project developers to present an official plan
    and then seek the permits for it. EPA has decided not to wait,
    and has instead initiated this process that could very well
    lead to the first ever preemptive veto under 404(c) of the
    Clean Water Act.
        So my questions to you this morning are in a certain part
    related to timing here. Do the folks at EPA believe that they
    know exactly how the Pebble Mine would be developed?
        Ms. McCarthy. I think that we are well aware of the
    Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings that indicate
    how the Pebble Mine intends to develop. However----
        Senator Murkowski. But we have not seen any permits. We
    have not seen any application.
        Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
        Senator Murkowski. We have not seen the definition of that
    plan. So is it not accurate, though, that EPA would still be
    able to veto the project once details and specifics are
    actually permitted? You do not lose that ability to veto later.
        Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
        Senator Murkowski. And so, I guess my question has always
    been, why not wait until we know what the specifics and what
    the criteria are before you move to effectively veto? And
    again, a preemptive veto is--this would be first ever.
        Ms. McCarthy. Senator, without getting into the history of
    the use of 404(c), I want to assure you that what we have done
    here is to take a first step in this conversation. We have not
    made any decision.
        Senator Murkowski. I understand.
        Ms. McCarthy. And so, one of the, I think, good things
    about the 404(c) process that we have just taken a first step
    on is a first step is to talk to the company. It is to talk to
    the Army Corps and to the State to understand the scientific
    concerns, we have identified about this unique place. As we all
    know, its beauty as well as its importance in terms of the
    world's largest sock-eyed salmon fishery, and the extent of the
    mine given how deep the ore is and how low grade it is. What
    kind of lodge transition that area would go through is how we
    make sure that we are going to protect it.
        We do have an option to wait, but we were petitioned and we
    felt that given the science, it was really worthy of a unique
    response, which is to try to get at these issues more quickly
    given the uncertainty it has raised for the tribes, for the
    regions, for the economy in that area, and that it was worth at
    least exploring and going through the public process associated
    with it.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, and, again, I appreciate you
    outlining that. But I guess I would ask you to put on a
    different hat rather than as head of the EPA. Look at it from
    the investor's perspective. You are--as an investor, you are
    now asked to consider the fact that EPA may choose to veto a
    project either before, during, or after, maybe even years after
    it seeks and receive permits. Why would anybody choose to put
    the money out? You mentioned the uncertainty to the tribes, but
    you have got a situation where you are effectively stopping any
    potential for development before the idea can really get off
    the ground if you have this notion that you could preemptively
    veto it before permits come in, during such time as you are
    constructing, or even afterwards. So how are we promoting
    certainty here?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think that the Pebble Mine and its
    investors are well aware of the authority EPA has here. I think
    the most important thing we wanted to do was after you complete
    a scientific assessment and it shows the potential impacts from
    a mine of this magnitude in that special area----
        Senator Murkowski. But again, it is a definition that we
    have not seen yet because no permits have been filed. No
    application pending. You can see the concern from the investor
    side, I hope, as well as from the folks on the ground, how we
    balance this.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. But if we have a process that does not
    allow for certainty along the way, it is pretty difficult to
    entice anybody to come in and put the dollars up front that
    would allow for a project, allow for economic development
    within the region, and allow for jobs and opportunities.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, I do not think that our intent
    is to create more uncertainty. Our intent is to actually have
    the conversations we need. If the company is ready for the
    permit application, they are still free to submit, and we would
    encourage that. But right now, you have a science document that
    we think deserves to be looked at and to be discussed with the
    company.
        We also want to make clear that this is a very unique
    circumstance, both what we believe to be such an
    extraordinarily large mine in such a unique area, that this is
    not a change in EPA's operating procedure. It is an
    opportunity, I hope, to have the conversations that will
    provide the certainty that the company is looking for and the
    investors are looking for as well.
        Senator Murkowski. So you are not planning on exercising a
    preemptive veto then.
        Ms. McCarthy. I have no idea what the end point of this
    discussion is because it is a process that begins with a
    conversation. If that conversation indicates that concerns
    remain, it can then go to a public process, and so it is an
    extensive public dialogue. And I think that that is what is
    deserved at this point.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I think you are aware that just at
    the beginning of this week, one of the investors, one of the
    principals, has chosen to convey their interest in the mine to
    not only Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, but to a
    community foundation. And part of the reason for this was a
    recognition that there is so much uncertainty that their
    ability to, whether it is to find additional resources or to
    really continue in the project, have been compromised.
        And so, whether this is intended or unintended, and many in
    Alaska believe that it is intended by the EPA, that this very,
    very strong signal that the Agency could come in at any point
    before, during, or after and pull those permits, it would be a
    pretty speculative investment on anyone's behalf to continue
    on.
        Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I will have an
    opportunity for others when we resume second round.
        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski. Madam
    Administrator, let me go back to the--no surprise--the State
    revolving funds.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.

                              STATE REVOLVING FUND

        Senator Reed. Over the last 5 years, the administration has
    sent up a budget each year, that reduces their request. Working
    closely with Senator Murkowski and my colleagues, we have
    restored funding and kept our commitment to States and
    localities. Again, this year, rather than simply meeting what
    we did last year, which would be some progress on the side of
    the administration, they again are suggesting a 25 percent cut.
    EPA's own estimates suggest that over the next 20 years, we are
    going to need in the order of over $600 billion for
    infrastructure needs. And at the rate we are going, we will
    never get there, and every year it will get worse and worse and
    worse.
        And we all recognize, too, that the nature of these funds,
    there is State leverage. It is a revolving fund. Some money
    comes in, some goes out. It is one of the most efficient ways
    to build in this country. And it is just baffling to see the
    administration ignore this at a time when every part of this
    Nation--Senator Murkowski spoke about the need to get plumbing
    out literally to some of her constituents. In my situation in
    Massachusetts and Connecticut, it is trying to repair sewer
    systems that are over a hundred years old in many cases, here
    in Washington, DC, even. So it is just inexplicable that we
    have to again start not from where we were last year, but a 25
    percent reduction. So simply, how are we going to do this?
        And the final point, everyone here is talking about jobs
    because that has to be our number one priority, and either
    creating them or doing things to avoid their inhibition. This
    program, it is very straightforward. The estimate is about
    30,000 people working, and these are good jobs. These are
    technicians and people who are skilled in terms of installing,
    designing. We also have provisions in Buy America in the last
    appropriations bill, which requires that the materials now are
    going to be produced here in the United States.
        Again, I find it baffling that the administration would
    send up this budget and you would come up and sort of say,
    well, everything is fine. So can you explain, please?
        Ms. McCarthy. Sure. Senator, all things being equal, I
    would love to have given a budget that was much larger on SRF,
    but we had choices to make, and the President was respectful of
    the bipartisan agreement that was reached.
        The one sort of emphasis I want to place on this is the
    fact that I do not want you to think that the investment in
    infrastructure is limited to what EPA is putting in in terms of
    new dollars. We do anticipate that somewhere in the order of $6
    billion will be invested between EPA and State dollars as a
    result of the State revolving fund. It is an incredibly
    valuable and important program, but it competes against the
    many other dollars that we are trying to support States in our
    categorical grants and tribes as well in local communities. We
    are doing our best to try to, you know, manage the demands on
    the agencies in a way that will continue to allow EPA to
    function appropriately and operate.
        These are very difficult decisions, and everyone will have
    certainly their say. And you will finally on what you think is
    most appropriate to do, and I respect that.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        Senator Reed. Well, thank you. Working with my colleagues
    as we have done in the past, I can tell you, my intent is to
    change this so that we put more resources into the SRF than
    your budget calls for. It will translate into a modest step in
    terms of the overall infrastructure problem we have, and also
    it will put people to work.
        Let me pursue an issue that came up in the context of some
    of your previous responses, and that is how is the climate
    change issue, the monies that you might have there, together
    with the President's Opportunity Growth Security Initiative,
    might be able to leverage additional support for water and
    sewer infrastructure.
        Ms. McCarthy. That is a really good question, Mr. Chairman,
    because I know that we have funding that is dedicated towards
    climate resilience in this budget. We also have funding that is
    dedicated towards green infrastructure. We have worked with
    some of the larger urban areas on our combined sewer work. All
    of those will be coordinated in a way that will provide
    additional resources to communities and allow them to identify
    in the case of green infrastructure opportunities to not only
    recognize that storm water demands are changing with a changing
    climate, but there are less expensive ways that allow them to
    stretch their dollars that are being expended on water and
    waste water infrastructure in a way that increases the
    protectiveness as well as lowers the cost.
        Now, this is not a panacea, but it is a way of trying to
    stretch those dollars effectively. We will be coordinating all
    of those efforts with the States as we move forward.
        Senator Reed. Well, thank you, Madam Administrator. And I
    think it is clear, at least I think you know where I am coming
    from----
        Ms. McCarthy. I do.
        Senator Reed [continuing]. When it comes to this State
    revolving fund issue. Let me recognize Senator Johanns.

                              AERIAL OVER FLIGHTS

        Senator Johanns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator
    McCarthy, let me start today on a positive note, if I could.
    Before I came over to this hearing, cattlemen were in my
    office, and they wanted me to express to you that they
    appreciate what they feel is a more open environment to the
    EPA, and I know you are working on that communication. And they
    feel good about the fact that they at least get a chance to be
    at the table. So I thank you for that, and want to express
    their appreciation.
        Let me, if I might, now ask you a question about actually
    the omnibus appropriations bill that funded the Government for
    2014. There was language directing the EPA to file a report
    with this committee within 180 days, and it required the amount
    of funding spent to contract for aerial over flights, the
    contractor doing the work, number of flights performed,
    geographical areas including county and State, fiscal year that
    the number of enforcement actions was utilized, and there were
    some other requirements.
        But let me just ask you, do you anticipate any problems in
    meeting the requirements of that language, number one. And,
    number two, do you anticipate any problems in doing it within
    the 180 days that is specified in that legislation?
        Ms. McCarthy. Senator, first of all, thank you for the
    message from the Cattlemen's Association. I am actually meeting
    with them tomorrow.
        Senator Johanns. Yes, I know that, and that is good.
        Ms. McCarthy. So that will be great. On the aerial over
    flights, I am aware that language was inserted into the budget
    or a report. I am not sure which it was. But we are certainly
    going to be complying with that to the best that we can. I can
    certainly get back to you in advance of that if we see any
    particular problems.
        Senator Johanns. That would be appreciated. This is
    something I have been working on, as you know, for an extended
    period of time. I just want to know what we are doing here.
        Ms. McCarthy. I understand.
        Senator Johanns. And my hope is that there will not be any
    issue, that compliance will be timely, and it will be done as
    required by the legislation. So I would ask you to reach out to
    me and, for that matter, the committee and let us know how you
    are doing on that.
        Ms. McCarthy. That would be fine.
        Senator Johanns. We will be paying attention.
        Ms. McCarthy. I am more than happy to do that, Senator. I
    know this is an issue of great interest to you.

                          WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

        Senator Johanns. Yes. Let me ask you, if I might, a
    question or two about this issue of Waters of the United
    States. And I must admit how this was done I find to be
    somewhat confusing, and maybe you can fix that. Maybe you can
    clarify what is going on here.
        As I understand, you put the roll out that was intended to
    clarify Waters of the United States, the proposed rule. And
    then at the same time, there was issued a--it is entitled U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Army
    interpretive rule regarding the applicability of the Clean
    Water Act such and such and such.
        The reason why I find that confusing is that the rule comes
    out--the proposed rule, then you have this interpretive
    document. But my understanding of the interpretive document is
    that you could change it this afternoon if you wanted to. You
    do not have to go through any kind of rulemaking process. Why
    would you not take what is in that interpretive document and
    put it into the proposed rule, and are you considering that in
    terms of the final product?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, let me explain a little bit for those
    who may not be following it as closely. The Waters of the
    United States was really a rule to try to clarify the
    jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. It was on the face of some
    decisions by the Supreme Court which really called into
    question earlier decisions by EPA. We wanted to make sure that
    we provided some solid ground.
        One of the things we did in this was to really work closely
    with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to identify the best we
    could not just the fact that we were maintaining all of the
    agricultural exemptions that were currently in place, those not
    in question, was to make sure that we saw over time that the
    farm practices that were exempt under the Clean Water Act were
    constantly evolving, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
    (USDA) had tremendous expertise in conservation practices, that
    we thought we could give a nice boost in the arm to, and at the
    same time clarify these farm practices in a way that did not
    limit the exemptions, but limited the questions that were
    coming up about what were legitimate farm practices.
        So we not only took the exemptions, but we developed this
    interpretive rule that identified 56 farm practices working
    with USDA so that if these farm practices are what you are
    doing, you did not need to ask a single question about whether
    they were exempt. You knew they were. And so, we tried to do
    that in a way that would allow us to expand on those.
        It is really a collaboration between the USDA and us, and
    hopefully the agriculture community when they see this as an
    ability to allow farmers to do farming, and to not have to ask
    permission, and to farm with more confidence, and to run their
    ranches with more confidence. So, we will work through these
    issues. If people think we did not get it right, I am fine with
    that, but just because it is not on the list, it does not mean
    it narrows the exemptions. The list is an attempt to say if you
    are on here, you do not even to ask whether it is a farm
    practice that is exempted.
        We thought we were doing something really good. If in the
    end people do not think it is the right strategy, we can
    certainly rethink this because it is a proposed rule. I am
    there tomorrow to ask questions and to see how people are
    thinking about it.
        Senator Johanns. Yes. I have already run out of time. So
    many questions.
        Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry. I did not mean to take all your
    time.
        Senator Johanns. No, so many questions, so little time. But
    if I might, as you know, you have farm groups already who are
    weighing in expressing concern about the proposed rules, et
    cetera. I think this is an opportunity. I think you think it is
    an opportunity to say to the farm groups, hey, we are
    listening. We are hearing what you are saying. We want to get
    this right for you. We want to clarify.
        And I think if you just delivered a message for the next
    weeks saying, hey, this not permanent ink on the paper, what we
    are trying to do and what we are willing to do and want to do
    is circle back with you to get your impression as to whether we
    get this right or not. And if you do not think we did, tell us
    what direction you think we should be going. I think that would
    be enormously reassuring.
        Ms. McCarthy. Senator, we have gone--I appreciate that, and
    I totally agree with you. I will be out and about not just in
    DC, but we also had a really good meeting with stakeholders in
    our Office of Water Leadership. What we offered to do was
    instead of just getting together every once in a while, would
    develop some workshops and look at specific areas of concern so
    that all the issues could be on the table. We could figure out
    how to collaborate more effectively. I really want this rule to
    work for the agriculture community.
        Senator Johanns. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate your patience.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hoeven, please.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Administrator, for your recent visit to North Dakota. I want to
    pick up on the Waters of the United States proposed rule that
    Senator Johanns was just asking you about.
        Our farmers are very concerned about this. I want to
    emphasize that. Farm groups and our farmers. I was just back in
    the State, and they are very, very concerned that you are
    extending the reach of EPA beyond navigable waters to anything
    that you determine has significant nexus, which we have no idea
    what that means or how far now you are going to extend EPA
    reach and authority. And when you talk about legitimate farming
    practices, our farmers think they know what those are, and they
    are very concerned that now EPA is going to weigh in and start
    trying to make that decision.
        So this is of immense concern to the ag community. And how
    are you going to assure us that private property rights are
    going to be protected as you work to extend the reach of EPA
    beyond what has traditionally and historically always been
    navigable bodies of water?
        Ms. McCarthy. Actually, Senator, we will do everything we
    can to walk through this rule, and to listen to all the
    comments, and to try to walk through the history of what the
    Clean Water Act is supposed to do.
        The Clean Water Act is supposed to protect navigable
    waters. We did not define the jurisdiction of protecting
    navigable waters to just navigable waters. It is all of the
    streams and tributaries that can actually significantly impact
    the integrity of navigable waters. That has always been part of
    the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, and we are not
    changing that.
        But what we are doing is paying very careful attention to
    what the Supreme Court told us about it is not just enough to
    be hydraulically connected to navigable waters. You have to
    really have an ability to significantly impact the integrity of
    those waters in order for a permit to be required. So we are
    really trying to pay attention to that, narrowly crafted to
    what the Clean Water Act said, and to pay attention to the
    science.
        Our intent is to stick with what we have historically
    regulated under the act, do what the Supreme Court said, and
    hopefully do a little bit more to the agricultural community to
    provide them the certainty that they are looking for.
        Senator Hoeven. I think there is going to be significant
    disagreement on whether or not you are, in fact, extending your
    authority here depending on what you do with this significant
    nexus determination.
        Ms. McCarthy. Nexus, right.

                             AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY

        Senator Hoeven. Going back to what you just talked to
    Senator Johanns about, we need some kind of process for the ag
    community to weigh in here. So you need to build it with USDA
    wherein stakeholders have opportunity.
        Ms. McCarthy. Absolutely.
        Senator Hoeven. If we are going to do what you just
    described, this needs significant involvement and input from
    the agricultural community. How do we accomplish that?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, I just indicated that we have already
    had many meetings, and we are going to have some workshops
    around this. If there are other suggestions, Senator, I am open
    to them. I know that there is concern about this, but there is
    also an indication to--well, let me just say it clearly. There
    is a distrust between agriculture and EPA, and when we say one
    word and it can be taken well, it might be taken exactly the
    opposite. We need to work on that as a whole, and we need to
    get the language correct so that you are certain that we are
    doing the right thing here. We will work hard to do that.
        Senator Hoeven. When do you anticipate finalizing the rule?
        Ms. McCarthy. I cannot tell you exactly, Senator. We are
    going to take whatever time it takes to get this right. But we
    generally would look for about a year in between a proposal and
    final is a standard process for EPA.
        Senator Hoeven. One more time. So a year?
        Ms. McCarthy. About a year between proposal and final is
    just generally what we look at. But we know there is a lot of
    anxiety about this rule, and we want to get it right.
        Senator Hoeven. And you are willing to engage in a process
    with USDA and with the farm community--farm and ranch community
    to have a dialogue on this?
        Ms. McCarthy. Absolutely.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay. So then we need to work on setting
    that up.
        Ms. McCarthy. Appreciate that.

                CARBON POLLUTION STANDARDS FOR NEW POWER PLANTS

        Senator Hoeven. Let me switch for just a minute to the
    subject that you were in our State to work on, the
    CO2 rules. Tell me, with these CO2 rules,
    first in regard to new plants, it is not a rule that is
    achievable in terms of meeting the CO2 emission
    requirements with a natural gas equivalency as you have
    proposed it, because carbon capture and storage (CCS), carbon,
    capture, and sequestration, is not commercially viable. So how
    are we going to build any new coal plants, even with the latest
    technology and CCS, with your proposed rule?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, with all due respect, we
    believe that carbon, capture, and sequestration is actually
    technically feasible, and it is available.
        Senator Hoeven. No, no--I am sorry. I apologize for
    interrupting. I did not say ``technically feasible.'' I said
    ``commercially viable.''
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, technically feasible and available is
    the standard under the law, and nobody is indicating that CCS
    is not adding cost. The challenge we have here is that we need
    to provide a path forward for coal in what we know is a future
    that will be carbon constrained.
        There are already facilities that are being constructed
    with CCS. This is where new coal and clean coal investment is
    happening. We are hoping to continue to provide an emphasis for
    that in this regulation, but certainly it is still a proposal
    and we are looking at the comments we receive. But we think
    this is the future, and we think that facilities are investing
    in it now. We see it for new power plants. CCS has been around
    for a very long time in other applications.
        Let me just mention one thing, Senator. We also took a look
    at what we could do to keep the cost of CCS down as much as
    possible while still providing an emphasis for this technology
    to continue to be developed, continue to be enhanced, and be
    more cost effective by lowering the amount of capture that is
    required in this rule from what we had been considering before.
    So it is partial capture. It is lower cost. It is available
    now, and we believe it has been technically demonstrated.
        Senator Hoeven. I know my time is up here, but just let me
    wrap up with the only way that CCS is going to be developed is
    if it becomes commercially viable, so we have got to get it to
    that point. By having a rule that prevents it from ever being
    put in place or from having any company move forward with it,
    we are never going to develop the very technology we need both
    to produce the energy and get the stewardship--environmental
    stewardship we want.
        And that also goes to the proposed rule that you are going
    to be bringing out for existing plants. You have got to show us
    that whatever rule you bring out is commercially viable and
    that it is not going to shut down plants, and what the cost to
    consumers and small business across this country is going to
    be. It is vitally important as you move forward now with the
    existing plant rule as well. We need to see that it--you know,
    that it is something is truly achievable, not technically
    achievable. It has to be commercially viable.
        Ms. McCarthy. Senator, I heard you and I heard the good
    folks in North Dakota when I was there. And we are working hard
    to do exactly that, and we will have this conversation as many
    times as we see one another and when it comes out, and I will
    be looking forward to it. We are working hard on it.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you.

                            RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARDS

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Let me begin the second
    round by focusing on the issue of renewable fuel standards, the
    EPA proposed volume requirements last November for cellulosic
    biofuel, biomass based diesel, advanced biofuel, total
    renewable fuel. These are sort of stagnant at the 2013 levels.
    You are recommending about 1.28 billion gallons for both 2014
    and 2015. In fact, this is not only less than anticipated, it
    is less than the actual production today, which is about 1.7
    billion gallons.
        So, many of my colleagues joined together in a letter, and
    also biodiesel producers in not my State, but across the
    country, see a threat to their operations because of the
    standards you are setting. Can you tell us when you anticipate
    finalizing the volumes of 2014, and will they be increased to
    encourage more biodiesel?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, the good news is, Senator, that when we
    put the proposal out, we got lots of comments, and there was
    lots of concern. That was not necessarily the good news part is
    the lots of concern, but we got lots of comments. We are
    looking forward to considering those comments in a final. We
    are hoping to get it done quickly.
        You know, personally I think June is likely, and it should
    never go beyond that. I am hoping that we could do better than
    that, but it is pretty complicated, and we need to work it
    through the process.

                         SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND ESTUARIES

        Senator Reed. Thank you. Let me turn now to another issue,
    and that is the southern New England estuaries. In the omnibus,
    we had $2 million for it. It is very critical to my part of the
    country, your part of the country. And we are pleased that the
    2015 budget request includes a $3 million increase. Can you
    give us an idea of what activities you hope to pursue, how you
    are going to select these projects and measure success, and the
    types of projects that you would anticipate?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, as you know, these projects are really
    all about habitat restoration and water quality. I am pretty
    excited about the opportunity for increased funds if that comes
    about. Certainly I think it is pretty important as I know you
    do as well, Mr. Chairman.
        The region has been working pretty hard to put a vision
    together for how these funds could be best expended, and we
    certainly have not done it all alone. We actually have a work
    group that has been initiated that is advising the expenditures
    and how we can most effectively meet the expectations of the
    people that will be served with these dollars.
        So we will not be sitting in our own offices making this
    decision. We will be taking a lot of input from the communities
    themselves. We hope to have a lot that actually provide
    information that will be available for how you deal with
    climate resilience and adaptation, green infrastructure. We
    have seen some of it already starting to happen, and it is
    pretty exciting.

                            BEACH ACT GRANT PROGRAM

        Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Administrator. Let me talk
    about another concern, and that is that in this budget EPA is
    proposing to eliminate the Beach Act Grant Program. And as you
    know, this program helps States--coastal States to monitor the
    quality of the water. It is actually part of your not only
    environmental, but your health responsibilities. Without
    continued funding, there is a real possibility that the States
    will not have the budgets, particularly in our part of the
    country, to replace this money. And the monitoring and water
    quality attention will diminish significantly.
        Prior to making this determination, did you consider the
    ability of the States to sort of fill the gap, one. Two, you
    have now, as you point out, a significant amount of your
    resources going to State programs to support State activities
    all across the country.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
        Senator Reed. Is this something you are going to insist
    that they continue through other sources so that this beach
    grant money will not be detrimental in its absence?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, as you know, categorical grants were
    proposed to increase by $76 million. And really the intent of
    the program eliminations was to look at whether or not there is
    an ability to continue with that without us independently
    interjecting or creating a fund specifically for that purpose.
        On the Beach Monitoring Program, it is a pretty sort of
    robust program that has been operating for a long time. We
    think that the States have the ability to do this and will
    continue to do this given the importance to them and to us, but
    clearly there are difficult choices that are made. Radon was
    mentioned as well, which is another eliminated program, as well
    as the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Program, which for
    me is a really hard one as well. But we did the best we could,
    and we are hoping to work with the States moving forward on
    beach monitoring.
        Senator Reed. Well, thank you. Again, you put your finger
    on the next issue, which is the radon program. Senator Leahy
    mentioned that.
        Ms. McCarthy. Yes.

                                 RADON PROGRAM

        Senator Reed. My home State of Rhode Island, we have, I
    think, three times the national average in terms of the sort of
    presence of radon in homes and other buildings. And it seems we
    are taking away some of these programs, and then we are giving
    a little bit more money to the States in terms of your general
    support, but giving State budgets their ability to cover all
    these sorts of gaps--beach monitoring, radon programs, et
    cetera.
        Indeed 23 States reported that they will probably have to
    eliminate their radon program, and that is another health
    threat, which, you know, you have a lot of issues from the
    Waters of the United States, to the air of the United States,
    to the health of the American people. And we also understand
    that States--many States are in very difficult situations,
    Rhode Island being sort of one of those.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, thank you for raising the rate on it.
    If nothing else, I can remind people that after smoking, the
    leading cause of lung cancer, and it takes approximately 22,000
    lives every year. It is something that I have been working on
    myself for quite a while.
        We still have a program on radon, Mr. Chairman, so I do not
    want you to think that this is an indication that EPA is not
    going to continue to work with States on radon. But I perfectly
    understand that it does take some funds away from the States
    that they have been directing towards this issue.
        But we have been working on a Federal radon plan that we
    actually think is gaining some significant momentum about
    making sure that people who are buying homes and mortgaging
    homes through the Federal Government are actually checking for
    radon, needing to address it, because these are deaths that do
    not need to happen. Every one of them is preventable with
    really inexpensive tests and, frankly, incredibly inexpensive
    renovations to address those.
        So it is a frustration, I think, for all of us that we
    continue to talk about radon decades after it hit the news as
    one of the leading causes of death. We need to do better, and I
    know that.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Administrator. Senator
    Murkowski.

                                CLEAN WATER ACT

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to take
    you back to the Clean Water Act and the connectivity issue. You
    have indicated to both Senators Hoeven and our colleague from
    Nebraska that you are continuing these discussions, and I think
    that that is going to be critically important moving ahead. Are
    you planning to hold any meetings in Alaska on the impact of
    the rule?
        Ms. McCarthy. Is that your interest, Senator?
        Senator Murkowski. That is absolutely my interest.
        Ms. McCarthy. Okay. I will take----
        Senator Murkowski. In fact, I would ask for a commitment
    that we would--that you would be able to hold at least one,
    hopefully more, public events scheduled in the State so that
    resource producers, other stakeholders can express their views
    and concerns.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, I certainly realize that it
    was very helpful for me to go to Alaska because you have told
    me that Alaska is different. I got to see it myself. And I
    recognize just how much of the land mass there is wetlands and
    how important this is going to be.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, let me ask on that question. Do
    the folks at EPA have an estimate for the approximate number of
    acres of land in the State or the percentage of our State that
    would be subject then to the Clean Water Act as a result of
    this re-interpretation of the Waters of the United States? Do
    you have that number?
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, let me see if we do have that. I know
    we have a national estimate. I do not know the exact impact on
    Alaska, but we will certainly respond to that after the
    hearing.
        [Note: The information was not provided for the record.]

                          MAPS OF STREAMS AND WETLANDS

        Senator Murkowski. Well, I would appreciate that. And the
    other thing I would like you to look at, when my staff was
    looking at the EPA website, they noticed links to maps that
    purported to show streams and wetlands in all the 50 States.
    But what was more of a surprise was that the map of seasonal
    and rain dependent streams does not actually feature Alaska
    because apparently there is a lack of data. There is a map of
    drinking water that did include Alaska, but again it shows zero
    data available.
        So it is obviously an issue of concern where supposedly
    this rule is attempting to provide for clarity and efficiency,
    but in a State like Alaska where at least your own maps are not
    indicating that we have the appropriate data within which to
    base any decisions. So I would like talk with you about that as
    well. But I think prior to any meetings that you might be
    holding in the State, I think it is going to be important to be
    able to provide data so that we can look at that as well.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, I am happy to provide you with
    what information I have. But, you know, clearly the interest
    that EPA has is to clearly define what is within the
    jurisdiction, and then what is the process that you need to go
    to when there is uncertainty. Because what the science has told
    us is that science can define certain parameters, but others
    require a closer look working with States and communities on a
    case by case basis.
        And so, there is the opportunity to be certain in some
    areas, but to hopefully define a streamlined process in areas
    where the data is not available so that judgments can be made,
    and the basis of those judgments can be consistent as the Army
    Corps makes 404 decisions and EPA interjects and comments on
    some of those.
        Senator Murkowski. And I appreciate a desire for
    consistency and certainty, but you have started your comments
    out recognizing that there are unique----
        Ms. McCarthy. There are.
        Senator Murkowski [continuing]. To a State like Alaska----
        Ms. McCarthy. Absolutely.
        Senator Murkowski [continuing]. One-fifth the size of the
    United States of America, a State where--you will get the
    percentage for me, but in terms of wetlands in our State, some
    would say that almost the entire State is subject to a wetland
    determination. So what that might mean for us is incredibly
    significant.
        And as I have mentioned in my comments, an interpretation
    that goes a different way could really be a showstopper for us.
    So we need to--we need to have greater understanding. I think
    it will be critically important that you and your staff make
    sure that Alaska is very much given an opportunity to weigh in
    as these issues move forward.
        And I will ask you, we have had a, I think, a pretty good
    working relationship between the senior staff at EPA, who have
    made themselves available to meet with my senior folks to talk
    about usually a laundry list of issues that we have compiled
    that come up. Some of them we have been able to work through.
    The issue last year was the mom and pop veterinarian clinic----
        Ms. McCarthy. Right.
        Senator Murkowski [continuing]. That subject to the same
    incineration rules as a major factory. We were able to work
    through some of the specifics. We have a lot more on our plate,
    not the least of which we are still continuing to work on the
    small incinerator initiative. Great deal of concern still with
    where we are with the fish grinding requirements for discharge
    from offshore processors.
        So I would like your commitment to continue the practice
    that we have had over the past couple of years to have your
    senior folks with operational authority sitting down with my
    senior advisers in discussing many of these issues. And if we
    can get a meeting scheduled sooner than later I think that that
    would be helpful for both sides.
        Ms. McCarthy. It has been incredibly valuable, and of
    course we will continue that, Senator.

                    HYDRAULIC FRACTURING AND DRINKING WATER

        Senator Murkowski. Good. I appreciate that. And, Mr.
    Chairman, I have one more quick question, if I may, and then I
    will conclude. And this relates to the budget request. On the
    Agency's hydraulic fracking study, you have requested an
    increase of $8.1 million over last year's level. This study was
    the result of congressional direction in the 2010 interior
    bill, which requested an analysis of the ``relationship between
    hydraulic fracturing and drinking water.''
        So now, according to your budget, you are expanding that
    study beyond the original congressional mandate to include
    additional issues, such as water quality in general, air
    emissions from oil and gas operations, including volatile
    organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants. So the question
    that I have for you now is why has the Agency gone beyond the
    original scope that was outlined in 2010, and how much are we
    actually paying for an expansion of this study cost? How much
    has the Agency spent to this point in time?
        As you know, many of us are very concerned about this, and
    feel that the effort coming out of EPA is a duplicative effort.
    And if we are just spending more money in an effort to expand a
    project that really does not have the authorization to expand,
    we want to know.
        Ms. McCarthy. Well, let me be a little bit clearer because
    I do understand your question. On the Office of Research and
    Development study, which is really focused on looking at the
    potential water impacts related to the full range of hydro
    fracking operations, we have been expending in 2013, 2014, and
    2015, $6.1 million. My understanding is that this budget
    requests a similar amount of $6.1--I am sorry, did I say
    ``billion?''
        Senator Murkowski. You said ``million.''
        Ms. McCarthy. Oh, I was thinking, wow, that would be great,
    would it not? A million for the drinking water study. The
    additional funds are being used for research that is being done
    collaboratively with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the
    Department of the Interior (DOI). $4.3 million of that is
    looking at water quality in ecological studies that is separate
    from the Office of Research and Development (ORD). That is
    research efforts.
        Then the $3.8 million is air emissions. This is an effort
    to look at methane that is being emitted in the hydro fracking
    process where we have effectively, and I think nice and quietly
    and collaboratively, regulated that from natural gas operations
    during hydro fracking. We have other work to do that in area,
    including in tribal regions to actually expand some
    opportunities for controls to be recognized and sources to be
    permitted through our minor source permitting process.
        So there is work to be done, and that is a reflection of
    that overall work on hydro fracking, not an expansion of the
    ORD study.
        Senator Murkowski. I do not know. Based on what you have
    just said, it still sounds to me like there is an expansion of
    that study. You have indicated that you have other agencies
    that are a part of this, but it would appear that it goes
    beyond what was originally asked in our fiscal year 2010
    interior bill.
        Now the budget indicates that you expect to have a draft
    report to your scientific advisory board by the end of this
    year, then you publish a final report in--at the end of 2016
    apparently. I guess the last question would be whether at a
    minimum, would you agree that it does not make sense for the
    EPA to issue a major rulemaking concerning fracking before the
    final report is issued and reviewed by the Scientific Advisory
    Board?
        Ms. McCarthy. I am not aware of any rule that is currently
    being contemplated, Senator. This hopefully will bring to light
    data that we have not seen before and will allow everyone to
    make judgments. Right now, the most important thing that I
    think we are doing is working to provide States some technical
    information that they can use if they want to as the line of
    first defense to protect water in their States. That is how I
    envision we will continue to operate, unless there is a reason
    that national intervention is necessary.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, and do not get me wrong here. I
    think that the States are doing a good job here in terms of
    regulating hydraulic fracking. And so, I just do not see that
    we need to add another layer with EPA onto that regulation.
        Ms. McCarthy. I fully understand that.
        Senator Murkowski. I am just--I am looking at your budget
    and trying to follow the timeline here, and that is why I raise
    that question.
        Ms. McCarthy. All right. I appreciate that, Senator, and we
    are not in disagreement.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my
    questions. I appreciate the comments today.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Thank you, Madam Administrator for your leadership and for
    your testimony here today. And let me indicate that the record
    will remain open for statements and for questions from my
    colleagues until April 16. And I would ask you to respond as
    quickly as you can to any questions that are forwarded to you
    from the subcommittee.
        [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
                             cutting the workforce
        Question. The fiscal year 2015 budget request proposes cutting
    EPA's workforce, which is a significant departure from prior years.
    This year the budget proposes a staffing level of 15,000. This is
    almost 1,600 fewer staff than you asked for last year and would result
    in the lowest agency staffing level since 1989. Please outline EPA's
    plans for reshaping the workforce? What assurance is there that EPA
    will retain sufficient expertise to fulfill its mission?
        Answer. In the fall of 2013, the EPA began researching the use of
    voluntary retirement and separation authorities to streamline
    organizational practices and to realign our workforce to meet changing
    mission requirements in light of technological advances, resource
    constraints and limited hiring capacity. Nineteen of our regional and
    program offices began developing strategic, office-level proposals that
    formed the basis for Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and
    Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP) requests that were
    submitted to the Office of Personnel Management in late December 2013.
    Proposals emphasized streamlining administrative processes,
    consolidating functions to the greatest extent possible and, in some
    cases, updating the skill sets of our workforce. This agency-wide
    effort was undertaken strategically and with thoughtful consideration
    by all levels of leadership to ensure that critical expertise was
    retained while allowing the agency to increase efficiency, thus
    enhancing EPA's ability to meet its mission.
        Question. There seems to be a discrepancy in the fiscal year 2015
    request between staff numbers that will decline and an operating budget
    that will increase. Why does the Environmental Programs and Management
    (EPM) account increase by $113 million dollars if the overall number of
    employees will be reduced? If EPA isn't investing in its workforce, how
    will additional operating funds be used?
        Answer. The increase in EPM funds in the fiscal year 2015
    President's budget is relative to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
    Despite the reductions to the workforce, a portion of this increase is
    for additional payroll costs. Our fiscal year 2015 request also invests
    in our workforce by supporting efforts to build a High Performing
    Organization (HPO). These efforts support our workforce by maximizing
    efficiency and allowing them to focus on the most important aspects of
    their work--interacting with communities; problem solving by applying
    accessible and accurate data; and developing new approaches to emerging
    issues--rather than working through process steps that add little
    value. This requires changing the way we do business through
    modernizing our work and taking advantage of advances in technology
    (e.g. applying software that allows more efficient learning events for
    all employees and reduces the number of redundant learning management
    systems). On the programmatic side, the additional EPM non-payroll
    funds requested will enable the Agency to make progress on priorities
    such as implementing priority water projects in communities, increasing
    outreach for brownfields projects to help ensure the success of these
    well received grants, improving data on watersheds to help enhance
    priority-setting, improving the coordination on chemical plant safety,
    and working with localities at risk for direct impacts from severe
    storms or other climate related events.
        Question. EPA has already started to reduce its workforce through
    an early buyout that offers incentives for voluntary separation from
    the Agency. Are there particular groups of employees targeted for the
    buyout? Which programs are most heavily impacted? When reductions are
    completed, what will the smaller EPA look like?
        Answer. Nineteen of our regional and program offices developed
    strategic, office-level proposals that formed the basis for Voluntary
    Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive
    Payment (VSIP) requests that were submitted to the Office of Personnel
    Management in late December 2013. The proposals emphasized streamlining
    administrative processes, consolidating functions to the greatest
    extent possible and, in some cases, updating the skill sets of our
    workforce. Based on these proposals, the five occupational series most
    often identified to be authorized for VERA/VSIPs across the agency were
    Environmental Protection Specialist (0028), General Physical Science
    (1301), Environmental Engineering (0819), General Attorney (0905), and
    Management and Program Analyst (0343).
        The programs with the highest acceptance rate of VERA/VSIP offers
    were Superfund: Remedial, Superfund: Enforcement, Civil Enforcement,
    Surface Water Protection, and Compliance Monitoring. The impacts of
    these departures were considered in the proposals prepared by the
    regions and programs.
        As a result of the VERA/VSIPs, the EPA will be a more streamlined,
    efficient organization that is well-poised to take on today's
    challenges and those that present themselves in the future. The
    reductions achieved through the VERA/VSIPs are spread across 19
    regional and program offices; no single office lost a significant
    number of employees. Most offices are now or will soon be engaged in
    limited, strategic hiring efforts to obtain employees that possess
    needed skill sets, which will ensure that EPA maintains its scientific
    and technical edge, and enable the EPA to meet its mission
    requirements.
                      epa furloughs--payroll discrepancies
        Question. One of the tough budget choices that EPA made last year
    was the decision to furlough EPA employees. Since that time, it has
    come to the subcommittee's attention that EPA had at least $33 million
    dollars of unspent funds at the end of the fiscal year.
        Please explain why EPA had unspent funds from fiscal year 2013 and
    why these funds weren't used to minimize the impact of the furlough on
    EPA employees?
        Answer. The agency continues to focus on timely use of
    appropriations to ensure that all funds are expended efficiently but
    also effectively to ensure the most environmental benefit. In many
    cases, (competitive grants or large contracts, for example) the nature
    of the work leads to 2-year appropriation funds being committed in the
    second year. Final calculations identifying the amounts and location of
    carryover were completed following the end of year closeout. However,
    the original need for those resources to support the agency mission
    remained.
        In addition, to maintain the commitment to treating all employees
    equally, a One EPA approach, the carryover would have to have been
    distributed in the appropriation and program projects aligned with the
    total payroll need. Lacking transfer authority and certainty on
    congressional approval for reprogramming requests as well as continued
    uncertainty concerning fiscal year 2014 appropriation levels at that
    time, diverting these carryover funds to pay was very problematic and
    would not guarantee equitable furlough reductions.
        Question. While it's not unusual for an agency to have some
    carryover funds, fiscal year 2013 was not a normal year. How did the
    agency make its spending decisions and determine funding priorities?
        Answer. Working within the appropriation, program area, and project
    levels provided following sequestration reductions, highly detailed
    analysis was conducted to balance payroll needs and critical support
    for the agency's mission with extramural resources. Based on this
    analysis, our commitment to treating employees equally with respect to
    furloughs, and the need to continue the work of the agency, the Acting
    Administrator made a decision concerning the maximum number of hours as
    well as a firm commitment to reevaluating that number at the midpoint
    to find any possible reductions made possible by savings in non-pay
    funds. Over the course of the furlough period, the maximum number was
    reduced on two occasions resulting in total agency furlough hours being
    a maximum of 47 per employee.
        Question. How many hours of furlough could have been avoided with
    the unspent funds from fiscal year 2013?
        Answer. Without using congressional reprogrammings and having
    access to transfer authority, the EPA could not have avoided any hours
    of furlough with unspent funds from fiscal year 2013 while still
    maintaining its commitment to treating all employees equally.
                            e-enterprise initiative
        Question. EPA has proposed a major $70 million dollar initiative,
    called E-Enterprise, to transition compliance reporting from paper to
    electronic web-based reporting. What does EPA hope to achieve with the
    $70 million dollar investment and what will its effect be on States and
    the regulated community?
        Answer. E-Enterprise is a broad strategy to modernize how EPA and
    its co-regulator partners do business, going far beyond the move from
    paper to web-based (electronic) reporting. The E-Enterprise business
    strategy will reduce the burden and impact of environmental regulations
    on regulated entities and co-regulators (States, tribes, and
    territories) through applying LEAN management principles to programs,
    improving business processes and modernizing data flows. For fiscal
    year 2015, the E-Enterprise Leadership Council (EELC), a joint
    governing body between the States and the EPA, identified $70 million
    high-potential projects which align with the E-Enterprise business
    strategy and are ripe for near-term investment. The majority of these
    funds are in existing programs/projects, and are contained in EPA's
    base budget which supports critical functions within those programs.
    Examples are the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), the
    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and e-Manifest
    in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste management.
        Approximately $19 million of the $70 million has been identified by
    the EELC as new work with the immediate potential to significantly
    reduce burden on States and regulated entities. This includes grant
    resources to enable State (and tribal) participation in E-Enterprise;
    development of the Regulatory and Public Portal for data exchange and
    transparency; and support for streamlining and modernization in a
    number of environmental programs through the use of shared services.
        The Agency has established a new fiscal year 2014-2015 Agency
    Priority Goal (APG) to improve environmental outcomes and enhance
    service to the regulated community and the public. The E-Enterprise
    strategy will help the Agency achieve these burden reduction goals
    through modernizing data flow processes (e.g. moving from paper-based
    to electronic reporting) while requiring no additional data to comply
    with existing regulations. For example, with the Hazardous Waste e-
    Manifest, burden reduction is estimated between 370,000 and 700,000
    hours (and more than $75 million) for States and the regulated
    community.
        States are supportive of the E-Enterprise business strategy and are
    already engaging in E-Enterprise efforts. For example, Ohio EPA
    launched its electronic Discharge Monitoring Report Submission (eDMR)
    system,\1\ which uses electronic reporting to allow permittees to
    report their discharge measurements quickly and easily online. This
    method of reporting has increased data quality (errors have dropped
    from 50,000 per month to 5,000), while also saving significant time and
    resources for all stakeholders. Ohio EPA reduced the number of
    reporting staff from 5 FTE to zero through the automated compliance
    tools and a positive ROI was achieved within 2 years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/edmr/eDMR.aspx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Below are a few of many examples of stakeholder (e.g. States and
    the regulated community) comments expressing support for key pilot
    projects of the E-Enterprise business strategy including streamlining
    existing regulations in the Tier 3 Vehicles Emissions and Fuel
    Standards Program and the NPDES Electronic Reporting rule:

      --Marathon Petroleum Company.--EPA has made regulatory streamlining a
            priority and we appreciate the Agency's efforts. We agree that
            regulatory streamlining will result in more efficient and less
            costly compliance. We support the elimination of unnecessary
            and outdated provisions. These provisions are independent of
            Tier 3 and should be promulgated in a final rule earlier than
            the Tier 3 final rule. We agree with the Agency that these are
            straightforward and should be implemented quickly. [EPA-420-R-
            14-004 p. 6-1]
      --Phillips 66 Company.--We are appreciative of the effort to
            streamline various portions of existing regulations. With
            changes over time, there are several areas that need ``clean-
            up'' and this effort will reduce confusion and burden on the
            regulatory parties. We offer the following comments on the
            proposed revisions as well as suggestions for other provisions
            that we feel would add value and should be considered. [EPA-
            420-R-14-004, p. 6-2]
              Change in reporting dates--Overall, the concept of aligning
            the various reporting dates and being able to develop a unified
            and simplified reporting form is a good one. Providing
            additional time is beneficial. We appreciate the Agency
            providing this change. [EPA-420-R-14-004, p. 6-13]
      --Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA).--MWRA appreciates
            that the proposed rule [NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule] will
            allow EPA to obtain, and provide to the public, a more complete
            picture of NPDES discharges--one that includes small as well as
            large discharges. Electronic data collection has the potential
            to reduce the errors in ICIS-NPDES and also allow errors to be
            corrected in a more timely way. In summary, MWRA generally
            supports the idea of phased-in electronic reporting, provided
            data can be accompanied by qualifying comments. Document No.
            EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274-0263-A2.
      --Metropolitan Sewer District of St. Louis (MSD).--In general MSD
            supports the purpose of the rule [NPDES Electronic Reporting
            Rule] in moving to electronic reporting for many NPDES related
            activities. We agree that electronic reporting will likely
            provide for better data recording and management by EPA and
            authorized States, tribes, or territories. Some portions of the
            proposed rule will also support communities like MSD in their
            continued efforts in transparency and to provide the public
            with uncomplicated access to quality information which is free
            of errors due to multiple data entry points. Document No.
            EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274-0364-A2.
      --North East Biosolids & Residuals Association (NEBRA).--We support
            the overall concept of the proposed rule [NPDES Electronic
            Reporting Rule] and agree that, if implemented thoroughly with
            considerable support, it might achieve the benefits stated in
            the Federal Register discussion. The increased availability of
            data would serve to enhance public understanding of wastewater
            treatment and biosolids management. NEBRA feels that the
            proposed rule merits further consideration, but that the
            details of the proposed electronic reporting system are
            critically important and will determine whether or not the
            system is a success. Document No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274-0288-
            A1.
      --United States Steel.--U. S. Steel generally supports the rule
            [NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule] and its goals, such as
            publically sharing discharge information, improving the
            Agency's decisionmaking capabilities, and enhancing Agency
            resources through minimizing expenditures for monthly
            reporting. Document No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274-0268-A2.

        Question. How many years does EPA expect to request funding for the
    initiative? What is the total cost estimate and how does EPA expect to
    spread these costs over future budget cycles?
        Answer. Out-year requests are expected to be similar to current
    request levels. Investments in individual projects are expected to be
    recouped through the deployed business efficiencies.
        Each budget cycle will include investments to transition the Agency
    and its co-regulator partners to an updated customer and information-
    centric business strategy. In a phased implementation approach, a set
    of programs and projects are chosen for modernization and E-Enterprise
    supports the planning and development phases.
        Aligning EPA's existing programs to the E-Enterprise business
    strategy will remain a priority for the EPA and States. In the out-
    years, individual projects will continue to be jointly selected by
    States and the EPA based on their potential for streamlining,
    modernization, and potential Return on Investment (ROI). Rather than
    EPA and States creating a particular capability several times over, the
    E-Enterprise strategy incorporates a ``build once, use many'' approach.
    As individual projects are completed, resources shift to the next
    priority. Once program systems have been modernized, the program
    offices manage the ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) of the
    systems at a reduced cost for the participating co-regulators than
    would otherwise have been possible, allowing resources to be used for
    program implementation. The additional benefits from increasing
    transparency and improving customer service to stakeholders provide
    additional value.
        Under the E-Enterprise strategy, investments in individual projects
    have individual value. While priorities will change annually within the
    overarching E-Enterprise strategy as determined by the co-regulator
    partners, individual projects that have been completed will continue to
    operate and provide value.
        Question. The budget request discusses the potential cost savings
    that the regulated community will realize through electronic reporting.
    Please share details about anticipated savings and, if funding is
    provided in fiscal year 2015, when is it anticipated that the
    initiative be fully operational?
        Answer. Savings under the E-Enterprise business strategy to the
    regulated community can be measured in time and resources that will be
    reduced (e.g. burden reduction) through streamlined regulations and
    implementation of individual projects. The streamlining of regulations,
    shared State and EPA information reporting approaches, and moving from
    paper-based to electronic reporting will result in significant burden
    reduction. The agency has a commitment of one million hours of burden
    reduction in one of its fiscal year 2015 Agency Priority Goals.
    Examples of burden reduction and cost savings estimated for key
    projects coordinated under the E-Enterprise strategy include the
    following:

      --Safe Drinking Water System (SDWIS).--910,000 hours of burden
            reduction for States, 80,000 hours for Public Water Systems and
            Labs.
      --National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) e-reporting
            Rule.--914,000 hours of burden reduction, $28.5M savings for
            States, $1.1M savings for permittees, EPA savings of $0.7M.

        The E-Enterprise strategy will cover a series of programs and
    projects, each of which is designed to be modular with regular
    milestone deployments. Smaller projects can be fully operational within
    1-2 years; projects of larger scope will operational within 3-5 years.
    Some projects are already underway such as SDWIS and NPDES mentioned
    above. The intent is for E-Enterprise to continually improve the full
    .range of EPA's environmental programs and projects. The EPA, States,
    tribes, and territories have a set of legacy information systems to be
    transitioned and integrated without interruption in service. All
    programs/projects will undergo an alternatives analysis and business
    case with a return on investment (ROI) study to determine the cost-
    effectiveness of proposed changes to the investment.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
        Question. Administrator McCarthy, both you and President Obama have
    said that we must have the courage to act before it is too late and
    make historic investments in resilience to climate change. The
    President further promised that his fiscal year 2015 budget proposal
    would include a $1 billion Climate Resilience Fund. I applaud this
    priority considering the accelerating impacts of climate change. In
    Vermont, the EPA recognizes that climate change is impacting water
    quality in Lake Champlain and is requiring the State of Vermont to
    address these impacts as part of a new EPA Total Maximum Daily Load
    (TMDL) plan for phosphorus pollution. In light of the administration's
    strong commitment to spending $1 billion in fiscal year 2015 for
    climate resilience, and that the Lake Champlain phosphorus TMDL will be
    among the first in the country where the EPA requires climate change to
    be addressed, please tell me how in fiscal year 2015 and beyond, you
    will direct additional Federal resources to support implementation of
    resilience measures as part of the EPA's Lake Champlain phosphorus TMDL
    efforts?
        Answer. The EPA is responsible for developing a new phosphorus
    Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) because, in January 2011, the EPA
    disapproved Vermont's 2002 Lake Champlain TMDL. The EPA disapproved the
    2002 TMDL because it did not provide sufficient assurance that
    phosphorus reductions from polluted runoff would be achieved, and did
    not provide an adequate margin of safety (MOS). The development of the
    new TMDL has given the EPA the opportunity to re-examine and update all
    the elements of the TMDL and consider factors that would affect
    phosphorus loads.
        Regardless of whether or how potential climate change impacts may
    be reflected in this TMDL, the EPA remains committed to improving our
    understanding of how climate change may impact the Lake, such as
    influencing changes in flow, sediment, and phosphorus inputs. The EPA
    has funded two climate-related studies in the Lake Champlain watershed.
    Based on these studies and recent storm events, the EPA and the Vermont
    (VT) Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) recognize the
    importance of incorporating additional resiliency into Best Management
    Practice designs (e.g., culvert sizing to accommodate larger stream
    flows) that will be important components of VT DEC's TMDL
    implementation planning.
        The EPA remains committed to supporting implementation of the Lake
    Champlain TMDL, and it will work with Federal and State partners to
    leverage the much needed Federal investment in climate resiliency.
        I have heard from a number of Vermont residents, farmers, and
    businesses with concerns about the use of persistent herbicides and the
    presence of such herbicides in compost. Their gardens and farms have
    been seriously damaged by compost or mulch that was contaminated with
    persistent herbicides. These potent chemicals are applied to lawns,
    pastures, hayfields, and roadsides, and continue to be highly toxic to
    plant growth even after residues on grass or hay have been composted.
    These herbicides even remain potent in the composted manure of
    livestock and horses that graze on treated pastures and hay.
        I am worried about the environmental and financial risk to the
    multi-billion dollar compost industry if new standards and testing are
    not developed to identify the presence of these herbicides in compost,
    and if steps are not taken to ensure that persistent herbicides cannot
    persist in compost at dangerous levels. I fear that, without new
    protections, there will continue to be tremendous financial loss and
    environmental damage similar to what we have already experienced in
    Vermont.
        This problem will only escalate as more States and municipalities
    make it illegal to send leaf and yard debris and food scraps to
    landfills, and require greater use of composting. Unless the issue of
    persistent herbicides in compost is addressed, the market for finished
    compost may simply disappear, or composters may find themselves liable
    for sizeable payments to their customers with damaged crops, as
    happened in Vermont.
        Question. As the EPA continues its work to review registration for
    these persistent herbicides, beginning with the ongoing review of
    Picloram, can you assure me that you will take into account the impact
    on the compost industry and will the EPA require these persistent
    herbicides to break down in the composting levels that are not
    phytotoxic to plants?
        Answer. The pyridine class of herbicides (the group of pesticides
    recently associated with compost problems) are currently in, or
    approaching, registration review, the program that requires us to re-
    evaluate registered pesticides every 15 years to ensure the product
    continues to meet the statutory standard. During this registration
    review, we are requiring additional data to aid our understanding of
    how persistent these herbicides are in compost and manure. These data
    may inform the development of mitigation measures and advisory
    resources. All members of the pyridine class will be screened for
    potential compost concerns during the problem formulation stage of the
    program. Following this initial analysis, we may impose compost-
    specific data requirements as needed. These data include a dissipation
    study in compost and an environmental chemistry method (with
    accompanying independent laboratory validation) on compost. The agency
    is working with interested stakeholders to develop a protocol for
    conducting the compost dissipation study. These data will be used to
    characterize the potential risk from residues in compost and may inform
    the development of guidance resources for composters.
        While the pyridines registration review is underway, we have taken
    a number of interim steps that appear to have had a positive impact on
    this issue, including stronger label warnings and restrictions and
    registrant educational outreach materials. EPA will continue to monitor
    incidents related to contaminated compost to evaluate the effectiveness
    of these steps. If these efforts do not resolve contaminated compost
    issues, the EPA intends to consider additional regulatory action for
    these herbicides.
        Question. What is the EPA doing to develop publically available
    test methodologies to detect the presence of these herbicides in
    finished compost and in compost feedstocks?
        Answer. We have established a workgroup that is evaluating a
    standardized testing procedure for pesticides that could persist in
    composted material. Representatives from the U.S. Compost Council, the
    California Recycling Council, and the State FIFRA Issues Research and
    Evaluation Group, participate in this workgroup. We hope to have a
    standardized testing procedure in place within the next few years.
        The EPA has proposed new fine particulate matter (FPM) emission
    standards for residential wood heaters. I applaud this long overdue
    update of new source performance standards, considering that cordwood
    heater technology has improved in the 25 years since the standard was
    first issued and we now better understand the serious health impacts of
    fine particulate matter air pollution. I am concerned, however, that
    implementation of the new standards will place heavy burdens on
    manufacturers of EPA certified wood heaters as they transition to
    cleaner technology, while not moving fast enough to take the most
    polluting devices, those currently exempted from regulation, off the
    market.
        Question. How will the EPA's implementation of a final standard for
    FPM emissions from wood heaters protect public health while ensuring
    emission limits and compliance schedules that are viable for U.S.
    manufactures of high quality certified appliances?
        Answer. The proposed rule considers both protection of public
    health and viability of U.S. manufacturers by using a phased
    implementation approach. Step 1 of the proposal would level the playing
    field by requiring emission levels that over 85 percent of currently
    certified wood stoves already meet and requiring reasonable emission
    levels for those devices that are not regulated by the 1988 New Source
    Performance Standard (NSPS). Five years later, Step 2 would require
    emission levels for all devices that correspond to what the best
    systems of emission reduction are achieving in the marketplace today.
        Question. What more can and will the EPA do to encourage homeowners
    across the country to make investments in new wood heater technology to
    change out their older inefficient wood stoves or fireplaces with new
    EPA certified wood stoves, while also encouraging homeowners to support
    American manufacturers?
        Answer. The EPA places a high priority on encouraging homeowners
    and manufacturers to invest in cleaner and more efficient technology.
    We will continue to inform homeowners of the benefits via our Burn Wise
    program (www.epa.gov/burnwise), provide tools for State, tribal, and
    local agencies to conduct changeout programs, and provide a means for
    manufacturers to promote cleaner wood-burning fireplaces.
        The EPA is working with the Environmental Defense Fund and others
    to coordinate a national roundtable to help identify potential funding
    and technical resources needed for residential changeout programs and
    promoting other ways to reduce residential wood smoke. The roundtable
    expects to host members from the EPA, other Federal agencies, such as
    the Department of Energy, and Housing and Urban Development,
    manufacturers, and State and local air agencies.
                                     ______

                    Question Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
                                     radon
        Question. Our State Environment and Health Department has brought
    to my attention a concerning reduction in the EPA budget.
        I understand the President's budget zeroed out a categorical grant
    program for radon detection and information. This is disappointing. I
    understand that we need to make hard choices, but this program provides
    a lot of significant impacts for every dollar spent.
        After smoking, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in
    the United States and the leading cause in non-smokers. It's a
    significant public health problem throughout the United States.
        States like New Mexico have used these grants to inform citizens
    through outreach, education, and training to lower their risk from
    exposure to this natural radioactive gas that exists in our homes,
    schools, and commercial and government buildings. I'd like to work with
    you to discuss the future of this program.
        Can you explain why this program was zeroed out and what we can do
    to restore funding?
        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 26 years in existence,
    the radon grant program has increased States' technical expertise and
    capacity to raise awareness about radon risks and promote public health
    protection by reducing exposure to indoor radon gas. Eliminating the
    SIRG program is an example of the difficult choices the agency has made
    in this budget to help meet the Nation's fiscal challenges. The Radon
    Program will continue to be a priority and the EPA will focus on
    driving action at the national level with other Federal agencies,
    through the Federal Radon Action Plan. Released in June of 2011, the
    Action Plan aims to increase radon risk reduction in homes, schools,
    and daycare facilities, as well as radon-resistant new construction. It
    contains both an array of current Federal Government actions to reduce
    radon risks and a series of new commitments for future action. More
    information about the Action Plan and its progress is available at:
    http://www.epa.gov/radon/action_plan.html.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
       greenhouse gas new source performance standards (nsps)--new units
        Question. Ms. McCarthy, I am concerned about the impact of the
    EPA's proposed rule setting New Source Performance Standards for new
    units and soon to be issued proposed rule for existing units. Alaska's
    electric system is unique compared to the grid in the lower 48. As you
    may know, there are 126 certified electric utilities in Alaska, and
    only 6 of those utilities are connected to each other through the
    ``Railbelt Grid'' that serves the most populated areas of the State.
    The other 120 electric utilities provide electric power to
    approximately 30 percent of Alaska's population that is spread out over
    millions of square miles. Usually the ``one size fits all'' approach to
    regulations does not work for my State.
        Alaskans are concerned they will not have reliable, affordable
    electric service as a result of the NSPS rules. The utilities in my
    State face many challenges that utilities in the lower 48 do not face,
    such as the option to rely on an interconnected grid and the
    availability of infrastructure and support services.
        Would EPA consider providing a waiver to the NSPS rules for
    electric generating units/utility power plants not located in the
    contiguous United States?
        Answer. The proposed performance standards to limit carbon
    pollution from newly constructed power plants were published on January
    8, 2014 and the public comment period recently closed on May 9, 2014.
    We are currently reviewing the nearly 2 million comments that we
    received on the proposed rule. Please note that the proposal does not
    cover newly constructed oil-fired turbines, which we were told in
    previous comments are expected to be the most commonly built new
    sources in remote areas of Alaska and some other areas. The proposal
    for emission guidelines to limit carbon pollution from existing power
    plants was signed on June 2, 2014. The Agency heard from many
    stakeholders--including States, municipalities, utilities, and others--
    regarding the need for flexibility in developing State plans. The
    Agency looks forward to receiving comments from the public during the
    comment period.
                           small remote incinerators
        Question. I want to thank you for your continued efforts to work
    with the oil and gas and mining industries in Alaska on a new testing
    program for emissions from small remote incinerators (SRIs). The
    expectation is that the EPA will consider the emissions data from this
    program and revise the emissions limits for SRIs, if warranted, based
    on the new data. If the limits are not revised, no incinerator will be
    able to continue operating. For most of these incinerators, there
    simply is no feasible alternative to incineration, or the alternative
    risks increase environmental damage or risks human and wildlife health
    and safety. For example, the only alternative for the Oooguruk oil
    field is to helicopter sling garbage hundreds of miles away to the
    closest landfill; and this would necessitate waste storage in polar
    bear habitat.
        Do you acknowledge that there is no viable alternative to
    incineration for most, if not all, of the oil and gas and mining
    projects where SRIs are located?
        Answer. Because of the remote location, SRI units do not always
    have lower-cost alternative waste disposal options (i.e., landfills)
    nearby. Emissions associated with transporting the solid waste could be
    significant.
        Question. Please explain why the Park Service may operate the same
    type of incinerators in Glacier Bay and Denali National Parks, yet they
    are exempt from emissions limits requirements?
        Answer. Incinerators subject to the Commercial and Industrial Solid
    Waste (CISWI) rule are those located at commercial or industrial
    facilities. The Park Service operates municipal and/or institutional
    incineration units. Institutional units and certain municipal units are
    subject to standards under the Other Solid Waste Incineration (OSWI)
    Rule, which was finalized in December 16, 2005 but does not apply to
    incinerators located in isolated areas of Alaska. The EPA will evaluate
    whether to establish standards for such units when it next reviews the
    OSWI rule pursuant to the periodic review provisions of section 129 of
    the Clean Air Act.
        Question. Is the EPA's intent to continue working with the oil and
    gas and mining industries on a new testing program for emissions from
    small remote incinerators to sufficient data will be provided to
    warrant the EPA taking a second look at the emissions limits for SRIs?
        Answer. The EPA is willing to work with SRI stakeholders to ensure
    that the appropriate data are collected. The EPA staff are engaging
    regularly with the SRI stakeholders regarding the proposed testing
    protocol for collecting additional emissions data. On May 27, 2014, we
    had a meeting to discuss the EPA comments on the most recent revisions
    to the testing protocol. The EPA will continue engaging in discussions
    with the SRI owners and operators to develop the protocol for gathering
    more data.
        Question. Does the EPA still intend to consider emissions data from
    the new testing program and potentially revise the emission limits for
    SRIs?
        Answer. The EPA has a history of considering data submitted by
    industry and we would do so in this case as well. If SRI stakeholders
    collect additional data, the new data could be submitted to the EPA
    with a petition for rulemaking. The EPA is committed to working with
    the SRI stakeholders to further develop and refine the testing
    protocol, review a petition for rulemaking and accompanying data, and
    determine whether further rulemaking is appropriate.
                    discharges from offshore fish processors
        Question. EPA currently requires that offshore catcher processors
    operating in Federal waters off the coast of Alaska have a National
    Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Offshore Seafood
    Processors General Permit. This NPDES permit applies national effluent
    limitation guidelines requiring that no ``pollutants'' may be
    discharged which exceed \1/2\ inch in any dimension. This standard
    dates back to 1975 and was developed for shore-based wastewater
    treatment plants, and applying it to fishing vessels at least 3 miles
    from shore never has made much sense. In fact, there is little, if any,
    measurable benefit to the environment. Instead, the offshore catcher
    processors have experienced significant difficulties in achieving the
    \1/2\ inch in any dimension standard due to challenges with grinding
    fish skin, slime, muscle, cartilage, and other internal organ fibers.
    As they have attempted to meet the standard by installing larger and
    larger grinders, their fuel consumption, costs, and emissions have gone
    up, as have the risks for crew operating this dangerous equipment.
        It is my understanding that staff in EPA's Office of Water and
    Region 10 are working with the freezer longline sector to determine
    whether to take this ``fish grinding'' requirement through the annual
    Effluent Limitations Guidelines review process.
        Can you confirm that this review is proceeding expeditiously and
    provide a timeline for the agency's decision on eliminating this permit
    requirement?
        Answer. The Office of Water and Region 10 continue to work with the
    Freezer Longline sector with respect to their NPDES permit
    requirements. The EPA expects to complete its evaluation prior to
    issuance of the next applicable permit.
      npdes gp for geotechnical discharges/arctic oil and gas development
        Question. In November 2013, the EPA released a draft National
    Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for
    geotechnical discharges associated with oil and gas activities off the
    coast of Alaska. Geotechnical work is a necessary precursor to
    development, and without coverage under the permit, operators cannot
    conduct critical soil surveys along potential pipeline routes and at
    potential production facility locations. Unfortunately, the draft
    permit is completely unworkable, and forced at least one operator to
    cancel a geotechnical program planned for 2014. The comment period
    closed for the draft permit, with extensive comment detailing technical
    and logistical issues with it.
        Is it the agency's intent to put out a revised draft permit for
    public comment that addresses those issues?
        Answer. Based on the comments received during the public review of
    the draft geotechnical general permit, on March 21, 2014, the EPA
    determined that certain permit provisions may warrant further
    consideration. To further that process, the EPA has met with
    representatives from Shell, BP, and ConocoPhillips to clarify several
    technical issues and obtain additional information. The EPA is in the
    process of reviewing this new information, in addition to considering
    all comments received. The EPA will make a determination shortly
    whether to make changes to the draft general permit and whether these
    changes are significant enough to warrant re-noticing the draft general
    permit for public review and comment. The EPA will provide the public
    with an updated project timeline once this decision has been made.
        The draft permit incorporates monitoring and testing requirements
    (i.e., before, during, and after each borehole) that are similar to the
    requirements for drilling exploration oil wells. But this is a permit
    for geotechnical boring discharges.
        Question. Can you explain why the requirements for both activities
    are essentially the same even though the environmental impacts are
    significantly different?
        Answer. The draft geotechnical general permit requirements for
    environmental monitoring are not essentially the same as those for
    exploration wells, and in fact, reflect the different nature of the
    activities.

        The draft geotechnical general permit requires two phases of
    monitoring:

      --Phase I includes a physical (wind/current speed and direction,
            water temperature, salinity, depth and turbidity) and visual
            characterization of the seafloor at each borehole location.
            Obtaining this information is relatively straightforward and
            can be based on existing data. The baseline information is
            necessary to ensure the geotechnical activity site is not
            located in or near a sensitive biological area, habitat, or
            historic properties.
      --Phase II is only required if drilling fluids are used and is
            conducted during and after the geotechnical drilling occurs.
            Phase II includes observations for potential marine mammal
            deflection during discharge of non-contact cooling water, which
            is the largest volume discharge and consists of elevated
            temperatures, and a physical sea bottom survey. This basic
            level of monitoring is consistent with NPDES permits where
            drilling fluids are used.

        In contrast, the exploration general permits require four phases of
    monitoring at each drill site location. Because of the increased
    discharge volumes and levels of activity, these requirements are more
    extensive than those in the draft geotechnical general permit:

      --Phase I (baseline).--Initial site survey; collect physical and
            receiving water chemistry data; analyze drilling fluids for
            metals; analyze sediment characteristics; evaluate benthic
            community structure; and conduct dilution, plume, and
            deposition modeling.
      --Phase II (during drilling).--Effluent toxicity characterization;
            sample the drilling fluids and drill cuttings discharge plume
            in the water column; and collect observations for potential
            marine mammal deflection during periods of discharge.
      --Phase III (post-drilling).--Survey sea bottom; analyze sediment
            characteristics; and conduct benthic community bioaccumulation
            monitoring.
      --Phase IV (15 months after drilling ceases).--Survey sea bottom;
            analyze sediment characteristics; and conduct benthic community
            bioaccumulation monitoring.

        The draft permit incorporates a whaling blackout throughout the
    Chukchi Sea in the spring and the Beaufort Sea in the fall, which goes
    beyond the recommendations of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission.
        Question. Can you explain to me why the EPA went beyond what even
    the local subsistence users requested in terms of when geotechnical
    activities should not occur?
        Answer. The draft geotechnical permit does not go beyond the
    recommendations of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. The EPA
    received comments from tribal governments, the North Slope Borough, and
    the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission requesting no discharge into the
    Spring Lead System before July 15 in the Chukchi Sea and no discharge
    of any waste stream during fall bowhead hunting in the Beaufort Sea.
    These requests are much more restrictive than the current requirements
    of the draft geotechnical permit.
        The draft permit applies only to geotechnical discharges associated
    with oil and gas activities in Alaska. Yet, this type of geotechnical
    work is routinely performed offshore in the U.S. for work relating to
    the development of offshore infrastructure for shipping, as well as for
    wind farms.
        Question. Does the EPA require the same sort of rigorous data
    collection for boreholes drilled for any other outer continental shelf
    (OCS) purpose--wind farms, port infrastructure outside of State waters,
    etc? If not, what is the scientific basis for distinguishing between a
    borehole drilled for a pipeline or production facility survey versus a
    borehole drilled for any other purpose?
        Answer. The EPA Region 10 is not aware of other activities, such as
    infrastructure development for wind farms or ports, that would require
    geotechnical surveys to be conducted in the outer continental shelf;
    nor have NPDES permit applications been submitted for discharges
    associated with these types of activities.
        Please see the response to the previous question regarding the
    level of monitoring data collection for geotechnical activities.
    Certain industry operators are proposing to discharge drilling fluids,
    generally for deeper boreholes that range from 50 to 499 feet beneath
    the sea floor. Drilling fluids include borehole stabilization
    additives, which include polymer and bentonite, and may be used for
    boreholes drilled at 100 feet depth. Some operators plan to add barite
    to the drilling fluids. Barite is a concern because it is known to
    contain trace heavy metals, such as mercury, cadmium, arsenic,
    chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc.
        The specific geotechnical activities proposed here also involve a
    number of different waste streams and the discharge of potentially
    large volumes of pollutants from geotechnical vessels. Such practices
    and discharges may not be involved as part of other activities such as
    port infrastructure or wind farm projects.
        In addition, because the geotechnical permit is a general permit,
    it is designed to include all potential discharges from similar
    activities, i.e. both shallow and deeper boreholes, drilled with and
    without drilling fluid. As noted above, if drilling fluids are not used
    to drill the boreholes, then the monitoring requirements are reduced
    accordingly. Similarly, the general permit establishes limits specific
    to each pollutant based on applicable effluent discharge limitations
    (allowable pollutant concentrations that are established by regulation
    based on available technology and that apply across a particular
    industry sector) as well as water quality standards. The EPA applies
    the standards and requirements to address the pollutants in the
    discharge regardless of the type of activity.
       clean water act rulemaking on power plant water intake structures
        Question. Ms. McCarthy, it has come to my attention that the EPA
    has initiated an Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 consultation
    with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
    Service on the proposed rule regarding section 316(b) of the Clean
    Water Act governing power plant cooling water intake structures. I have
    been told the nuclear industry has raised concerns about the potential
    for the rule to be applied in an overly broad manner such that it could
    require facilities to install cooling towers or stop operations if a
    threatened or endangered species is located in a water body from which
    the facility draws water from, even if there is no evidence of impact
    to that species.
        Do you believe the section 316(b) proposed rule should require a
    power generator to monitor all species in a water body from which a
    facility draws water from or should the rule only focus on threatened
    and endangered species directly affected by the intake structure?
        Answer. The final rule requires all facilities to identify all
    species affected by the cooling water intake structure, and then
    establishes protections for the aquatic life affected by that intake
    structure. This includes protection of threatened and endangered
    species.
        In the past, section 316(b) monitoring focused on the prevention of
    ``adverse environmental impact'' of threatened and endangered aquatic
    life.
        Question. Do you believe the scope of monitoring should be expanded
    to look at species that may be in the water body and might be
    indirectly affected by intake structures?
        Answer. The EPA's final rule requires that all facilities identify
    in their permit applications all federally-listed threatened and
    endangered species and/or designated critical habitat that are or may
    be present in the vicinity of the intake. Identification can be based
    on information readily available to the facility at the time of the
    application. A facility may request to reduce monitoring requirements
    after the first full permit term, if the monitoring data show that the
    intake does not directly or indirectly affect listed species/habitat.
        Question. Do you think it is appropriate to order a facility to
    install a cooling tower or stop operations if a threatened or
    endangered species is located in a water body from which the facility
    draws water from, when there is no evidence of impact to that species?
    If yes, should any consideration be given to the impact on electric
    reliability?
        Answer. The final rule provides the Permitting Director (the State
    or EPA, depending upon the location of the discharge) with much
    discretion to choose the appropriate technology to protect fish and
    shellfish generally, or threatened and endangered species in particular
    at a specific location. Closed cycle cooling is only one of a number of
    different technologies the Director may select to prevent impingement
    or entrainment of fish and shellfish.
         inspector general (ig) report concerning epa credit card abuse
        Question. The EPA IG issued a report last month on March 4, and
    found that over half of the government credit card transactions by EPA
    employees were used for inappropriate personal expenses--such as gym
    memberships for friends and family, hotel rooms, and expensive meals.
    While the number of transactions that the IG looked at was rather
    small--80 transactions totaling $152,000--agency employees as a whole
    spend roughly $29 million on government credit cards. If anywhere close
    to half of these charges are inappropriate that is truly alarming.
        What processes is EPA putting in place to correct this problem?
        Answer. In response to the IG's March 4 report, ``Ineffective
    Oversight of Purchase Card Results in Inappropriate Purchases at EPA''
    (report no. 14-P-0128), the EPA has implemented or plans to implement
    the following corrective actions to strengthen management controls
    within the EPA National Purchase Card Program:

      --The EPA will reform and integrate existing biennial reviews into
            the Office of Acquisition Management (OAM) Contract Management
            Assessment Program (CMAP). The CMAP is OAM's internal controls
            program. These internal reviews will be part of organizational
            self-assessments and peer reviews under the Contract Management
            Assessment Program (CMAP) to facilitate more robust and
            independent oversight of the program. The first peer review
            that included a review of purchase card transactions took place
            in Region 9 in April 2014. EPA anticipates completing another
            three regional reviews in fiscal year 2014, and will review all
            headquarter and regional offices by the end of fiscal year 2017
            as part of the agency's plan to review the purchase card
            programs of all headquarter and regional offices on a 3-year
            cycle. Purchase card reviews, which OAM conducts, are now a
            permanent part of the EPA's peer review process under the
            contract management assessment program.
      --The EPA implemented a block of over 130 merchant codes to prevent
            transactions considered high risk. These include codes
            considered non-applicable for routine agency transactions.
            Cardholders must submit supporting documentation to the program
            for review and override, if appropriate.
      --The EPA will deploy an automated system including an electronic
            purchase card log with a requirement to document all purchase
            card transactions agency-wide by September 30, 2014. The system
            will ensure documented evidence of electronic approvals;
            provide a record of all purchases made with purchase cards and/
            or convenience checks; allow virtual audits of all purchase
            card transactions and provide the ability to conduct spend
            analysis on all purchase card transactions. The agency began an
            automation pilot with several agency cardholders on March 31,
            2014.
      --Effective March 18, 2014, the EPA placed a moratorium on the
            issuance of new purchase card and convenience check accounts
            while we continue to improve management oversight and internal
            controls.
      --The EPA is drafting improvements to agencywide standard operating
            procedures, and minimum documentation required, for each
            purchase card transaction. These draft improvements were
            completed and sent out for agency review and comment. The EPA's
            OAM is currently reviewing comments.
      --The EPA is developing training sessions on purchase card policy and
            procedures for purchase cardholders and approving officials to
            address the non-compliance issues identified in the report. The
            EPA's OAM has also changed purchase card refresher training
            requirements from every 3 years to every 2 years.
      --The EPA is reviewing the subject audit findings to ascertain the
            specific areas of non-compliance that need to be addressed with
            cardholders and approving officials. The agency will institute
            follow-up actions as appropriate to hold individuals
            accountable and to recover funds used for prohibited, improper
            or erroneous purchases identified in this audit. Depending on
            the severity of the violation, cardholder(s) and approving
            official(s) in violation of agency policy and/or procedures may
            have their authority revoked, or suspended pending the
            completion of this review.
      --The EPA is finalizing its Awards Policy to eliminate the use of
            Gift Cards and Gift Certificates within the agency.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. Earlier this month, the Governor of Mississippi declared
    a state of emergency in 12 counties due to severe rain and flooding in
    the Pearl River Basin. In 1979, similar weather related events caused
    the Pearl River to flood the capitol city of Jackson, Mississippi,
    which resulted in damages equivalent to $1.3 billion in today's terms.
    To date, Jackson doesn't have a comprehensive flood risk management
    solution and remains vulnerable to flood risk, despite many years of
    efforts between local leaders and the Army Corps of Engineers to
    develop an effective solution. Years and even decades may pass from the
    time the Corps is authorized to study a water-resources related problem
    and when the Corps actually constructs a project, and numerous Civil
    Works actions are subject to outside agency review, consultation, or
    coordination. Additionally, it is my understanding that individual
    projects often take longer than anticipated due to disagreements
    between Federal agencies. In your testimony, you suggest the fiscal
    year 2015 budget request strengthens EPA partnerships with a focus on
    aligning resources, avoiding duplication, and closing gaps in the
    broader environmental enterprise system.
        If Congress provides the amount of funding recommended to be
    appropriated by our subcommittee, will the EPA be able to do a better
    job working with the Corps of Engineers to streamline flood control
    projects and reduce inefficiencies and delays with regard to
    environmental regulations and requirements?
        Answer. The EPA appreciates your concerns over the time it can take
    to plan and construct major flood control projects. This administration
    is committed to expeditiously building a 21st century infrastructure,
    including flood control projects, highways and pipelines, in a manner
    that also safeguards our communities and the environment. Over the past
    year, the EPA has worked closely with OMB, the White House Council on
    Environmental Quality (CEQ), and several other Federal agencies,
    including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to develop a plan that will
    modernize the Federal Government's role in permitting and review
    processes for infrastructure projects. This plan was published on May
    14, 2014, and identifies a wide range of strategies and reforms, with
    both near-term and long-term milestones including improving interagency
    coordination. The EPA's budget request includes funding that will
    enable us to work more effectively with other agencies as they propose
    and review these critical infrastructure projects.
        Question. The Corps of Engineers has indicated the Jackson
    metropolitan area will remain vulnerable to flood risks as well as life
    and safety issues. Currently, the Pearl River is several feet above
    flood stage and is expected to rise. Given the current situation, would
    you be willing to work with the Corps of Engineers and the Rankin-Hinds
    Drainage Control District as they move to find a solution?
        Answer. EPA stands ready to work with the Corps and local
    authorities to provide technical assistance and support to the affected
    communities.
        The Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act was passed in
    2012. It sets a minimum funding level required in order to allow EPA to
    collect registration service fees. However, sequestration, combined
    with a continuing resolution, has required Congress to waive the
    minimum level to allow the pesticide registration program to continue
    to operate.
        Question. Was EPA's guidance to the Congressional committees of
    jurisdiction on the decision timelines included in the Pesticide
    Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) reauthorization based on specific
    funding levels?
        Answer. Yes, EPA's ability to meet the PRIA decision review
    timeframes was based on receiving both the minimum appropriation level
    specified in the law--$128.3 million--and the PRIA fees.
        Question. Has EPA been able to adhere to those timelines given the
    funding that has been provided for fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year
    2014?
        Answer. No, in fiscal year 2013 (the first year of PRIA-3), the on-
    time completion rate fell to 98.8 percent due to a fiscal year 2013
    budget cut and personnel furloughs. We expect the partial Government
    shutdown of October 2013, as well as a fiscal year 2014 budget cut, to
    have a further, measurable impact on the fiscal year 2014 on-time
    completion rate. We will be able to evaluate and report that impact
    after the fiscal year ends on September 30, 2014.
        Question. How does this compare to actions under PRIA-I or PRIA-II?
        Answer. During the 3.5 years of PRIA-1 (fiscal year 2004-fiscal
    year 2007), the on-time completion rate was 99.9 percent. During the 5
    years of PRIA-2 (fiscal year 2008-fiscal year 2012), the on-time
    completion rate was 99.3 percent. The table below contains the total
    number of actions completed and the number of those actions completed
    late under PRIA-1, PRIA-2, and PRIA-3.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      # of completed   # of actions     Percent on
                                                  Fiscal Years            actions     completed late       time
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PRIA 1................................  2004-2007...............           4,273               3           >99.9
    PRIA 2................................  2008-2012...............           7,892              55            99.3
    PRIA 3................................  2013....................           2,084              25            98.8
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What would be the impact of funding below $128.3 million
    in future years? Please include impacts that address both inclusion and
    exclusion of a waiver of the minimum appropriation.
        Answer. As stated above, EPA's ability to meet the PRIA decision
    review timeframes is based on receiving both the minimum appropriation
    level specified in the law--$128.3 million--and the PRIA fees. Below
    that level, EPA is increasingly challenged to meet the PRIA timeframes
    as the number of actions increased substantially in 2013. The full
    impact of the current budget will be better understood at the end of
    fiscal year 2014. If, in the future, the minimum appropriations
    requirement is not met, and no waiver of that requirement is provided,
    then EPA's authority to collect PRIA fees would be suspended. The loss
    of PRIA fees, which on average generate about $15 million per year,
    would significantly impact EPA's ability to meet the timelines set
    forth in the legislation. The resulting delays in the pesticide
    registration process impact the ability of food producers to fight crop
    pests and effectively maintain food production.
        Question. In 2012, EPA stated that as a result of beach grant
    funds, the number of monitored beaches in the country has more than
    tripled. The President's budget proposes to eliminate categorical
    grants for the beach protection program. Given the current fiscal
    strain on State and local environmental agencies, what impact do you
    estimate the elimination of grant funds would have on the number of
    beaches monitored?
        Answer. We do not have information about the number of beaches that
    would not be monitored, or would be monitored on a reduced schedule.
        Question. There is growing concerns from a variety of stakeholders
    about EPA's willingness to ``Sue and Settle.'' It is my understand that
    Federal agencies including the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service
    (FWS), and the Department of Agriculture are opting not to appeal
    environmental lawsuits in an attempt to regulate rather than litigate.
    I am concerned settlements are being conducted without any transparency
    or public input. Often these settlements can yield new regulations
    imposing costly burden on agriculture, construction, manufacturing and
    other businesses. What is the number of lawsuits EPA has settled in the
    past year and how much EPA paid to resolve these lawsuits?
        Answer. Each settlement agreement is the result of a negotiation
    between opposing parties, with the Department Of Justice (DOJ)
    representing the Environmental protection Agency and the interests of
    the United States. In some cases, the agreements also go out for public
    comment, and are entered by a court only upon a finding that the terms
    are fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and that the overall
    resolution is consistent with the underlying statute and allegations.
        In fiscal year 2013, the EPA did not pay fees in the settlement of
    any defensive environmental cases out of EPA's appropriated funds. In
    the EPA's most recent ``Attorney Fee and Cost Payments Obligated in
    Fiscal Year 2013 Under Equal Access for Justice Act'' report, located
    in the fiscal year 2015 Congressional Justification, the EPA reported
    12 settlements of defensive environmental cases in fiscal year 2013.
    These payments were all made through DOJ from the Judgment Fund
    administered by the Treasury Department. Total fees paid in those cases
    were approximately $423,267.50.
        The EPA does not and will not commit in a settlement agreement to
    any final, substantive outcome in a rulemaking or other decisionmaking
    process. Rather, in EPA rulemaking, there is an extensive and robust
    public process, designed specifically to provide for input and
    participation. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires the
    Agency to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment on all
    proposed rules. This opportunity to comment is open to any interested
    party and comments submitted are carefully considered and often
    significantly shape the final rule. It is after the conclusion of that
    public process that Agency would publish a final rule.
        Question. I have concerns with EPA's mishandling of sensitive
    information belonging to farmers and livestock producers. It is my
    understanding this wide spread problem affected 30 or more States. The
    EPA has a responsibility to protect the American citizens' personal
    information from government mismanagement. What safeguards has EPA
    implemented to make sure that the personal information of farmers and
    livestock producers is not inadvertently released again?
        Answer. The EPA understands the need to protect personal
    information. The EPA has a Privacy Policy which establishes agency
    requirements for safeguarding the collection, access, use,
    dissemination, and storage of personally identifiable information and
    Privacy Act information in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the
    E-Government Act of 2002, the Federal Information Security Management
    Act (FISMA), and policy and guidance issued by the President and the
    Office of Management and Budget. The EPA also has a Privacy Act Manual,
    which establishes policy and procedures for protecting the privacy of
    individuals who are identified in EPA's information systems. The EPA
    will continue to work together with our Federal partners, industry, and
    other stakeholders to ensure the agency continues to address the
    privacy interests of farmers.
        Question. Section 12313 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 amends
    section 402(I) of the Clean Water Act to reaffirm EPA's longstanding
    policy that Best Management Practices for forest-related activities are
    recognized and pollution discharge permits are not needed for
    stormwater runoff.
        Does EPA commit to implementing this provision as Congress
    intended?
        Answer. Prior to the Agricultural Act of 2014, the EPA revised its
    Phase I stormwater regulations to clarify that stormwater discharges
    from forest roads do not constitute stormwater discharges associated
    with industrial activity and that National Pollutant Discharge
    Elimination System (NPDES) permits are not required for these
    discharges. This is consistent with the Agricultural Act of 2014.
        Question. In what, if any, circumstances would EPA disregard
    congressional intent and in fact require this kind of permitting for
    forestry activities?
        Answer. The Agricultural Act of 2014 clearly directed that the EPA
    shall not require or direct any States to require an NPDES permit for
    runoff from forest roads. The EPA continues to review available
    information on the water quality impacts of stormwater discharges from
    forest roads. In addressing water quality impacts from these roads, the
    EPA will work with stakeholders and State and Federal partners to
    explore flexible, non-permitting approaches under the Clean Water Act.
    The EPA recognizes that effective best management practices exist that
    protect receiving waters and minimize impacts from forest roads.
        Question. The EPA recently announced a proposed rule on waters of
    the United States that identifies exempted agricultural conservation
    practices not subject to Clean Water Act permitting.
        Will this rule give EPA the authority to enter into negotiations
    with the Department of Agriculture related to the technical aspects of
    a conservation practice if a desired water quality benefit is not
    achieved?
        Answer. No, under the interpretive rule and associated Memorandum
    of Understanding (MOU), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
    authority to develop conservation practices is unchanged. At the same
    time, however, the agencies' MOU contemplates continued collaboration
    among the agencies, including evaluating the implementation of relevant
    practice standards to ensure they are resulting in anticipated water
    quality benefits.
        Question. Would this new rule give EPA new abilities to usurp the
    expertise of the Department of Agriculture with regard to conservation
    standards?
        Answer. No. Nothing in the interpretive rule changes the roles or
    responsibilities of any of the three agencies. NRCS remains solely
    responsible under its authority for developing agricultural
    conservation practice standards.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Reed. With no further questions, thank you again,
    Madam Administrator. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. The hearing
    is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 10:47 a.m., Wednesday, April 9, 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 2015

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2014

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:38 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Reed, Tester, Merkley, Begich, Murkowski,
    and Blunt.

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          United States Forest Service

    STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF
    ACCOMPANIED BY TONY DIXON, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC PLANNING, BUDGET, AND
                ACCOUNTABILITY

                     OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

        Senator Reed. Let me call the hearing to order.
        Good morning. This is the third hearing of the Interior
    Appropriations Subcommittee on the President's fiscal year 2015
    budget request, and today, we will discuss the budget for the
    United States Forest Service.
        I am very pleased to welcome Forest Service Chief, Tom
    Tidwell. Chief, thank you for your service, and for your
    support to the important programs of the Forest Service. Thank
    you very much.
        And I also recognize the agency's Budget Director, Tony
    Dixon, who is testifying before the subcommittee for the first
    time. So welcome, Tony. Good to have you here.
        Turning to the budget request for the Forest Service, the
    fiscal year 2015 request is a total of $5.7 billion, including
    $4.77 billion in discretionary spending. In addition, the
    President has proposed a significant budgetary shift to provide
    $954 million in fire suppression funding within the disaster
    cap.
        Since I assumed the chairmanship of this subcommittee, we
    have been forced to make unfortunate tradeoffs to provide the
    appropriate resources for fire suppression, both on the
    frontend--through increases in the 10-year average--and on the
    backend--through repayment of borrowing--because the 10-year
    average proved insufficient.
        In the last 2 years alone, we have been forced to carve out
    more than $1 billion from other accounts in order to pay for
    unanticipated emergency firefighting costs. This has been a
    change from traditional practice under which extraordinary
    firefighting costs were treated as emergencies, just like other
    disasters.
        These additional obligations have come at a cost in the
    investments we can make in public land maintenance and
    construction, water and sewer grants, land acquisition, and
    every other account funded in this bill. And I know you, Chief,
    are as worried as we are about the Forest Service just becoming
    ``the fire service.'' That cannot happen.
        This is just as troubling to me as it is to my western
    colleagues. Indeed, I would note that my colleagues, Senators
    Wyden and Crapo, have introduced bipartisan legislation in the
    senate to deal with this problem. An identical bill has been
    introduced in the House by Congressman Mike Simpson, former
    chairman of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and
    it has been cosponsored by Representative Ken Calvert, the
    current chairman of the subcommittee.
        While Rhode Island does not have any national forest lands,
    we do rely on the Forest Service's expertise and grant programs
    for our State and private forested lands. We all agree that it
    is a Federal responsibility to fight fires on Federal lands to
    protect the life and property of Americans. But if we continue
    down the path that we have been forced under the current budget
    caps, we put in jeopardy the rest of the Forest Service's
    mission.
        For Rhode Island, that would mean losing the Forest
    Service's expertise in research and science that has led to
    breakthroughs to defend against the invasive species and
    disease that attack our trees in the country and in the city,
    Forest Legacy funds to protect threatened areas, and urban and
    community forest funds to get people outdoors.
        That is why I think what you have done, Chief, to work on
    the budget proposal to move a portion of the spending into the
    disaster cap is such a great step forward. It takes care of
    three problems that we have been struggling with.
        First, it removes the agency's need to borrow from non-fire
    accounts and provides a steady stream of funding throughout the
    fire season, so that you can do both your firefighting and your
    other work without setting aside funds within construction,
    land acquisition, and your mandatory programs in case there is
    a need for it.
        Second, it allows us to put emphasis on the programs that
    will help you prevent catastrophic fire in the future, such as
    hazardous fuels reduction, watershed and vegetation management,
    and inholdings acquisitions.
        Third, it protects the programs that would otherwise get
    cut within future budget proposals to pay for fire needs like
    research and State grant programs.
        So with this budget proposal and your recent acquisition of
    air tankers from the Coast Guard and next generation air
    tankercontractors, it is quite possible that fiscal year 2015
    could be the turning point in adopting a more rational approach
    to fire management. And you deserve much credit for this
    progress, Chief. Thank you very much.
        While I am pleased that we are able to move the
    administration to address the fire problem, I am disappointed
    to see the cuts to other programs like research, State and
    private forestry, and international forestry, even with the
    shift to firefighting resources, that are being proposed.
        I am looking forward to discussing with you how we can work
    together to restore and strengthen these programs as well.
        Now, before turning to Senator Murkowski, the bottom line
    here is, and I do not mean to sound too cute, but these
    firefighting funds are just burning up your entire budget. Our
    budget too, because what we have to provide for firefighting,
    we cannot provide for State water funds, infrastructure,
    national parks, a host of programs. So we have to get this
    right.
        With that, Senator Murkowski, please.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome
    Chief.
        It is good to be examining the budget request for the
    Forest Service for fiscal year 2015. Mr. Chairman, I do not
    think we are going to need any assistance with firefighting
    here in Washington, DC this morning. It is a mess out there, it
    is so wet.
        Chief, I think I mentioned at the hearing last year, when
    we had the 2014 budget in front of us that, I said that it felt
    a little bit like Groundhog's Day. Well, I am back at Groundhog
    Day all over again. Every year, you and I have this
    conversation. You commit to working with me to improve the
    timber sale program and permitting for other multiple use
    activities on the Tongass, and then we move to the next year
    and, we are having the same conversation about really why
    things have not improved. And again, we are just facing the
    same thing today.
        Despite repeated pledges from the Forest Service to
    increase timber harvest levels, we continue to steadily march
    towards losing what remains of that timber industry in
    southeast Alaska.
        Our 2013 timber harvest numbers did improve a little bit to
    36 million board feet compared to 21 the year before, but you
    and I both know, Chief, that that is well, well below the
    allowable sales quantity of 267 million board feet. It is far
    short of what your own economists say that the market demand is
    in southeast, or what it takes to sustain any kind of a viable
    forest products industry within the region.
        I am trying to look on the positive side. I am trying to
    find some hopeful signs here that we might be turning the
    corner, but it seems like every time there is something out
    there, we run up against a roadblock. A great example, of
    course, is the Big Thorne sale. We have been talking about the
    Big Thorne sale. It was supposed to be bringing in 150 million
    board feet. This was the sale that everybody was counting on,
    the sale that your agency said was going to be absolutely
    necessary. It was going to be critical to making the transition
    to second growth that you keep talking about in the Tongass.
    Everybody knew that the Big Thorne was what was going to be
    able to help us piece it together.
        But what has happened to it? It has been on hold since
    September of last year. I hope you will have a little bit of an
    update for me this morning on when we might see this critical
    sale offered. Every year, I bring up the situation with the
    roadless rule exemption. On the 26th of March, the Ninth
    Circuit upheld the roadless rule exemption for the Tongass.
        I know that this administration did not defend the
    exemption. Alaska, my State, had to take it on itself. I am
    glad we did. I also know that this is not the end in the
    courts.
        So again, I think you are going to hear in my questions
    this morning a great of concern about what is going on within
    the Tongass, the impact of the roadless rule, how the ruling
    will affect management actions. In my view, I hope we are going
    to see balance restored with respect to the conservation and
    economic development there.
        Now, with regards to the budget and the chairman's comments
    here this morning, once again, you are proposing to consolidate
    several line items into one big pot called ``Integrated
    Resource Restoration.'' We talk about this, again, also every
    year. And I am sympathetic to the Forest Service's desire to
    improve efficiencies, but until we can really see some concrete
    results from these three pilot programs, I just cannot support
    making this program permanent across the agencies.
        You have a multiple use mandate there at the Forest
    Service, and one of the most important ways that we have here
    in Congress to ensure that you are following this mandate is
    having a budget that shows where and how much the agency is
    spending on activities that we, here in Congress, believe are
    important.
        So whether it is for timber, whether it is for recreation,
    habitat improvement, whatever it is, we cannot sacrifice our
    oversight role solely for the sake of efficiency. And again, I
    say this every year.
        The chairman speaks to the issue of fire borrowing. When we
    look to ways that we can improve financial management at the
    Forest Service, really, one of those ways is how we deal with
    the fire borrowing situation, which disrupts important programs
    by effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul until an undetermined
    date in the future. I think it is a bad way to budget, a bad
    way to manage important programs.
        I do share the goal of the propose fire cap adjustment, but
    I am concerned whether in its current form, it is the most
    fiscally responsible way to proceed.
        I do think that the administration's proposal is a good
    starting point for discussing how we deal with fire borrowing,
    but I think the committee, OMB, and the firefighting agencies
    need to work together to reach a resolution that not only fixes
    the problem, but is also politically tenable in the current
    fiscally constrained environment. So we need to be working
    together on this to find a workable solution.
        There are many other important issues we need to work on
    like how to effectively modernize our air tanker fleet, promote
    fire-adapted communities, and meet our obligations to
    communities that are dependent upon our national forests for
    economic survival.
        So I look forward to hearing your comments this morning,
    some updates, and then the questions and answers.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you. Do any of my colleagues want to
    make a brief opening statement?
        Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
    Murkowski. And I will be very brief.
        I want to thank you both, Mr. Dixon and Chief Tidwell for
    being here. I want to thank you for your work. Your agency, you
    know the area intimately, has a profound impact on Montana,
    whether it is from recreation, wildfires, sawmills, whatever it
    may be.
        My focus and my questions are going to be around the
    firefighting ability that you are going to have for aircraft,
    and it is going to be around some of the same things Senator
    Murkowski talked about, and that is timber cut.
        I can tell you, and you correct me if I am wrong, but I
    believe every timber sale in Montana was blocked. I will be the
    first one to fight not having public input on timber sales,
    because I think it is critically important. By the same token,
    I am really getting sick of the obstructionists, and I look
    forward to any ideas you might have to help streamline that
    process.
        With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
    working with both these gentlemen and the Forest Service to
    make things better in our public lands.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
        Chief Tidwell, please.

                     SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CHIEF TOM TIDWELL

                                KEY AUTHORITIES

        Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
    once again, it is a privilege to be here. Mr. Chairman, thank
    you for your opening remarks, Senator Murkowski for yours. You
    did an excellent job to make all the key points that I had
    planned to make in my opening remarks.
        I did want to reflect on last year when I was up here to
    testify. I was asking for your support for several key
    authorities that were about to expire: stewardship contracting,
    the Good Neighbor Authority. So I want to thank you for your
    good work to provide these key authorities through the 2014
    Appropriations bill, and also for your support for the Forestry
    Title in the Farm bill.

                        FIRE SUPPRESSION CAP ADJUSTMENT

        Those authorities, plus this budget request, really reflect
    the opportunity, the responsibility we have to restore and
    maintain our national forest and grasslands. Through this
    proposed budget fire suppression cap adjustment, we will
    finally be able to stop the disruptive practice of having to
    shutdown our projects every August and September, to stop the
    work that reduces the effects of fire, to stop the work that
    produces jobs just to be able to shift money to pay for fire
    suppression. I want to thank you, for the job you have done to
    repay those funds every 3 to 6 months later.

                         WILDFIRE DISASTER FUNDING ACT

        I, too, need to recognize the work from Senators Wyden and
    Crapo for introducing the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act and the
    members of the subcommittee that are cosponsors of this bill.
        Senator Murkowski, we do want to work with the committee on
    finding a solution for this. The legislation that is here in
    the Senate and the House, plus the work that we have been doing
    in the administration, I think is a very good starting place,
    and we do want to work with the subcommittee to be able to find
    a resolution to this issue once and for all.
        Over the last 10 years, fire funding has gone from 13
    percent of our budget to over 40 percent. The 10-year average
    has increased by $500 million, and just since 2012, the 10-year
    average has gone up $156 million. Now, under a constrained
    budget, these increases, they have to come from all the other
    programs. The other programs that are essential to provide all
    the benefits that people want, the public demands from their
    national forests.
        It also has had a critical impact to our staffing. Over
    this period of time, our staffing in our national forest
    system, the folks that manage the national forests, has gone
    down 35 percent; staffing and forest management, down 49
    percent. Now, at the same time, we are actually putting out
    about the same level of outputs that we worked 12 years ago
    with a much reduced staff, and I give a lot of credit to our
    work, our employees. They are doing an outstanding job to work
    with the communities and partners to be able to do as much work
    as they possibly can. But it is time to recognize that
    something needs to change here.
        Now, I cannot change that the fire seasons are now 70 to 80
    days longer. The fires are burning hotter. We are dealing with
    these extensive droughts that we will, no doubt, talk about
    today, and more and more homes are in the Wildland Urban
    Interface. But what we can do, by increasing the pace and scale
    of restoration, we can reduce the effects of wildfires to our
    community, making it easier for us to suppress these fires. And
    we can do that by what this budget is proposing with the
    increased funding that we are asking for in some very key
    programs.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET

        This request is $125 million less than in 2014 enacted,
    which reflects the difficult choices that we have had to make
    to address the deficit reduction. But it does provide for some
    key increases in programs that will help us to restore our
    national forests, reduce the threat of wildfire, reduce the
    threat to wildlife, to threatened and endangered species, and
    also reduce the impact to recreational settings that are the
    reason 170 million people visit the national forest and
    grasslands every year.

                        FIRE SUPPRESSION CAP ADJUSTMENT

        Now, this level of preparedness, it will still provide for
    a level of funding that will suppress 98 percent of all the
    fires that we take initial attack on. It also requests a
    funding level to cover the costs for 99 percent of our
    wildfires. Then it requests a fire suppression cap adjustment
    that basically will cover about 1 percent of our fires, which
    equals about 30 percent of the cost. It is these fires that, we
    feel, should be considered a natural disaster, and that is the
    purpose of the budget fire suppression cap adjustment.
        Now is the time, for us to make the shift. Chairman as you
    mentioned, in 2015, it could be the time when we recognize that
    we have actually made a change to address the fire suppression
    issue, and at the same time to be able to increase our
    investment in the national forests and grasslands.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The science is clear. It is supported by the results on the
    ground. We can reduce the effects. We can reduce the effects of
    the severity of insect and disease outbreaks. We can reduce the
    impacts to water quality, but we must increase the pace and
    scale of our restoration.
        So again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be
    here to address the committee, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Chief 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 Forest Service for fiscal year 2015. I appreciate the support this
    subcommittee has shown for the Forest Service in the past, and in
    particular, thank you for your hard work on the fiscal year 2014
    appropriations act. When I testified before you last year, there were a
    number of important authorities, like stewardship contracting and good
    neighbor authority, which were set to soon expire. Thanks to the hard
    work of Congress on the 2014 appropriations act and the 2014 farm bill,
    we are in a much better position this year. 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 fiscal restraint, efficiency, and cost-
    effective spending.
        The fiscal year 2015 President's budget for the Forest Service
    focuses on three key areas: restoring resilient landscapes, building
    thriving communities, and managing wildland fires. It calls for a
    fundamental change in how wildfire suppression is funded. It proposes a
    new and fiscally responsible funding strategy for wildland fire,
    contributes to long-term economic growth, and continues our efforts to
    achieve the greatest benefits for the taxpayer at the least cost. This
    budget will enable us to more effectively reduce fire risk, manage
    landscapes more holistically, and increase resiliency of the Nation's
    forests and rangelands as well as the communities that border them.
        The President's 2015 budget also includes a separate, fully paid
    for $56 billion Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative (OGS
    Initiative). The Initiative identifies additional discretionary
    investments that can spur economic progress, promote opportunity, and
    strengthen national security. The OGS Initiative includes funding for
    Forest Service programs. The OGS Initiative includes $18 million for
    Research and Development and would focus on energy security and
    national economic stability while simultaneously addressing our
    conservation and restoration goals. In addition, the OGS Initiative
    includes $61 million for Facilities and Trails to provide essential
    infrastructure maintenance and repair to sustain the benefits of
    existing infrastructure as domestic investments to grow our economy.
        As part of the President's Opportunity, Growth, and Security
    Initiative and a permanent legislative proposal, the Forest Service
    would also have the opportunity to compete for conservation and
    infrastructure project funding included within the Centennial
    initiative. The Centennial initiative supporting the 100th anniversary
    of the National Park Service features a competitive opportunity for the
    public land management bureaus within the Department of the Interior
    and the Forest Service to address conservation and infrastructure
    project needs. The program would be managed within Interior's Office of
    the Secretary in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture with
    clearly defined project criteria. The administration proposes $100
    million for the National Park Service anniversary's Centennial Land
    Management Investment Fund, as part of the Opportunity, Growth and
    Security Initiative and $100 million for conservation and
    infrastructure projects annually for 3 years as part of a separate
    legislative proposal.
        The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative also includes a $1
    billion Climate Resilience Fund. A portion of this funding source
    allows us to continue to invest in research to better understand the
    projected impacts of climate change and how we can better prepare our
    communities and infrastructure. The Fund would also serve to fund
    breakthroughs in technologies and resilient infrastructure development
    that will make us more resilient in the face of changing climate. The
    Fund proposal includes three Forest Service programs: an increase of
    $50 million for State Fire Assistance Grants to increase the number of
    communities that are ``Firewise'' and the number of communities
    implementing building codes and building protection requirements,
    resulting in increased protection of communities, their residents and
    private property; an increase of $50 million for Integrated Resource
    Restoration (IRR) and Hazardous Fuels to enhance support for public
    lands managers to manage landscape and watershed planning for increased
    resilience and risk reduction; and an increased $25 million for Urban
    and Community Forestry to maintain, restore and improve urban forests
    mitigating heat islands and other climate change impact.
                          value of the forest service
        Our mission at the Forest Service 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 Forest Service
    manages a system of national forests and grasslands totaling 193
    million acres in 44 States and Puerto Rico, an area almost twice the
    size of California. These lands entrusted to our care provide some of
    the richest resources and most breathtaking scenery in the Nation, are
    the source of drinking water for millions of Americans, and support
    hundreds of thousands of jobs. Thousands of communities across the
    Nation depend on the national forests for their social well-being and
    economic prosperity.
        Since our founding in 1905, as the Nation's leading forestry
    organization, we continue to serve Americans by supporting the
    sustainable stewardship of more than 600 million acres of non-Federal
    forest land across the Nation, including 423 million acres of private
    forest land, 69 million acres of State forest land, 18 million acres of
    Tribal forests, and over 100 million acres of urban and community
    forests. This commitment to sustainable forest management helps
    Americans use their lands while caring for them in ways that benefit
    them, their families, their communities, and the entire Nation.
        We also maintain the largest forestry research organization in the
    world, with more than a century of discoveries in wood and forest
    products, fire behavior and management, and sustainable forest
    management. We are pursuing cutting-edge research in nanotechnology and
    green building materials, expanding markets for woody biomass. Land
    managers across the Nation use the results of our research to conserve
    forests, ensuring continuation of a full range of benefits for future
    generations.
        America's forests, grasslands, and other open spaces are integral
    to the social, ecological, and economic well-being of the Nation. They
    play a vital role in providing public benefits such as clean air, clean
    water, mineral and energy production, and fertile soils for supporting
    timber, forage, carbon storage, food and fiber, fish and wildlife
    habitat, along with myriad opportunities for outdoor recreation. The
    Forest Service provides a valuable service to the public by restoring
    and improving forest, grassland, and watershed health; by producing new
    knowledge through our research; and by providing financial and
    technical assistance to partners, including private forest landowners.
        The benefits from Forest Service programs and activities include
    jobs and economic activity. Jobs and economic benefits stem not only
    from public use of the national forests and grasslands, but also from
    Forest Service management activities and infrastructure investments. We
    completed an economic analysis that calculated activities on the
    National Forest System contributed over $36 billion to America's gross
    domestic product, and supported nearly 450,000 jobs during fiscal year
    2011.
        Through our Job Corps and other programs including the 21st Century
    Conservation Service Corps, we provide training and employment for
    America's youth, and we help veterans transition to civilian life. Our
    Urban and Community Forestry Program has provided jobs and career-
    training opportunities for underemployed adults and at-risk youth.
        The Forest Service routinely leverages taxpayer funds by engaging
    partners who contribute to investments in land management projects and
    activities. In fiscal year 2013, for example, we entered into more than
    8,200 grants and agreements with partners who made a total of about
    $540 million in cash and noncash contributions. Combined with our own
    contribution of nearly $730 million, the total value of these
    partnerships was over $1.27 billion.
        Other noncommercial uses provide crucial benefits and services to
    the American people. Many Tribal members use the national forests and
    grasslands for hunting, fishing, and gathering wild foods and other
    materials for personal use. They also use sacred sites on National
    Forest Service (NFS) lands for ritual and spiritual purposes.
        National forests and grasslands attract about 160 million visits
    annually, and 55 percent of those visitors engage in strenuous physical
    activities. Based on studies showing that outdoor activities contribute
    to improved health and increased fitness, the availability of the
    Nation's forests and grasslands to all Americans provides other
    tangible benefits. In addition, since more than 83 percent of Americans
    live in metropolitan areas where opportunities to experience nature are
    often reduced, the Forest Service has developed an array of programs
    designed to get people into the woods, especially children. Each year,
    we reach an average of more than 5 million people with conservation
    education programs.
                           challenges to conservation
        Our Nation's forest and grassland resources continue to be at risk
    due to drought, uncharacteristically severe wildfire behavior, invasive
    species, and outbreaks of insects and disease. Although biodiversity
    remains high on national forests and grasslands, habitat degradation
    and invasive species pose serious threats to 27 percent of all forest-
    associated plants and animals, a total of 4,005 species.
        The spread of homes and communities into wildfire-prone areas is an
    increasing management challenge. From 2000 to 2030, the United States
    could see substantial increases in housing density on 44 million acres
    of private forest lands 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 community wildfire protection
    plans.
        This same growth and development are also reducing America's forest
    habitat and fragmenting what remains. From 2010 to 2060, the United
    States is predicted to lose up to 31 million acres of forested lands,
    an area larger than Pennsylvania.
        Forest Service scientists predict that fire seasons could return to
    levels not seen since the 1940s, exceeding 12 million to 15 million
    acres annually. Highlighting these concerns, for the first time since
    the 1950s, more than 7 million acres burned nationwide in 2000 and more
    than 9 million acres burned in 2012. In 2013, the largest fire ever
    recorded in the Sierra Nevada occurred, and a devastating blaze in
    Arizona killed 19 highly experienced firefighters.
                         budget request and focus areas
        To meet the challenges ahead, the Forest Service is focusing in
    three key areas: restoring resilient landscapes, building thriving
    communities, and managing wildland fires. We continue to implement
    cultural initiatives and cost savings measures focused on achieving a
    safer, more inclusive, and more efficient organization. To help us
    achieve these goals, the President's proposed overall budget for
    discretionary funding for the Forest Service in fiscal year 2015 is
    $4.77 billion. The budget also proposes a new and fiscally responsible
    funding strategy for wildland fire that recognizes that catastrophic
    wildland fires should be considered disasters, funded in part by
    additional budget authority provided through a budget cap adjustment
    for wildland fire suppression. Combined with the funding for fire
    suppression in the discretionary request, this strategy will fully fund
    estimated wildfire suppression funding needs.
    Restoring Resilient Landscapes
        Our approach to addressing ecological degradation is to embark on
    efforts that support ecological restoration allowing for healthier more
    resilient ecosystems. In cooperation with our partners across shared
    landscapes, we continue to ensure that the Nation's forests and
    grasslands retain their ability to deliver the social, economic, and
    ecological values and benefits that Americans want and need now and for
    generations to come.
        In February 2011, President Obama launched the America's Great
    Outdoors Initiative, setting forth a comprehensive agenda for
    conservation and outdoor recreation in the 21st century. In tandem with
    the President's initiative, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack outlined
    an All Lands vision for conservation calling for partnerships and
    collaboration to reach shared goals for restoring healthy, resilient
    forested landscapes across all landownerships nationwide.
        In response, the Forest Service has launched an initiative to
    accelerate restoration across shared landscapes. The Accelerated
    Restoration Initiative builds on Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR),
    the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP), the
    2012 planning rule, and other restoration-related programs and
    initiatives to pick up the pace of ecological restoration while
    creating more jobs in rural communities. Our collaborative, holistic
    approach to restoring forest and grassland health relies on the State
    Forest Action Plans and the Forest Service's own Watershed Condition
    Framework to identify high-priority areas for restoration treatments.
        In fiscal year 2012, Congress authorized the Forest Service to
    pilot test the combination of multiple budget line items into a single
    line item for IRR. By combining funds from five budget line items we
    can better integrate and align watershed protection and restoration
    into all aspects of our management. In fiscal year 2013, our integrated
    approach restored almost over 2,533,000 acres of forest and grassland,
    decommissioned 1,490 miles of roads, and restored 4,168 miles of stream
    habitat substantially improving conditions across 12 entire watersheds
    across the NFS. Given the success demonstrated in the three pilot
    regions, we propose fully implementing IRR across the entire Forest
    Service in fiscal year 2015. We propose a national IRR budget of $820
    million. Investing in IRR in fiscal year 2015 is expected to result in
    2,700,000 watershed acres treated, 3.1 billion board feet of timber
    volume sold, approximately 2,000 miles of road decommissioned, and
    3,262 miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced. An estimated 26
    watersheds will be restored to a higher condition class in fiscal year
    2015.
        CFLRP was created in 2009 to help restore high-priority forested
    landscapes, improve forest health, promote job stability, create a
    reliable wood supply, and to reduce firefighting risks across the
    United States. The Secretary of Agriculture selected 23 large-scale
    projects for 10-year funding. Although the projects are mostly on NFS
    land, the collaborative nature of the program ties communities to local
    forest landscapes, engaging them in the work needed to restore the
    surrounding landscapes and watersheds. We propose to increase
    authorization for this successful collaborative program in the fiscal
    year 2015 President's budget. We propose to increase the program
    authorization to $80 million and are requesting $60 million in fiscal
    year 2015 to continue implementation of the current 23 projects and for
    inclusion of additional projects. All of the existing projects are on
    track to meet their 10-year goals, and to date, more than 588,461 acres
    of wildlife habitat have been improved, while generating 814 million
    board feet of timber and 1.9 million green tons of biomass for energy
    production and other uses.
        To gain efficiencies in our planning efforts, the Forest Service is
    moving forward with implementing a new land management planning rule.
    The new rule requires an integrated approach to forest plan preparation
    and multilevel monitoring of outcomes that allows for adaptive
    management, improved project implementation, and facilitated landscape
    scale restoration. We are also working to be more efficient in our
    environmental analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act
    (NEPA) through development of three restoration-related categorical
    exclusions promoting hydrologic, aquatic, and landscape restoration
    approved in 2013. Other investments in ``Electronic Management of
    NEPA'' (eMNEPA) have significantly reduced administrative costs; we
    estimate that we save approximately $17 million each year because of
    these investments. Collectively, these efforts will help land managers
    to focus on collaborative watershed restoration efforts that also
    promote jobs and economic opportunities in rural communities.
    Building Thriving Communities
        The Forest Service works to build thriving communities across the
    Nation by helping urban communities reconnect with the outdoors, by
    expanding the benefits that both rural and urban residents get from
    outdoor recreation, and by providing communities with the many economic
    benefits that result from sustainable multiple-use management of the
    national forests and grasslands.
        Through our Recreation, Wilderness and Heritage program, we are
    dedicated to serving tens of millions of recreation visitors each year.
    Rural communities rely on the landscapes around them for hunting,
    fishing, and various amenities; the places they live are vital to their
    identity and social well-being. We maintain these landscapes for the
    character, settings, and sense of place that people have come to
    expect, such as popular trail corridors and viewsheds.
        In support of the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative
    and the First Lady's ``Let's Move'' initiative, we are implementing a
    Framework for Sustainable Recreation. The framework is designed to
    ensure that people of all ages and from every socioeconomic background
    have opportunities to visit their national forests and grasslands--and,
    if they wish, to contribute through volunteer service. We focus on
    sustaining recreational and heritage-related activities on the National
    Forest System for generations to come. That includes maintaining and
    rehabilitating historic buildings and other heritage assets for public
    use, such as campgrounds and other historic facilities built by the
    Civilian Conservation Corps.
        A significant portion of our budget to sustain operations for
    outdoor recreation--roughly 20 percent--comes from fees collected under
    the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). Of the fees
    collected, 95 percent are locally reinvested to maintain and restore
    the facilities and services for outdoor recreation that people want and
    need. We propose permanent authority for the FLREA while clarifying its
    provisions and providing more consistency among agencies. This is an
    interagency proposal with the Department of the Interior.
        For decades, the Forest Service has focused on protecting and
    restoring critical forested landscapes, not only on the national
    forests, but also on non-Federal lands. All 50 States and Puerto Rico
    prepared comprehensive State Forest Action Plans identifying the
    forested landscapes most in need of protection and restoration. Based
    on the State plans, the Forest Service has been working with State and
    other partners to tailor our programs accordingly, applying our limited
    resources to the most critical landscapes.
        In fiscal year 2014, we began building on our successful State and
    Private Forestry Redesign initiative through a new program called
    Landscape Scale Restoration. The program allows States to continue
    pursuing innovative, landscape-scale projects across the Forest Health
    Management, State Fire Assistance, Forest Stewardship, and Urban and
    Community Forestry programs without the limitation of a specific mix of
    program funding. The program is designed to capitalize on the State
    Forest Action Plans to target the forested areas most in need of
    restoration treatments while leveraging partner funds. We propose
    funding the new program at almost $24 million.
        We are also using the State Forest Action Plans to identify and
    conserve forests critical for wildlife habitat and rural jobs through
    our Forest Legacy Program. Working through the States, we provide
    working forests with permanent protection by purchasing conservation
    easements from willing private landowners. As of February 2014, the
    Forest Legacy Program had protected more than 2.36 million acres of
    critical working forests, benefiting rural Americans in 42 States and
    Puerto Rico.
        We propose $53 million in discretionary funding for Forest Legacy
    and $47 million in mandatory funds, from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF), for a total of $100 million. The increase is
    a key component of the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative
    to conserve critical landscapes and reconnect Americans to the outdoors
    through reauthorizing the LWCF as fully mandatory funds in fiscal year
    2016.
        In a similar vein, our Land Acquisition Program is designed to
    protect critical ecosystems and prevent habitat fragmentation. In
    accordance with the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative, we
    worked with the Department of the Interior to establish a Federal
    interagency Collaborative Landscape Planning Program, designed to
    leverage our joint investments and coordinate our efforts to protect
    intact, functioning ecosystems across entire landscapes. Land
    acquisitions are a proven value for the taxpayer, making it easier and
    less expensive for people to access their public lands--and easier and
    less expensive for the Forest Service to manage and restore the lands
    entrusted to our care. An analysis by The Trust for Public Land showed
    that every $1 invested in Federal land acquisition returns $4 to the
    taxpayer; taking returns beyond 10 years into account, the benefits are
    even greater.
        The President's fiscal year 2015 budget proposes $51 million in
    discretionary funding for our Federal Land Acquisition program and
    almost $76.7 million in mandatory funding from the LWCF, for a combined
    total of $127.7 million. These mandatory funds are part of the
    President's proposed LWCF reauthorization with fully mandatory funds
    starting in fiscal year 2016.
        Working with the Department of the Interior, we propose to
    permanently authorize annual mandatory funding, without further
    appropriation or fiscal year limitation for the Departments of the
    Interior and Agriculture LWCF programs beginning in fiscal year 2015.
    Starting in 2016, $900 million annually in permanent funds would be
    available. During the transition to full permanent funding in 2015, the
    budget proposes $900 million in total LWCF funding, comprised of $550
    million in permanent and $350 million discretionary funds.
        Another legislative proposal listed in our fiscal year 2015 budget
    is an amendment to the Small Tracts Act to provide land conveyance
    authority for small parcels, less than 40 acres, to help resolve
    encroachments or trespasses. Proceeds from the sale of National Forest
    System lands under this proposed authority would be collected under the
    Sisk Act and used for future acquisitions and/or enhancement of
    existing public lands.
        We are also helping communities use their wood resources for
    renewable energy. Through the Forest Service's Woody Biomass
    Utilization Grants Program, we are funding grants to develop community
    wood-to-energy plans and to acquire or upgrade wood-based energy
    systems and in fiscal year 2013, State and Private Forestry awarded 10
    biomass grant awards totaling almost $2.5 million to small businesses
    and community groups. In an interagency effort with the Rural Utilities
    Service, Rural Housing Service, and Rural Business-Cooperative Service
    within Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development and the Farm
    Service Agency, the USDA Wood to Energy Initiative synergistically
    facilitates achievement of the cooperating agencies' goals. The Forest
    Service leverages its small amount of grant funds with the Rural
    Development's grant and loan programs by providing subject matter
    expertise and technical assistance in the early stages of project
    development, so the proponents can successfully compete for Rural
    Development's loans and grants. Our goal is lower energy bills, greater
    rural prosperity, and better environmental outcomes overall.
        Better environmental outcomes result, in part, from removing woody
    materials to restore healthy, resilient forested landscapes. Many of
    the materials we remove have little or no market value, and by finding
    new uses for them through our Research and Development Programs, we can
    get more work done, producing more jobs and community benefits. Our
    Bioenergy and Biobased Products Research Program is leading the way in
    researching wood-based energy and products. Through discoveries made at
    our Forest Products Lab, woody biomass can now be used to develop
    cross-laminated timber for building components such as floors, walls,
    ceilings, and more. Completed projects have included the use of cross-
    laminated panels for 10-story high-rise buildings.
        Over 83 percent of America's citizens now live in urban areas. For
    most Americans, their main experience of the outdoors comes from their
    local tree-lined streets, greenways, and parks, not to mention their
    own backyards. Fortunately, America has over 100 million acres of urban
    forests, an area the size of California. Through our Urban and
    Community Forestry Program, the Forest Service has benefited more than
    7,000 communities, home to 196 million Americans, helping people reap
    the benefits they get from trees, including energy conservation, flood
    and pollution control, climate change mitigation, and open spaces for
    improved quality of life.
        We are expanding our work with cities such as New York,
    Philadelphia, and Los Angeles, working with an array of partners in the
    Urban Waters Federal Partnership to restore watersheds in urban areas.
    We are also helping communities acquire local landscapes for public
    recreation and watershed benefits through our Community Forest and Open
    Space Conservation Program, which is funded at $1.7 million in the
    fiscal year 2015 President's budget. Our goal is to help create a
    Nation of citizen-stewards committed to conserving their local forests
    and restoring them to health for all the benefits they get from them.
        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, we have established a
    21st Century Conservation Service Corps to help us increase the number
    of work and training opportunities for young people and veterans while
    accomplishing high-priority conservation and restoration work on public
    lands.
    Managing Wildland Fires
        The administration has worked this year to analyze and develop a
    strategy to address catastrophic fire risk. The budget calls for a
    change in how wildfire suppression is funded in order to reduce fire
    risk, to more holistically manage landscapes, and to increase the
    resiliency of the Nation's forests and rangelands and the communities
    that surround them. The cost of suppression has grown from 13 percent
    of the agency's budget just 10 years ago to over 40 percent in 2014.
    This increase in the cost of wildland fire suppression is subsuming the
    agency's budget and jeopardizing its ability to implement its full
    mission. The growth in the frequency, size, and severity of fires in
    recent years; along with the continual expansion of the wildland urban
    interface (WUI) have all increased the risks of catastrophic fires to
    life and property. Collectively these factors have resulted in
    suppression costs that exceeded amounts provided in annual
    appropriations requiring us to transfer funds from other programs to
    cover costs. This shift in funding is creating a loss in momentum for
    critical restoration and other resource programs as fire transfers
    deplete the budget by up to $500 million annually.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget proposes a new funding strategy that
    recognizes the negative effects of funding fire suppression as we have
    historically. The budget proposes funding catastrophic wildland fires
    similar to other disasters. Funded in part by additional budget
    authority provided through a budget cap adjustment for wildfire
    suppression, the budget proposes discretionary funding for wildland
    fire suppression at a level equal to 70 percent of the estimated 10-
    year average suppression costs, which reflects the level of spending
    associated with suppression of 99 percent of wildfires. In addition,
    the budget includes up to $954 million to be available under a disaster
    funding cap adjustment to meet suppression needs above the base
    appropriation. This proposed funding level includes 30 percent of the
    10-year average of fire suppression costs and the difference to the
    upper limit of the 90th percentile range forecast for suppression costs
    for fiscal year 2015. This additional funding would be accessed with
    Secretarial declaration of need or imminent depletion of appropriated
    discretionary funds. This strategy provides increased certainty in
    addressing growing fire suppression needs, better safeguards non-
    suppression programs from transfers that diminish their effectiveness,
    and allows us to stabilize and invest in programs that more effectively
    restore forested landscapes, treat forests for the increasing effects
    of climate change, and prepare communities in the WUI for future
    wildfires.
        Our evolving approach to managing wildland fire is integral to
    meeting our goals of safety, landscape-scale restoration, cross-
    boundary landscape conservation, and risk management. We continue to
    learn more about wildland fire, and we continue to apply what we learn
    through fire and risk management science in partnership with States,
    communities, and other Federal agencies. We strive to maximize our
    response capabilities and to support community efforts to reduce the
    threat of wildfire and increase ecosystem resilience. The agency has
    made great progress in its continued focus on risk-based decisionmaking
    when responding to wildfires, and in 2015 will continue this important
    work to better inform decisionmakers on the risks and trade-offs
    associated with wildfire management decisions. The budget also furthers
    efforts to focus hazardous fuels treatments on 1.4 million WUI acres
    focused on high priority areas identified in Community Wildfire
    Protection Plans.
        Through our Hazardous Fuels Program, the Forest Service controls
    fuels by removing buildups of dead vegetation and by thinning overly
    dense forests that can be hazardous to lives, homes, communities, and
    wildland resources. From fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2013, the
    Forest Service treated about 33 million acres, an area larger than
    Mississippi. For fiscal year 2015, we propose $358.6 million for our
    Hazardous Fuels program. We also propose performing non-WUI Hazardous
    Fuels work within the IRR line item in order to accomplish work more
    efficiently. With more than 70,000 communities in the WUI at risk from
    wildfire, the Forest Service is working through cross-jurisdictional
    partnerships to help communities become safer from wildfires. Through
    the Firewise program, the number of designated Firewise communities
    rose from 400 in fiscal year 2008 to nearly 1,000 in fiscal year 2013.
        Our Hazardous Fuels program is also designed to help firefighters
    manage wildfires safely and effectively, and where appropriate, to use
    fire for resource benefits. Our Preparedness program is designed to
    help us protect lives, property, and wildland resources through an
    appropriate, risk-based response to wildfires. Preparedness has proven
    its worth; Fire Program Analysis, a strategic management tool, shows
    that every $1 subtracted from preparedness funding adds $1.70 to
    suppression costs because more fires escape to become large and large
    fires are more expensive to suppress. Unless we maintain an adequate
    level of preparedness, we risk substantial increases in overall fire
    management costs.
        Airtankers are a critical part of our response to wildfire. Their
    use plays a crucial role in keeping some fires small and greatly
    assists in controlling the large fires. Accordingly, we are
    implementing a Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy to replace our
    aging fleet with next-generation airtankers. Our strategy, reflected in
    our budget request, would fund both the older aircraft still in
    operation and the next-generation airtankers currently under contract.
    It would also cover required cancellation fees and the C-130 Hercules
    aircraft transferred by the U.S. Coast Guard.
                              safety and inclusion
        In addition to our focus on restoring resilient landscapes,
    building thriving communities, and managing wildland fire, we continue
    our agency efforts to become a safer, more diverse, and more inclusive
    organization.
        Accomplishing our work often takes us into high-risk environments.
    For that reason, for several years now, we have undertaken a learning
    journey to become a safer organization. Every one of our employees has
    taken training to become more attuned to safety issues and the need to
    manage personal risk. As part of this effort, safety means recognizing
    the risk and managing it appropriately. Our goal is to become a zero-
    fatality organization through a constant, relentless focus on safety.
        Recognizing that more than 83 percent of Americans live in
    metropolitan areas, the Forest Service is outreaching to urban and
    underserved communities to introduce more people to opportunities to
    get outdoors, to participate in NFS land management, and to engage in
    conservation work in their own communities. Part of this inclusiveness
    is creating new opportunities to come into contact with and to hiring
    individuals from various backgrounds that might not otherwise be
    exposed to other Forest Service programs.
                                  cost savings
        The Forest Service is committed to achieving the greatest benefits
    for the taxpayer at the least cost. Mindful of the need for savings, we
    have taken steps to cut operating costs. Taking advantage of new
    technologies, we have streamlined and centralized our financial,
    information technology, and human resources operations to gain
    efficiencies and save costs. We continue to work with other USDA
    agencies under the Blueprint for Stronger Service to develop strategies
    for greater efficiencies in key business areas. In fiscal year 2013, we
    saved millions of dollars through additional measures to promote
    efficiencies, ranging from an $800,000 annual savings through
    consolidation of local telephone service accounts to right-sizing our
    existing Microsoft software licenses, which yielded over $4 million in
    savings in fiscal year 2013. In fiscal year 2013, we also instituted
    measures that will yield $100 million in cost pool savings by fiscal
    year 2015.
        Another cost saving highlight is the Forest Service completion of
    the design and construction for the renovation of the Yates Building on
    schedule, and within budget. On January 13, 2014, following completion
    of the renovation, all 762 Washington Office located employees apart
    from International Programs were finally located in the same building.
    Beside these benefits, this move is expected to save $5 million
    annually in leasing costs.
                                 future outlook
        For more than a century, the Forest Service has served the American
    people by making sure that their forests and grasslands deliver a full
    range of values and benefits. America receives enormous value from our
    programs and activities, including hundreds of thousands of jobs and
    annual contributions to the economy worth many times more than our
    entire annual discretionary budget. Especially in these tough economic
    times, Americans benefit tremendously from investing in Forest Service
    programs and activities.
        Now we are facing some of the greatest challenges in our history.
    Invasive species, climate change effects, regional drought and
    watershed degradation, fuel buildups and severe wildfires, habitat
    fragmentation and loss of open space, and devastating outbreaks of
    insects and disease all threaten the ability of America's forests and
    grasslands to continue delivering the ecosystem services that Americans
    want and need. In response, the Forest Service is increasing the pace
    and scale of ecological restoration. We are working to create healthy,
    resilient forest and grassland ecosystems capable of sustaining and
    delivering clean air and water, habitat for wildlife, opportunities for
    outdoor recreation, and many other benefits.
        Our budget request focuses on the public's highest priorities for
    restoring resilient landscapes, building thriving communities, and
    safely managing wildland fire while providing an effective emergency
    response. Our requested budget will enable us to address the growing
    extent and magnitude of our management challenges and the mix of values
    and benefits that the public expects from the national 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.
        We can achieve these priorities 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 strategic partnerships, we can accomplish more work while also
    yielding more benefits for all Americans, for the sake of all
    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.

                                 WILDLAND FIRE

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Chief.
        Mr. Dixon, do you have any comment? Thank you very much.
        Every year, Chief, we sit down at this moment, which is,
    coincidentally, before the fire season and we anticipate what
    it will be like, and it would help us if you could give us your
    sense of what you expect going forward, particularly as we are
    all aware of, droughts in many parts of the West.
        Can you give us a sense of what you expect? And even with
    the significant resources you are asking for, do you think they
    will be adequate?
        Mr. Tidwell. We are anticipating a very active fire season
    this year, especially in the southwest.
        In California, if you are watching the news, it has a
    record drought, some of the driest conditions, and this follows
    the driest year on record in California and last year, but it
    is just one of the areas. We have had to bring on additional
    resources earlier this year to be prepositioned to be able to
    deal with that in California. So we do have the resources that
    we need to be able to deal with the suppression issue.

                               BUDGET CHALLENGES

        However, we do expect that the cost of this fire season is
    going to exceed the funding that we have available this year.
    You can anticipate that I will be informing the subcommittee of
    the need to be able to transfer money. That is based on the
    information that we have this year at this point in time. So it
    is going to be very similar to what we had last year, and some
    indications, it is going to be even more active than the fire
    season we had last year.

                        FIRE SUPPRESSION CAP ADJUSTMENT

        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        In terms of the approach that you are taking which, in a
    very simplified way, would put some of the funding into the
    emergency category and the bulk of it remaining under our
    purview, and has to be offset by other programs. That requires
    coordination with several committees, including the budget
    committee since it is a budget issue here, the authorizing
    committees, and obviously our committee.
        Can you tell us what you have been doing to reach out to
    these other committees and try to make the case?
        Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, we have been meeting with the
    staffs and members of all three of these committees that you
    have mentioned over the last 3 or 4 months now, to be able to
    help them understand the problem, and then in addition, how
    this solution would work.
        I need to stress that this would not increase spending for
    fire suppression by shifting a portion of our fires into the
    natural disaster category. It would allow us to access the
    disaster fund that has already been appropriated. All it does
    is stop the transfer. It does not increase costs. It does not
    score.
        This is one of the reasons that we feel very strongly that
    this is a good approach. We definitely want to work with this
    subcommittee, the authorizing committees and, of course, the
    Budget Committee on ways to even improve what is being proposed
    at this time in the introduced legislation.
        But we feel it is a very good starting place.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        And Chief, I understand that the $954 million requested
    within the disaster cap is made up of two parts. It is 30
    percent of the regular 10-year average and the second part is
    to project an amount above the 10-year average that would be
    necessary based on a new 2-year forecast.
        Can you tell us how you arrived at the 30 percent level?
    And also, how you developed the new 2-year forecasting model?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, we have always had the 2-year
    forecasting model since we have been responding to Congress on
    the FLAME Report, where we send up our forecast every quarter.
    What it is based on is just looking at data from the last 30-
    some years, and it is a regression model that our scientists
    use to do the best job to actually predict what we can expect
    this coming year.
        The problem with it is when it is 2 years out, for fiscal
    year 2015, that model shows that we are 90 percent confident
    that the suppression costs will be somewhere between $770
    million and $1.9 billion. Now, as we move closer into 2015, we
    will definitely be able to have a much better forecast. But
    that is the challenge that we have had.
        The 10-year average was something we all agreed to. It has
    proven not to work out because 11 of the last 14 years, we have
    exceeded the 10-year average in our funding. Even with the
    forecasts 2 years out, it is just so difficult because there
    are so many weather patterns that can shift for next year. That
    is what makes this so difficult.
        That is why we feel that if this is a better approach, to
    set up so that there is a certain type of fire, we are talking
    about the large, complex fires, the fires that threaten
    communities, we would be able to access this disaster funding.
    When we exhaust all the appropriated funds, then anything after
    that would still be able to access the disaster fund.
        But those are the challenges that we have.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Chief.
        Senator Murkowski.

                                 ROADLESS RULE

        Senator Murkowski. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Chief, as you know, due to your visit with me to the State
    last summer, and I appreciate you taking the time. I know
    Alaskans appreciated the opportunity to show you on the ground
    what we are dealing with there in the southeast, in the
    Tongass.
        But as you know, most of the mills there in the southeast
    have closed due to lack of timber supply. Energy projects
    whether it is hydroelectric or potential geothermal projects,
    could really make a difference in a region that struggles with
    high energy costs. In some of our smaller village communities,
    you are paying 40 cents to 50 cents a kilowatt hour and yet, we
    are surrounded with amazing hydropower potential, and in
    certain areas, geothermal potential. But opportunities are tied
    up because of red tape, whether it is policies coming out of
    the Federal Government or the impact of the roadless rule.
        You have indicated to me that you think that there is some
    flexibility that you have to act and you have got to avoid some
    of those areas that are so impacted by the roadless. But I am
    passing a map out to my colleagues here that details the
    roadless area inventory within the Tongass. 91 percent of the
    Tongass is considered roadless; 9.6 million acres is roadless.
    So we are bound.
        We cannot access an area to put in a hydro facility,
    whether it is small hydro, lake tap, whatever it is we are
    trying to do, geothermal opportunities. We are all talking
    about the great policies that this Administration is trying to
    advance when it comes to renewables. But if you cannot build
    the project because the roadless rule does not allow you to put
    a road there, the only way you can do it is by helicopter.
    Well, colleagues, figure that one out. Pretty danged expensive
    to build a hydro facility or do anything if you are operating
    completely by helicopter. So we are trying to figure this out.

                                BIG THORNE SALE

        You know, Chief, that last year was not a good year for
    Region 10. It was the worst performing region, just 16.8
    percent of the target was accomplished. Region 10 has only sold
    about 30 million board feet per year since 2008.
        So, again, in my opening statement, I mentioned Big Thorne.
    We are all hoping and praying that Big Thorne comes through and
    Big Thorne has been sitting since September. You have indicated
    to me that that is how we are going to get to this transition
    is second growth.
        So can you give me some update on when we may see the Big
    Thorne Sale offered? How much volume of the original 150
    million board feet will be offered? And really, from a broader
    perspective, how are you going to overcome this decline? Is it
    just done? Is it just over in the Tongass, that we will not be
    able to see any aspect of a timber industry anymore? Is it
    done? Because if you say that it is, we are going to have a
    timber war here all over again.
        We cannot give up on this region. We cannot give up on a
    region that has opportunity and has potential, but is being
    denied because of policies from our own Federal Government.
        So first, Big Thorne and then, second, how are we going to
    arrest this decline?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, we are committed to completing
    the Big Thorne project. We are in the process, with the region
    finishing up their draft Supplemental Information Report. They
    are going to be sitting down with the appellants to share that
    additional information around their concerns. I am optimistic
    that they will be able to address that.
        They may have to, as part of addressing the appeals, drop a
    unit or two. That is always something we can look at. But I am
    confident that the majority of that project will go through.
        Senator Murkowski. Do you know when? Give me an estimate
    because I am not sure we can hold on. I am not sure we can hold
    on much longer.
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, they are completing the Supplemental
    Information Report and they are working with the State to
    provide some information about the wolf species, that is of a
    concern up there. I think they are close to completing that.
        They will be sitting down with the appellants, and then,
    hopefully we will be able to resolve it, and then be able to go
    forward.
        Senator Murkowski. What if we cannot?
        Mr. Tidwell. We are planning on doing it this year along
    with the other timber sales that we have planned. So the target
    this year is 70 million plus the Big Thorne project.
        Senator Murkowski. 70 million plus Big Thorne. You
    anticipate that Big Thorne is going to be 150 million board
    feet. But realistically, I mean, we have not seen, we sold 30
    million board feet per year since 2008.
        How are we going to get to the numbers that you are talking
    about? I mean, are they just numbers on paper?
        Mr. Tidwell. No, they are not on paper. Senator, with Big
    Thorne, the staff have worked so hard on that project.
        Senator Murkowski. I know.
        Mr. Tidwell. It will not be 150, but it should be in the
    range of 100 million, plus what we plan to go forward with. As
    you have pointed out, this is essential that we provide this
    bridge timber for our plan to transition to second growth.
        I think that is still the right plan, but we need to be
    able to do projects like Big Thorne. We need to be able to do
    the projects like Wrangell this year. To be able to have that
    amount of timber and to be able to bridge during the times
    until we are ready to move into the second growth as being the
    predominant harvest up there; to be able to sustain the wood
    products industry for all the reasons that you have mentioned;
    and to be able to provide jobs. It needs to be part of the
    economic activity in that State.
        The other part of it is hydro. We are working on the hydro
    projects. They are a great benefit, especially in the
    Southeast. But as you also know, we are having to ship wood
    pellets, either out of Seattle to bring them up to Ketchikan to
    convert using the biomass for electricity. When we see all that
    and the trees there, the idea that we cannot have a pellet
    plant right there, to be able to provide renewable energy for
    those facilities and not ship it out. But that is another
    reason it is just essential for us to be able to maintain the
    industry.
        So you have my commitment that we are going to get Big
    Thorne done. We are going to move forward on the sales this
    year. And at the same time, still continue to move forward with
    the transition.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, Chief, my time has expired. I will
    have more questions in the second round.
        But you keep talking about these sales that will be the
    bridge, but in order for a bridge to work, it has to be
    anchored to something on either side. Right now, there is not
    much to anchor within the southeastern timber economy because
    we cannot get any sales moving. We cannot get any product at
    all.
        And so, when we talk about transition, when we talk about
    bridges, we still have to have an anchor, and you are not
    giving us that anchor yet.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Senator Tester.

                                   AIRTANKERS

        Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, again, for
    being here, fellows.
        Chief Tidwell, you and I have talked about the recent
    struggles the Forest Service has faced in putting together a
    next generation air tanker fleet, and I do appreciate the
    attention the Forest Service has given to the matter.
        I am concerned about reports that some of the contractors
    that were not ready to go last year may not be ready to go this
    year. We are 3 years into this gig and I do not know that we
    have gotten a lot out of it.
        That being said, can you give me an update of where folks
    stand in terms of getting the planes in the air to combat
    wildfires?
        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, we will have an adequate number of
    air tankers again this year to be able to deal with the
    projected fire season. It will be a combination of the legacy
    aircraft that are under contract, and then we are expecting to
    have seven of the next generation aircraft also flying this
    year.
        We are also working closely with the Air Force and the Air
    Force Reserve to have the Modular Airborne FireFighting System
    (MAFFs) units. They have already started their training to be
    ready, and then we also have our agreement with Canada to bring
    down their planes if we need to, to get through this year, and
    then hopefully, we will be in a better position in 2015 to have
    more of the next generation aircraft online.
        Senator Tester. So what I heard you just say, and correct
    me if I am wrong, you are going to have seven next generation
    planes ready to be up in the air this year?
        Mr. Tidwell. That is what we are hearing from the
    contractors.
        Senator Tester. Okay.
        Mr. Tidwell. That is what they said they will deliver.
        Senator Tester. And so, come July 1, there will be seven
    next generation ready to go.
        Mr. Tidwell. That is what they have told us.
        Senator Tester. Okay. Last year, they were not, and I think
    they might have told you the same thing. Were there any
    ramifications/repercussions for those folks who failed to meet
    those deadlines?
        Mr. Tidwell. We followed our contract procedures to send
    them cure notices. They respond to that. We are working with
    these contractors because we need the planes, and as you saw
    last year, it became more difficult for them to be able to make
    the modifications to the aircraft that they bought to be able
    to meet our tests and, at the same time, be safe aircraft that
    the FAA will certify after they have made the modifications to
    the aircraft. It is a year later, and they are making progress.
        Senator Tester. I would just say this, Chief, I mean, I
    would hold their feet to the fire. This is not nuclear physics;
    this kind of stuff is not that complicated and, quite frankly,
    I think they knew exactly what they were getting into when they
    were awarded the contracts. And I personally do not think they
    had any--I think they fully knew that they were not going to be
    able to get those planes up in the air; let us just put it that
    way. And they knew we would be very forgiving too.
        And so, I do not point the finger at you. I just think that
    this is a common practice across Government. People contract
    with us and then they say, ``Well, it costs much more money,''
    and we cut them a check, and I think that kind of stuff needs
    to stop. If they do not provide the service, they ought not
    have the contract. That is my soapbox for you.
        Last year, we kind of heard the same thing, and I just want
    to point out that the Forest Service, I think, their dates for
    next generation are not certain. They are to be determined,
    TBD. Is that correct?
        Senator Tester. For the next generation.
        Mr. Tidwell. For this year?
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Mr. Tidwell. We have asked the contractors that the planes
    need to be flying, passed all the tests by July 1st, and we
    have a schedule of the dates that they will be bringing those
    on.
        Senator Tester. Okay. So thank you for that. So you are
    telling me that you have dates certain from these contractors
    when these planes are going to be up.
        Mr. Tidwell. They have provided us dates, yes.
        Senator Tester. And what happens if they do not meet those
    dates?
        Mr. Tidwell. We will send them a cure notice and they have
    to explain then what steps they are going to take to be able to
    bring the planes on.
        Senator Tester. Okay. Is there anything you can do if they
    do not meet those dates? I know we need planes, but they also
    need our business too.
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes. We are working with these contractors
    because if we cancel these contracts, then we do not have any
    planes for sure. Even though it is taking them longer, late
    last year, we got another one of the planes flying. There is
    one of the companies that indicated they will have two of their
    planes ready. We know that there are two more planes that will
    pass the tests, and we can be flying those.
        So it has been frustrating, and I share your frustration. I
    have to deal with it.
        Senator Tester. And I would just say, I get it, but if they
    know that they do not have to play by the rules, and yet, they
    are still going to get the contract, that is crazy. I mean,
    that is just flat crazy. I still believe that competition will
    fill that void and so, I think they need to be held
    accountable. I think the taxpayers expect that, quite frankly
    and I think everybody on this panel does too.
        I am going to stick around for the next round of questions,
    so I will let my 30 seconds go. But once again, thank you for
    your work, Chief. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Senator Blunt.

               COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROGRAM

        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
        Chief Tidwell, our State, Missouri, is ranked No. 3 by the
    Forest Service in terms of economic impact of forestry on the
    economy. I want to talk a little bit about the Collaborative
    Forest Landscape Restoration Project.
        I met with the regional forester, Kathleen Atkinson, in
    December, a year ago, and I had been to the site where you were
    doing a large burn, I think it was a 10,000 acre burn. Looked
    like, to the farm boy in me, that there was lots of damage to
    the tall trees you were trying to save and lots of potential
    erosion on the ground.
        I asked for a couple of things then, one of which I have
    not gotten yet. One was any proof that we felt that this would
    really work. I believe the goal was to restore the forest to
    some moment that the Service has decided was exactly the right
    balance of trees in the forest which, I think, we could
    probably argue about. And whether or not the forest industry
    could go in and mark trees and harvest those trees before you
    burnt them. I did not receive much in specifics on that. On
    marking the trees, I think the answer was, no. You did not
    think that was possible.
        But there was a meeting recently with the local Forest
    Service with Congressman Smith and Congressman Luetkemeyer and
    my staff in the State. And my understanding now is that those
    funds will not be used for burns, but will be used to hire new
    personnel to help with harvesting in the coming fiscal year. Is
    that right?
        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, with the Collaborative Forest
    Landscape Restoration Program there is always a mix of
    activities. Yes, this coming year, there is going to be more
    mechanical treatment, more timber harvest that will be coming
    off of there.
        The purpose of the prescribed fire is to create a much more
    resilient forest that can deal with concerns with insect and
    disease, et cetera. When there are merchantable trees, we
    always want to get in there and harvest those trees that need
    to be removed. A prescribed fire is to just provide more of the
    ecological system that we have, so that it is more resilient.
    So it is usually a combination, and often, we do a timber
    harvest and then follow that with a prescribed burn to reduce
    some of the residual material and reduce the concern for
    potential fire. It takes both. But this coming year, I do know
    that on that project, they are going to be focused on doing
    timber harvest and not the prescribed burning.
        Senator Blunt. Okay. Well, that is helpful. And then there
    is a University of Missouri study on the impact of that program
    and forestry generally. Are you aware of that and are you all
    cooperating in that?
        Mr. Tidwell. I am not aware of that specific study.
        Senator Blunt. Would you follow up on that? I think your
    people on the ground said that they were beginning to work with
    the University of Missouri to talk about the impact there.
        And I think the estimate is we lose 50 million board feet
    of timber in the Mark Twain Forest every year, and we harvest
    about 38 million. Doing a better job of harvesting the trees
    that are going to be lost would be something that, I know, you
    care about and I do too, and I hope we do that.
        Do you have some information there, Mr. Dixon, on the study
    I asked about?
        Mr. Dixon. Our northern research station is working with
    the University of Missouri to detail the socioeconomic modeling
    related to the impacts of our Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program. So we are working in conjunction with the
    University.
        Senator Blunt. Well, since both of those things have been
    verified, I feel better about the year we are going into.
        I do think on the greater issue of the burning program,
    what I would like to see, and maybe we have a year now to see
    if you could produce that for me, any evidence that that really
    is going to work in restoring the forest area you are burning
    to where you think it is.
        It seems to me having visited there, that the trees coming
    back up are the same trees you burned down, as opposed to some
    different look that tries to capture a moment in time which, I
    think, is pretty arguable too; that that was the perfect moment
    for the forest, and we go to all this effort to make that
    happen. And you do have, when you remove all of the
    groundcover, obviously, erosion and other things are a problem
    that would not be otherwise. I may have had my two biggest
    questions answered here.
        Personnel-wise are you using the new personnel that you are
    hiring to try to identify the timber that can be harvested? Is
    that what I understood you to say?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well Senator, each year, staff put together
    the program of work, and we get a lot of our work done with our
    seasonal workforce. So as we move into a year, we are going to
    be doing more timber harvest, we are going to be hiring more
    seasonals to do the marking, et cetera, versus maybe a
    prescribed burn.
        But the thing I need to stress is that with the reduction
    of our staffing over the last decade, it has just really
    limited our ability to be able to manage these forests. To be
    able to do the work where there is now strong support across
    the country, especially in these Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration projects where people understand what needs to be
    done on the landscape.
        But I will tell you, we are just so limited in what we are
    able to do. Our staff are doing a great job to be able to
    produce as much as they are. But with this budget request,
    where we are asking for additional money to do more forest
    restoration, do more hazardous fuels funding, and this is the
    first time that I have been up here in quite a few years in a
    position to be able to ask for that increase. That is what will
    really make a difference.
        So we have the collaboratives in place, folks understand
    what work needs to be done. Now is the time for us to add some
    additional capacity into the system so that we can get more
    work done.
        And Senator, we will share with you the monitoring
    information from that project, and also the research that we
    have that guides the type of projects that we are putting on
    the ground. We have been doing this work for many years, and we
    will provide that information.
        Not every project accomplishes every objective we set out.
    That is why we monitor these. But just like in our hazardous
    fuels projects, 90 percent of those meet their objectives to
    reduce the threat of fire and reduce the severity of fire.
        So we will provide you with that additional information.
        Senator Blunt. I may have some other questions later,
    Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
        Senator Merkley, please.

                        FIRE SUPPRESSION CAP ADJUSTMENT

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    thank you, Chief Tidwell and Mr. Dixon. Appreciate your
    testimony.
        First I just want to thank you very much for your support
    and advocacy of changing the way that we address funding of
    fighting forest fires in a regular budget, the 70 percent
    rolling average over a 10-year period, and then doing the rest
    under emergency. It makes a great deal of sense. We have just
    been putting all our resources in the firefighting end and
    failing to treat emergencies as emergencies, and draining the
    Forest Service, and then trying to refund the Forest Service to
    do your regular work, which is so critical, whether it is
    planning for timber sales or maintaining the forest parks.
        So anything I can do to work in partnership with you all,
    and with this committee, and with the Energy and Natural
    Resources committee, we are certainly happy to do.

                            WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE

        I wanted to mention that one community in Oregon, the
    community of Ashland, would be a great candidate for further
    hazardous fuels funding in their Wildland Urban Interface, and
    I will certainly follow up. They have partially completed their
    forest resiliency project, and just have a ways to go, and very
    important to their watershed for their area.

                                  TIMBER SALES

        I wanted to turn to timber sales that are done by dealing
    with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning
    backlog and just the challenge of having the interdisciplinary
    teams necessary to complete the planning. The backlog in NEPA
    planning work in Oregon has presented itself as a concern to
    me. Perhaps you are aware of it, and the addition of more
    technical experts to those teams would be helpful.
        But are you aware of this challenge, and any particular
    thoughts about it?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator, we are, and it is one of the
    challenges we face, not only in your State, but across the
    country, to be able to have the necessary capacity to be able
    to increase the pace and scale of restoring our forests.
        We do have a great example, in the eastern part of your
    State, on the Malheur National Forest where we have been able
    to put that 10-year project together, and we are doing more and
    more work now where we are looking at large landscapes.
        Instead of looking at 1,000 acres at a time, we are now
    looking at tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of acres
    at a time and doing one Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
    and we are finding this to be much more efficient and more
    effective. It lays out a program of work for the next 10 years
    and provides a certainty to the industry, and it actually is
    saving us a lot of money and a lot of time in our NEPA process.
        We are to the point where for us to really go to where we
    need to be, and I use the project in eastern Oregon, for us to
    change the fire regime, we need to double the number of acres
    we have been treating in the last couple of years, and we need
    to do that for over a decade to really make a difference.
        That is just an example of the challenge that we have, and
    we do not need to double our budget to be able to do that work,
    but we do need to be able to increase our capacity so that we
    can expand. And that is one of the reasons that I feel so
    strongly about our budget request this year because we are
    asking for some modest increases to be able to do forest
    management work using Integrated Resource Restoration funds and
    then, of course, a significant increase with hazardous fuels
    which often accomplishes two objectives: reduces fuels and at
    the same time produces saw timber for mills.

                   COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION

        Senator Merkley. I must say, there is an ecstatic community
    in John Day, Oregon and the Forest Service was instrumental in
    developing the innovation of using a service contract rather
    than a harvest contract to have that 10-year plan. That mill
    has hired, I believe, it is about 50 additional full time
    workers, living wage jobs, huge, huge for a small mill
    community and certainly a model to be replicated.
        And in that regard, I did want to praise the Collaborative
    Forest Landscape Restoration Program, the major part of that,
    the issues, the frame up with NEPA, all involved in that. We
    are seeking additional funding. You are seeking additional
    funding for it. I certainly am very supportive of that.
        But if we are able to maintain at least the 40 million; I
    do not know if we will make it to the 60 million. I would love
    it if we can. But will we be able to continue those projects
    that are already underway, like those three projects?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator. We will be able to continue the
    projects that are underway, but what we found at the CFLR
    programs to be so effective, and it has so much support behind
    it. That is why we are asking for that increase to be able to
    expand that work.

                         WILDFIRE DISASTER FUNDING ACT

        And Senator, I do want to thank you for being a cosponsor
    on the Wildfire Disaster Fund because that is key to a lot of
    things that we are talking about, so I really appreciate your
    support and work on that.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET

        Senator Merkley. Two more things I would like to mention in
    my 1 minute left. One is the Columbia River Gorge Economic
    Development Fund.
        At a time that that scenic area was established, there was
    a commitment from the Federal Government to fund $10 million of
    economic development in the Gorge. Some of that has been
    funded, but there is a balance left on it of approximately $2
    million. I want to encourage the Forest Service to find a way
    to complete that commitment to the community. We are 28 years
    later and they could benefit from that.
        And second, just to put in a note that in terms of the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), there are a lot of projects
    in Oregon that would merit from their attention and look
    forward to following up on that conversation.
        Mr. Tidwell. We will work on both of those efforts, and we
    will get back to you on the LWCF projects.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Senator Begich.

                                BIG THORNE SALE

        Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Thanks for being here.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I know my colleague, Senator Murkowski, asked you several
    questions on the Big Thorne Timber Sale. So can I just ask,
    these might be very quick, just so I get the understanding.
        I know it is delayed. I know you are under an
    administrative appeal process. So I have two questions, maybe
    three. Is there any information, I know there was, at one
    point, the State of Alaska had to get some information for your
    administrative appeal.
        Has everyone supplied the information you need that is
    external to your operation to deal with that appeal?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes, Senator. It is my understanding the State
    has provided that information. It is going to be put into that
    Supplemental Information Report and then shared with the
    appellates.
        Senator Begich. Okay. So you have everything external that
    you need?
        Mr. Tidwell. That is my understanding.
        Senator Begich. Okay.
        Second, do you have the necessary staffing levels to ensure
    that you can move forward with resolving the appeal issue, but
    also, let us assume that it moves the right direction, to then
    make the sale happen?
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes, we do. We have the staffing to be able to
    finish and implement Big Thorne, and at the same time, move
    forward with this year's program of work.
        Senator Begich. Okay. And this led me, I thought I just had
    two, or three, on this one.
        And that is, can you put in more specific terms--not right
    now, but in a memo back to myself and my colleague and the rest
    of the committee if they have any interest in that--is just a
    range of timetable that you think, based on the appeal and
    where we you might end up at the final here? Because obviously,
    this is a pretty big issue, as you know. It is important for
    the mill to have this contract resolved sooner than later.
        But can you give us something more definitive in dates or
    ranges of dates that you think you can get down this ladder?
        Mr. Tidwell. We can provide that to you and the rest of the
    committee, if they are interested in that.
        [The information follows:]

        The Big Thorne Record of Decision received a number of
    administrative appeals. Upon review of those appeals, the Regional
    Forester upheld the Forest Supervisor's decision, with direction to
    address whether the information and conclusions contained in the August
    2013 statement of retired State of Alaska wildlife biologist Dr. David
    Person, is consistent with the analysis in the Big Thorne Final
    Environmental Statement and Record of Decision.
        The work necessary to address Dr. Person's Statement has been
    ongoing since the Regional Forester issued her appeal decision on
    September 30, 2014. The Wolf Task Force, comprised of State and Federal
    wildlife biologists, is reviewing the information and conclusions
    contained in Dr. Person's Statement. Additionally, the Forest
    Supervisor is also reviewing the Tongass Forest Plan's legacy and old
    growth reserves standards and guidelines to ensure the Big Thorne
    Record of Decision is consistent with Forest Plan direction.
        Once these reviews are completed, the findings will be summarized
    in a draft Supplemental Information Report (SIR), which will be
    provided to appellants and appropriate State and Federal agencies for a
    30-day review and comment period. Any comments received will be
    considered prior to issuance of a final SIR by the Forest Supervisor.
    It is unknown what additional issues may be raised by the appellants or
    agencies in comments submitted on the draft SIR; any new information
    that is submitted could require additional analysis to be completed by
    the Tongass National Forest prior to issuing the final SIR.
        With this in mind, the following is the current schedule for the
    remaining administrative processes for the Big Thorne timber sale
    project:

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

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    May 31............................  Draft Supplemental Information
                                         Statement (SIR) released to the
                                         Appellants and appropriate State
                                         and Federal agencies for 30-day
                                         review period.
    June 30...........................  End of Review period for Draft SIR,
                                         start of review and response to
                                         comments.
    August 20.........................  Final Decision and SIR completed and
                                         released.
    August 30.........................  If no units dropped, final appraisal
                                         completed and Sale advertised.
    September 30......................  If units dropped, prepare final
                                         cruise, final appraisal completed
                                         and Sale advertised.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Begich. Okay. Fantastic. If you would do that, that
    would be great.

                             RECREATION AND TOURISM

        Second, I want to move to the tourism recreation budgets,
    and this is of grave concern to me. I know there is a leader's
    document on the regional level that indicates that they will be
    substantially reducing its support or dropping its support for
    recreational tourism within your operations.
        And as you know, the Alaska travel industry, or maybe you
    do not know, but the Alaska travel industry has brought forward
    a resolution concerned about this too. As you know, it is big
    business for us, especially in the southeast where there is an
    enormous amount of travelers. We get about 800,000 cruise ship
    industry travelers, 1.9 million overall travelers to the State.
    And, of course, our forests are incredible. It supports our
    tourism business in southeast alone, about 10,000 jobs and
    about $1 billion in annual spending. So pretty, as you know,
    pretty significant and I am concerned about this leader's
    document indicating this.
        So the question I have is, one, is that moving forward in
    full force, what your leadership document has? Or is there a
    number that you are still trying to struggle with to put into
    the budget to keep it level, at least for the funding regarding
    tourism and recreation, in regards to your budget? Is there a
    number that you need to put back in to make it whole, or is
    just now the policy that this is no longer a priority, and
    money or not, we are not interested?
        Can you give me a--obviously from my perspective, you are a
    huge landowner along with many other Federal agencies, and when
    you decide not to use it for something like this that is an
    economic driver, that is a diversifier of economy, especially
    in southeast, it is very problematic.

                               BUDGET CHALLENGES

        Mr. Tidwell. Senator, we are not shifting our priority
    about how important recreation is. It provides more economic
    activity, supports more jobs than all the other activities on
    the national forest put together.
        What you are seeing in Alaska is just the result of what
    has been happening to our budget over the years of having to
    put more and more of our budget into dealing with fire
    suppression. Under a constrained budget, we keep having to
    reduce all these other programs. Recreation is another key one.
        So the regions have to make some really tough choices based
    on the realities of the budgets that we see right now, to be
    able to prioritize what work they can do, where is the best
    place to put their limited recreation money to be able to
    provide for the most economic benefit. Those are just an
    example of how difficult these choices are.

                             RECREATION AND TOURISM

        Senator Begich. But let me, I appreciate that. I understand
    that, but as you indicated, you had some incremental movements
    in the budget this year, and I understand why. Fire suppression
    is a critical piece and what you have done is a smart move,
    actually planning for what really is going to happen, which I
    give you a lot of credit for that, and commend the agency.
        But what is the amount, or can you get to me, what the
    amount of resource you would need to put it back into being
    held harmless or, at least, flat compared to last year? Can you
    get me that information so I understand what this increment is
    that is lacking for this promotion, this activity around
    tourism and recreation?
        Mr. Tidwell. I will tell you that the region is dealing
    with about a 30 percent reduction in the recreation funding
    from what they received a few years ago. It is not quite at
    that level nationally. It is more about 15 percent down.
        But I can tell you--there is not any fewer people wanting
    to come to see the national forests. And especially in your
    State, it is such a big economic driver.
        Senator Begich. Yes, I mean, you are making my argument. So
    give me those numbers and especially if nationally it is 15
    percent and in our region it is 30 percent, then we are not
    being treated fairly. That is a whole other debate, which, you
    kind of opened that door, but I will just leave that over here
    for a second.
        If you can get me that information, I want to know what it
    will take to get that, at least a reasonable approach because
    as you just said, the biggest use of the Forest Service is
    recreation and tourism. And for Alaska, it is, again, your
    lands, the Bureau of Land Management lands, and other lands are
    huge to the promotion of our business. So if you could get me
    that, I would greatly appreciate that.

                                 ROADLESS RULE

        Then last, I will not take any more time. I will not be
    able to be here for a second round, but I know you are working
    on some issues around roadless rules, and we can have a
    different conversation at a later time.
        Mr. Tidwell. Thank you.
        Senator Begich. Thank you very much for everything you guys
    are doing.

                                   AIRTANKERS

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Begich.
        Chief, last year through the Defense bill, you received C-
    130 aircraft and the Air Force is in the process of modifying
    them at this moment.
        Do you have any money in this year's budget for costs
    associated with that modification? Will you be able to take
    these aircraft and incorporate them quickly without additional
    resources?
        Mr. Tidwell. The funding that is necessary to basically
    replace the wing boxes on those planes, plus to retrofit them
    for retardant delivery is actually part of the Defense
    Authorization Act. The Air Force has the adequate funding to be
    able to do the work on those planes.
        So it is not in our budget, but it is in theirs and those
    planes have to be put into the line up with everything else the
    Air Force is working on. They also have some of their own C-
    130s that they need to do the same modifications on.
        They have told us that we should receive the first plane
    next year, and then the other planes will be coming in the
    years after that.
        Senator Reed. Very good.
        In 2012, you were talking about your Modernization
    Strategy, and you were calling for between 18 and 28 large
    airtankers, and you are getting new aircraft and leasing
    aircraft. You have the C-130s coming online.
        Are you on your trajectory to have your capacity, your
    adequate capacity?
        Mr. Tidwell. We are. I would say we are probably a year
    behind where we wanted to be at this time. But with these C-130
    planes that we will have in the next few years that will add to
    that. So if you add those planes to where we plan to be with
    the next generation aircraft that we are on the right
    trajectory.
        The other thing is we also have to factor in the P-2s that
    are being flown under our legacy contract. We are expecting to
    have those planes for 4 years and they will probably be done.
    That is why it is essential that we move forward with the next
    generation, and at the same time, the C-130 planes. That will
    provide seven aircraft. We will contract for the operation and
    maintenance of those aircraft, but it will be a key part of our
    future fleet.
        Senator Reed. Just finally, you have a $145 million item
    within the fire preparedness budget and it is designated ``Air
    Modernization.''
        If it is not for aircraft physical modification, what is it
    for?
        Mr. Tidwell. It reflects the cost of the next generation
    airtankers. They will cost us, based on what we saw last year
    with the ones that we flew last year, about 2.8 times as much
    as the legacy aircraft. However, they are faster. They are
    safer. They can deliver more retardant. But that is just a
    reflection of, as we move into these more modern aircraft, that
    it is going to be a significant increase in the cost.
        Senator Reed. Essentially, it is a contracting cost.
        Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Chief.
        Senator Murkowski.

                                 ROADLESS RULE

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chief, talking about the situation with the roadless rule
    right now following the Ninth Circuit decision, as I mentioned,
    I think we know that there is still more legal wrangling and
    procedure before the exemption will definitively apply on the
    Tongass.
        Once that is complete, and I would hope that the Forest
    Service would defend the exemption in any subsequent
    proceedings, I think it will give you that flexibility that you
    and I have talked about.
        But can you explain to me this morning how the Ninth
    Circuit ruling will impact--whether it is future timber sales;
    I mentioned the renewable projects, whether it is our hydro
    projects; possible transmission lines; mining roads such as
    those that we looked at when we were flying over Prince of
    Wales, the Bokan Road, the Niblack projects--can you speak to
    how this roadless exemption will impact effectively what you
    are doing within the Tongass right now?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, what we have planned for this year in
    the Tongass, with or without the exemption, it will have no
    effect. All the projects that we have planned to go forward
    with, the mining projects that you just mentioned, the timber
    sale, the Big Thorne, the Wrangell sales, those will all go
    forward with or without any exemption.
        We will have to wait and see. As you mentioned, I think
    there is still some lengthy court time in front of us before we
    actually see where we end up, if the exemption will be
    reinstated or not.
        Senator Murkowski. Is the Forest Service going to defend
    the exemption?
        Mr. Tidwell. I am not going to comment on litigation until
    I actually see what comes out of this process.
        I will make the commitment that I want to resolve the issue
    with roadless. I spent 37 years, my entire career, dealing with
    this and I can at least, in most places now, see we have
    resolved the issue. Alaska is the last place.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, we thought we had resolved it. You
    and I both know, we thought we had resolved that back in 2003.
    I, too, want to finally and fully get this done. I, too, want
    to see us be able to access an area whether it is for energy
    resources, for access to road projects, transmissions, but we
    have got to get this roadless issue resolved, and we need that
    flexibility that you have been talking about.

                                 TIMBER HARVEST

        Let me ask a couple of other questions here in this same
    vein. This past winter, you announced that you are appointing
    this public advisory council under the Federal Advisory Council
    Act (FACA), to consider these changes within the Tongass
    policy, particularly implementation of how you move towards
    second growth.
        Can you give me a quick status here on when this 15-member
    group will be announced, when it is going to start meeting, and
    then the composition? Because what I want to make sure is that
    you are going to have members that would be part of this, that
    reflect a diversity of views and not just necessarily one part
    of the community there.
        Mr. Tidwell. We are in the process. Shortly, we will be
    starting to review the applicants that have submitted their
    request to be considered. I am hoping by the end of May, we can
    actually announce the 15 people that will be on this.
        I can guarantee it will have a diverse set of interests. It
    is essential for us to do that. And based on our past success,
    when we have taken the time with these formal--these FACA
    committees, to me, are formalized collaborative effort--to get
    that diverse set of interests. It has been remarkable what they
    have been able to reach agreement on and to be able to deal
    with some of the more difficult issues.
        We saw it with the Idaho roadless of Senator Risch, who was
    with the other committee, if he was here, he would be talking
    about that. The work that we are seeing with the FACA committee
    we have on our planning rule to put the directives together.
    They have taken on the most difficult issues and actually, I
    have been so impressed. They have been able to resolve those
    and be able to make recommendations that we can move forward to
    implement.
        So based on my personal experience, this FACA group that we
    are putting together, it is absolutely essential that it
    provides that diverse set of interests so that we can be able
    to use that group's recommendations and be able to move forward
    with making the adjustments to the Tongass plan.

                           RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

        Senator Murkowski. Let me ask about the adjustments, then,
    if you will. I have mentioned several times here this morning
    my concern for the limitations that we place on our ability to
    move out our renewable energy resources. This has been a key
    priority of this administration, has moved towards renewables,
    and yet it is our own Federal policies here that are limiting
    any ability in southeast to access, whether it is hydro,
    whether it is geothermal, or other renewable energy.
        So the question this morning is whether or not there is a
    renewable energy plan for the Tongass. And if so, whether it
    would be included in the Forest Plan Amendment as we move
    forward with this process?
        And also, I have queried different members of the Cabinet
    as they have come before other committees to just make sure
    that we are in agreement here, that hydropower is considered a
    renewable resource.
        So question to you about the broader renewable energy plan
    and whether within Forest Service you consider hydropower to be
    a renewable energy resource that would meet with the definition
    and the goals of this administration.
        Mr. Tidwell. I consider hydro to be renewable energy and it
    is essential there in southeast, especially, for us to be able
    to take advantage of that energy source and to replace the
    barging of diesel to those communities; which, I feel, is just
    a matter of time before we have an accident where we will then
    be doing a major clean up. And not only will it reduce the
    cost, but it also reduces the impact, the potential impact, to
    the environment. And that is why I think you are seeing the
    levels of support from some of the conservation communities and
    environmental groups about moving forward with the hydro
    projects.
        I know that as we have talked before, there is a long list
    of proposals, and we are working very closely with the State to
    be able to take those on. Last year, we dealt with like 29
    different projects, 22 of them were Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission projects; three of them are now under construction.
    This year, there are 30 proposals, 24 of them are FERC
    projects, and we expect to have five of those start
    construction this year. So we are making headway.
        As we have talked, when it comes to the FERC projects, the
    access that is needed to be able to develop that proposal is
    provided with, or without, roadless. So it is one of the things
    that we have to really understand is the flexibility that is
    within the 2001 roadless rule; that is what we are focused on
    this year. We will see how everything plays out in the courts
    for the future. So we are going to be focused on that.

                                 PLAN REVISION

        Your other question about what we will consider with this
    amendment to the forest plan. We want to take a focused effort
    to be able to, at a minimum, deal with making some, potential
    changes to facilitate the transition to second growth, provide
    the bridge. And we will look at other opportunities. We will
    want to be very strategic in being able to see what we really
    need to consider.
        When it comes to the hydro potential, we have the projects,
    so we have a good idea of where they are located. It is
    something we can take a look at before we even make the
    decision of what we are going to be needing to address. So it
    is going to be part of the initial assessment that will be done
    before we get started.
        But it is just essential that we move forward and amend the
    Tongass plan. It is also, Senator, essential that your Sealaska
    bill gets through. I mean, not only is that important for the
    communities, but it is essential for some key changes for our
    transition plan. It is another key part of this that needs to
    be in conjunction as we move forward with our plan revision.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I would appreciate your support of
    Sealaska. It was kind of a long and tortured process. I would
    like to see that through.
        I do want to make sure though that, again, as we are
    talking about renewable energy projects, we remember that it is
    more than just the list that is in play today where a blessing
    has been given to those specific projects.
        Because if we are limited to just that, how will a
    community--whether it is Ketchikan or Kake--be able to grow and
    evolve in the future if they do not have the ability to expand
    out their energy needs? And as you have pointed out, their
    energy needs can best be met through the addition of hydropower
    resources. We do not want to go back to the bad old days of
    diesel; that is not the future for this region.
        So as we are looking to the forest plan amendments, I think
    it is key, I think it is absolutely critical that there be a
    renewable energy plan that not only incorporates our
    opportunity and potential for hydropower, but also the
    geothermal resources that we have there.
        And you had mentioned, you know, biomass. There is
    abundance there, but I think it needs to be incorporated as
    part of the amended plan going forward. And quite honestly if
    it is not--if a renewable energy plan is not incorporated--I
    think that that is very, very inconsistent with, again, this
    administration's push toward, movement towards renewables. And
    so, how we balance that, I think, is going to be critical going
    forward.
        But to just suggest that it is just these particular
    projects that have been identified that meet that criteria,
    does not allow for a future for the Tongass. So we need to be
    working with you on really building out that renewable energy
    plan.
        I have gone well over my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Senator Tester.
        Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         FOREST JOBS AND RECREATION ACT

        I appreciate the administration's increased target on
    timber cuts. I think it is critical that we get that number up,
    and I am sure you do too.
        Over the past three decades, Montana is not like any other
    State. I think we have lost over two dozen mills. These mills
    are partners of the Forest Service. They are partners of the
    taxpayers. They do a very, very good job in allowing us to be
    able to manage forests in a way that will ensure forest health.
        Without an increase in timber coming out of the Forest
    Service lands, I think it is an obvious conclusion: we are
    going to lose more mills. So, and once they are gone, they are
    gone. They are not coming back. It is one of the reasons that I
    have tried to push the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, which is
    a ground up approach, a Montana-made bill, supporting mills,
    creating jobs, supporting our Forest Service and our forests,
    and the breathtaking landscapes that are in those. And I want
    to thank you for the Forest Service support of that bill.
        I know that you face challenges in carrying out the
    projects. I am proud that Congress came together with the
    reauthorization of the Stewardship Contracting Authority and
    gave the Forest Service some more tools through the Farm bill.
        So the question is, what is the process that you are going
    to use to evaluate the recommendations put forth by the
    governors?

                                   FARM BILL

        Mr. Tidwell. For the recommendations that we received from
    the new authority in the Farm Bill, we have 36 Governors who
    have submitted their recommendations. We have a team in my
    office that is actually going through those, all those
    different areas and I expect that in the middle of May or no
    later than late May, but probably closer to middle of May, we
    will be able to respond to each Governor about which projects,
    which areas that they recommended that we will be able to apply
    the authority.
        So all we are doing is checking about areas they
    recommended versus what the criteria is in the law. And I can
    tell you that we have worked very closely with all the State
    foresters. It is my expectation that the majority of the
    recommendations are going to be approved and will allow us to
    be able to move forward and design projects in those areas and
    use the new Farm Bill authorities.
        Senator Tester. Okay. So when would we expect the first
    batch of projects to move forward?
        Mr. Tidwell. Well, the projects themselves will probably be
    next year.
        Senator Tester. Okay.
        Mr. Tidwell. We have identified these areas, and we have
    the program to work for 2014 in place today. We will be looking
    at these areas and factor that into our planning for 2015.

                                   AIRTANKERS

        Senator Tester. Good. I want to go back to a question the
    chairman asked you on the $145 million for additional
    contracting costs for next generation. Is that what I heard you
    say for the next generation air tankers? That is what the $145
    million was for.
        Mr. Tidwell. Part of our request is to have an adequate
    number, an adequate funding to deal with the additional costs;
    2.8 times as expensive as what we used to have with the legacy
    aircraft.
        Senator Tester. Okay. And I am not going to argue with
    that. And Mr. Dixon, if you want to join in on this, you can,
    because you are fidgeting there a little, so you can jump in.
        What kind of metrics did you use to determine the cost
    effectiveness in that additional 2.8 times? Now, I know you
    talked about safety, and I know you talked about timeliness of
    delivery, and those can save money.
        So it would seem to me, and I appreciate the $145 million
    and I am not going to argue that figure with you. But I just
    want to make sure that there was some consideration of the
    effectiveness of these next generation planes and the cost
    savings that could be associated with their effectiveness.
        Mr. Tidwell. When we put out the contract, we wanted to
    have aircraft that were safer, faster, and a larger capacity
    because based on the fire activity that we are seeing today, we
    needed to be able to provide a larger load of retardant to deal
    with this.
        So we put out those specs and received the bids, and then
    we awarded the contracts.
        Senator Tester. I got you.
        Mr. Tidwell. The costs just reflect the market.
        Senator Tester. I got you. But was there any account for
    the fact that the tankers, that they are going to be delivering
    a bigger payload? That, in fact, they are going to be more
    cost-effective in that way per hour of flight time?
        Mr. Tidwell. We do expect they will be more cost effective
    because they are faster.
        Senator Tester. Right.
        Mr. Tidwell. We can get you the information about the cost
    of a gallon delivered. But the reality is that when we have
    these exclusive use contracts, there is a set amount that is
    the cost of the plane for the year----
        Senator Tester. I got you.
        Mr. Tidwell. Plus the flight hours.
        Senator Tester. Maybe this is the wrong correlation, but I
    will make it anyway. I can haul grain to market in a single
    axle truck that costs me $20,000 or I can haul grain in a semi
    that costs me $100,000. Over time, the cost per bushel actually
    is cheaper for the more expensive rig.
        And I just want to make sure you have taken those metrics
    into account because it would seem to me that the effectiveness
    of these planes are going to be better. Like you said, they are
    going to be safer. They are going to be more timely and they
    are going to be able to deliver the payload to where it needs
    to be delivered in a much more time-effective way. It is going
    to save money.
        Mr. Tidwell. We will provide you with the analysis that we
    have done.--Note: This information was provided directly to
    Senator Tester.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        Senator Tester. Good, good. I just want to comment. I
    really support the administration's Land and Water Conservation
    request, and I am going to work with my colleagues to provide
    adequate funding because we have some great projects in Montana
    that will be done, and I appreciate your support of that fund.
        And the last thing, on a personal note, how is your ticker?
        Mr. Tidwell. I woke up this morning, so it is a great day.
        Senator Tester. All right. Well, thank you very much for
    your work, Chief. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator
    Murkowski. Gentleman, thank you for your testimony and for your
    service.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        The record will remain open until May 7 for any of my
    colleagues who may wish to submit statements or questions. And
    Chief, we would ask you to respond as quickly as possible on
    any written questions that we deliver to 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
        Question. How does the proposed disaster cap amendment benefit the
    Forest Service and get the agency ahead of the curve on fire spending?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2015 President's budget proposes a new and
    fiscally responsible funding strategy for wildland fire. To solve the
    fire problem, we need a comprehensive approach that will restore fire-
    adapted ecosystems; build fire-adapted human communities; and respond
    appropriately to wildfire. Wildfire funding has grown from 21 percent
    of the Forest Service budget in 2000 to over half of the agency budget
    in 2014. Fire transfers deplete the budget by up to $500 million
    annually, which disrupts the momentum of critical restoration work. The
    impact is felt across critical programs nationwide and exacerbates the
    frequency and intensity of fires in future years. The suppression cap
    adjustment would provide a stable source of fire funding and enable
    greater investment in restoration and fire risk reduction programs.
        Question. Please elaborate on the modifications that the Air Force
    is making to ensure that the C-130Hs are mission-ready for the Forest
    Service.
        What physical work needs to be done by the Forest Service once an
    aircraft is transferred in order to make it ready to fly?
        Answer. The Air Force will complete the Programmed Depot
    Maintenance (PDM) as well as the Center Wing Box (CWB) and Outer Wing
    Box (OWB) replacement. The Air Force will also contract for and oversee
    the installation of the gravity retardant delivery system. After the
    aircraft is transferred, the Forest Service will need to install
    avionics and other equipment specific to the airtanker mission.
        Question. Is there any funding in the fiscal year 2015 budget
    associated with delivery of the C-130s?
        What will be required of the Forest Service above the $130 million
    provided by the Air Force to get these planes in the air, not including
    the contracting for operation and maintenance
        Answer. The Forest Service estimates that approximately $4.3
    million will be required for one C-130H in fiscal year 2015. That cost
    includes operating costs, pilot and maintenance contracts, required
    payments into the Working Capital Fund, and minor modifications
    specified in the question above.
        Question. Is it correct that the Forest Service will hit within the
    target of 18-28 large air tankers in fiscal year 2015?
        What level of confidence does the Forest Service have that all of
    these planes will actually be flying?
        Answer. Yes, the Forest Service expects up to 25 airtankers in
    fiscal year 2015. More specifically, the Forest Service is planning
    for: 8 legacy airtankers, 16 next generation airtankers, and 1 Forest
    Service owned/contractor operated excess U.S. Coast Guard C-130H
    converted into an airtanker. Our confidence is high that all of these
    planes will be flying in fiscal year 2015.
        Question. What accounts for the continued decrease in Urban &
    Community Forestry?
        Are these activities not a priority, or are they being delivered
    through some other mechanism?
        Answer. The Urban and Community Forestry activities remain a high
    priority for the Forest Service. In the past, a percentage of Urban and
    Community Forestry (U&CF) Program funds were used to fund competitive,
    landscape-scale ``Redesign'' projects, which was essentially formalized
    in fiscal year 2014 as the Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) budget
    line item. With the proposed $9 million increase in LSR funds in fiscal
    year 2015, it is anticipated that Urban and Community Forestry work and
    communities served as part of the LSR Program will be on a similar
    scale to previous year's U&CF representation or equivalent to the $4.4
    million reduction in the fiscal year 2015 budget. In addition, the
    Urban and Community Forestry program is part of the President's
    proposed new $1 billion Climate Resilience Fund presented as part of
    the fiscal year 2015 budget. Through this Fund, the President proposes
    that we:
      --Invest in research and unlock data and information to better
            understand the projected impacts of climate change and how we
            can better prepare our communities and infrastructure.
      --Help communities plan and prepare for the impacts of climate change
            and encourage local measures to reduce future risk.
      --Fund breakthrough technologies and resilient infrastructure that
            will make us more resilient in the face of changing climate.
            The Urban and Community Forestry program is part of this, as
            improving community trees and forests helps remove carbon from
            the air, reduce the need for stormwater treatment, mitigate
            flooding and provide other ecosystem services.
        Question. Please describe what will be accomplished in the
    Landscape Scale Restoration program with the funding provided in fiscal
    year 2014, and why it is proposed for a more than 50 percent increase
    in fiscal year 2015.
        Answer. In fiscal year 2014, the Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR)
    program will fund over 50 projects in the South, Northeast and West
    focused on addressing priorities and needs identified in State Forest
    Action Plans. These projects cover an expansive range of issues--from
    expanding forest markets, to invasive species management, to
    agroforestry, to watershed enhancements to urban forestry outreach--all
    focusing on restoring healthy and resilient landscapes and communities
    in priority areas within and across States. The LSR budget line item
    makes it even easier for States and their partners to propose
    innovative, cross-boundary work that spans multiple State and Private
    Forestry program areas. In fiscal year 2015, the program will continue
    to focus on funding innovative projects across boundaries and across
    jurisdictions to address States' priorities--and best target and
    leverage the Federal dollar. This level of funding will also allow the
    agency to leverage approximately $6 to $8 million more in partner
    contributions and provide the ability to fund approximately 15 to 20
    additional projects. The proposed funding level in fiscal year 2015,
    while 68 percent higher than the fiscal year 2014 enacted, is only 18
    percent higher than the President's fiscal year 2014 request of $20
    million.
        Question. Does the evidence in the Integrated Resource Restoration
    pilot regions show that the flexibility Congress has provided is
    resulting in more work being accomplished?
        What objective measures will demonstrate success?
        Answer. The evidence suggests that IRR is allowing the pilots to
    focus on and accomplish more priority work related to our goal of
    restoring National Forest System lands. The pilot authority has
    provided preliminary validation of the benefits that would be derived
    from nationwide Integrated Resource Restoration authority including:
      --increased ability to achieve integrated outcomes at the landscape
            scale;
      --reduced administrative burden;
      --previously separate program employees working together to achieve
            shared restoration goals;
      --clear direction and focus for integrated resource restoration
            within priority landscapes;
      --streamlined prioritization processes;
      --realization of mutual benefits through integrated planning across
            multiple resource areas; and
      --improved operational efficiencies.
        Occasionally, the highest priority work does not produce more
    outputs, e.g., miles, acres; but addresses areas that are deemed to
    make the most significant contributions to restoration. Therefore, we
    are using a combination of objective outcome and output measures to
    evaluate our progress with restoration. The key outcome associated with
    the Forest Service's restoration effort is:
      --Moving watersheds to an improved condition class as per the
            agency's Watershed Condition Framework.
        The pilot program was able to move six watersheds to an improved
    condition class in fiscal year 2013 (double the number that was
    accomplished in fiscal year 12).
        We are also tracking the following longstanding output measures
    under IRR:
      --Acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed function and
            resilience;
      --Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced;
      --Volume of timber sold; and
      --Miles of roads decommissioned.
        In fiscal year 2013 the IRR pilot exceeded planned targets for
    acres treated (133 percent) and miles of stream habitat restored (135
    percent). The program nearly met the volume of timber sold target at 96
    percent, and did not meet the road decommissioning target at 85
    percent. Three of the four output measures (acres treated, miles of
    stream habitat restored, and timber sold) increased over the fiscal
    year 2012 accomplishment levels (by 11.0 percent, 5.9 percent. and 12.9
    percent respectively).
        Planned targets were not met primarily due to litigation, market
    conditions (no bid on a sale), staffing vacancies, fire season, and
    NEPA appeals and litigation. Many of these conditions would exist
    regardless of IRR.
        We will continue to both monitor the performance results from the
    three regions under the IRR pilot authority and submit the IRR Pilot
    Annual Report to Congress.
        Question. After years of flat or declining budget proposals for
    Forest and Rangeland Research, the fiscal year 2014 request included a
    $15 million dollar increase. The fiscal year 2015 request asks for an
    almost equivalent decrease of $17.5 million. Why such a significant
    decrease proposed, especially during a time when the Forest Service is
    trying to implement the new planning rule, which will rely on the
    science performed within the research division?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2015 President's budget requests funding
    for the highest priority research needs. Recognizing that research is a
    critical component of the agency, the administration also proposes to
    provide funding through the combination of the Budget Line Item for
    Forest and Rangeland Research and the fiscal year 2015 Opportunity,
    Growth, and Security Initiative.
        Question. How is the Forest Service fulfilling the instructions
    included with the $5 million increase for biomass utilization grants
    provided in fiscal year 2014, to use these funds to develop new high
    value markets for low value wood?
        Where is the increased funding in fiscal year 2014 being focused?
        Answer. The increased funding is focused on two critical needs: (1)
    expanding renewable wood energy use near National Forest System lands
    in need of hazardous fuels treatments, and (2) promoting wood as a
    construction material in the commercial building sector. This work
    helps to create high value markets by expanding the use of woody
    biomass for energy as well as expanding the demand for engineered wood
    and other wood products in the institutional/commercial building
    sector.
        Question. What areas would be expanded if Congress provides the
    budget request's increase of another $5 million in fiscal year 2015?
        Answer. The expanded areas would be to:
      --increase grant opportunities to assist with the final phases of
            wood energy projects;
      --stimulate woody biomass utilization in geographic areas with high
            wildfire risks; and
      --promote more widespread use of wood in commercial building
            construction.
        Question. How are the $2 million in funds provided for Restoration
    Partnerships being used in fiscal year 2014?
        Answer. In March 2014, we issued a field unit request within select
    program networks, including watershed restoration and utility corridor
    maintenance networks, to determine project and program needs. We
    received a total of 33 proposals, representing each region within the
    Forest Service, with a total request of $8.8 million. We are currently
    determining if there are options for additional private-sector leverage
    of Restoration Partnership funds, and we anticipate the final decisions
    on the allocation of Restoration Partnership funds to occur in June
    2014.
        Question. Will this program be continued in fiscal year 2015
    without a specific line-item?
        Answer. We did not request a separate line-item to fund this
    program in the fiscal year 2015 President's Budget. We feel the program
    can be carried out through partnerships under the proposed Integrated
    Resource Restoration budget line item and existing authorities.
        Question. Will the partnerships developed in fiscal year 2014 be
    continued without new funds?
        Answer. Yes, we hope that any partnerships we develop in fiscal
    year 2014, through the Partnership Restoration funding opportunities,
    will continue in fiscal year 2015. Our ability to continue those
    partnerships will be based on need, priority, and funding availability.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
        Question. As you know, California is facing a historic drought. For
    the first time in 15 years, 100 percent of California is in moderate to
    exceptional drought according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. This year,
    the State received only about 50 percent of normal precipitation, and
    snowpack levels are down to just 16 percent of normal.
        California's Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CALFIRE)
    reports that since January 1, California has had 1,108 fires on State
    lands. During the same period last year, the State saw only 697 fires
    on State lands. This is an almost 60 percent increase.
        Clearly, we are facing the likelihood of a particularly severe
    wildfire season this year that will significantly threaten public
    safety and infrastructure throughout California and other Western
    States.
        Chief Tidwell, what specifically is the Forest Service doing to
    prepare for this year's drought-enhanced fire season?
        Answer. Due to the drought throughout California and other States,
    we continue to maintain heightened staffing levels, including
    organizing trained firefighters from other geographic areas who can
    pre-position or quickly respond when needed. We've developed short and
    long-term strategies that include hiring additional agency personnel,
    utilizing contract resources under existing contracts, creating new
    contracts, extending options on aviation assets and utilizing assets
    from other regions on a long-term basis. We escalate and decrease
    staffing levels commensurate with weather conditions and resource
    drawdown. In addition to crews, engines, dozers and prevention assets,
    we maintain aerial firefighting capability with helicopters, air
    tankers and smokejumpers. Many of the forests have 7 day staffing, as
    well as 24 hour coverage in some cases. We are also establishing
    mobilization centers in areas where increased fire activity is
    predicted, to efficiently manage an influx of fire suppression
    resources and we are working with our partners and reaching out to the
    public with focused fire prevention messaging using Fire Prevention
    Teams and Public Information Officers located in our Geographic Area
    Coordination Centers. We have also increased patrols and signage, and
    are providing one united message to the public with regard to the
    uncharacteristic fire danger levels that exist, especially in
    California. We are also coordinating with our partners, including
    Federal, State and local, to ensure information is being shared and
    that local and geographical area agreements are up to date.
        Question. What actions are you taking to have firefighting aircraft
    (including tankers and helicopters) and fire crews staged in drought
    stricken states like California?
        Answer. As fire danger and risk increase in California,
    firefighting aircraft will be pre-positioned to respond to fires.
    Currently, there are four Type I heavy helicopters and nine Type II
    helicopters, five airtankers and several aerial supervision aircraft in
    Southern California, ready to respond. Additional aircraft will be
    moved, if needed. The Forest Service is in the second year of night air
    operations in Southern California. A night air operation includes a
    type-2 helicopter and an infrared equipped twin engine fixed wing. Both
    aircraft started on June 1.
        Question. Do you expect the 2015 budget request to adequately cover
    the costs for this year's fire season?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2015 President's Budget request covers our
    forecasted funding needs for the fiscal year 2015 fire season. Together
    the request for Suppression and the proposed cap adjustment would fund
    the 10-year average and anything above the 10-year average equal to the
    high end of the 90 percent confidence interval predicted by the outyear
    forecast. For fiscal year 2014, however, any costs above the 10-year
    average will be covered by fire transfer. The May (median) forecast for
    suppression spending predicts that the Forest Service will spend $1.55
    billion this fire season, and we were appropriated $995 million.
    Therefore, we expect to have to enter into fire transfers again this
    fire season.
        Question. Last summer, the Rim Fire burned over 270,000 acres,
    including 154,000 acres in the Stanislaus National Forest. While
    ecological recovery will take many years, there may be only 18 to 24
    months from the time of the fire before the downed timber rots and is
    no longer salvageable.
        It is my understanding that the Forest Service has been able to
    expedite timber salvage along roads and utility corridors on an
    emergency basis and is currently working on completing an Environmental
    Impact Statement (EIS) that may allow for an estimated 30,000 acres of
    timber salvage in the Stanislaus.
        Chief Tidwell, can you please provide an update regarding the
    status of both the emergency timber salvage work as well as the status
    of the EIS for the larger salvage project?
        Answer. An Environmental Assessment (EA) for hazard tree removal
    along 194 miles of high-use Forest Service roads, administrative and
    recreation facilities, and areas adjacent to private infrastructure was
    completed and the Decision Notice signed on April 25, 2014. The hazard
    trees will be removed through the use of four competitive salvage
    timber sales, in addition to two settlement sales that were awarded to
    affected utility companies. All four competitive sales have been sold.
        The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to reduce the
    potential for future catastrophic fire by reducing the fuel loading and
    to capture the perishable economic value of the fire-killed trees has
    been completed. The Draft EIS analyzed over 44,000 acres of National
    Forest System lands for potential treatment, including an estimated
    30,000 acres of timber salvage. The 30-day public comment period on the
    Draft EIS is scheduled to start on May 16, 2014. A Final EIS is
    scheduled for completion in August 2014.
        Question. When do you expect the Forest Service will be able to
    award salvage contracts, and when will that allow timber harvesters to
    get on the ground to begin that work?
        Answer. As mentioned above, two settlement sales have been awarded
    and all four competitive sales have been sold. Now that the projects
    are awarded, operations can begin immediately.
        Projects approved under the larger EIS are scheduled to be
    advertised for sale shortly after the Record of Decision (ROD) is
    signed, with a minimum seven-day advertisement period. Operations are
    expected to begin in early September.
        Question. Does the Forest Service have any additional
    administrative options or legislative recommendations that would help
    expedite the process?
        Answer. An Emergency Situation Determination (ESD) has been granted
    by the Chief for the hazard tree EA and the larger EIS project. Both
    projects are under the Section 218 Objection Process. With an approved
    ESD, there is no objection period (60 days) or objection resolution
    period (30 plus days). The decision is signed immediately after the
    public is notified that the decision will be signed, saving 90 days in
    the process. Since there is no objection process, the public has the
    option to pursue remedy in the Courts.
        We have been successful in requesting and receiving alternative
    arrangements from the Council on Environmental Quality on the Rim Fire
    EIS. The approved alternative arrangements allow for the comment period
    on the Draft EIS to be reduced by 15 days and eliminating the 45-day
    period between release of the Final EIS and the issuance of the ROD.
        Timber salvage volume from the Rim Fire is expected to
    significantly exceed the capacity of the local manufacturing
    infrastructure. Hauling costs to manufacturing facilities outside the
    local working circle is prohibitively expensive. The Forest Service is
    exploring all options within our authorities to enable the woods
    products industry in California to economically utilize the salvage
    material available from the Rim Fire.
        Question. The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act included a
    provision that I worked on with my colleague Senator McCain to transfer
    7 C-130 air tankers from the Coast Guard to the Forest Service. These
    planes would also receive maintenance and new wing boxes from the Air
    Force.
        I believe these seven planes are only the first step necessary to
    provide the Forest Service with the fleet it needs to protect our
    nation. It is my understanding that at least one or two planes will be
    transferred from the Coast Guard during this calendar year.
        Can you give me a precise update on when the Forest Service expects
    to begin receiving these planes?
        Answer. A transfer strategy and timeline for the planes has been
    developed and is being implemented. We expect the first aircraft to be
    transferred in late 2014 or early 2015 and be available for limited
    operations in 2015, after the Air Force completes their retrofitting
    work. The C-130H aircraft will be Forest Service owned and contractor
    operated and maintained. We expect three additional aircraft to be
    transferred in fiscal year 2017 and the remaining three to be
    transferred in fiscal year 2018.
        Question. California's Department of Forestry & Fire Protection
    (CALFIRE) has long had a cooperative agreement with the Forest Service
    to efficiently provide fire protection to all of California.
    Specifically, this agreement allows California to protect Federal lands
    and for the Forest Service to protect state lands when it is clearly
    economically efficient.
        In recent years, the Forest Service has faced challenges in
    fulfilling this agreement. If the Forest Service does not uphold its
    end of the bargain, it will result in increased costs for both
    California and the Federal Government.
        In this year of heightened fire risk, do I have your commitment to
    provide California with adequate firefighting resources as required by
    this agreement?
        Answer. Yes, I am committed to provide California with adequate
    firefighting resources as required in the agreement.
        Question. The 2014 Farm Bill contained a provision that directed
    States to identify forest areas that need treatment for pests and
    diseases, and the Bill further allowed for expedited environmental
    reviews.
        California has identified and requested three areas that need
    critical pest and disease treatment to safeguard forest health. These
    are the McCloud Watershed, the Southfork American Watershed, and the
    Santa Ana Watershed. All of these watersheds are experiencing a
    troubling decline in forest health based on annual surveys and are at
    risk of substantial tree death in the next 15 years according to the
    California Department of Forestry & Fire (CALFIRE).
        Can you provide a status update on California's request for three
    priority treatment areas?
        Answer. On May 20, 2014 USDA Secretary Vilsack announced the
    designation of over 45 million acres of National Forest System lands
    across 94 national forests in 35 States to address insect and disease
    threats. Approximately 1.5 million acres were designated in California
    within the McCloud/Pit River Watershed, the South Fork American River
    Watershed, and the Santa Ana Watersheds.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
        Question. As you know, the current approach to funding wildfire
    suppression is unsustainable and hurts many important programs that
    address fire prevention and support critical resources that we expect
    from National Forest System lands, including timber, water, recreation,
    wildlife, and range. I applaud the Forest Service and the
    administration for including in the proposed fiscal year 2015 budget a
    solution to this problem based upon the Wyden-Crapo Wildfire Disaster
    Funding Act that I have cosponsored. This new approach to funding large
    fires as natural disasters under the existing disaster cap should free
    up substantial resources that would have otherwise been slated to go to
    wildfire suppression under the current funding formula. This provides
    an opportunity both to sustain key programs that would have been cut
    and to provide substantial additional investment in fire prevention
    activities, including hazardous fuels and pest and disease treatment
    and mitigation. In the proposed budget, what programs were sustained
    and what programs received additional investment with the funding not
    allocated to fire suppression due to the proposed change in suppression
    funding?
        Answer. The President's budget invests in programs that help us get
    ahead of the fire problem by restoring landscapes and protecting
    communities. Compared to fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 the
    budget proposes significant increases for Hazardous Fuels ($52 million
    above fiscal year 2014 enacted), Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR)
    ($63 million above the fiscal year 2014 President's budget),
    Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) ($20 million
    above fiscal year 2014 enacted) and Landscape Scale Restoration ($10
    million above fiscal year 2014 enacted). Over $50 million of the money
    freed up by the fire cap funds Preparedness and Suppression to cover
    the reality of our fire operations costs.
        Question. I would like to congratulate the efforts of the Forest
    Service in the Black Hills to work with a broad coalition of partners
    to respond to the mountain pine beetle infestation. Through the work of
    these partners, including the forest products industry, the State,
    counties, conservation districts, and others, tens of thousands of
    acres have been treated, slowing the spread of the beetles and
    improving the resiliency and long-term sustainability of the forest.
    With the interspersed FS and private lands throughout much of western
    South Dakota, I was intrigued to hear about the effort to coordinate
    actions between the FS and NRCS to address watershed-scale treatment
    and restoration across Federal and non-Federal lands. It seems to me
    that the approach described in the Chief's Joint Partnership would
    benefit the ongoing effort in the Black Hills. How do you see the
    Partnership working at this juncture? What do you see as the
    opportunities and timing for adding additional projects that could
    increase the pace and scale of critical treatment on non-Federal lands
    in the Black Hills?
        Answer. Through the Chiefs' Joint Landscape Restoration
    Partnership, the Forest Service is investing $13 million in 13 projects
    in 12 States across the country to help reduce wildfire threats to
    communities and landowners, protect water quality and supply, and
    improve wildlife habitat for at-risk species. Those projects are still
    in the early stages of implementation and accomplishments will be
    summarized at the end of fiscal year 2014. In fiscal year 2015 (pending
    available funding), the Chief expects to continue to support those 13
    projects as well as to consider additional projects that meet the goals
    of the Partnership. Additional projects would be considered via
    recommendations from Regional Foresters in partnership with their
    Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) counterparts. As both the
    Forest Service and NRCS work with private landowners, there could be
    opportunity in the Black Hills to consider a recommendation for
    funding.
        Question. The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board was
    established in 2003 to improve cooperation and understanding among
    Forest stakeholders. The Board was chartered under the Federal Advisory
    Committee Act to consist of 16 members and 16 alternates appointed by
    the Secretary of Agriculture with the recommendation of the Forest
    Service. Regular meetings of the Board have proven to provide an
    important avenue of communication between stakeholders and the agency.
    Unfortunately, it continues to be challenging to keep the Board
    chartered and to fill all vacancies so that the Board is able to
    maintain a quorum for each meeting. What is the Forest Service doing to
    work with USDA to help ensure that the Board's charter does not expire
    and that new members are formally appointed as efficiently as possible?
        Answer. The Forest Service and USDA want robust Boards,
    representing the American people, assembled to carry out the mission in
    a timely fashion. The Forest Service recognizes the evolving workload
    and time requirements to evaluate and approve members and charters. We
    are committed to meeting the timelines to avoid unnecessary delays.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                                    tongass
        Question. As I mentioned in the hearing, it was another subpar year
    in Region 10. The most recent 5-year schedule projects only about 82
    million board feet per year in the future, well below the ASQ for the
    forest.
        How are you going to overcome the ongoing decline in timber sales
    and ensure that the various timber targets are achieved?
        Answer. The Region was on track to meet or exceed all assigned
    targets in fiscal year 2013; however, the Big Thorne Project received
    seven appeals. The decision was affirmed, but the Tongass prepared a
    draft Supplemental Information Report (SIR) that was released May 23,
    2014 for a 30-day review by appellants, with the goal of issuing a
    final SIR later in the summer and offering in late September, 2014.
    Saddle Lakes Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is expected in
    2014 with the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and draft
    Record of Decision (ROD) in June 2015, and final ROD in October 2015.
    The Wrangell Island DEIS is expected late in 2014, with the FEIS and
    ROD in 2015, and a sale offer in fiscal year 2016. The Kosciusko (first
    large young growth sale) project is underway. The environmental
    documentation for this project is expected to be completed by February
    2015. Field work will continue in the operating season of 2015 with a
    sale offer in early 2016.
        Question. Have you requested adequate funding to restore the timber
    sale program to what was projected in your 2008 Land Management Plan?
    If not, why not?
        Answer. Funding for the Region 10 timber sale program on the
    Tongass has been adequate to prepare and offer the assigned program of
    work. The assigned volume sold targets for the Region have been lower
    than the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) envisioned in the 2008 Plan. The
    ASQ represents a maximum annual average harvest from a given National
    Forest over a ten-year period as determined in the forest planning
    process.
        Question. Why is the current 5-year plan targeting such a low
    volume of timber? What is needed to increase the volume in the current
    5-year plan?
        Answer. The current 5-year plan targets an average of 101 million
    board feet (mmbf) per year for the next 5 years. This level of volume
    is consistent with the funding provided for the program and the
    available land base to work with for old growth ``bridge timber''
    sales. The 5-year plan includes the reallocation of staff and finances
    to planning efforts that incorporate viable and available young growth
    stands into the targeted program of work.
        Question. For years we have heard the Forest Service blame
    litigation for failure to achieve timber targets on the Tongass. It
    seems after dealing with these legal challenges for such a long time
    that there would be some strategy to better address these claims. Do
    you have a plan to address this issue?
        Answer. The Tongass continues to address legal challenges to timber
    sale projects by improving collaboration with all stakeholders and
    presenting well-planned projects utilizing planning documents that are
    clear, concise and based upon the latest science. Implementing our
    transition strategy to second growth is a key element to reduce
    litigation and provide a sustainable flow of timber to support the wood
    products industry in Southeast Alaska. In addition, USDA efforts to
    assist in converting mills to handle smaller logs and developing
    additional markets, including biomass, will increase the economic
    viability of processing wood products in Alaska and reduce the need to
    export logs. Where export is often required to make projects
    economically viable, the more jobs that can be supported in Southeast
    will increase the support for the benefits of an integrated wood
    products industry needed for community sustainability.
        Question. At the hearing, we briefly discussed the status of the
    Federal Advisory (FACA) Committee that you are assembling to provide
    advice on the Amendment you are proposing to the 2008 Amended Tongass
    Forest Plan.
        Will you commit to me to balance the FACA Committee with Alaska
    Native Corporation and pro-development Southeast Alaskans?
        To what extent will you commit to me to include Southeast Alaskan
    representatives from the renewable energy and hydropower sectors on the
    FACA Committee?
        Answer. The Federal Advisory Committee Act has been announced and
    membership represents a diverse mix of viewpoints, with members from
    the Alaska Native community, national or regional environmental and/or
    conservation organizations, the timber industry, Federal, State and
    local government representatives, and other commercial users.
        Question. Will the Forest Service consider adding a Mineral and
    Strategic Mineral Land Use Designation (LUD) in the Amendment to the
    2008 Forest Plan to promote and support mineral and strategic mineral
    development and related access roads consistent with National Security
    and National Strategic Mineral Policies?
        Answer. The Tongass Forest Plan, in its current form, contains a
    ``Minerals Overlay'' Land Use Designation (LUD) which states: ``To
    encourage the prospecting, exploration, development, mining, and
    processing of locatable minerals in areas with the highest potential
    for minerals development; and, To ensure minerals are developed in an
    environmentally sensitive manner and other high-valued resources are
    considered when mineral developments occur.'' We will evaluate whether
    changes to the Plan are necessary during the amendment process.
        Question. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 found
    that ``accelerated development and use of renewable energy technologies
    provide numerous benefits to the United States, including improved
    national security, improved balance of payments, healthier rural
    economies, improved environmental quality, and abundant, reliable and
    affordable energy for all citizens of the United States,'' and set a
    goal that by 2025 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United
    States come from renewable resources. Additionally, this administration
    has placed a high priority on development of renewable energy on public
    lands.
        How is the failure of the Tongass National Forest to have a
    renewable energy plan consistent with these goals?
        Answer. Hydropower projects are permitted through the Federal
    Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) authority granted by the Federal
    Power Act. When projects are located on National Forest System (NFS)
    lands, FERC determines if the project is consistent with purposes of
    the NFS lands. The Forest Service submits license conditions to FERC
    necessary for the protection and utilization of NFS lands and
    resources. The Forest Service does not propose or plan renewable energy
    projects, but responds to proposed projects. Under the Federal Power
    Act, project proponents apply for a preliminary permit and FERC
    withdraws the land to allow the proponent to study the feasibility of a
    project. The Forest Service does not pre-determine where the best
    locations are as that is up to project proponents through FERC's
    procedures. Section 24 of the Federal Water Power Act of June 10, 1920,
    as amended (16 U.S.C. 818), provides that any lands of the United
    States included in an application for power development under that Act
    shall, from the date of filing of an application therefore, subject to
    valid existing rights, be reserved from entry, location, or other
    disposal under the laws of the United States until otherwise directed
    by the FERC or by Congress. Therefore, the Forest Service responds to
    project proposals rather than identify potential areas for development.
        Question. Alaska is home to a vast amount of energy resources. What
    is the Forest Service doing to help make this energy available and
    accessible for the greater public benefit of citizens of Alaska and
    America, so that we can ``home source'' our energy supply, recapturing
    a greater portion of U.S. energy expenditures and job creation benefits
    that would otherwise occur overseas?
        Answer. The national forests in the Alaska Region are committed to
    responding to interests in developing energy sources in a timely
    fashion, consistent with forest plan direction. Currently neither
    national forest is in receipt of any proposals to develop any leasable
    (oil and gas, coal, geothermal) resources. Both national forests in the
    Alaska Region address leasable minerals, such as the energy-focused oil
    and gas, coal, and geothermal, in their forest plans. The Tongass
    Forest Plan states, as a Forest-Wide goal to, ``Provide for
    environmentally sound mineral exploration, development, and
    reclamation.'' Minerals Standards and Guides in the Tongass Forest Plan
    direct that ``leasing may occur on a case-by-case basis following site-
    specific analysis.'' The Chugach Forest Plan states as a Forest-Wide
    goal, to ``Provide opportunities to develop minerals for personal and
    commercial uses.''
        Question. In 1947, the United States Forest Service (USFS)
    published a report titled ``Water Powers Southeast Alaska,'' which
    identified over 200 hydropower resources in watersheds across Alaska.
    The study summary states:
            The report indicates that it is possible to create dependable
            blocks of power by coordinating many of the power sites into an
            integrated utility system. There appear to be sites for
            communities not too far from the general concentration of power
            and natural transmission patterns.
        With the hydropower resources of Southeast Alaska so well
    understood as evidenced by a body of work assembled by Federal agencies
    which dates back nearly a century, why is it that the availability of
    these resources within the Tongass are being ignored and excluded from
    the Tongass Land Management Plan at a time in our Nation's history when
    new, clean, renewable energy resources are most needed?
        Answer. Hydropower projects are permitted through the Federal
    Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) authority granted by the Federal
    Power Act. When projects are located on National Forest System (NFS)
    lands, FERC determines if the project is consistent with the purposes
    of the NFS land. The Forest Service responds to project proposals in
    accordance with FERC-administered regulations and timelines. After
    extensive review and coordination with project proponents, the Forest
    Service submits license conditions to FERC necessary for the protection
    and utilization of NFS lands and resources. The Forest Service does not
    propose or plan renewable energy projects, but responds to proposed
    projects.
        Question. Does the Forest Service intend to include a renewable
    energy plan in the Forest Plan Amendment to the 2008 Amended Tongass
    Forest Plan?
        Answer. The Tongass responds to renewable energy proposals in
    accordance with applicable Federal law. The Forest Service does not,
    per se, propose or plan renewable energy projects, but responds to
    proposed projects. The current Tongass Forest Plan states, as a Forest-
    Wide goal to, ``Provide for environmentally sound mineral exploration,
    development, and reclamation.'' Minerals Standards and Guides in the
    Tongass Forest Plan direct that ``leasing may occur on a case-by-case
    basis following site-specific analysis.'' We will evaluate whether
    changes to the Plan are necessary during the amendment process.
        Question. Do you agree with the Executive Summary of a 2011, Region
    10, Forest Service document entitled ``Roadmap to Rural Wealth in
    Southeast Alaska: Restoration and Timber in Context'' in which Region
    10 of the Forest Service asserted:
            Low-cost energy is critical. The high cost of electric power
            impedes economic development in the region, yet the region is
            rich in hydropower potential. The most promising opportunities
            lie in developing hydroelectric power and building transmission
            lines to connect Southeast Alaska's communities to each other
            and to Canada's grid, generating electric power for potential
            export. Such projects would create new jobs through
            constructing, operating and maintaining hydroelectric and
            transmission facilities. Previous work by the Forest Service
            has estimated job creation by this type of work at 10 jobs for
            every million dollars invested.
        Answer. The Alaska Region continues to support the policy of
    encouraging hydropower production to reduce the high cost of energy
    while ensuring such development is compatible with national forest
    purposes and ensuring that the planning, construction, and operation of
    hydropower projects protect and effectively utilize National Forest
    System lands and resources.
        Question. What has the Forest Service done to resolve the ``minimum
    development'' and ``no roads'' requirements within the 9.6 million
    acres of Roadless Areas of the Tongass with Congress's and the Obama
    administration's renewable energy policies?
        Answer. The Roadless Rule prohibits road construction and the
    removal of timber in inventoried roadless areas, except under limited
    circumstances. For example, the Rule permits road construction where a
    road is needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or as
    provided for by statute or treaty. Renewable energy hydropower projects
    are permitted through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
    authority granted by the Federal Power Act. The Federal Power Act
    directs the Secretary of Agriculture to include conditions that ensure
    that projects are constructed and operated as ``deem[ed] necessary for
    the adequate protection and utilization of such [national forest
    lands.]'' The Alaska Region works with the proponents of hydropower
    projects to identify needed infrastructure for the proposed project and
    how those requirements can be met under the requirements of the
    Roadless Rule and the Federal Power Act.
        Question. The Forest Service acknowledged in a July 20, 2009 letter
    to Alaska Power & Telephone that a renewable energy project,
    specifically a hydropower project, sited in a Remote Recreation
    Transportation and Utility System (TUS) Avoidance Area could not meet
    the management direction for that LUD consistent with the National
    Environmental Policy Act, thereby requiring the Forest Plan to be
    amended. Notwithstanding that the commitment was made to do so nearly 5
    years ago, the Forest Service has not amended the Forest Plan, thereby
    precluding hydropower and other renewable energy projects in TUS
    Avoidance LUDs. Will the Forest Service correct this problem as part of
    the amendment process?
        Answer. As part of the proposed action in the amendment process,
    the Forest will consider whether changes are needed to the Tongass
    Forest Plan to provide for renewable energy project development.
        Question. The Draft Southeast Integrated Resources Plan (SEIRP)
    requires access to hydropower sites to promote hydropower development.
    The Draft SEIRP identified some, potential hydropower sites in
    Southeast Alaska. Further, the 1947 Water Powers of Southeast Alaska
    Report, conducted in part with the Forest Service, identified over 200
    such potential sites, many of which lay in the 2008 Forest Plan TUS
    avoidance LUDs. Such access is severely restricted by Remote Recreation
    LUDs. What actions do you plan to take in the upcoming amendment to the
    2008 Tongass Forest Plan to resolve this problem?
        Answer. This will be considered as the Tongass determines what
    issues may need to be included for updating in the amendment process.
        Question. Will the Forest Service consider a Renewable Energy LUD
    as part of the 2008 Amended Forest Plan amendment process, the purpose
    of which would be to promote and support all forms of renewable energy
    development (including geothermal) and related transmission lines
    within the Tongass consistent with Public Laws and national security
    and national energy policies?
        Answer. This will be considered as the Tongass determines what
    issues may need to be included for updating in the amendment process.
        Question. Would you agree that a Renewable Energy Development LUD
    would take precedence over any underlying LUD (subject to applicable
    laws) regardless of whether the underlying LUD is an ``Avoidance LUD''
    or not. And as such, it would represent a ``window'' through the
    underlying LUD through which renewable resources could be accessed and
    developed?
        Answer. These types of resource development priority decisions will
    be considered as the Tongass determines what may be included in the
    amendment process.
        Question. Will the Forest Service consider allowing geothermal
    leasing in the Tongass as part of the amendment process?
        Answer. The national forests in the Alaska Region are committed to
    responding to interests in developing energy sources in a timely
    fashion, consistent with forest plan direction. Three geothermal leases
    at Bell Island have been issued by the Bureau of Land Management, but
    no development is currently taking place at the site. The Tongass is
    not currently in receipt of any proposals to develop any leasable (oil
    and gas, coal, geothermal) resources. Minerals Standards and Guides in
    the current Tongass Forest Plan already directs that ``leasing may
    occur on a case-by-case basis following site-specific analysis.''
        Question. While ``reasonable access'' is technically permitted in
    Inventoried Roadless Areas, cutting trees associated with mining
    exploration and development does not appear to be allowed. 36 C.F.R.
    Sec. 294.13(b)(2) authorizes the cutting of timber ``incidental to
    implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited by
    this subpart.'' However, there is no mention of mining in the examples
    provided in the 2001 Rule and Record of Decision (ROD) of what this
    section authorizes. Moreover, in describing this section the 2001 Rule
    and ROD states: ``Such management activities are expected to be rare
    and to focus on small diameter trees.'' Will you commit to me to allow
    a less restrictive form of ``reasonable access'' for mining exploration
    and development as part of the 2008 Amended Forest Plan process?
        Answer. If an inventoried roadless area on the Tongass is open to
    mineral entry, locatable mineral mining, including certain activities
    ancillary to the mining, such as the incidental cutting of timber, may
    be approved. The 1872 Mining Law gives a statutory right of reasonable
    and necessary access related to the exploration and development of
    mineral properties. The statutory right is subject to reasonable
    regulation for the protection of surface resources.
        Question. Will the 2010 Economic Analysis of Southeast Alaska
    Report be updated as part of the 2008 Forest Plan amendment process?
        Are you familiar with what the 2010 report prepared said about the
    volume of timber that could be produced from second growth stands in
    the next 10-15 years?
        Is there a sufficient volume of second-growth for harvest (subject
    to the National Forest Management Act's (NFMA) non-declining, even flow
    requirement, the Tongass Timber Reform Act's (TTRA) stream buffer strip
    requirement's and Tongass Land Management Plan's (TLMP) 1000-foot beach
    buffer zone requirement) to warrant the risk (by bank or operator) to
    justify putting in a mill, even if there were a market?
        If your answer is ``yes,'' how do you explain the point made, at
    page 23 the 2010 Economic Analysis of Southeast Alaska that states
    ``young growth management is not currently economically viable without
    substantial public investments to pay for thinning?''
        Answer. The referenced report was prepared by the Alaska Region to
    explore ways to accelerate the transition of the timber management
    program on the Tongass National Forest--and the timber industry in
    Southeast Alaska that is dependent on that program--away from its
    historical reliance on harvesting old growth forest stands, and towards
    a program and industry based on the harvest of young growth stands. The
    forest plan amendment process will analyze the economics of the
    transition to young growth management.
        The report stated that about 8 percent of the forest land on the
    Tongass National Forest--400,000 acres--is in young growth, half of
    which is available for harvest under the existing forest plan. As part
    of the plan amendment process, the Tongass will evaluate which lands
    should be available for timber harvest to provide economically
    sustainable young growth, and any proposed changes to standards and
    guidelines and other management direction to promote and speed the
    transition to young growth management while maintaining a viable timber
    industry in Southeast Alaska. Investments in commercial thinning may
    allow young growth volume to be available more rapidly.
        Question. At the hearing, we discussed my concerns about the steady
    march towards losing what remains of the timber industry in Southeast
    Alaska and what we can do to reverse this trend.
        Please state the current objectives of the Transition Plan.
        Answer. As described in Secretary Vilsack's July 2, 2013
    Memorandum, the objective is to transition over the next 10 to 15 years
    to a more ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable forest
    management program on the Tongass National Forest, so that by the end
    of those 15 years, the vast majority of timber sold by the Tongass will
    be young growth.
        Question. Is the Forest Service required to adopt Secretary
    Vilsack's July 2nd Transition Plan as the Purpose and Need of the
    Amendment to the 2008 Amended Forest Plan? Is its selection as the
    preferred alternative pre-ordained?
        Answer. The proposed action will be to amend the Tongass Forest
    Plan as needed to accomplish the transition to young growth management
    over the next 10 to 15 years while retaining the expertise and
    infrastructure of a viable timber industry in Southeast Alaska, as
    outlined by the Secretary in his Memorandum. The purpose and need and
    any preferred alternative will be identified during the amendment
    process.
        Question. Is one of the Transition Plan's objectives to prevent the
    harvest of old growth in Roadless Areas? If so, explain how the Plan
    would be consistent with the 2003 Tongass Exemption.
        Answer. Secretary Vilsack's July 2, 2013 Memorandum describes the
    objective of the transition; the Memorandum does not address roadless
    areas. There is no immediate change in the application of the 2001
    Roadless Rule to the Tongass. As may be appropriate as a result of
    litigation, the Tongass Forest Plan amendment process may address the
    Tongass Exemption.
        Question. Will the Amendment to the 2008 Amended Forest Plan allow
    harvest in beach buffer zones and change stream buffer standards and
    guidelines to increase the inventory of second-growth on the Tongass
    suitable for harvest?
        Answer. The amendment process will identify areas suitable and not
    suitable for timber harvest to achieve the transition to young growth
    management. As part of the Plan amendment process, the Tongass will
    evaluate which lands should be available for timber harvest to provide
    economically sustainable young growth, and any proposed changes to
    standards and guidelines and other management direction to promote and
    speed the transition to young growth management while maintaining a
    viable timber industry in Southeast Alaska.
        Question. Does the recent 9th Circuit's decision upholding the 2003
    Tongass Roadless Rule Exemption impact the Forest Service's continuing
    its transition plan to second-growth timber on the Tongass as set out
    by Secretary Vilsack's Transition Plan?
        Answer. There is no immediate change in the application of the 2001
    Roadless Rule to the Tongass National Forest resulting from the 9th
    Circuit's decision, and there is no current impact to the transition
    from old growth to young growth timber harvest, as described in
    Secretary Vilsack's Memorandum.
        Question. Is the Transition to second-growth within 10-15 years, as
    proposed by the Secretary, dependent upon a Congressional amendment to
    the culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) requirement set out in
    the NFMA?
        Answer. Commercial thinning in young growth stands can occur
    without Congressional action, so long as procedural requirements set
    forth in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) are met. Those
    procedural requirements will be addressed in the Tongass Forest Plan
    amendment process.
        Question. If so, what happens to the Transition Plan if Congress
    fails to act?
        Answer. If the procedural requirements of NFMA are not addressed in
    the Tongass Forest Plan amendment process, the transition to a young
    growth based industry will proceed, but at a slower, more measured
    pace.
        Question. How do you assess the Forest Service's political chances
    of getting a Congressional waiver from CMAI, which the Secretary's
    Memorandum acknowledges is needed, given that CMAI was a key demand of
    environmental groups for agreeing to clear-cutting in the NFMA after
    they won the Monongahela suit in 1973 and Zieske case in 1974?
        Answer. Culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) requirements
    are part of every land management plan. The National Forest Management
    Act specifically allows exceptions to CMAI requirements ``. . . after
    consideration has been given to the multiple uses of the forest
    including, but not limited to, recreation, wildlife habitat, and range,
    and after completion of public participation processes . . .'' (16
    U.S.C. 1604(m))
        Question. Does the Forest Service plan to wait for Congress to act
    on CMAI before implementing the Transition to second-growth? What will
    be the status of the Amendment to the 2008 Amended Forest Plan while
    the Forest Service waits?
        Answer. The transition to young growth would be accelerated with an
    exemption to the CMAI provisions of NFMA, but the Forest Service does
    not plan to wait for Congressional action and will address the NFMA
    requirements in the Tongass Forest Plan amendment process.
        Question. If a waiver from CMAI is not achieved with the USFS seek
    to pursue a transition to 2nd Growth through commercial thinning?
    Forest Service experience with commercial thinning has cost
    approximately $6,000 per acre. What level of investment would be
    required to implement the Secretary's Transition Plan?
        Answer. A waiver from CMAI is not necessary for the transition to
    young growth management. The $6,000 per acre commercial thinning costs
    were the result of test contracts to determine the validity of
    commercial thinning in young growth and included additional costs
    associated with getting appropriate mechanized equipment mobilized into
    Southeast Alaska. With those contracts, the Region has successfully
    offered and sold a 7.4 million board feet (mmbf) young growth
    stewardship contract (Heceta) without supplemental appropriated funds
    necessary to complete the project. Heceta was appraised for 100 percent
    export and appraising for export in the future will be a key component
    of the transition in order to obtain the value necessary to be able to
    offer the projects for bid.
        Question. To what extent will the Forest Service allow export of
    2nd Growth logs to achieve the goals laid out in the Secretary's
    Transition Plan?
        Answer. The Forest Service will allow export of second growth logs,
    to the extent necessary to achieve a positive appraisal value to offer
    the project for sale. As domestic processing facilities convert or come
    on-line to deal with the smaller diameter trees in a young growth sale,
    the actual export of logs is expected to decrease.
        Question. The Forest Service faces a large backlog of pre-
    commercial thinning and other treatments calculated to benefit timber
    quality and wildlife habitat. What level of finding will the Forest
    Service request for these activities?
        Answer. Based on the fiscal year 2015 President's budget, Alaska
    could expect to see a 6 percent (approx. $1 million) overall increase
    in appropriated dollars that could be used to help address the backlog
    of young stands needing for pre-commercial thinning.
        Question. The Secretary's July 2, 2013 Transition Memorandum does
    not propose a departure from the NFMA requirement that national forest
    timber be harvested on a sustained yield basis. Nor does the
    Secretary's Memorandum propose to modify the TLMP's 1000 foot beach set
    back rule or the stream buffer rules set out in TTRA. It thus appears
    that there is no profitable domestic or export market for second-growth
    timber from the Tongass National Forest that is subject to the
    management constraints of the NFMA and TLMP. How does the Forest
    Service propose to provide an assured supply of second-growth timber
    sufficient to justify mills and banks providing the financing needed to
    purchase the equipment and make the mill modifications required to
    handle second growth timber?
        Answer. All of these factors will be considered as part of the
    Tongass Plan amendment process to achieve the transition as described
    in the Secretary's Memorandum.
        Question. According to the Secretary's Memorandum, the Transition
    Plan is dependent on Congressional appropriations for ``increasing
    investments in young growth.'' The Secretary's Memorandum does not
    explain the level of investment that is needed or how in the face of
    decreasing Forest Service budgets such additional funds will be
    obtained and retained. What level of funding is the Forest Service
    requesting for this specifically and how much volume is it projected to
    produce?
        Answer. The Alaska Region would refocus the existing workforce into
    planning and executing young growth projects at an increasing pace and
    scale as old growth ``bridge timber'' sales are prepared and offered.
    Annual appropriations at or near the fiscal year 2014 budget level of
    $339 million for Forest Products will be adequate for the immediate
    future.
        It is currently uncertain what volume of young growth will be
    attainable as a result of the forest plan amendment. The proposed plan
    amendment will be designed to evaluate which lands will be available
    for timber harvest, especially young growth timber, which lands should
    be excluded, and additional opportunities to promote and speed the
    transition to young growth management.'' There are about 450,000 acres
    of harvested acres on the Tongass to be evaluated to provide new
    economic opportunities in future decades, when the trees will be large
    enough to yield marketable products. Outputs will be dependent upon the
    characteristics of the stands selected for harvest, the prescriptions
    applied and the economic viability of the selected treatments.
        Question. The Secretary's Memorandum, which results in a timber
    harvest level of 30-50 MMBF, does not explain what has changed since
    the 2008 Amended Forest Plan that would allow it to meet the Market
    Demand requirement of the TTRA which the 2008 Amended Forest Plan ROD
    said was 200 MMBF. Why does the Forest Service believe it has
    discretion to nullify the TTRA by so encumbering the suitable land base
    to surrender its ability to meet market demand?
        Answer. The Secretary of Agriculture monitors and reports on timber
    supply and demand in Southeast Alaska, consistent with ANILCA. As part
    of the Alaska Region's current program of work, an updated timber
    demand study will be completed, which will be considered in the Tongass
    Forest Plan amendment process.
        Question. The 2001 Roadless Rule prohibits communities such as
    Craig and Klawock from accessing mines with a road on Prince of Wales
    Island, thereby denying access to jobs to the residents of those
    communities and a local workforce to Prince of Wales' mines, such as
    Niblack and Bokan Mountain.
        What actions does the Forest Service plan to take to resolve this
    problem?
        Answer. The 2001 Roadless Rule explicitly allows road construction
    if ``A road is needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or as
    provided for by statute or treaty.'' This includes roads needed under
    valid existing rights established under the 1872 Mining Law. A
    determination whether a road is needed for these mines will be made
    upon submission by the mining companies involved of a proposed Plan of
    Operations that includes construction of such a road.
                            stewardship contracting
        Question. I have received reports that some of the Regions have
    been told to shift as much of their commercial timber sale program to
    stewardship contracting as possible.
        If so, why the focus on generating excess receipts by converting
    what would have been commercial timber sale projects to stewardship
    contracts?
        Answer. The Forest Service Washington Office has not directed the
    Regional Offices to shift timber sales into stewardship contracts.
    While we view stewardship contracting as an important tool, it is not
    our only tool in the toolbox. Both timber sale contracts and
    stewardship contracts are important tools to accomplish our work.
        Question. I have also been told that Forest Supervisors have been
    telling members of the public that the reason for shifting away from
    commercial timber sales to stewardship contracting is to allow the
    Forest Service to keep the excess receipts to use for salaries and road
    maintenance and under the discretion of the individual forest
    supervisor.
        The original concept of stewardship contracting was that the value
    of the timber volume would be equal to value of the service contract
    work to be accomplished. Is that not correct?
        Answer. The initial concept of stewardship contracting was and
    remains including timber volume and service work in roughly equal
    amounts within a stewardship contract. However, due to restoration
    needs and contractor capability, there are stewardship contracts where
    the value of the timber exceeds the value of the service work
    (producing retained receipts deposited into the Stewardship Contracting
    Fund) and there are stewardship contracts where the value of service
    work exceeds the value of the timber (requiring the addition of
    appropriated funds to the contract).
        Question. As I recall, the original premise of the stewardship
    contracting pilot projects was that the excess receipts were to be used
    to develop new stewardship contracts. Is that correct?
        Answer. Stewardship contracting retained receipts may be spent on
    new stewardship projects or on accomplishing additional restoration
    work within an existing stewardship project.
        Question. Please provide a table that shows by National Forest the
    percent of all saw timber sold through stewardship contracting versus
    commercial timber sale contracts.
        Answer. See the table below. Only National Forests with Sawtimber
    volume sold in fiscal year 2013 are included.

                      PERCENT OF ALL SAWTIMBER SOLD UNDER STEWARDSHIP AUTHORITY IN FISCAL YEAR 2013
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Sawtimber
                                                                   Total Sawtimber    Volume Sold       Percent of
                                                                    Volume Sold in       under       Total Sawtimber
                   Region                          Forest           thousand board   Stewardship in    Volume Sold
                                                                      feet (MBF)     thousand board       under
                                                                                       feet (MBF)    Stewardship (%)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    01 Northern Rockies.................  02 Beaverhead-Deerlodge              127                0              0.0
                                          03 Bitterroot..........            4,692            4,557             97.1
                                          04 Idaho Panhandle.....           27,601              675              2.4
                                          05 Clearwater..........           24,329           21,879             89.9
                                          08 Custer..............              131                0              0.0
                                          10 Flathead............            6,295              578              9.2
                                          11 Gallatin............              191                0              0.0
                                          12 Helena..............                4                0              0.0
                                          14 Kootenai............           20,990            3,819             18.2
                                          16 Lolo................            1,896              130              6.9
                                          17 Nez Perce...........            6,427               10              0.2
    02 Rocky Mountain...................  02 Bighorn.............           13,349                0              0.0
                                          03 Black Hills.........          116,610            2,490              2.1
                                          04 GMUG................           15,813              513              3.2
                                          06 MedBow-Routt........           26,186            2,957             11.3
                                          09 Rio Grande..........            8,491                0              0.0
                                          10 Arapahoe-Roosevelt..            8,908            4,122             46.3
                                          12 Pike-San Isabel.....            4,243            1,544             36.4
                                          13 San Juan............            7,737            3,865             50.0
                                          14 Shoshone............            2,799                0              0.0
                                          15 White River.........           17,413            5,512             31.7
    03 Southwestern.....................  01 Apache-Sitgreaves...           39,206           36,020             91.9
                                          03 Cibola..............            6,081            5,787             95.2
                                          04 Coconino............           45,931           36,094             78.6
                                          06 Gila................              692                0              0.0
                                          07 Kaibab..............           19,562           18,351             93.8
                                          08 Lincoln.............              680                0              0.0
                                          09 Prescott............            1,554            1,554            100.0
                                          10 Santa Fe............            1,049              507             48.3
                                          12 Tonto...............            3,865            2,353             60.9
    04 Intermountain....................  01 Ashley..............              465                0              0.0
                                          02 Boise...............           27,526           24,638             89.5
                                          03 Bridger-Teton.......            3,289                0              0.0
                                          07 Dixie...............            7,549            4,755             63.0
                                          08 Fishlake............            3,904                0              0.0
                                          12 Payette.............           10,591           10,572             99.8
                                          13 Salmon-Challis......            3,921            3,447             87.9
                                          14 Sawtooth............            1,528                0              0.0
                                          15 Caribou-Targhee.....               53               16             30.2
                                          19 Uinta-Wasatch-Cache.            4,971              307              6.2
    05 Pacific Southwest................  03 Eldorado............           26,054           25,415             97.5
                                          05 Klamath.............           21,369            5,808             27.2
                                          06 Lassen..............           43,609                0              0.0
                                          08 Mendocino...........           11,868            8,036             67.7
                                          09 Modoc...............           15,986                0              0.0
                                          10 Six Rivers..........           16,393           16,201             98.8
                                          11 Plumas..............           44,114            2,888              6.5
                                          13 Sequoia.............            4,265            4,016             94.2
                                          14 Shasta-Trinity......            7,826              954             12.2
                                          15 Sierra..............           17,784            3,152             17.7
                                          16 Stanislaus..........            3,194               44              1.4
                                          17 Tahoe...............           16,257            9,952             61.2
                                          19 Lake Tahoe Basin....              336                0              0.0
    06 Pacific Northwest................  01 Deschutes...........           41,066           14,628             35.6
                                          02 Fremont-Winema......           25,004           23,493             94.0
                                          03 Gifford Pinchot.....           28,565           21,750             76.1
                                          04 Malhuer.............           38,785           28,619             73.8
                                          05 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie           11,731                0              0.0
                                          06 Mt. Hood............           32,727           32,120             98.1
                                          07 Ochoco..............           11,440            1,873             16.4
                                          09 Olympic.............           24,000                0              0.0
                                          10 Rogue River-Siskiyou           29,271            1,761              6.0
                                          12 Siuslaw.............           38,990           22,105             56.7
                                          14 Umatilla............           16,615                0              0.0
                                          15 Umpqua..............           29,751            1,661              5.6
                                          16 Wallowa-Whitman.....           27,733            2,875             10.4
                                          17 Okanogan-Wenatchee..           22,566               34              0.2
                                          18 Willamette..........           82,692                0              0.0
                                          21 Colville............           33,444           29,020             86.8
    08 Southern.........................  0NFs in AL.............           22,686            5,698             25.1
                                          02 Daniel Boone........            3,310                0              0.0
                                          03 Chattahoochee-Oconee            2,263            1,162             51.3
                                          04 Cherokee............            6,241               13              0.2
                                          05 NFs in FL...........            5,889            5,486             93.2
                                          06 Kisatchie...........           22,807                0              0.0
                                          07 NFs in MS...........           30,060            4,070             13.5
                                          08 George Washington-              6,214                0              0.0
                                           Jefferson.
                                          09 Oachita.............           40,166                0              0.0
                                          10 Ozark-St. Francis...           34,233           11,632             34.0
                                          11 NFs in NC...........           11,816            1,469             12.4
                                          12 Francis Marion......           22,713                0              0.0
                                          13 NFs in TX...........           18,370           13,294             72.4
                                          60 Land Between the                1,059                0              0.0
                                           Lakes.
    09 Northern.........................  03 Chippewa............            7,404            2,095             28.3
                                          04 Huron-Manistee......           14,268            2,770             19.4
                                          05 Mark Twain..........           31,264            5,634             18.0
                                          07 Ottawa..............            7,024              518              7.4
                                          08 Shawnee.............            2,023                0              0.0
                                          09 Superior............            7,908              358              4.5
                                          10 Hiawatha............           13,631            3,273             24.0
                                          12 Hoosier.............            2,426                0              0.0
                                          13 Chiquamegon-Nicolet.           14,075            1,233              8.8
                                          14 Wayne...............            1,515                0              0.0
                                          19 Allegheny...........           14,647            4,513             30.8
                                          20 Green Mountain......            2,451            2,451            100.0
                                          21 Monongahela.........            3,760              116              3.1
                                          22 White Mountain......            4,924            1,559             31.7
    10 Alaska...........................  05 Tongass.............           13,572                1              0.0
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.........................  .......................        1,588,803          520,802             32.8
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Please also provide by National Forest a table that show
    how much excess receipts were generated through the stewardship
    contracts for each of the last 5 years, as well as a detailed
    accounting of how those excess receipts were expended and whether any
    of those excess receipts went to pay for salaries or other employee
    expenses.
        Answer. The table in Attachment A lists stewardship contracting
    collections and spending for fiscal year 2009 to 2013. Collections
    equal the sale value of the forest products in excess of the cost of
    the service work obtained under an integrated resource contract.
    Stewardship contracting funds are available until expended for other
    authorized stewardship projects and may be used for:
      --road and trail maintenance or decommissioning to restore or
            maintain water quality;
      --work to improve soil productivity, or other resource values;
      --prescribed fires to improve the composition, structure, condition,
            and health of forest stands or to improve wildlife habitat;
      --removal of vegetation or other activities to promote healthy
            forests, reduce fire hazards, or achieve other land management
            objectives;
      --restoration and maintenance of watersheds;
      --restoration and maintenance of wildlife and fish habitat; and
      --control of noxious and invasive weeds, and re-establishment of
            native plant species.
        The initial concept of stewardship contracting was and remains
    including timber volume and service work in roughly equal amounts
    within a stewardship contract. However, due to restoration needs and
    contractor capability, there are stewardship contracts where the value
    of the timber exceeds the value of the service work (producing retained
    receipts deposited into the Stewardship Contracting Fund (SSCC)).
    Unused balances in SSCC carry-over into the next fiscal year. This can
    create a situation where we may plan to spend more SSCC funds than we
    collect in the current fiscal year.

                                  ATTACHMENT A

                         FISCAL YEAR 2009-2013 STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING COLLECTIONS AND SPENDING
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Total Spending
                     Fiscal Year                              Forest Name               Total    -------------------
                                                                                     Collections   Other *  Salary *
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2009.........................................  APACHE-SITGREAVES...............           0
    2009.........................................  ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT...............           0
    2009.........................................  BITTERROOT......................  ...........       -12
    2009.........................................  BOISE...........................  ...........       103
    2009.........................................  CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET.............         213         94
    2009.........................................  CHEROKEE........................  ...........        10
    2009.........................................  CLEARWATER......................         243        237
    2009.........................................  COLVILLE........................         293         84        58
    2009.........................................  DIXIE...........................           0
    2009.........................................  ELDORADO........................       1,300        200
    2009.........................................  FLATHEAD........................         257         20         0
    2009.........................................  FRANCIS MARION & SUMTER.........           4         92
    2009.........................................  GIFFORD PINCHOT.................          81
    2009.........................................  HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE................           1
    2009.........................................  HURON MANISTEE..................          45         44
    2009.........................................  IDAHO PANHANDLE.................         417         38
    2009.........................................  KISATCHIE.......................         256        194
    2009.........................................  KLAMATH.........................           6
    2009.........................................  KOOTENAI........................         229
    2009.........................................  LOLO............................           0
    2009.........................................  MANTI-LASAL.....................           0
    2009.........................................  MENDOCINO.......................           2          2
    2009.........................................  MONONGAHELA.....................  ...........        82
    2009.........................................  MT HOOD.........................  ...........        -1
    2009.........................................  NEZPERCE........................          94          7
    2009.........................................  NFS IN ALABAMA..................  ...........        62
    2009.........................................  NFS IN FLORIDA..................           1        -57
    2009.........................................  NFS IN MISSISSIPPI..............         200
    2009.........................................  NFS IN NORTH CAROLINA...........  ...........         3
    2009.........................................  NFS IN TEXAS....................          18
    2009.........................................  OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE..............           3
    2009.........................................  OLYMPIC.........................          45         44
    2009.........................................  PAYETTE.........................          16
    2009.........................................  PIKE-SAN ISABEL.................           0
    2009.........................................  RIO GRANDE......................           0
    2009.........................................  SIUSLAW.........................         340        364
    2009.........................................  UMATILLA........................       1,323      1,153
    2009.........................................  UMPQUA..........................          92         23        80
    2009.........................................  WALLOWA WHITMAN.................         203        266         1
    2009.........................................  WHITE MOUNTAIN..................          22
    2009.........................................  WHITE RIVER.....................           3
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------
          2009 Totals **.........................  ................................       5,707      3,052       139
                                                  ==================================================================
    2010.........................................  ALLEGHENY.......................         247         56
    2010.........................................  ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT...............          80         25
    2010.........................................  ASHLEY..........................           8
    2010.........................................  BIGHORN.........................          59
    2010.........................................  BITTERROOT......................          40         55
    2010.........................................  BLACK HILLS.....................  ...........        51
    2010.........................................  BOISE...........................           0          5
    2010.........................................  CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET.............          84          4
    2010.........................................  CHEROKEE........................           4          0
    2010.........................................  CHIPPEWA........................           1
    2010.........................................  CLEARWATER......................  ...........         0
    2010.........................................  COCONINO........................  ...........         0
    2010.........................................  COLVILLE........................           0         47        64
    2010.........................................  DANIEL BOONE....................           3
    2010.........................................  ELDORADO........................         243        540
    2010.........................................  FLATHEAD........................         735         41         0
    2010.........................................  FRANCIS MARION & SUMTER.........         145        131
    2010.........................................  GREEN MOUNTAIN/FINGER LAKES.....          16          5
    2010.........................................  HIAWATHA........................          96         19
    2010.........................................  HURON MANISTEE..................          24          0
    2010.........................................  IDAHO PANHANDLE.................  ...........        32
    2010.........................................  KISATCHIE.......................  ...........         0
    2010.........................................  KOOTENAI........................           2        140
    2010.........................................  LOLO............................          38
    2010.........................................  MALHEUR.........................         350         20
    2010.........................................  MARK TWAIN......................          47         28
    2010.........................................  MENDOCINO.......................  ...........         0
    2010.........................................  MT HOOD.........................         480        285
    2010.........................................  NEZPERCE........................  ...........        47
    2010.........................................  NFS IN ALABAMA..................          48          4
    2010.........................................  NFS IN FLORIDA..................  ...........        58
    2010.........................................  NFS IN MISSISSIPPI..............         631        350
    2010.........................................  NFS IN TEXAS....................         585        378         0
    2010.........................................  OLYMPIC.........................           3          0
    2010.........................................  OTTAWA..........................           0
    2010.........................................  OZARK-ST FRANCIS................  ...........         7
    2010.........................................  PIKE-SAN ISABEL.................           1
    2010.........................................  SHASTA TRINITY..................           1
    2010.........................................  SIUSLAW.........................  ...........       314
    2010.........................................  STANISLAUS......................           4
    2010.........................................  SUPERIOR........................  ...........         0
    2010.........................................  TAHOE...........................          44
    2010.........................................  UMATILLA........................       3,445      1,416
    2010.........................................  UMPQUA..........................         173          0        23
    2010.........................................  WALLOWA WHITMAN.................          57          0        -1
    2010.........................................  WHITE MOUNTAIN..................           4
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------
          2010 Totals **.........................  ................................       7,698      4,058        86
                                                  ==================================================================
    2011.........................................  ALLEGHENY.......................  ...........        73
    2011.........................................  APACHE-SITGREAVES...............           0          0
    2011.........................................  ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT...............           2          0
    2011.........................................  BITTERROOT......................           8         -5
    2011.........................................  BLACK HILLS.....................  ...........         1
    2011.........................................  BOISE...........................  ...........        40
    2011.........................................  CHATT-OCONEE....................           0
    2011.........................................  CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET.............         112         52
    2011.........................................  CHIPPEWA........................           0
    2011.........................................  CLEARWATER......................         593        244
    2011.........................................  COLVILLE........................         150        129        81
    2011.........................................  ELDORADO........................          69        851
    2011.........................................  FLATHEAD........................          20        490         0
    2011.........................................  FRANCIS MARION & SUMTER.........         978        461
    2011.........................................  FREMONT-WINEMA..................           9
    2011.........................................  GEORGE WASHINGTON/JEFFERSON.....         187
    2011.........................................  GIFFORD PINCHOT.................          43
    2011.........................................  GREEN MOUNTAIN/FINGER LAKES.....          67         29
    2011.........................................  HIAWATHA........................  ...........        52
    2011.........................................  HOOSIER.........................          10
    2011.........................................  HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE................          31
    2011.........................................  HURON MANISTEE..................         241         -8
    2011.........................................  IDAHO PANHANDLE.................  ...........         0
    2011.........................................  KISATCHIE.......................  ...........         0
    2011.........................................  KLAMATH.........................  ...........         6
    2011.........................................  LAND BETWEEN THE LAKES NRA......           7
    2011.........................................  MALHEUR.........................       1,840      2,062
    2011.........................................  MEDICINE BOW/ROUTT..............          27
    2011.........................................  MENDOCINO.......................          15
    2011.........................................  MT HOOD.........................         623        498
    2011.........................................  NFS IN ALABAMA..................  ...........        11
    2011.........................................  NFS IN FLORIDA..................          13         -7
    2011.........................................  NFS IN MISSISSIPPI..............         207        175
    2011.........................................  NFS IN NORTH CAROLINA...........  ...........         5
    2011.........................................  NFS IN TEXAS....................         165        303         1
    2011.........................................  OUACHITA........................          70
    2011.........................................  OZARK-ST FRANCIS................         292          0
    2011.........................................  PAYETTE.........................  ...........         0
    2011.........................................  PIKE-SAN ISABEL.................           1
    2011.........................................  SAN JUAN........................           0
    2011.........................................  SHASTA TRINITY..................          20
    2011.........................................  SIUSLAW.........................         526        325
    2011.........................................  TAHOE...........................  ...........        44
    2011.........................................  UMATILLA........................         868      3,225
    2011.........................................  UMPQUA..........................  ...........         1        20
    2011.........................................  WALLOWA WHITMAN.................         719        269
    2011.........................................  WAYNE...........................          81         73
    2011.........................................  WHITE RIVER.....................           0
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------
          2011 Totals **.........................  ................................       7,994      9,399       102
                                                  ==================================================================
    2012.........................................  ALLEGHENY.......................  ...........        78
    2012.........................................  ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT...............           2         25
    2012.........................................  ASHLEY..........................  ...........         5
    2012.........................................  BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE............  ...........        14
    2012.........................................  BIGHORN.........................  ...........        18
    2012.........................................  BITTERROOT......................          40         10
    2012.........................................  BLACK HILLS.....................          21          0
    2012.........................................  BOISE...........................          49         87
    2012.........................................  BRIDGER-TETON...................           9
    2012.........................................  CHATT-OCONEE....................  ...........        18
    2012.........................................  CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET.............         524         51
    2012.........................................  CLEARWATER......................         190        429
    2012.........................................  COLVILLE........................         276         14        36
    2012.........................................  DESCHUTES.......................           1
    2012.........................................  DIXIE...........................           0
    2012.........................................  ELDORADO........................         150        178
    2012.........................................  FLATHEAD........................          79        549         0
    2012.........................................  FRANCIS MARION & SUMTER.........         943        462
    2012.........................................  GEORGE WASHINGTON/JEFFERSON.....  ...........        64
    2012.........................................  GIFFORD PINCHOT.................          10         41
    2012.........................................  GREEN MOUNTAIN/FINGER LAKES.....          10         21
    2012.........................................  HIAWATHA........................  ...........         6
    2012.........................................  HURON MANISTEE..................           6         20
    2012.........................................  IDAHO PANHANDLE.................  ...........       189
    2012.........................................  KISATCHIE.......................           3        -76
    2012.........................................  KLAMATH.........................           1
    2012.........................................  KOOTENAI........................  ...........         0
    2012.........................................  LINCOLN.........................           1
    2012.........................................  MALHEUR.........................       2,313      1,406
    2012.........................................  MEDICINE BOW/ROUTT..............           3
    2012.........................................  MENDOCINO.......................           2
    2012.........................................  MONONGAHELA.....................  ...........        11
    2012.........................................  MT HOOD.........................         207        470
    2012.........................................  NFS IN ALABAMA..................           3         11
    2012.........................................  NFS IN FLORIDA..................          37
    2012.........................................  NFS IN MISSISSIPPI..............         369        165
    2012.........................................  NFS IN NORTH CAROLINA...........  ...........        67
    2012.........................................  NFS IN TEXAS....................         325        441
    2012.........................................  OLYMPIC.........................           1
    2012.........................................  OTTAWA..........................          83         40
    2012.........................................  OUACHITA........................         163         27
    2012.........................................  OZARK-ST FRANCIS................  ...........        50
    2012.........................................  PAYETTE.........................          89         50
    2012.........................................  PIKE-SAN ISABEL.................           2          1
    2012.........................................  PLUMAS..........................          13
    2012.........................................  SIUSLAW.........................         688        427
    2012.........................................  TAHOE...........................  ...........         0
    2012.........................................  TONGASS.........................          13
    2012.........................................  UMATILLA........................       2,223          0
    2012.........................................  UMPQUA..........................  ...........        51        17
    2012.........................................  WALLOWA WHITMAN.................         277        236
    2012.........................................  WAYNE...........................  ...........         0
    2012.........................................  WILLAMETTE......................         305
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------
          2012 Totals **.........................  ................................       9,431      5,656        53
                                                  ==================================================================
    2013.........................................  AGENCY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.....           0
    2013.........................................  ALLEGHENY.......................         232         79
    2013.........................................  APACHE-SITGREAVES...............           0
    2013.........................................  ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT...............           4          0
    2013.........................................  BIGHORN.........................           0         18
    2013.........................................  BITTERROOT......................           0          0
    2013.........................................  BLACK HILLS.....................           0         16
    2013.........................................  BOISE...........................           0         48
    2013.........................................  CHATT-OCONEE....................           0          1
    2013.........................................  CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET.............          68        132
    2013.........................................  CHEROKEE........................          12
    2013.........................................  CHIPPEWA........................           0          0
    2013.........................................  CIBOLA..........................           0
    2013.........................................  CLEARWATER......................         380        437
    2013.........................................  COCONINO........................           0
    2013.........................................  COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE NAT AREA...          68
    2013.........................................  COLVILLE........................         755         -9        41
    2013.........................................  DESCHUTES.......................         500        416
    2013.........................................  DIXIE...........................           0
    2013.........................................  ELDORADO........................         695        136
    2013.........................................  FLATHEAD........................         525        346
    2013.........................................  FRANCIS MARION & SUMTER.........       1,028      1,064
    2013.........................................  FREMONT-WINEMA..................          41
    2013.........................................  GALLATIN........................           0
    2013.........................................  GIFFORD PINCHOT.................          38        -17
    2013.........................................  GRAND MESA-UNC-GUNN.............           0
    2013.........................................  GREEN MOUNTAIN/FINGER LAKES.....         111         70
    2013.........................................  HIAWATHA........................           1          7
    2013.........................................  HOOSIER.........................          13
    2013.........................................  HURON MANISTEE..................         136         31
    2013.........................................  IDAHO PANHANDLE.................           0          9
    2013.........................................  INYO............................           2
    2013.........................................  KAIBAB..........................           1
    2013.........................................  KISATCHIE.......................           0          7
    2013.........................................  KLAMATH.........................           0          0
    2013.........................................  KOOTENAI........................         171          0
    2013.........................................  LAND BETWEEN THE LAKES NRA......           0
    2013.........................................  LASSEN..........................           0
    2013.........................................  LEWIS AND CLARK.................          11
    2013.........................................  LINCOLN.........................           0
    2013.........................................  LOLO............................          70         45
    2013.........................................  LOS PADRES......................           1
    2013.........................................  MALHEUR.........................       1,589      2,785
    2013.........................................  MANTI-LASAL.....................           0
    2013.........................................  MARK TWAIN......................           3          0
    2013.........................................  MEDICINE BOW/ROUTT..............          13
    2013.........................................  MONONGAHELA.....................           3        342
    2013.........................................  MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE.............          30
    2013.........................................  MT HOOD.........................       1,377        253
    2013.........................................  NFS IN ALABAMA..................           0          7
    2013.........................................  NFS IN FLORIDA..................          20         28
    2013.........................................  NFS IN MISSISSIPPI..............           0        655
    2013.........................................  NFS IN NORTH CAROLINA...........           1         11
    2013.........................................  NFS IN TEXAS....................         655        568         1
    2013.........................................  OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE..............           0
    2013.........................................  OTTAWA..........................         301        270
    2013.........................................  OUACHITA........................          80         20
    2013.........................................  OZARK-ST FRANCIS................           0         46
    2013.........................................  PAYETTE.........................           0          0
    2013.........................................  PIKE-SAN ISABEL.................           0
    2013.........................................  PLUMAS..........................           0
    2013.........................................  ROGUE RIVER/SISKIYOU............           0
    2013.........................................  SALMON-CHALLIS..................           0
    2013.........................................  SAN JUAN........................           0
    2013.........................................  SIERRA..........................           0
    2013.........................................  SIUSLAW.........................       1,225      1,028
    2013.........................................  SIX RIVERS......................           0
    2013.........................................  STANISLAUS......................           0
    2013.........................................  SUPERIOR........................           0
    2013.........................................  TAHOE...........................         361
    2013.........................................  TONGASS.........................           0
    2013.........................................  UMATILLA........................         770        597
    2013.........................................  UMPQUA..........................         564         16        79
    2013.........................................  WALLOWA WHITMAN.................         507        394
    2013.........................................  WAYNE...........................           0
    2013.........................................  WHITE MOUNTAIN..................           0          2
    2013.........................................  WHITE RIVER.....................           3
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------
          2013 Total **..........................  ................................      12,365      9,858       121
                                                  ==================================================================
            Total **.............................  ................................      43,200     32,016       501
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Salary is defined as all spending in Budget Object Classification (BOC) codes starting with 11 and 12, and
      Other is all remaining BOCs.
    ** The total Costs and Spending may not exactly match the numbers in MAX because data was run at different
      points in year, which may result in some prior year adjustments.

        Question. Alaska's timber industry predominantly consists of small
    businesses. In fact, small business purchasers have bought the majority
    of the timber sale volume offered by the Federal Government for the
    last 60 years. I have asked about the agency's plans for applying the
    small business set aside requirement to stewardship contracting sales
    and you indicated that there were ``issues'' that were being
    considered.
        What are those ``issues'' being considered?
        Answer. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has requested
    inclusion of the Stewardship Integrated Resource Timber Contracts
    (IRTCs) in the Small Business Timber Sale Set-Aside Program. The use of
    IRTCs has increased to the extent that, on some market areas (outside
    of Alaska), only stewardship sales are being offered; thus, no sales
    are available to be set-aside for preferential bidding by small
    businesses when the Set-Aside Program is initiated (``triggered'') on a
    market area.
        Question. Does the administration plan to move forward with a small
    business set-aside program for stewardship contracting?
        If so, when do you expect this to occur?
        Answer. Based upon direction from Congress, any changes in Small
    Business Timber Sale Set-Aside Program policy or manual direction are
    required to go through a public review and comment process. The Forest
    Service plans to publish a Proposed Directive in the Federal Register
    for public review and comment which includes adding sawtimber volumes
    sold via IRTCs in the volumes used to calculate market shares under the
    Set-Aside Program and evaluating sawtimber volumes sold via IRSCs and
    their effect upon the Set-Aside Program at the end of the current 5-
    year recomputation period (10/1/2010-9/30/2015). The Proposed Directive
    is currently being prepared for Agency and Departmental clearance.
                              secure rural schools
        Question. Your agency's proposal includes a 5-year reauthorization
    of Secure Rural Schools (SRS). It is the same proposal that has
    appeared in the last couple of budgets. What we really need is a long-
    term solution that gets the cut up across our forests so that we have
    both revenue and jobs.
        Approximately how much revenue does the Forest Service expect to
    collect and use to offset the SRS program cost of $251 million for
    fiscal year 2015?
        Answer. The proposal for the fiscal year 2015 Secure Rural Schools
    program includes $115 million in collections to offset the total cost
    of $251 million.
        Question. Does the agency have any suggested ``pay for's''
    (Offsets) to cover the mandatory spending proposed for this program?
        Answer. The proposal is offset within the President's budget.
                               aviation questions
        Question. Please provide a table with the description of each of
    the Next Generation tankers that you expect to be on the line fighting
    fire this year. In the table please include the name of the contractor,
    a description of the asset, and status of each contract.

        Answer. Next Generation Airtankers Fiscal Year 2014:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        # of       Estimated Start
                        Vendor                                   Type                 Aircraft           Date
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    10-Tanker....................................  DC-10..........................            1             05/05/14
    10-Tanker (additional equipment clause)......  DC-10..........................            1             05/19/14
    10-Tanker (additional equipment clause)......  DC-10..........................            1             07/01/14
    Aero Air.....................................  MD-87..........................            2   06/05 and 06/10/14
    Aero Air (additional equipment clause).......  MD-87..........................            1             07/01/14
    Aero Flite...................................  RJ-85..........................            2   06/20 and 06/30/14
    Aero Flite (additional equipment clause).....  RJ-85..........................            1             07/01/14
    Coulson......................................  C-130Q.........................            1             05/13/14
    Minden.......................................  BAe-146........................            1   Missed 04/25 Start
    Neptune (additional equipment clause)........  BAe-146........................            1             05/16/14
    Neptune (additional equipment clause)........  BAe-146........................            1             05/16/14
    Neptune (additional equipment clause)........  BAe-146........................            1             06/01/14
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. As a result of last year's military appropriations bill
    you were to receive seven older C-130 H models from the Coast Guard.
    When will those seven C-130's be tanked, certified, and on the line
    fighting fire?
        Please provide a list of each aircraft, what work remains to be
    accomplished and the earliest and latest date that those individual
    aircraft will be available for firefighting.
        Answer. We expect the first aircraft to be transferred in late 2014
    or early 2015 and be available for limited operations in 2015 with a
    Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS) II system. This aircraft
    would be fitted with the gravity tank sometime in fiscal year 2016. The
    C-130H aircraft will be Forest Service owned and contractor operated
    and maintained. We expect three additional aircraft to be transferred
    in fiscal year 2017 and the remaining three to be transferred in fiscal
    year 2018.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Fiscal   Fiscal   Fiscal  Fiscal  Fiscal
               Aircraft              Year     Year     Year    Year    Year
                                     2014     2015     2016    2017    2018
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1708.........................  CWR,     Deliver  RDS      ......  ......
                                    PDM,     ed to
                                    OWR      USFS,
                                             2nd
                                             Quarte
                                             r

    1719.........................  .......   CWR, PDM, OWR,   Delive
                                                   RDS         red
                                                               to
                                                               USFS,
                                                               1st
                                                               Quart
                                                               er

    1706.........................  .......  .......  PDM,     Delive
                                                      OWR,     red
                                                      RDS      to
                                                               USFS,
                                                               3rd
                                                               Quart
                                                               er

    1721.........................  .......  .......  PDM,     Delive
                                                      RDS      red
                                                               to
                                                               USFS,
                                                               4th
                                                               Quart
                                                               er

    1713.........................  .......  .......  .......  CWR,    Delive
                                                               PDM,    red
                                                               OWR,    to
                                                               RDS     USFS,
                                                                       1st
                                                                       Quart
                                                                       er

    1709.........................  .......  .......  .......  CWR,    Delive
                                                               PDM,    red
                                                               OWR,    to
                                                               RDS     USFS,
                                                                       2nd
                                                                       Quart
                                                                       er

    1714.........................  .......  .......  .......  PDM,    Delive
                                                               OWR,    red
                                                               RDS     to
                                                                       USFS,
                                                                       4th
                                                                       Quart
                                                                       er
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CWR--Center Wing Box Replacement
    OWR--Outer Wing Box Replacement
    PDM--Programmed Depot Maintenance
    RDS--Retardant Delivery System Install

        Question. As part of the Farm Bill you receive authorization to
    contract for up to five new C-130 J models through a leasing scheme.
        What steps have to be undertaken before you will have those
    aircraft available to fight fires?
        Answer. The Forest Service is planning on posting a Request for
    Information (RFI) in Fed Biz Opps to allow vendors to explore
    innovative options for meeting the intent of the Farm Bill
    authorization.
        Once the Forest Service receives results from the RFI we will
    evaluate how to move forward in exploring use of this authority.
    Depending on vendor options provided, fleet needs, and other contracted
    and owned aircraft already obtained, we may pursue an RFP.
        Question. What is the estimated cost of leasing, converting, and
    finding private contractors to fly and maintain those aircraft?
        Answer. Until the proposals are evaluated from the Request for
    Information, the costs and availability of contractors cannot be
    determined.
        Question. When will each of those aircraft be on the line to fight
    fires?
        Answer. Until the proposals from a solicitation are evaluated,
    options and timelines are speculative.
        Question. During a late March Aerial Fire Fighting Conference in
    Sacramento, California the commander of the Channel Island Air National
    Guard base that operates several of the C-130's they provide the Forest
    Service for firefighting indicated that the Air National Guard and the
    Forest Service and other would be undertaking a redesign of the MAFF II
    units because the current units were considered substandard. He went on
    to explain that the current units only lay-down a slurry line that is
    about 60 yards wide, far less than the 220 yard wide slurry line that
    is called for.
        Why is it that this information has not been provided to Congress
    by the Forest Service?
        Answer. The MAFFS II systems meet the minimum standards for
    retardant delivery systems established by the Interagency Airtanker
    Board. The MAFFS II line is narrower than the line produced by
    commercial large airtankers, but produces a more contiguous pattern.
    This refinement of MAFFS II will improve performance of the system. The
    MAFFS II design is over a decade old and new technology and refinement
    of the existing system may improve coverage levels, effectiveness and
    reduce overall weight of the system. MAFFS 2.5 will also take advantage
    of the additional capabilities of the C-130J aircraft based at Channel
    Island.
        Question. What will the expected cost of the redesign be?
        Answer. The National Defense Authorization Act 2013 identified $16
    million in MAFFS funding. The Forest Service has already contributed
    over $1 million toward the MAFFS 2.5 refinement.
        Question. When will the new slurry MAFF III units be ready for use?
        Answer. The estimated delivery is 3 years. Once the first system is
    produced it will have to undergo extensive testing, field evaluation
    and Air Force review.
        Question. Are you concerned about greater risks to ground fire
    fighters because of this defect?
        Answer. No. The MAFFS II systems have performed well since being
    implemented and continue to be an important surge capacity.
                     collaborative forest landscape program
        Question. The Budget request includes a proposal to expand the
    Collaborative Forest Landscape Program by increasing the funding from
    the currently authorized level of $40 million per year to $60 million
    per year. Currently that $40 million supports 23 projects with each
    approved project eligible for up to $4 million per year for up to 10
    years. This program is heavily geared to restoration in fire adapted
    ecosystems and is supposed to have as its focus bringing down fire
    suppression costs by working collaboratively and strategically to bring
    fire suppression costs down. I am becoming concerned that this program
    is becoming simply another budget line item to fund collaborative
    forest restoration work that could otherwise be accomplished through
    other budget line items outside of the program. There are many
    opportunities outside of CFLR to expand management nationwide.
        What assurances can you give me that the current and future
    projects selected will be projects suited for this program specifically
    that meet all its criteria and are not simply work that could be
    accomplished outside the program umbrella?
        Answer. Proposals will be prepared in response to a Request for
    Proposals that specifically calls for collaborative teams to address
    how their project meets the purposes of the Act. In addition, proposals
    will be reviewed by an interdisciplinary Federal Advisory Committee
    that will recommend projects for funding to the Secretary. This
    Advisory Committee will specifically be looking for projects that meet
    the criteria of the Act.
        Question. The CFLR program requires matching funds for projects
    approved under the program. I am receiving reports from regions with
    CFLR projects that CFLR funds are not supplementing but are actually
    supplanting or displacing regular funds for national forest system
    units that have projects. To your knowledge, is this occurring?
        Answer. Regions and Forests have prioritized the funding of CLFR
    projects against other initiatives or priorities. In many cases, CFLR
    is the primary program of work or a major part of their program of
    work. The matching funds for the program utilize appropriated Agency
    funds, in-kind and partner contribution as well as funds provided
    through the legislation.
        Question. What assurances can you give me that the CFLR funds are
    truly supplemental to regular unit funds and that concrete financial
    matching is occurring at the regions?
        Answer. We keep detailed records on the funding spent for each
    project. In fiscal year 2012, projects spent $26.2 million in CFLR
    funds and over $59 million in other funds, including $12.4 million in
    partner contributions.
        Question. What significant results can you report on today from the
    projects funded through the program that would justify a 50 percent
    increase in funding at this time?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2014, we have 23 projects funded through
    CFLR. Between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013, these 23 projects
    have generated more than 838 million board feet (mmbf) of timber,
    established or improved forest vegetation on 191,000 acres, restored or
    enhance 936,000 acres of terrestrial habitat, and enhanced community
    safety through the treatment of hazardous fuels on more than 661,200
    acres. Additionally, in fiscal year 2013 alone these projects created
    or maintained more than 5,307 jobs and generated more than $195 million
    in labor income, supporting rural economies in 14 States.
        Note that these accomplishments are larger than what was reported
    in the fiscal year 2015 Budget Justification because they include the
    three additional projects added in fiscal year 2013, whereas the Budget
    Justification only reported on the accomplishments of the 20 projects
    that existed as of 2012.
        Question. If the program authorization were increased and funded at
    $60 million, outline specifically what/how the Forest Service would
    spend that additional funding?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2015 President's budget would expand the
    authority of the 23 existing projects and also permit the investment in
    up to 10 new CFLRP projects. New CFLRP projects will be submitted by
    Forest Service Regions and reviewed by the Advisory Committee. The
    Advisory Committee will then submit recommendations for funding
    projects to the Secretary of Agriculture, who will make a final
    decision regarding which projects will receive CFLRP funds. The
    Secretary may select up to 10 new projects for funding in fiscal year
    2015. As the new projects are selected and begin to implement
    treatments on the ground, we expect outputs to increase. The increases
    are primarily expected in fiscal year 2016 and beyond.
        Question. Please provide the list of current projects and how much
    each project has received to date, and would be expected to receive in
    fiscal year 2015 if funded at the $40 million level? If funded at the
    $60 million level?
        Answer. The table below displays the funding to date by project and
    planned project funding for fiscal year 2015 at the $40 and $60 million
    levels. We plan to allocate approximately $13.4 million of the
    additional $20 million requested in fiscal year 2015 to existing
    projects and use the remaining to begin work on new projects that would
    be identified and selected in fiscal year 2015.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Total Funds  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year
                                                                                 (Fiscal     2015 CFLRP   2015 CFLRP
                  Project Name                Reg.          Forest(s)           Year 2010    funded at    funded at
                                                                                to Fiscal   $40 million  $60 million
                                                                                Year 2014)     level        level
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Southwestern Crown of the Continent....      1  Lolo, Flathead, Helena...  $16,366,292   $2,996,206   $4,000,000
    Selway-Middle Fork Clearwater Project..      1  Nez Perce, Clearwater....   16,209,079    2,996,206    4,000,000
    Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative....      1  Idaho Panhandle..........    2,004,265    1,002,125    1,337,859
    Uncompahgre Plateau....................      2  Uncompahgre..............    4,279,120      849,724    1,134,400
    Colorado Front Range...................      2  Arapaho, Roosevelt, Pike,   16,339,017    2,996,206    4,000,000
                                                     San Isabel.
    4 Forest Restoration Initiative........      3  Apache-Sitgreaves,          17,337,007    2,996,206    4,000,000
                                                     Kaibab, Coconino, Tonto.
    Southwest Jemez Mountains..............      3  Santa Fe/Valles Caldera     14,118,012    2,996,206    4,000,000
                                                     Trust & National
                                                     Preserve.
    Zuni Mountain CFLRP....................      3  Cibola...................    1,965,501      599,241      800,000
    Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters CFLRP..      4  Payette..................    9,694,537    2,883,848    3,850,000
    Dinkey Landscape Restoration Project...      5  Sierra...................    5,105,832      940,074    1,255,019
    Burney-Hat Creek Basins Project........      5  Lassen...................    2,746,110    1,057,144    1,411,310
    Amador-Calaveras Consensus Group             5  Eldorado and Stanislaus..    3,794,317    1,208,515    1,613,394
     Cornerstone Project.
    Tapash.................................      6  Okanagan-Wenatchee.......   10,364,010      310,247      414,187
    Deschutes Skyline......................      6  Deschutes................    4,783,687    1,007,100    1,344,500
    Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Proposal.....      6  Fremont-Winema...........   10,229,507    2,172,249    2,900,000
    Southern Blues Restoration Coalition...      6  Malheur..................    7,393,067    1,872,629    2,500,000
    Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020      6  Colville.................    5,767,003    2,713,952    3,623,185
    Accelerating Longleaf Pine Restoration       8  Florida/Osceola..........    7,090,863    1,336,439    1,784,175
     in Northeast Florida.
    Shortleaf-Bluestem Community...........      8  Ouachita.................    5,097,110    1,789,858    2,389,500
    Grandfather Restoration Project........      8  Pisgah...................    1,588,596      359,345      479,733
    Ozark Highlands Ecosystem Restoration..      8  Ozark-St. Francis........    5,079,472    1,613,629    2,154,230
    Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration and      8  De Soto..................    8,161,331    2,247,154    3,000,000
     Hazardous Fuels Reduction.
    Missouri Pine-Oak Woodlands Restoration      9  Mark Twain...............    2,525,831    1,055,697    1,409,379
                                            ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total............................  .....  .........................  178,039,566   40,000,000   53,400,871
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. The Forest Service is scheduled to report to Congress on
    the program at the five year mark to determine whether it is meeting
    the program goals. Are you on schedule to complete this report? When
    can Congress expect to receive it?
        Answer. We are on track to meet this request. In 2011, we began a
    collaborative process with project groups and interested partners to
    develop indicators to feed this required report. Project teams are
    poised to report out on these indicators at the close of the fiscal
    year. This information will be supplemented with data gathered through
    our annual reporting cycle. We are working with internal experts,
    partner groups, and collaborative projects to develop a template to
    best report project progress with the goal of completing the report in
    March 2015.
                            wildfire cap adjustment
        Question. If budgeting and requesting 100 percent of the 10-year
    average isn't working, and your suppression costs are exceeding those
    levels, has the Forest Service considered using any different method to
    determine your budget request that might be more accurate?
        Answer. Using the 10-year average is a viable method for
    determining funding need, as is the case with wildfire suppression. The
    fiscal year 2015 President's budget recognizes that catastrophic fires
    should be considered disasters, and includes a proposed cap adjustment
    that is designed to budget for the likely worst case scenario.
        Question. Instead of requesting 100 percent of the 10-year rolling
    average, your budget proposal requests just 70 percent of it. This
    departs from the longstanding practice of the agency requesting the 10-
    year average and this committee providing that amount. How did you
    arrive at the 70 percent number?
        Answer. We are requesting 70 percent of the 10-year average because
    Forest Service and the Department of the Interior analysis has shown
    that 1 percent of fires represent 30 percent of Suppression costs.
    These are the most difficult, most costly fires--truly outside the norm
    and akin to ``disasters.'' The other 70 percent represent costs of 99
    percent of fires--those ``normal'' fires that should be paid for within
    the agencies' budgets. The remaining 30 percent and anything above the
    10-year average would be paid for like Congress pays for other
    disasters--through a cap adjustment.
        Question. Is it the position of the Forest Service that simply
    exceeding 70 percent of the 10-year rolling average of suppression
    costs equals an emergency or as you are calling it a ``disaster?''
    Please explain.
        Answer. No. The administration recommends that funds within the
    budget cap adjustment be accessible only for wildland fire suppression
    operations if one or more of the following criteria are met and a
    declaration has been issued by the Secretary of Agriculture (or the
    Department of the Interior):
      --a fire has required an emergency Federal response based on
            significant complexity, severity, or threat posed by the fire
            to human life, property, or resources; or
      --the fire covers 1,000 acres or more; or
      --the fire is within 10 miles of a major urban area (defined as
            50,000 inhabitants or more); and
      --the cumulative costs of wildfire suppression operations will exceed
            all of the amounts previously appropriated within 30 days.
        Question. One of the arguments being made in support of this
    proposal is that it will allow the agencies to fund in its program
    budget more fire prevention activities including hazardous fuel
    reduction and forest restoration, because now you must only ask for 70
    percent of the 10-year average instead of 100 percent? Can you outline
    for me specifically how much of these newly freed up funds have been
    made available to the Forest Service through the cap adjustment and how
    you intend to spend it?
        Answer. Compared to the fiscal year 2014 enacted budget, over $160
    million would be ``freed up'' in the Forest Service to invest in
    prevention and preparedness programs with this proposal. Those funds
    would go towards Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR), Collaborative
    Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLRP), Integrated Resource Restoration
    (IRR), Hazardous Fuels, Suppression and Preparedness in fiscal year
    2015 (the fiscal year 2015 Forest Service proposed budget is $125
    million less than the fiscal year 2014 enacted budget, due to continued
    efforts to reduce the deficit). When the fiscal year 2015 budget
    request was being prepared, the fiscal year 2014 budget was not
    enacted. As such, comparisons were made to the fiscal year 2014
    President's budget. When doing so, over $300 million in additional
    funding was allocated to LSR, CFLRP, IRR, Hazardous Fuels, Suppression,
    Preparedness, and State and Volunteer Fire Assistance.
        Question. What is your legislative strategy to enact the cap
    adjustment?
        Answer. The Administration is working with Congress and
    stakeholders to support and explain this proposal, especially the
    effects the fire funding problem is having on the Forest Service and
    the Department of the Interior programs. Given that a similar approach
    was proposed in bi-partisan bills in both the Senate and House, the
    administration is looking forward to working with congressional leaders
    in both Chambers to educate fellow members and encourage support,
    especially in the Budget Committees.
                                 roadless rule
        Question. Last month's Ninth Circuit Court Decision upheld the
    rulemaking by which the USDA promulgated the 2003 Tongass Exemption. In
    promulgating the 2003 Exemption rule the USDA relied upon the 2000
    Roadless Rule Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The case was
    remanded to the United States District Court for the District of Alaska
    to decide whether or not a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
    (SEIS) should have been prepared to support the 2003 Exemption rule. If
    the District Court determines that a Supplemental Environmental Impact
    Statement (SEIS) should have been prepared will the Forest Service
    prepare an SEIS in support of the 2003 rulemaking?
        Answer. The Forest Service will comply with the terms of the
    District Court's judgment at the time that it is issued.
        Question. If the District Court determines that a SEIS was not
    required will the Forest Service appeal that decision to the 9th
    Circuit.
        Answer. The Forest Service will comply with the terms of the
    District Court's judgment at the time that it is issued.
        Question. If the District Court determines that a SEIS was not
    required and an appeal, if any, agrees that a SEIS is not required will
    the USDA engage in new rulemaking to extinguish the 2003 Exemption?
        Answer. The Forest Service will comply with the terms of the
    District Court's judgment at the time that it is issued.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
        Question. As you mention in your testimony, one of the three key
    areas the President's fiscal year 2015 budget focuses on is managing
    wildland fires. As you know, wildfires have always been common and
    widespread in North Dakota. On a broader scale, there are more than
    70,000 communities that we know are at risk from wildfire.
        Specifically, the State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire
    Assistance Programs are primary Federal programs that assist
    communities to prepare for, and States and local fire departments to
    respond to, wildfires. We know that State and local resources are often
    the first to arrive at wildland fires, regardless of where they start--
    national forests, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), private or State
    lands. How is your department focusing on helping communities prepare
    for wildfires in advance and bolstering state and local initial attack
    resources to help keep unwanted fires, and their costs, as low as
    possible?
        Answer. Our Cooperative Fire programs--State and Volunteer Fire
    Assistance--provide funding for training and equipping State and local
    firefighters, to build capacity to provide effective initial attack
    response to wildfire. These State and local firefighters are often the
    Nation's first line of defense against wildland fires--almost 75
    percent of wildland fires are first responded to by State and local
    fire departments. We will continue to provide funding that is level
    with fiscal year 2014 amounts in the fiscal year 2015 budget for these
    important programs. We are also focusing our hazardous fuels treatments
    in and around communities to help reduce the risk of wildfires. In
    particular the fiscal year 2015 President's budget contains a proposal
    to provide $38 million in competitive funding for projects that reduce
    the risk to communities, targeted to areas of high risk near
    communities actively working on becoming fire adapted.
        Question. As you know, I was a member of the Senate and House
    conference committee which worked to pass a long-term Farm Bill.
    Included in the bill are several important authorities for the Forest
    Service which I hope will help reduce the cost of managing forests.
    Specifically, we included authority for stewardship contracting, the
    Good Neighbor Authority, and the Insect & Disease Infestation
    provision.
        Can you speak to the role of each of these authorities in helping
    the Forest Service get more work done on the ground, work that is
    urgently needed to ensure long-term ecological, economic and social
    health of our forests, communities, and economies?
        Answer. The Forest Service expects that the authorities included in
    the Farm Bill--permanent reauthorization for stewardship contracting,
    the Good Neighbor Authority, and the Insect & Disease Infestation
    provision will help us to more effectively restore our national forests
    while also benefiting local communities.
        Stewardship contracting helps the Forest Service achieve land and
    natural resource management goals while promoting closer public-private
    working relationships by using the value of forest products to offset
    the cost of services. Improved economic conditions and expanded markets
    for products have contributed to the expanded use of this tool.
    Overall, during the past 6 fiscal years, stewardship contracting
    acreage has nearly tripled. In addition to improved economic
    conditions, a better understanding of how to best use the tool has led
    to the increased size of projects. In fiscal year 2013 the Forest
    Service: established over 3,300 acres of forest vegetation, improved
    over 72,000 acres of wildlife habitat, treated over 130,000 acres of
    hazardous fuels, and treated over 2,700 acres of noxious weeds and
    invasive plants through stewardship contracting.
        The Forest Service is very interested in the recently expanded Good
    Neighbor Authority. We believe it will provide an important new tool to
    allow us to work more effectively with States implementing needed
    watershed restoration activities.
        The Farm Bill provided the opportunity for Governors to request
    areas to be designated in their State that are experiencing, or at risk
    of an insect or disease epidemic. Based on the Governor's
    recommendations, the Forest Service has designated over 45 million
    acres of National Forest System lands across 94 national forests in 35
    States to address insect and disease threats. The Forest Service will
    collaboratively work with States, tribes, partners, stakeholders and
    the public to implement landscape scale restoration projects within
    these designated areas that reduce the risk of insect and disease
    infestations. The ability to use the expedited National Environmental
    Policy Act procedures found in section 104 of the Healthy Forest
    Restoration Act for environmental analyses along with the new
    categorical exclusion to implement collaborative restoration projects
    within these designated areas will help to provide for more efficient
    decisionmaking and project implementation.
        Question. Could you please provide me with an update on the science
    you are using for the determination of management practices for the
    grasslands? Specifically, what science was used to develop the Draft
    Record of Decision (ROD) for the North Billings County Allotment
    Management Plan Revisions?
        Answer. After signing the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Plan in 2002,
    the Regional Forester empanelled an independent group of scientists to
    review the parts of the plan related to livestock grazing. The
    resulting Scientific Review Team (SRT) consisted of eight members. Team
    members were selected based on recommendations of the North Dakota
    Governor's office, conservation and industry groups, state and Federal
    natural resource agencies, and county representatives. Recommendations
    from the SRT were incorporated into the Draft Record of Decision. The
    Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and North Dakota State
    University (NDSU) also contributed numerous data.
        Question. When will the Forest Service formalize the final
    document?
        Answer. The North Billings County Allotment Management Plan
    Revisions are subject to the new pre-decisional objection process for
    NEPA decisions. Review of the eight objections received from seven
    Objectors began in May 2014. Objection resolution meetings were held on
    June 2, 2015 and objection letters were signed on June 10, 2014. A
    final decision is expected after June 12, 2014.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Reed. And with that, and with no further business,
    I will adjourn the hearing.
        [Whereupon, at 10:56 a.m., Wednesday, April 30, 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 2015

                                  ----------

                                           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 Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association
        The requests of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA)
    for the fiscal year 2015 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as
    follows:
      --Amend the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act to
            appropriate $100.4 million for reconstruction of the Unalaska
            Hospital and the Atka Island clinic, both of which were
            destroyed during World War II.
      --Allocate an additional $8.5 million to the IHS to fully fund
            Village Built Clinic (VBC) Leases, and direct the IHS to use
            its fiscal year 2015 appropriations to fully fund the VBC
            leases in accordance with section 804 of the Indian Health Care
            Improvement Act (IHCIA).
      --Ensure that Contract Support Costs continue to be fully funded by
            moving the program to mandatory spending.
      --Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis.
        The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association is a regional non-profit
    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 IHS under title V of the Indian Self-Determination & Education
    Assistance Act (ISDEAA). We also provide health-related services to all
    13 tribes through various non-IHS grants and agreements.
        Funding for Reconstruction of Two Health Care Facilities Destroyed
    During World War II.--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 U.S. 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.
        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 Alaska. The next level of referred specialty and
    inpatient care is in Anchorage. To say that our patients suffer from a
    lack of access to basic healthcare services is an understatement.
    Patients have died en route to Anchorage for emergency care; patients
    have died due to inability to receive timely screening of cancer;
    patients must leave their families for months at a time when receiving
    care 800 miles away in Anchorage. Mothers must leave their families for
    4 months to deliver their babies in Anchorage. This is unacceptable
    care, by any standard. 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 upon APIA budget estimates derived from the IHS Facility
    Budget Estimating System (FBES), the Unalaska hospital facility project
    cost for design, construction and equipping the total facility is
    $96,900,000. Based upon a 2003 Health Clinic Design Report funded by
    the Denali Commission, construction of a health clinic sufficient to
    meet the needs in Atka, and adjusting from 2003 for current inflation,
    will cost $3,500,000. APIA thus requests $100.4 million in funding for
    reconstruction of these facilities.
        APIA is ranked near the top in the IHS's joint venture program,
    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 50 U.S.C., 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 $100,400,000 for those purposes.'' We ask for
    the subcommittee's 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 2014, the IHS signed 17 agreements
    for joint ventures between 2001 and 2012, 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. The National Congress of American Indians has also
    supported APIA's request for assistance with both Unalaska and Atka
    facility construction, via resolution. We ask that the subcommittee
    appropriate additional funds for staffing and operations of new
    facilities; doing so will allow IHS to partner with tribes like APIA
    who are anxious to move their projects forward under this successful
    joint venture model in fiscal year 2015.
        Funding for Village Built Clinics in Alaska.--For the last several
    years, APIA has submitted testimony to this subcommittee on the need to
    address chronic underfunding of Village Built Clinics (VBCs) in Alaska.
    VBCs, which are clinic facilities leased by the IHS from other
    entities, are a vital component of the provision of basic healthcare
    services in rural Alaska, as they serve as the clinic space for the
    Community Health Aide Program (CHAP) under the IHCIA. The CHAP utilizes
    a network of community health aides and practitioners to provide
    primary healthcare services in rural and isolated areas where access to
    those services might not otherwise exist.
        In 1989, Congress specifically authorized the operation of 170 VBCs
    in Alaska and provided approximately $3 million in funding for the
    program for that year. Since then, Congress has not provided amounts
    specifically for VBCs in the IHS appropriation, and IHS has had
    discretion to fund VBCs from its lump sum appropriation. IHS has
    needlessly treated the $3 million level as a cap, and has refused to
    increase funding for VBC leases. Funding therefore has not kept pace
    with inflation or the rising costs of healthcare in rural and isolated
    areas. In fact, the chronic underfunding over decades has resulted in
    deterioration and in some cases closure of VBC facilities, threatening
    the CHAP itself and access to basic healthcare services for rural
    Alaskans that hinges on the continued availability of properly
    maintained VBC space. Our facilities in Atka and Nikolski have been
    cited for numerous patient Health Insurance Portability and
    Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and safety issues including no
    patient privacy and holes in the floor. In any other community, these
    clinics would be condemned, yet the IHS expects us to continue to
    provide care with no remedy at hand. It is no wonder that we have a
    difficult time recruiting and retaining providers to serve our
    communities. Unfortunately, we are not alone in our predicament.
        According to an estimate calculated several years ago by the Alaska
    Native Health Board and adjusted for inflation, at least $8.3 million
    is needed to fully fund the VBC leasing program. However, that estimate
    is outdated and likely falls significantly short of the actual need.
    APIA therefore urges that Congress appropriate at least an additional
    $8.5 million to fully fund VBC leases and that IHS be directed to use
    its existing appropriations to fully fund such leases. It would be
    helpful if Congress would also direct the IHS to use its fiscal year
    2015 appropriations to fully fund VBC leases in accordance with
    Sec. 804 of the IHCIA. It is a matter of patient safety that this be
    addressed immediately.
        Ensure Contract Support Costs Are a Mandatory Appropriation.--We
    are pleased that Congress chose to fully fund contract support costs
    (CSC) under the ISDEAA in fiscal year 2014, and we are glad the
    administration has supported that effort in fiscal year 2015. CSC fund
    vital administrative functions that allow us to operate programs that
    provide critical services to our members. If contract support costs are
    not fully funded, however, our programs and services are adversely
    affected because we are forced to divert limited program funding to
    cover fixed overhead expenses instead. We therefore appreciate
    Congress' support in fiscal year 2014 and hope that it carries through
    to fiscal year 2015 and beyond. However, full funding for CSC must not
    come with a penalty--tribes should not have to see a reduction in
    program funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program
    funds. Without any permanent measure to ensure full funding, payment of
    CSC remains subject to agency discretion from year to year, even though
    tribes are legally entitled to payment under the ISDEAA. Noting these
    ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to consult
    with tribes on a permanent solution.
        There is a logical permanent solution Congress can implement: CSC
    should be appropriated as a mandatory entitlement. Under the ISDEAA,
    the full payment of CSC is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation,
    affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet the budget for CSC is currently
    funded and controlled through appropriation acts--as if it were a
    discretionary program. Congress, in the Joint Explanatory Statement for
    the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations, recognized that the
    current fundamental mismatch between the mandatory nature of CSC and
    the current approach leaves the House and Senate Committees on
    Appropriations in the ``untenable position of appropriating
    discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract
    support costs.'' Congress also noted that ``[t]ypically obligations of
    this nature are addressed through mandatory spending.'' The obvious
    solution then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the
    statutory requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory
    entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge
    the Congress to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory basis.
        IHS on an Advance Appropriations Basis.--We support legislation
    that would place the IHS budget on an advance appropriations basis. The
    goal is for the IHS and tribal healthcare providers to have adequate
    advance notice of the amount of Federal appropriations to expect and
    thus not be subjected to the uncertainties of late funding and short-
    term continuing resolutions. Congress provides advance appropriations
    for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is
    for parity in the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Legislation to
    authorize IHS advance appropriations has been introduced--H.R. 3229 by
    Representative Young and S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski and Begich.
        Thank you for your consideration of our request to support funding
    for the reconstruction of the Unalaska Hospital and Atka Island Clinic
    with associated staffing and operating costs. Reconstruction of these
    facilities will right a huge wrong in our history and will
    significantly improve healthcare for the Aleutian and Pribilof tribal
    communities. We also appreciate your consideration of other requests
    outlined in this testimony. On behalf of APIA and the people we serve,
    I am happy to help provide any additional information desired by the
    subcommittee.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Alliance for Community Trees
                              summary of requests
    United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service:
      --Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) Program at $31.3 million.
      --Forest and Rangeland Research at $298 million, including $72
            million for Forest Inventory and Analysis.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
      --Recognize the Urban Waters Federal Partnership in funding for EPA
            clean water initiatives

        Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Dave
    Forsell and I am the president of Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, a non-
    profit organization whose mission is to engage diverse communities and
    create vibrant public places, helping people and nature thrive in our
    community, often helping people plant and care for trees.
        I am here today to testify on behalf of the Alliance for Community
    Trees (ACTrees), for whom I serve as president of the board of
    directors. ACTrees is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in
    1993 by leaders of local tree organizations to establish a national
    voice for urban and community forestry. ACTrees' founders shared a
    vision of urban trees and ecosystems nurtured by a broad base of
    community stewards. Through the efforts of 200 member and program
    partner organizations in 44 States, over 5 million volunteers have been
    inspired to plant and care for 15 million trees across our Nation, in
    cities and towns where 83 percent of Americans live.
        My testimony will focus on the critical role of the USDA Forest
    Service in providing Federal leadership for and assistance to public
    and private partners at the national, State and local levels through
    its Urban & Community Forestry (U&CF) program and urban forestry
    research.
     why the forest service's u&cf program and urban forestry research are
                              important to actrees
        The Forest Service's U&CF program and urban forestry research
    projects have been models of working with each other through an
    integrated approach and partnering with public and private
    organizations at the national, State and local levels to provide
    information and tools that partners need to effectively plan and
    implement urban forestry management programs. The integration between
    Forest Service program staff and researchers has been essential to
    address the many issues affecting urban trees and forests and the rapid
    pace of change in urban environments. In addition, the collaborative
    approaches of Forest Service program staff and researchers have been
    critical to open and sharing relationships with partners and adaptive
    learning and management.
        ACTrees members have benefited from both the technical and
    financial assistance provided by the U&CF program and the information
    and tools developed by urban forestry researchers. Many of our members
    have worked directly with Forest Service program staff and researchers
    on projects in their communities. Others have benefited from Forest
    Service resources provided through State forestry agencies--the U&CF
    program's primary partner. While some ACTrees members may not receive
    assistance from the Forest Service or through State forestry agencies,
    all members benefit from the urban forestry partnerships the Forest
    Service has helped create.
        ACTrees members recognize the importance of broad partnerships to
    advance common goals around urban trees and forests. Partnerships among
    public and private organizations enable sharing of expertise, skills,
    and resources. Such partnerships result in substantial leveraging of
    Federal funding provided to local urban and community forestry
    projects. ACTrees members partner with a diverse range of agencies and
    organizations at the local level. At the national level, ACTrees works
    with public and private partners to advance urban and community
    forestry through collaborative initiatives such as the Sustainable
    Urban Forests Coalition and the Partners in Community Forestry
    conferences organized by the Arbor Day Foundation.
        An open and collaborative U&CF program has enabled Federal, State
    and local partners to develop a great diversity of projects around the
    country, recognizing the wide range of ecosystem types and unique
    social, cultural and economic contexts in communities across the
    Nation. Here are a few examples of projects on which ACTrees member
    organizations have worked to add value to their communities--
    neighborhood value, environmental value, cost savings, employment and
    training. Such stories are happening in cities and towns across America
    thanks to broad public-private partnerships in urban and community
    forestry:
      --Tree Pittsburgh received a grant from the USDA Forest Service in
            2011, through the State's Bureau of Forestry, to create the
            city's first Urban Forest Master Plan. It has leveraged the
            Federal grant and is developing the Plan, which includes
            detailed information, resources needed, and recommendations to
            proactively manage and grow a city's tree canopy.
      --The Tennessee Urban Forestry Council established a Greenprint
            initiative in 1991 to promote Federal, State and local
            partnerships toward a strategic goal of doubling the State's
            urban forest canopy. The initiative continues to build on its
            vision and collaborative strategies.
      --The Sacramento Tree Foundation is engaged in cooperative research
            efforts with the U.S. Forest Service and California's forestry
            agency to explore the relationships between human health and
            tree canopy cover.
      --The Morton Arboretum near Chicago is cooperating with the USDA
            Forest Service's National Institute of Applied Science on an
            Urban Forest Climate Adaptation project.
      --The California Urban Forest Council and California ReLeaf are
            working to advance urban forestry projects through the State's
            climate change legislation and policies, recently seeking $18
            million in cap-and-trade funding for urban forestry projects in
            underserved communities.
      --Tree People in Los Angeles is advancing innovative projects to
            address drought impacts on trees, such as using recycled water
            from treatment plants to water trees in urban parks.
        In Indianapolis, the power of community and urban forestry is very
    real! Due to an EPA consent decree, our local water utility, Citizens
    Energy Group, is spending more than $1 billion to eliminate all but 5
    percent of raw sewage overflows into our river and streams. My
    organization, Keep Indianapolis Beautiful (KIB), is partnering with
    Citizens in a pilot program in a west side neighborhood. KIB will be
    installing 34 beautiful stormwater planters up and down neighborhood
    streets as part of a stormwater sewer separation project. They'll be
    planted with 10,000 native perennials and grasses, adding value to
    front yards; and 200 trees will be added to the landscape for their
    power to mitigate stormwater runoff. This 100 percent green solution
    will save Citizens considerable dollars compared to a standard gray
    solution. The best part? This work is supporting jobs and training for
    high school and college students who'll plant and tend trees; they'll
    also have an opportunity to work alongside engineers and ecological
    services professionals in the process.
     why the u&cf program and urban forestry research are critical to the
                               federal government
        In recent years, policymakers and natural resource managers have
    been calling attention to the increasing importance of urban areas as
    we look to the future. Our Nation's cities, towns, and metropolitan
    centers present critical challenges and opportunities as our population
    centers grow. The Forest Service's U&CF program and urban forestry
    research are uniquely positioned in the Federal Government to help
    address urban challenges and opportunities as they relate to
    environmental and natural resource issues--particularly those related
    to the roles of urban trees and forests as assets for: building and
    restoring green space and parks for recreation, supporting
    opportunities for green businesses and jobs in underserved
    neighborhoods, and providing environmental services essential to
    community well-being and quality of life, such as clean water, clean
    air, energy conservation, stormwater management, and atmospheric carbon
    exchange. No other Federal agency has the expertise and can provide the
    leadership necessary to help our Nation address urban challenges and
    opportunities with trees and forests.
        The Forest Service has recognized the U&CF program as the key
    program to help achieve one of seven priority goals in its current
    strategic plan. Goal 6 is ``Engaging Urban America with Forest Service
    Programs.'' Similarly, the Forest Service Research branch has
    identified Urban Natural Resources Research as one of seven Priority
    Research Areas. Looking to the future--as reflected in the agency's
    ``2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment and 2010 National Report on
    Sustainable Forests''--urban forests will become increasingly important
    for providing environmental services to our Nation's growing urban
    populations. In addition, as part of the USDA, the Forest Service's
    U&CF program is particularly well-positioned to help address
    increasingly important urban-rural challenges, including the expansion
    of urban populations into rural landscapes and the lack of
    opportunities for urban youth to connect to nature.
                            actrees' recommendations
        Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF).--There are more than 100
    million acres of urban forest lands across the Nation, providing
    essential environmental, social, and economic services such as energy
    conservation, improved air and water quality, recreation and improved
    public health to the more than 83 percent of our Nation's population
    who live in cities and communities. The Forest Service's U&CF program
    is the primary Federal program that reaches out and provides technical
    and financial assistance to local communities and non-profit groups for
    planting, maintaining, protecting, and restoring these urban forests.
    In fiscal year 2013, the U&CF program delivered technical, financial,
    educational, and research assistance to 7,292 communities and nearly
    198 million people, over 60 percent of the U.S. population.
        ACTrees urges the subcommittee to provide $31.3 million for the
    U&CF program in fiscal year 2015, consistent with the level enacted in
    fiscal year 2012. The President's fiscal year 2015 proposal for U&CF is
    $23.7 million, a further reduction from the fiscal year 2014 enacted
    level of $28 million. While the President's fiscal year 2015 proposal
    holds promise for additional funding for urban and community forestry
    projects through the Forest Service's new Landscape Scale Restoration
    (LSR) program, ACTrees has much to learn about these opportunities. In
    addition, ACTrees is excited about the President's proposal for a $1
    billion Climate Resilience Fund, which includes $25 million for the
    U&CF program to advance urban forestry projects as measures to help
    communities adapt to and mitigate climate change impacts.
        Urban Forestry Research.--The Forest Service Research branch has
    provided essential information and tools to urban forestry groups and
    practitioners. It is critical for communities to obtain baseline
    information about their urban forests before they can plan and
    implement actions. There have been huge strides made in recent years in
    developing new technologies and tools, such as the ``i-Tree'' program,
    for mapping the urban forest and examining conditions and trends.
    Similarly, urban forestry research has been helping policymakers and
    practitioners to understand the environmental, economic, and social
    services that trees and forests provide.
        ACTrees urges the subcommittee to provide funding for Forest and
    Rangeland Research at $298 million for fiscal year 2015. This reflects
    a funding level for basic forest research at $226 million, consistent
    with fiscal year 2014, and funding for Forest Inventory and Analysis
    (FIA) at $72 million. While there is no budget line item for urban
    forestry research, the Forest Service has recognized ``Urban Natural
    Resources Stewardship'' as one of its seven Priority Research Areas. We
    urge the subcommittee to recognize the importance of urban forestry
    research and direct the agency to provide strong funding in this area,
    as it did in its fiscal year 2014 report language. With our request for
    $72 million for FIA, ACTrees has joined many partners in the
    conservation community recognizing the importance of inventory and
    assessment information in supporting forest policy and management
    decisions in all contexts, including urban and community forests.
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Urban Waters Federal
    Partnership.--Launched in 2011, this Federal Partnership has expanded
    to 18 pilot cities and includes 14 Federal agencies. EPA coordinates
    this important and innovative Partnership through its Office of Water
    and the Forest Service participates on behalf of USDA, providing
    essential tree and forest expertise. The Partnership aims to stimulate
    regional and local economies, create local jobs, improve quality of
    life, and protect Americans' health by revitalizing urban waterways in
    underserved communities across the Nation. ACTrees urges the
    subcommittee to recognize this important Federal Partnership through
    its fiscal year 2015 funding of EPA clean water initiatives.
        I appreciate your consideration, and the opportunity to testify
    today on behalf of ACTrees.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the American Alliance of Museums

        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to submit this testimony in my
    capacity as president of the American Alliance of Museums (AAM). We
    urge your support for at least $154.5 million each in fiscal year 2015
    (fiscal year 2015) for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and
    the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Within the context of
    the NEA, we also urge the committee to include language revising the
    Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act to increase the total allowable
    outstanding indemnity and the limit for any single exhibition. Lastly,
    we support $858 million for the Smithsonian Institution, at least $50
    million for State Historic Preservation Offices, $15 million for Tribal
    Historic Preservation Offices and restored funding for the Save
    America's Treasures and Preserve America programs.
        AAM is proud to represent the full range of our Nation's museums--
    including aquariums, art museums, botanic gardens, children's museums,
    culturally specific museums, historic sites, history museums, maritime
    museums, military museums, national parks, natural history museums,
    planetariums, presidential libraries, science and technology centers
    and zoos--along with the professional staff and volunteers who work for
    and with museums. AAM works on behalf of the 17,500 museums that employ
    400,000 people, spend more than $2 billion annually on educational
    programming, receive more than 55 million visits each year from primary
    and secondary school students and directly contribute $21 billion to
    local economies.
        Museums are essential in our communities for many reasons:
      --Museums are key education providers.--Museums already offer
            educational programs in math, science, art, literacy, language
            arts, history, civics and government, economics and financial
            literacy, geography and social studies, in coordination with
            State and local curriculum standards. Museums also provide
            experiential learning opportunities, STEM education, youth
            training and job preparedness. They reach beyond the scope of
            instructional programming for schoolchildren by also providing
            critical teacher training. There is a growing consensus that
            whatever the new educational era looks like, it will focus on
            the development of a core set of skills: critical thinking, the
            ability to synthesize information, the ability to innovate,
            creativity and collaboration. Museums are uniquely situated to
            help learners develop these core skills.
      --Museums create jobs and support local economies.--Museums serve as
            economic engines, bolster local infrastructure and spur
            tourism. Both the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National
            Governors Association agree that cultural assets such as
            museums are essential to attracting businesses, a skilled
            workforce and local and international tourism.
      --Museums address community challenges.--Many museums offer programs
            tailored to seniors, veterans, children with special needs,
            persons with disabilities and more, greatly expanding their
            reach and impact. For example, some have programs designed
            specifically for children on the autism spectrum while others
            are teaching English as a Second Language or providing youth
            job training opportunities.
      --Digitization and traveling exhibitions bring museum collections to
            underserved populations.--Teachers, students and researchers
            benefit when cultural institutions are able to increase access
            to trustworthy information through online collections and
            traveling exhibits. Most museums, however, need help in
            digitizing collections.
        The National Endowment for the Humanities is an independent Federal
    agency created by Congress in 1965. Grants are awarded to nonprofit
    educational institutions--including museums, colleges, universities,
    archives and libraries--for educational programming and the care of
    collections. NEH supports museums as institutions of learning and
    exploration and keepers of our cultural, historical and scientific
    heritages.
        In 2013, through Preservation & Access, one of NEH's national
    program divisions, 55 peer-reviewed, competitive grants totaling over
    $3.7 million dollars were awarded to museums, historical societies and
    historic sites for a variety of projects to preserve and provide access
    to our Nation's rich cultural heritage. Across all NEH divisions
    (including Preservation and Access, Research, Education, Public
    Programs, Challenge Grants and Digital Humanities), these institutions
    received 123 awards totaling over $11.5 million. Demand for humanities
    project support, as demonstrated by NEH grant application rates, far
    exceeds available funding. In fiscal year 2013, NEH received 4,701
    competitive grant applications representing more than $441 million in
    requested funds, but was only able to fund 13.4 percent of these peer-
    reviewed project proposals.
        NEH also provides annual grants to State humanities councils
    located in every State and U.S. territory. In 2012, 53 State councils
    supported 3,046 events in museums, reaching a total audience of more
    than 13 million people.
        Here are two examples of how NEH funding is used to support
    museums:
      --The Rhode Island Historical Society received $300,000 beginning in
            2011 to make environmental control upgrades, building
            improvements, and security enhancements to preserve collections
            documenting the history of Rhode Island from pre-European
            contact to the present.
      --The Birmingham Museum of Art in Alabama received a $75,000 grant
            for professional development, bringing K-12 teachers together
            to study America's transition from an agricultural to an
            industrial society as reflected in American art.
        The National Endowment for the Arts provides direct Federal funding
    to State arts agencies and to non-profit arts institutions including
    museums. Its mission is to make art accessible to all and to provide
    leadership in arts education. Established in 1965, NEA brings great art
    to every congressional district. Its grants to museums help them
    exhibit, preserve and interpret visual material through exhibitions,
    residencies, publications, commissions, public art works, conservation,
    documentation, services to the field and public programs.
        In 2013, more than 2,100 museums participated in the Blue Star
    Museums initiative, offering free admission to all active duty and
    reserve personnel and their families from Memorial Day through Labor
    Day. This particular effort served over 700,000 people, while many
    other museums offered military discounts or free admission throughout
    the year.
        In 2013, NEA made more than 130 awards to museums, totaling over
    $4.6 million. Many museums--including art museums--continue to report
    economic stress and stretched budgets. Despite the uncertain economy,
    museum attendance continues to climb, increasing pressure to serve more
    people with limited financial and human resources.
        Receiving a grant from the NEA confers prestige on supported
    projects, strengthening museums' ability to attract matching funds from
    other public and private funders. On average, each dollar awarded by
    the NEA leverages nine dollars from other sources. Forty percent of
    NEA's grant funds are distributed to State arts agencies for re-
    granting.
        Here are two examples of how NEA funding is used to support
    museums:
      --Alaska's Seward Association for the Advancement of Marine Science,
            in consortium with the Anchorage Museums Association received
            $39,000 in 2012 to support the research and development of an
            exhibition teaming artists and scientists to bring greater
            public attention to the global problem of marine debris.
      --The Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore, Maryland received $34,000 in
            2012 to support an exhibition showing the unexpected and
            multifaceted roles played by Africans in Renaissance Europe, as
            well as the challenges of stereotyping and racism that faced
            them.
        The Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act allows museums to apply for
    Federal indemnity on major exhibitions, saving them roughly $30 million
    in insurance costs every year. The program, administered by the
    National Endowment for the Arts, operates at virtually no cost to the
    taxpayer; since 1975 it has paid out a total of just over $100,000.
    Strict protocols for care, restrictions on the types of work
    indemnified and high deductibles all contribute to these
    extraordinarily low costs.
        The program has separate limits per exhibition and an overall limit
    for both international and domestic exhibitions, and Congress has
    periodically raised these limits, most recently in 2007. Museums report
    that the current caps are making it difficult to obtain indemnity on
    objects that would have been covered in the past, exposing them to
    increased insurance costs. We believe that rising prices in the art
    market will exacerbate this problem, causing exhibitions to limit their
    scope or to fail to go forward entirely. In agreement with the
    Association of Art Museum Directors', we urge the committee to consider
    language increasing both the total allowable outstanding indemnity and
    the limit for any single exhibition under this important program.
        The Smithsonian Institution comprises some of the most visited
    museums in the world, including the National Museum of American
    History, the National Air and Space Museum and the National Museum of
    Natural History. The Smithsonian reaches out to visitors and learners
    of all ages, in the Nation's capital and across the country, with
    innovative exhibits and programs. Smithsonian museums attract 30
    million visits every year, and their content and curricula are used by
    teachers all over the country. Smithsonian exhibits and research cover
    vital topics in art, science, history and culture, including global
    pandemics, endangered species and the history of our Nation. The use of
    digital technology including 3-D scanning and printing of iconic
    objects such as Lincoln's life casts, the Wright Flyer and fossil
    whales, expands access for America and America's teachers to experts
    and collections and creates new knowledge. The President's fiscal year
    2015 budget request of $858 million includes critical funding for the
    National Museum of African American History and Culture, which will
    tell this essential part of American history. Funding for collections
    care and facilities maintenance and revitalization allows the
    Smithsonian to care for the Nation's treasures and allows greater
    access for all.
        We enthusiastically support this robust funding proposal, an
    increase, for the Smithsonian Institution. However, we have serious
    concerns about the President's proposed STEM consolidation plan, which
    would eliminate or cut important programs that support museums at the
    National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the
    National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration.
        State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs and THPOs)
    carry out the historic preservation work of the Federal Government on
    State and tribal lands. These duties include finding America's historic
    places, making nominations to the National Register of Historic Places,
    reviewing impacts of Federal projects, providing assistance to
    developers seeking a rehabilitation tax credit, creating alliances with
    local government preservation commissions and conducting preservation
    education and planning. This Federal-State-local foundation of
    America's historic preservation program was established by the National
    Historic Preservation Act. We urge you to provide $50 million for SHPOs
    and $15 million for THPOs through the Historic Preservation Fund. We
    also urge you to restore funding of $25 million for Save America's
    Treasures and $4.6 million for Preserve America--which have been
    instrumental in preserving some of our Nation's most important
    artifacts and structures--but have not been funded in recent years.
        The 2005 Heritage Health Index of archives, libraries, historical
    societies and museums concluded that immediate action is needed to
    prevent the loss of 190 million artifacts that are in need of
    conservation treatment: 59 percent have collections damaged by light;
    56 percent have insufficient security to protect their collections; 80
    percent do not have an emergency plan that includes collections; 71
    percent need additional training and expertise for staff caring for
    collections; and only 13 percent have access to endowment funds for
    preservation.
        Historic preservation programs matter now more than ever--not only
    because they are essential to protecting our national heritage, but
    because they serve as economic engines and job creators in the
    thousands of communities they serve. Funds invested in building
    rehabilitation have been shown to create more jobs and more retail
    activity than those spent on new construction.
        Thank you once again for considering this testimony.

                                             Ford W. Bell, DVM,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the American Cultural Resources Association
                                     (ACRA)
    Request:
      --$46.925 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs)
      --$8.985 million for the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs)
      --$500,000 for grants for survey and National Register/National
            Landmark nominations for underrepresented populations
        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).
                acra members create jobs and support the economy
        ACRA is the trade association representing the interests of
    cultural resource management (CRM) firms of all sizes, types and
    specialties. ACRA's member firms undertake much of the legally mandated
    cultural resource management studies and investigations in the United
    States.
        There are approximately 1,300 CRM firms nationwide that employ over
    10,000 cultural resource management professionals, including
    archaeologists, preservation architects, architectural historians,
    historians, and an increasingly diverse group of other specialists.
    These firms generated over $1 billion in revenue in 2012. ACRA firms
    create and support jobs, providing employment for American-educated and
    trained professionals.
                  funding shpos and thpos supports development
        In 1966, Congress, recognizing the importance of our heritage,
    enacted the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470)
    (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 Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic
    Preservation opted to partner with the States and use SHPOs and THPOs
    to, among other tasks, review all Federal projects for their impact on
    historic properties. CRM firms work closely with Federal, State and
    local government agencies, private industry and non-profit groups to
    conduct the reviews required by the NHPA.
        In order for the review process to work smoothly, 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, facilitating development, moving projects forward in a timely
    and efficient manner, and ensuring that CRM firms can get the job done.
                                   conclusion
        On behalf of its 150 member firms, ACRA would like to thank you
    Chairman Reed, and all the members of the Senate Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies for the
    opportunity to submit testimony.
        ACRA also thanks the subcommittee for its commitment to historic
    preservation. ACRA members stand committed to identify, protect, and
    maintain our Nation's historic heritage.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association
    Hon. Jack Reed,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: The American
    Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) serves to advance a sustainable U.S.
    pulp, paper, packaging, and wood products manufacturing industry
    through fact-based public policy and marketplace advocacy. AF&PA member
    companies make products essential for everyday life from renewable and
    recyclable resources and are committed to continuous improvement
    through the industry's sustainability initiative--``Better Practices,
    Better Planet 2020''. The forest products industry accounts for
    approximately 4 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing GDP,
    manufactures approximately $210 billion in products annually, and
    employs nearly 900,000 men and women. 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 increase funding for programs that provide
    basic data about our Nation's forests to inform industry, policymakers,
    and academics; and for restoring Federal timber harvests to help ensure
    adequate fiber supply and to address forest health priorities on both
    Federal and private lands. Within the jurisdiction of this
    subcommittee, we urge you to direct the United States Forest Service
    (USFS) to focus on the needs of 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 monitor 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 it is a vital technical
    resource that allows assessment of the sustainability, health, and
    availability of the forest resource. FIA data 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 look to the program for data about our
    Nation's forests.
        We are concerned about the cuts to this program over recent years.
    With an increased focus on utilizing woody biomass for renewable energy
    in addition to traditional forest products, the program, which allows
    managers to determine the sustainability and availability of the forest
    resource, should not be reduced but rather increased.
        AF&PA opposes cuts to this valuable program, and applauds the
    subcommittee's increase last year to $72 million. As a good starting
    point, AF&PA requests funding levels of at least $72 million for the
    FIA program this year, which will allow the USFS to cover the majority
    of U.S. forest lands and expedite data availability and analysis. This
    level of funding will enable the USFS to better meet the current
    demands of the program.
        We also recommend increased funding within the USFS R&D program in
    support of the Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance. Working in partnership
    with universities and the private sector, the Agenda 2020 program works
    with USFS on 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
    funding 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 forest health problems through exploration
    of small diameter wood use and bioenergy production.
                    national forest system, forest products
        We applaud the administration for calling for an increase in timber
    outputs by 15 percent. To create forest industry jobs, more Federal
    timber should be made available for sale. AF&PA requests increasing
    funding for the Forest Products program to put people back to work in
    our rural communities while improving the health and reducing the risk
    of forest fires.
        For the 6th year in a row, the administration has proposed creating
    the consolidated Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) line item, with
    proposed funding of $820 million. AF&PA does not believe IRR will have
    the benefits the administration claims, and in those regions where IRR
    has been implemented as a pilot project, instead of benefits, we have
    seen continued high costs and less accountability for the use of those
    funds by the USFS.
               national forest system, hazardous fuels reduction
        AF&PA supports the budget cap exception recommended in the
    President's budget that mirrors H.R. 3992, the Wildfire Disaster
    Funding Act. In the past 2 years, the USFS was forced to redirect over
    $1 billion from non-fire programs to pay fire suppression costs. The
    continued cycle of borrowing has a hugely detrimental effect on other
    programs, including forest management and research, damaging the
    ability to effectively implement these programs. This new approach to
    funding fire suppression costs is promising and we urge the
    subcommittee to include the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act this year.
        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 frequently are 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 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 and
    $29 million for Forest Stewardship.
                             international forestry
        AF&PA's 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 Forest Foundation
        Investments in the U.S. Forest Service Forest Stewardship Program
    and the U.S. Forest Service Forest Health Protection Program will help
    family forest owners get ahead of increasing threats from invasive
    pests and pathogens, wildfire, and development pressures. Complementing
    these efforts, the Landscape Scale Restoration Program provides an
    innovative approach to target resources for maximum impact, meaning
    support for this program will ensure measurable outcomes on the ground.
    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. The
    American Forest Foundation (AFF) urges the subcommittee to:
      --Support the U.S. Forest Service Forest Stewardship Program at the
            fiscal year 12 funding level of $29 million;
      --Support the U.S. Forest Service Forest Health Protection (Federal
            and Cooperative) at the fiscal year 12 funding level of $111
            million;
      --Support the President's funding request of $23.513 million for the
            Landscape Scale Restoration Program;
      --Support the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program at $72 million,
            toward providing an updated inventory of America's forests; and
      --Support the U.S. Forest Service Research and Development Program at
            the fiscal year 12 funding level of $231 million.
        We also ask the subcommittee to support a solution to the wildfire
    funding problem. The mounting cost of wildfire suppression activities
    over the past few years have far suppressed budgeted appropriations,
    forcing the U.S. Forest Service to transfer hundreds of millions of
    dollars from non-fire accounts to pay for suppression. This halts other
    mission-critical forest health and stewardship activities from taking
    place, all of which work toward preventing the future threat of
    catastrophic fire.
        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.
        Unfortunately, new data suggests that by 2020, more than 18 million
    acres of family forests are threatened by housing development.
    Furthermore, almost 14 million acres are at risk of mortality due to
    insects and disease, while 29 million are at high or very high risk of
    destruction from wildfire.\1\ At the same time, less than 15 percent of
    family forest owners have sought professional advice for the
    stewardship of their forests. Many are under the impression that
    leaving their woods alone is the best option. 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Family Forest Research Center, 2014 Preliminary Data.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Forest Foundation is a nonprofit conservation
    organization that works on the ground with more than 22 million family
    woodland owners through a variety of programs, including the American
    Tree Farm System, to protect the values and benefits of America's
    family forests, with clear ecological and economic impact.
        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.\2\ 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ USDA, May 2008, Who Owns America's Forests?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        forest health investments needed
        The threats are daunting. 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. The USFS
    Forest Health Protection (FHP) 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 2013, the FHP Program combated pests on over 285,000
    acres of Federal lands and over 444,000 acres of Cooperative lands.
    Funding cuts meant 321,000 fewer acres were treated on Cooperative
    lands in fiscal year 2013 than in fiscal year 2011. 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 concerns woodland owners across
    the country, 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 for certification and can subsequently access certified wood
    product 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, 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.
    support the landscape scale restoration program, targeting outcomes in
                                 critical areas
        To complement the ongoing work of the Forest Stewardship Program
    and further target measurable outcomes in high-priority areas, AFF
    strongly urges the subcommittee to provide support for the relatively
    new Landscape Scale Restoration program.
        Partners, such as the American Forest Foundation, can leverage the
    work of this State and Private Forestry Program to maximize on-the-
    ground impact and engage landowners in targeted forest conservation
    activities. With this program, the USFS is well-positioned to address
    the most pressing threats, protect the many public benefits we all
    enjoy from forests, and leverage Federal efforts for meaningful,
    measurable impact.
    maintaining essential information for forest management of family-owned
                                   woodlands
        All of these programs must be grounded in the sound science and
    sound forest information provided by the U.S. Forest Service's Forest
    Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program and the Research and Development
    Programs (R&D). 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.
        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 $3
    million in green building research through the Forest Products
    Laboratory to continue this important work.
               support a solution to the wildfire funding problem
        Over the last decade, wildfire expenses have significantly
    increased, and the Federal wildfire budgets often are not sufficient to
    cover the costs, leading the Federal agencies to transfer funds from
    non-fire accounts to cover fire fighting expenses. In fiscal year 12,
    the USFS transferred $440 million and in fiscal year 13 the transfer
    cost was upped to $600 million. Understandably, this has caused
    significant disruptions in forest programs, including programs like the
    Forest Stewardship and Forest Health Protection Programs that aide
    family woodland owners in their stewardship.
        These disruptions clearly demonstrate the urgent need to change the
    Federal suppression funding model. This pattern of funding is neither
    efficient nor sustainable. The Wildfire Disaster Funding bill (S. 1875
    and H.R. 3992) would provide the USFS and Department of the Interior
    with a funding structure similar to that used by other agencies that
    respond to natural disaster emergencies, which have budget cap
    exemptions for a portion of disaster funding. This important change
    would enable agencies to reinvest in core activities which have been
    reduced in recent years due to a continued shift of limited resources
    to fund wildfire suppression, including the very programs that would
    help to decrease wildfire costs over time. We urge the subcommittee to
    support the Wildfire Disaster Funding bill solution.
        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 22 million family forest
    owners and every American who benefits daily from the positive
    externalities of well-managed, working forests.
        I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide some
    insight on these programs and appreciate consideration of my testimony.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of American Forests
        Dear Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and honorable members
    of the subcommittee: American Forests appreciates the opportunity to
    submit public testimony regarding our fiscal year 2015 appropriation
    recommendations. We understand the continuing economic realities facing
    the Nation, and we thank this subcommittee for its support of key
    Federal conservation programs in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
    2014. The return on investing in our Nation's forests is great, whether
    those forests are public or private, urban or rural. The economic,
    social, and environmental benefits healthy forests provide are clear
    incentives for Federal investment. American Forests' funding
    recommendations are generally consistent with the President's budget
    requests for the USDA Forest Service (USFS), Department of Interior
    (DOI), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the
    exception of programs that merit a return to the fiscal year 2012
    enacted levels.
        Founded in 1875, American Forests is the oldest national nonprofit
    conservation organization in the country with the mission to protect
    and restore forests. It has served as a catalyst for many of the most
    important milestones in the conservation movement, including the
    founding of the USDA Forest Service, the Conservation Corps, the
    National Park System, and thousands of forest ecosystem restoration
    projects and public education efforts. Since 1990, American Forests has
    planted more than 46 million trees in all 50 States of U.S. and 44
    countries, resulting in cleaner air and drinking water, restored
    habitat for wildlife and fish, and the removal of millions of tons of
    carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
        The economic benefits of outdoor recreation and natural resource
    conservation highlight the importance of American Forests' efforts. A
    recently published report found that the combined value of outdoor
    recreation and natural resource conservation annually generates at
    least $1.7 trillion in economic activity, supports 12.8 million jobs,
    and brings in $211 billion in tax revenue.\1\ As the report notes,
    ``this sector of the U.S. economy is larger than the U.S. auto and
    pharmaceutical industries combined.'' Protecting and restoring our
    forests will ensure on-going economic and environmental viability for
    our communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Southwick Associates, ``The Combined Value of Outdoor
    Recreation, Natural Resource Conservation, and Historical Preservation,
    2013,'' April 8, 2013.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              usda forest service
    National Forest System
        Integrated Resource Restoration.--The administration's proposal for
    an Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) budget consolidation
    represents the USFS's approach to accelerated restoration. American
    Forests believes that the administration's proposals for fiscal year
    2015 will help move the agency in the right direction by encouraging
    collaborative efforts with communities and partners to identify and
    address priorities at a landscape or watershed scale. American Forests
    supports the President's request of $820 million to aid in the
    restoration of our Nation's forests.
        Restoration Partnerships.--For more than two decades, American
    Forests has worked with the Forest Service restoring our national
    forests after a wildfire or other natural events. We have planted
    millions of trees in our national forests and appreciate the working
    relationship we have with USFS, which helps us provide these services.
    Currently, this line item is absorbed into the IRR budget
    reorganization. However, if this committee does not support that budget
    consolidation, we want to emphasize the importance of these efforts.
    American Forests supports the fiscal year 2015 level of $2 million in
    support of partnerships that restore our National Forests.
        Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP).--This
    program was created to promote job stability, reliable wood supply,
    forest health, and reduce emergency wildfire costs and risks. In the
    first 4 years of the program, projects funded through CFLRP have:
    reduced hazardous fuels on 588,000 acres to protect communities,
    generated 814 million board feet of timber, made nearly 2 million green
    tons of biomass available for bioenergy production, and enhanced
    habitat on 474 miles of streams. American Forests supports the
    President's fiscal year 2015 request of $60 million; predicated on the
    expansion of the program through the necessary legislative action.
    Forest and Rangeland Research
        The Forest and Rangeland Research appropriations provides funds to
    develop and deliver knowledge and innovative technology to improve the
    health and use of the Nation's forests in both public and private
    lands. In the last 20 years, the number of USFS research scientists has
    declined from more than 2,000 to under 500 scientists today. This
    significantly reduces the Forest Service's ability to provide the
    answers it needs to sustainably manage the National Forests, as well as
    deliver technical assistance to private forest owners and urban forest
    managers. American Forests requests the fiscal year 2012-enacted level
    of $295.3 million for the entirety of Forest and Rangeland Research.
    State and Private Forestry
        Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF).--Urban forests make a
    significant contribution to the quality of life in communities across
    the country. In 2013, the U&CF program delivered technical, financial,
    educational, and research assistance to 7,292 communities and nearly
    198 million people, more than 60 percent of the U.S. population. Urban
    forests are integral to any community striving to reinvest in itself,
    encourage active, healthy citizens, and create a healthier and more
    sustainable environment with smart green infrastructure. American
    Forests requests the fiscal year 2012-enacted levels for the Urban and
    Community Forestry program at $31.37 million.
        Forest Health Management.--Exotic pests and invasive species are
    among the greatest threats to urban and rural forests. Non-native pests
    already cost city governments $2 billion each year to remove and
    replace trees killed by pests. The substantial loss of trees in our
    communities impacts quality of life and property values. Funding for
    the Forest Health Program supports activities related to prevention,
    suppression, and eradication of insects, diseases, and plants, as well
    as conducting forest health monitoring. American Forests supports the
    President's combined fiscal year 2015 request for the Forest Health
    Management Program on Federal and cooperative lands at $104.57 million.
                             department of interior
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
        Public Domain Forest Management.--The BLM is entrusted with the
    management and ecosystem health and recovery of 58 million acres of
    forests and woodlands across 12 western States, including Alaska.
    According to the Department of the Interior's 2012 Economic Impact
    Report, timber harvested from Public Domain forests supported $659
    million in economic activity, and biomass from BLM forests has become
    part of the feedstock that meets various State and Federal renewable
    energy portfolio standards. However, 14 million acres--or 24 percent--
    of BLM forests are overstocked at increased risk of insect and disease
    attacks and catastrophic wildfire. Increased funding to address these
    serious risks is necessary across all land management agencies.
    American Forests supports the President's fiscal year 2015 request at
    $9.93 million.
    Fish and Wildlife Service
        Endangered Species Program.--For 40 years, the Endangered Species
    Act has helped prevent the extinction of our Nation's treasured
    wildlife and plant species, many of which thrive in forested habitat.
    While the Act has made significant strides in protecting our most
    imperiled species, there are still major shortfalls. Numerous species
    in need of protection, including the whitebark pine, are precluded from
    the list because of the lack of adequate resources. American Forests
    supports the President's fiscal year 2015 request of $170.51 million.
        National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Refuge System, with 561
    refuges of more than 150 million acres across the country, is vital to
    protecting America's wildlife and ensuring that these habitats are a
    priority. Because refuges are visited by approximately 45 million
    people each year and generate more than $4.2 billion in economic output
    and more than 34,000 jobs in recreation spending,\2\ investment in the
    Refuge system is an investment in our communities. While it is well
    documented that an annual operations and maintenance budget should
    total at least $900 million,\3\ American Forests supports the
    President's fiscal year 2015 request for $476.40 million.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Department of the Interior's Economic Contributions fiscal
    year 2011 report, p.21; 2006 Banking on Nature report.
        \3\ ``Restoring America's Wildlife Refuges 2011: Assets for All
    Americans,'' Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    National Park Service (NPS)
        National Park System.--American Forests was instrumental nearly 100
    years ago in the creation of our national parks and continues to this
    day supporting the service that stewards these iconic landscapes.
    However, many of these forested parks are threatened by a series of
    stresses. Invasive species and uncontrolled outbreaks of pests have
    left these forested treasures vulnerable. American Forests is dedicated
    to aiding in the restoration of these parks, especially those in the
    intermountain west affected by the mountain pine bark beetle. As such,
    American Forests supports the President's fiscal year 2015 total budget
    request of $2.28 billion.
        Urban Parks Recreation and Recovery.--The reestablishment of this
    program, proposed to be funded through the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund, is essential to bring nature to urban communities. These
    competitive grants focus on engaging and connecting communities,
    especially young people, to their neighborhood parks through projects
    that would revitalize and rehabilitate park and recreation
    opportunities. As a leader in the urban forestry field, American
    Forests applauds the renewed efforts of the NPS and the Department of
    Interior to improve park units that will impact urban economies and the
    quality of life for urban residents by creating open green space.
    American Forests supports the President's fiscal year 2015 request of
    $25 million.
                        environmental protection agency
        Urban and rural forests offer fiscally-sound green solutions to the
    management of stormwater, water storage, groundwater recharge, and
    pollutant reduction.
        Green Infrastructure and Clean Water.--American Forests supports
    the EPA's goal of strengthening green infrastructure activities to
    further sustainability goals, particularly in urban, underserved and
    economically distressed communities by incorporating green
    infrastructure and enhancing stormwater management. American Forests
    also strongly supports efforts to expand the use of green
    infrastructure to meet Clean Water Act goals, however we would like to
    see the targeting of 20 percent of the Clean Water State Revolving
    Funds (CWSRF) increased to include a variety of green infrastructure
    projects. American Forests supports the President's fiscal year 2015
    request of $5 million to strengthen green infrastructure activities,
    and the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $1.449 billion for CWSRF.
        Urban Waters Federal Partnership.--This 13 interagency effort,
    coordinated by the EPA, helps stimulate local economies, create jobs,
    improve quality of life, and protect health by revitalizing urban
    waterways, the urban forests that protect them and the communities
    around them, focusing on underserved urban communities of all sizes.
    American Forests supports the President's fiscal year 2015 request of
    $3.49 billion for supporting EPA's goal of protecting America's Waters,
    where this program sits within the EPA.
                          legislative language request
    Wildfire Suppression Funding
        Funding wildfire suppression has been an ongoing struggle for the
    Forest Service and the Department of Interior. As the wildfires become
    more frequent and more severe, which they are projected to become, a
    new solution to how the Agencies fund suppression needs to occur.
    American Forests respectfully requests the subcommittee address the
    wildfire suppression funding issue by including language from the
    bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (WDFA--H.R. 3992; S. 1875) in
    the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill. This language provides the structure to fund a
    portion of the USFS and DOI wildfire suppression costs through a budget
    cap adjustment under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
    Act of 1985, as amended. This would provide the USFS and DOI with a
    funding structure similar to that used by other agencies who respond to
    natural disaster emergencies.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund
        American Forests supports the permanent authorization of full and
    dedicated funding, without further appropriation or fiscal year
    limitation for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). LWCF
    programs protect natural resource lands, outdoor recreation
    opportunities and working forests at the local, State and Federal
    levels, ensuring these important lands are protected for current and
    future generations. American Forests supports the fiscal year 15 budget
    request which calls for permanent authorization of $900 million in
    mandatory funding for LWCF programs in the Departments of Interior and
    Agriculture beginning in 2016. During the transition to permanent
    funding in 2015, the budget proposes $350 million in discretionary and
    $550 million in permanent funding, shared by the Departments of
    Interior and Agriculture. This includes level discretionary funding for
    State Assistance grants at $48.1 million, which includes $3 million for
    ``Competitive Grants.''
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Geosciences Institute
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geosciences
    Institute's (AGI) perspective on fiscal year 2015 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 $1.074 billion for USGS but we request a more
    balanced distribution for these funds within USGS, $225 million for the
    National Park Service's Natural Resource Stewardship and Everglades
    Restoration activities, and $850 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 emphasize the importance of
    understanding the Earth system, and particularly Earth's subsurface, in
    order to sustain human health and safety, energy and water supplies,
    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 intersecting Earth-focused
    issues.
        AGI is a nonprofit federation of about 50 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 supports the President's request for $1.704 billion for USGS.
    We respectfully suggest that Congress should consider a balanced
    distribution of funds within USGS to allocate more resources to
    geoscience functions, for which USGS has unique national expertise and
    responsibilities.
        Need for balanced investment.--Planet Earth strongly influences
    human safety, the economy, and people's quality of life. Earthquake,
    volcanic, and landslide hazards; the Earth's groundwater, mineral,
    geothermal energy, and fossil fuel resource potential; and the Earth's
    potential for waste disposal all relate to the subsurface. The USGS
    Organic Act recognizes the importance of understanding the geological
    structure of the country and unequivocally vests responsibility and
    authority for this in USGS.
        Table 1 highlights those Mission Areas and Accounts that are being
    cut relative to the overall USGS budget, and we note that they contain
    the majority of USGS's geoscience functions. We respectfully ask
    Congress to recognize the importance of geoscience to the Nation's
    safety, economy, defense, and quality of life, and to support USGS's
    mandated role by funding balanced investment in USGS programs.

                                     TABLE 1. USGS BUDGET REQUEST, FISCAL YEAR 2015
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Percent                 Percent     Percent
                                                            Fiscal      change,     Fiscal      change,     change
             Mission Area or Account            Fiscal     year 2014    fiscal     year 2015    fiscal      fiscal
                                               year 2013    enacted   year 2013-    request   year 2014-  year 2013-
                                                                         2014                    2015        2015
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ecosystems..............................     149,086     152,811         2.5     162,025         6.0         8.7
    Climate & Land Use......................     133,195     131,975        -0.9     149,081        13.0        11.9
    Energy, Minerals........................      71,901      71,901         0.0      73,247         1.9         1.9
    Environmental Health....................      18,614      19,614         5.4      25,826        31.7        38.8
    Natural Hazards.........................     123,536     128,486         4.0     128,339        -0.1         3.9
    Water Resources.........................     197,449     207,281         5.0     210,386         1.5         6.5
    Core Science Systems....................     107,643     108,807         1.1     109,400         0.6         1.6
    Science Support.........................     110,704     110,704         0.0     108,267        -2.2        -2.2
    Facilities..............................     100,040     100,421         0.4     106,697         6.3         6.7
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total USGS........................   1,012,168   1,032,000         2.0   1,073,268         4.0         6.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        USGS provides impartial scientific information that underpins well-
    informed decisionmaking by the Department of the Interior, all levels
    of government, industry, and the public. It provides vital
    infrastructure through mapping, baseline studies, monitoring, and
    observations, in addition to cutting-edge research and analysis.
    Balanced investment in USGS should support both long-term data
    collection and project-specific research.
        Mineral Resources Program.--Funding for the Mineral Resources
    Program (MRP) has been cut by more than one-third in constant dollar
    terms since 2003 (see figure below) and the President's request
    continues this trend. AGI urges Congress to increase funding for MRP
    and to allocate new money to USGS to add forecasting capabilities to
    its Minerals Information functions.

        Minerals Information.--USGS is the sole provider of statistics and
    analysis on the supply of, demand for, and global flow of about 100
    minerals and mineral materials for approximately 180 countries. The
    Departments of the Interior, Defense, and State, the CIA, the Federal
    Reserve, as well as manufacturing companies and the financial sector
    all rely on MRP for reliable, timely, accurate data to guide economic
    and strategic decisionmaking. Production of critical products is at
    risk because industry depends on a constant flow of raw materials, many
    of which are imported and some of which may be subject to disruptions
    in supply. AGI notes the lack of any capacity to forecast future trends
    in minerals and mineral commodities, making the country vulnerable to
    avoidable disruptions in critical material supplies. AGI urges Congress
    to add new money to enable USGS to develop this strategically important
    expertise.
        Energy Resources Program.--AGI supports the increase in funding for
    geothermal resources studies but we do not support the proposed cut of
    $1.5 million to energy research and assessment activities. These cuts
    are being made when the country is increasing its reliance on natural
    gas and when it is ever more important to understand the nature and
    distribution of our energy resources.
        Hydraulic Fracturing.--AGI supports USGS efforts to better
    understand the scientific aspects of hydraulic fracturing, to reduce
    potential impacts, and to provide decision-support information. We
    support the allocation of $8.3 million for scientific research on this
    economically important technology.
        Water Resources Program.--The extreme drought situation in
    California, northern Texas, and surrounding areas highlights the
    importance of understanding the quality and quantity of our water
    resources. AGI is pleased to see increased investment in the National
    Groundwater Monitoring Network, streamgages, and other elements of the
    USGS Water Resources Program (WRP). We note the redistribution of funds
    within WRP to focus on selected areas and projects and we urge Congress
    to ensure that USGS continues to maintain and expand the nationwide,
    long-term data collection and research programs that support water
    planning and decisionmaking across all States.
        Natural Hazards Program.--USGS is world-renowned for its
    information and research on earthquakes, the natural hazard that poses
    the greatest threat to life and the economy. USGS work on induced
    seismicity is contributing crucial information to the decisionmaking
    process about regulating hydraulic fracturing and injection wells. AGI
    views the elimination of $700,000 from geodetic monitoring and active-
    source seismic profiling in order to fund work on induced seismicity as
    unwise. Both of these functions are important and one should not be
    sacrificed to fund the other.
        Hurricane Sandy, sinkhole incidents in Florida, and the recent
    landslide in Washington State remind us of the tragic impacts of
    natural hazards. But we can use science to guide mitigation strategies
    and minimize damages. AGI supports robust funding of the Natural
    Hazards Program and urges Congress to consider funding at more than the
    President's request of $128.4 million.
        National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP).--AGI is
    grateful to Congress for passing the reauthorization 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 supports the President's request for $24.5
    million in fiscal year 2015.
        Libraries and Data Preservation.--Geological and geophysical data
    include rock and ice cores, fossil, oil, and rock specimens, paper
    records, and computer files that are worth far more than the cost of
    preserving them. The National Geological and Geophysical Data
    Preservation Program (NGGDP) generates more value in terms of economic
    development, environmental stewardship, hazard mitigation and
    fulfilling regulatory requirements than it costs to run. Books, maps,
    and specimens, many of which record observations of sites that no
    longer exist, are used extensively by geologists even in this digital
    age. The consolidation of USGS library space must not be at the expense
    of access to information. AGI supports the President's request for $2.1
    million for the NGGDP but notes with concern the reductions being
    implemented to USGS libraries.
                            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 $851 million for the Smithsonian Institution in
    fiscal year 2015.
                             national park service
        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
    Services' Geologic Resources Division was established in 1995 to
    provide park managers with geologic expertise. Working in conjunction
    with USGS and other partners, the division helps ensure that
    geoscientists are becoming part of an integrated approach to science-
    based resource management in parks. AGI supports the President's
    request for $215 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 the American Hiking Society
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,
            DC.

    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee, I am writing regarding funding for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2015. While current enacted funding is
    $306 million and the administration's budget requests $900 million,
    American Hiking Society believes $350 million to be an amount that is
    within budgetary parameters yet can still accomplish at least some of
    the basic goals of this Fund.
        Among the many worthwhile projects which could be funded at this
    level are ones which would impact America's National Scenic and
    Historic Trails. These trails are enjoyed by Americans coast-to-coast,
    providing a wonderful outdoor recreation experience to families and
    individuals. Additionally, these trails are a significant economic
    engine in their communities, many of which are rural in nature and rely
    on visitors to these iconic outdoor adventures to sustain them.
    Certainly tourism is one product that can't be outsourced and deserves
    a solid investment.
        Among the National Scenic and Historic Trails which stand to
    benefit from funding the LWCF at the $350 million level are:
      --The Appalachian Trail
      --The Ice Age Trail
      --The Lewis & Clark Trail
      --The New England Trail
      --The Pacific Crest Trail
      --And others.
        Providing this LWCF funding to the National Trails System is
    critical to closing gaps in some of the trails and to preserving unique
    natural and cultural environs in others. Thank you for allowing
    American Hiking Society to provide our comments on funding the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund.
                Sincerely,
                                      Gregory A. Miller, Ph.D.,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
                               i. request summary
        On behalf of the Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs),
    which collectively are the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
    (AIHEC), thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2015
    appropriations recommendations for the 30 colleges funded under various
    titles of 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 of the Interior.
        In fiscal year 2015, TCUs seek $78.8 million for institutional
    operations, an endowment building program, and technical assistance
    under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act
    of 1978 or Tribal College Act; of which, $78.1 million for titles I &
    II grants (28 TCUs); $109,000 for title III (endowment grants), and
    $600,000 for increasingly needed technical assistance. TCUs are founded
    and chartered by our respective American Indian tribes, which hold a
    special legal relationship with the Federal Government, actualized by
    more than 400 treaties, several Supreme Court decisions, prior
    congressional action, and the ceding of more than one billion acres of
    land to the Federal Government. Despite the trust responsibility and
    treaty obligations, the TCUs' primary source of basic operating funds
    has never been adequately funded. Further, our member institutions--
    already operating on shoestring budgets--now are suffering the awful
    impact of sequestration. Should sequestration resume in fiscal year
    2016, along with across the across the board cuts that have become part
    of the regular order, the tribal colleges will suffer even greater
    annual reductions to this already underfunded program. Regrettably, the
    more than 30-year Federal investment in this program, which has proven
    to be a cost-effective, efficient, and transformative, may be lost as
    some of tribal colleges could be forced to close their doors. They
    simply cannot continue to operate on the austere budgets they receive.
    After 34 years, our fiscal year 2015 request seeks to achieve 85
    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, a portion of whose institutional
    operations funding is authorized under title V of the Tribal College
    Act. AIHEC requests $9,372,000 for this program. For the Institute of
    American Indian Arts, AIHEC supports the President's budget request of
    $11,469,000, of which $2,000,000 is to begin to forward fund the
    college. Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian
    Polytechnic Institute are the two Bureau of Indian Education's two
    postsecondary institutions. AIHEC supports the highest possible funding
    level for these valuable institutions.
        Lastly, AIHEC seeks a one-time appropriation of $22 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 to start (and end) the school year with
    dependable funding. Forward funding does NOT increase the Federal
    budget over the long-run. It simply allows vital 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.
          ii. 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, 37 TCUs
    operate more than 75 campuses and sites in 16 States, within whose
    geographic boundaries 80 percent of all American Indian reservations
    and Federal Indian trust land lie. They serve students from well over
    250 federally recognized tribes, 80 percent of whom 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 public institutions 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. In fact, TCU operating funding
    is far below the level received by other institutions of higher
    education. The administration requests and Congress appropriates
    approximately $200 million annually towards the institutional
    operations of Howard University (exclusive of its medical school), the
    only other Minority Serving Institution (MSI) that receives
    institutional operations funding from the Federal Government. Howard
    University's current Federal operating support exceeds $22,000/student,
    because this is the level of need as determined by the U.S. Government.
    In contrast, most TCUs receive $5,850/Indian Student (ISC) under the
    Tribal College Act, only about 73 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. 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, TCU operating budgets remain
    grossly underfunded.
        TCU budgets are at a further disadvantage because the colleges
    receive funding for only about 80 percent of their students. 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 approximately 20 percent of the TCUs'
    collective enrollments are non-Indian students living in the local
    community, TCUs only receive Federal funding based on Indian students,
    defined as a member of a federally recognized tribe or a biological
    child of an enrolled tribal member. While many TCUs do seek funding
    from their respective State legislatures for their non-Indian State-
    residents students (sometimes referred to as ``non-beneficiary''
    students) successes have been at best inconsistent. Yet, if a TCU's
    non-beneficiary students attended any other public institution in the
    State, the State would provide the college 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 catalyst for a better
    economic future for their regions.
                      iii. further justifications & facts
        (a) 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, seven of
    the Nation's 10 poorest counties are home to a TCU. The American
    Community Survey/U.S. Census Bureau reported the annual per capita
    income of the U.S. population as $27,100. However, the annual per
    capita income of AI/ANs is reported to be $13,300, or less than 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.
        (b) 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.
        (c) 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; the number of Indian students
    enrolled has risen over 355 percent. In the past 10 years, six
    additional TCUs have become accredited and eligible for funding under
    title I of the Tribal College Act, and there are several more colleges
    currently 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.
        (d) 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. By
    contrast, the national unemployment rate is currently 6.7 percent.
        (e) 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
    broad-based 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.
        Some form of gaming is legalized in 48 States, but 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. And yet, no State
    is expected to share its gaming revenue with a non-gaming State.
                 v. appropriations request for fiscal year 2015
        As noted earlier, it has been over 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. Full
    funding for the TCUs' institutional operating grants ($8,000 per Indian
    student) for fiscal year 2015 would require an increase of
    approximately $24 million over the fiscal year 2014 appropriated level.
    However, we recognize the budget constraints the Nation is currently
    facing and consequently, we are not requesting that level of increase
    in fiscal year 2015. Rather, our goal is to achieve 85 percent of the
    authorized funding level, determined by the per Indian student
    allocation. This requires a modest increase of $9 million over fiscal
    year 2014. Details of the request are outlined in the Request Summary
    above.
                                 vi. conclusion
        AIHEC Member institutions/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 2015 appropriations requests.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
        The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates
    the opportunity to provide testimony in support of appropriations for
    the United States Geological Survey (USGS), United States Forest
    Service (USFS), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal
    year 2015. AIBS encourages Congress to provide the USGS with $1.2
    billion in fiscal year 2015, with at least $180 million for the
    Ecosystems activity. We further request that Congress provide the USFS
    Forest and Rangeland Research program with at least $310 million, and
    EPA's Office of Research and Development with at least $597 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 more than 140 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 decision-
    makers. 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.
        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 is jeopardizing 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 2015 budget would support several
    important ecosystem science priorities at USGS. The budget would expand
    detection and control of invasive species and improve predictive tools.
    USGS would also support efforts to further the science and integration
    of ecosystems services frameworks into decisionmaking and implement
    efforts to assess and sustain the Nation's environmental capital.
    Additionally, USGS would be able to address disconcerting declines in
    native pollinators.
        The request includes additional funding for research to inform
    adaptive management of severe and prolonged drought. The budget would
    also provide an increase for the National Streamflow Information
    Program, which supports USGS' national network of streamgages.
        New funding is proposed for the Cooperative Research Units to
    increase undergraduate and graduate student involvement in Interior
    research. Roughly 500 graduate students each year receive training at
    Cooperative Research Units. Through the 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 studying the impacts of wildfires
    on forest ecology. The program is an efficient use of resources: each
    Federal dollar invested in the program is leveraged more than five-
    fold.
        Although the proposed budget supports many USGS priorities, the
    requested funding level would result in $41.3 million in cuts to
    programs that support agency core missions. Indeed, the budget request
    for Ecosystems is less than the agency received in fiscal year 2002 in
    nominal dollars.
        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. An investment of $1.2 billion in the USGS
    and at least $180 million in the Ecosystems activity 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 2015 budget request would cut funding for Forest
    Service research by 6 percent--well in excess of the 2.6 percent cut
    proposed for the entire agency. The Forest and Rangeland Research
    division would lose 114 employees as a result.
        The proposed budget cuts would impact research on wildland fires,
    invasive species, wildlife and fish, and resource management. 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. Other programs support
    key areas of scientific research, the outcomes of which inform
    sustainable management of the Nation's forests and rangelands.
        We ask Congress to restore the proposed cuts and to fund the Forest
    and Rangeland Research program at $310 million, the same amount as in
    fiscal year 2010.
                        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 17 percent in nominal 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 $537.3 million, the budget request for fiscal year 2015 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 of $596.7 million.
        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 eliminated as part of a proposed governmentwide
    reorganization 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 elimination of these programs
    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 request that Congress 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 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 agencies involved in white-nose syndrome research and
    management, as well as for other programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
    Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.
                           white-nose syndrome (wns)

    $2.5 million (President's budget).........  U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                                                 Service/Science Support

    Purpose: To fund research on ways to stop the development and spread of
    WNS, and the fungus that causes it, among bat populations.

    $500,000..................................  U.S. Geological Survey/
                                                 Ecosystems

    Purpose: To conduct research into WNS management to aid in the recovery
    of affected species and reduce the spread of the WNS fungus.

    $3 million................................  National Park Service/Park
                                                 Management

    Purpose: To inventory and protect NPS bat and cave resources; expand
    research into WNS management; monitor NPS resources for WNS; conduct
    public education about WNS; and standardize WNS screening procedures
    for visitors across park units.

    $750,000..................................  U.S. Forest Service/Research
                                                 and Development

    Purpose: To conduct research on managing WNS per the Service's WNS
    science strategy.

    $250,000..................................  U.S. Forest Service/Forest
                                                 Systems

    Purpose: To inventory and monitor bat resources and manage WNS on
    Forest Service lands.

    $500,000..................................  Bureau of Land Management

    Purpose: To fund field research related to WNS in bats and the
    inventorying and monitoring of bat resources on Bureau-administered
    lands.

        Capitalizing on the investments and progress already made, the
    funds we request would support Federal programs to fight WNS, a disease
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates has killed at least 5.7
    million bats since its 2006 outbreak. Caused by the invasive
    Pseudogymn-oascus destructans (Pd) fungus, WNS is present in 25 States
    and 5 Canadian provinces, and Pd in another 3 States. The disease or
    its fungus has affected 11 hibernating bat species so far, including
    the endangered Indiana, gray, and Virginia big-eared bats; 25 of our
    Nation's 47 bat species may ultimately be at risk. Losses are so severe
    that FWS published a proposed rule to list the northern long-eared bat
    as endangered throughout its range, which is most of the eastern U.S.,
    and is reviewing another two species for possible listing under the
    Endangered Species Act.
        The loss of bats from WNS will likely 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 save farmers an
    average of $22.9 billion per year by reducing the need for pesticides
    and lowering food production costs. Bats also perform ecological
    services for 66 plant species that produce timber. Healthy forests need
    healthy bats.
        The Federal Government and its State, local, tribal, and nonprofit
    partners continue to make progress in fighting WNS. Thanks to Federal
    funding from previous years, these institutions are conducting research
    in line with the priorities identified at the 2014 WNS symposium:
    understanding the nature and dynamics of remnant bat populations in
    WNS-affected areas; understanding the nature and dynamics of Pd
    infectivity and virulence factors; and other questions such as
    biological control for WNS. These research directions hold promise for
    solutions to slow or stop the spread of the disease, and to alleviate
    its impacts on affected bats. In one of the past year's notable
    findings, Forest Service scientists taxonomically reclassified the WNS
    fungus from Geomyces destructans to Pseudogymnoascus destructans. A
    goal of the WNS community is to pinpoint the WNS fungus' harmful genes
    and silence them as a means of controlling the fungus; this research
    furthers that effort by shedding light on the genetic similarities and
    differences between the white-nose fungus and its closest, benign fungi
    relatives. Another positive development is the creation of the North
    American Bat Monitoring Program, which will be pilot-tested this
    summer. Until now, no coordinated or standard system for monitoring bat
    populations has existed within North America. As a result, wildlife
    managers and researchers have lacked accurate data on which to base
    appropriate bat management actions. The program will benefit not only
    the WNS fight but also other bat conservation efforts.
        These developments would not have been possible without funding. We
    thank Congress for recognizing the gravity of the WNS crisis and
    supporting agencies' response to the disease in past years. We have
    come so far in understanding WNS and determining directions for the
    fight against this devastating disease. Failing to adequately fund WNS
    response in fiscal year 2015 will undermine our hard-won progress,
    jeopardize the application of science to management, and thwart the
    impact of private funds leveraged to combat WNS. We recognize today's
    difficult budget situation but urge you to provide funding at the
    levels noted above.
        Money spent on WNS is a wise investment. Preventing the spread of
    WNS will spare businesses the regulatory and other impacts of massive
    bat die-offs. The experience gained will aid in responding to future
    fungal outbreaks that may affect human health. Finally, fighting WNS
    now will reduce future harm to the economy from insect-related losses
    to agriculture and forestry and the cost of listed-species recovery. An
    ounce of prevention truly is worth a pound of cure.
      fish and wildlife service office of law enforcement--$66.737 million
        The administration's fiscal year 2015 budget proposes a moderate
    funding increase for the FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), one of
    the most important lines of defense for America's wildlife. OLE is
    tasked with enforcing 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 U.S. 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, we support FWS's proposed appropriation of $66.737
    million for OLE, an increase of $1.994 million over the fiscal year
    2014 enacted budget, and the addition of seven full-time employees.
    This increase in funding and staff will provide for expanded forensics
    capability at the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory,
    support the work of Special Agents and Wildlife Inspectors, and enhance
    the Service's ability to combat wildlife trafficking.
    National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory--$1.247 million
            increase + 5 FTE
        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 on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
    member countries depend on this facility to prosecute wildlife crimes.
        It is heartening that $1.247 million of the proposed $1.994 million
    increase to OLE's budget and 5 of the 7 additional full time employees
    will be allocated to the NFWFL's work. This will aid in the advancement
    of research involving genetic markers and isotope analysis, which will
    ultimately improve investigators' ability to determine the geographic
    origin of animals and animal parts. These funds would also serve to
    develop the laboratory's Morphology Section, where these is a great
    need for both hiring and training of forensics experts.
    Program Activities/Special Agents and Wildlife Inspectors--$247,000
            increase
        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 U.S. 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 associated with
    importing non-native species.
        In fiscal year 2013, FWS Special Agents pursued 10,422
    investigations involving 180,368 wildlife shipments, including 157,065
    shipments containing foreign species. Agents identified 1,824
    individuals/businesses conducting illegal activities involving
    migratory birds; 2,535 individuals/businesses engaged in crime
    involving threatened and endangered species; and 7,521 individuals/
    businesses conducting illegal activities involving foreign species.
    These enforcement activities resulting in $24.6 million in fines and
    penalties, 45.9 years of jail time for the perpetrators, and 452.7
    years of probation.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement, Law
    Enforcement at a Glance (2014).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the same year, FWS Wildlife Inspectors processed approximately
    182,000 declared shipments of wildlife products worth over $6.2
    billion.\2\ This impressive record merits proper funding and staffing
    adequate to fulfill OLE's mission.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wildlife Trafficking--$500,000 increase + 2 FTE
        FWS's Special Investigations Unit (SIU) works to address complex
    wildlife trafficking cases, including cases involving critically
    endangered species. Poaching is on the rise internationally, and SIU's
    investigation and enforcement work is of critical importance to making
    the United States a part of the solution. Both the Administration's
    National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking and the
    President's Executive Order on combating wildlife trafficking highlight
    the prevention of wildlife crime as a national priority.
        Increasing its staff from 6 to 8 agents will provide SIU with the
    capacity to undertake a national investigation of the trade in ivory,
    including both importation and smuggling within the United States,
    while continuing its national and international efforts to investigate
    rhino horn trafficking. We support FWS's request for $500,000 (of the
    total $1.994 million requested increase) and 2 additional full time
    employee positions (of the 7 total FTE requested for law enforcement).
                    wild free-roaming horses and burros act
        The wild horse is as much a symbol of our American heritage as the
    image of Uncle Sam and baseball. Currently, America's wild horses are
    subjected to gross mismanagement and 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 as recently documented by a
    National Academy of Science study. 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 to protect these wild animals and their
    natural habitat. For the last few years, this subcommittee has also
    called on the BLM to find humane solutions, but they ignore options and
    fail to act responsibly. It is now time for Congress to act decisively
    to ensure these animals are neither sent into holding facilities nor
    sentenced to slaughter. BLM's proposed budget includes a program
    increase of $2.8 million for wild horse and burro management. These
    funds are to be used for population control research, including ongoing
    studies that ``focus on developing more effective and longer lasting
    fertility control agents. . . .'' \3\ We support these efforts and
    request 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 2015
    (2014).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, we strongly support the continued 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, we
    request 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 Appalachian Trail Conservancy
        Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC), for reasons described below, I am
    requesting a fiscal year 2015 appropriation from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the amount of $4,461,000 for the Department
    of the Interior, National Park Service and $7,850,000 for the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (USFS) for the
    acquisition of lands and interests in lands surrounding or bordering
    the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in the States of New Hampshire,
    Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
        ATC also requests support for the President's fiscal year 2015
    budget request of $2,283,852,000 for National Park Service operations
    and $10 million for the Centennial Challenge, as well as a budget
    request of $183,000 for the USDA Forest Service for operational costs
    associated with managing the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
        Background.--The Appalachian National Scenic Trail (ANST) is
    America's premier long-distance footpath. Begun in 1922 and completed
    in 1937 as a continuous footpath extending from western Maine to
    northern Georgia, the trail gained Federal recognition in 1968 with the
    passage of the National Trails System Act. Amendments to that act in
    1978 expanded the authorization for Federal and State land acquisition
    to establish a permanent, publicly owned right-of-way as well as a
    protective corridor or greenway along the trail. Since 1978, with the
    strong support of the subcommittee and the Congress as a whole, the
    Appalachian National Scenic Trail land acquisition program of the
    National Park Service and USDA Forest Service has become one of the
    most successful land conservation efforts in the Nation's history.
    Additional land acquisitions will serve to protect priority landscapes
    along the trail that offer recreational and ecological benefits to the
    public.
        Resource Characteristics.--The Appalachian Trail is a 2,185-mile
    footpath extending along the crests and valleys of the Appalachian
    Mountains through 14 States from Maine to Georgia. Often characterized
    as a string of pearls, the trail, which is administered as a unit of
    the National Park System, connects eight National Forests, six other
    units of the National Park System, and approximately 60 State parks,
    forests, and game management units. With an estimated 2 million
    visitors per year, it ranks among the most heavily visited units of the
    National Park System and also ranks among the top 10 units from the
    standpoint of natural diversity, with more than 2,200 documented
    occurrences of federally and State listed rare, threatened, or
    endangered species at more than 500 discrete sites.
        The Appalachian Trail is equally well known as a remarkable public/
    private partnership. Since the initial construction of the trail in the
    1920s and '30s, volunteers affiliated with the Appalachian Trail
    Conservancy have constructed, reconstructed, and maintained the
    footpath, as well as a system of more than 250 shelters and associated
    facilities such as privies, improved campsites, bridges, signs, and
    parking lots. In 2013, for example, 5,941 volunteers contributed
    245,548 hours of labor along the trail.
        Need for Appropriations.--As noted previously, while the
    Appalachian National Scenic Trail protection program represents one of
    the most successful land acquisition programs in the history of the
    conservation movement in the United States, that program is not yet
    complete. A number of critical parcels are now ripe for land
    acquisition from willing sellers, and we are seeking fiscal year 2015
    LWCF appropriations to secure those properties. A brief description of
    each of those critical parcels follows.
        Bald Cap Peak, New Hampshire.--ATC and The Conservation Fund
    request a fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriation of $200,000 for the
    National Park Service. The funds would be obligated for the National
    Park Service to acquire a 300-acre tract in fee in Coos County, New
    Hampshire. The tract will broaden the Appalachian Trail corridor in
    these highlands, protecting the natural flora and fauna along it, as
    well as the high elevation watershed found along the crest of the
    mountains the trail traverses. These lands are part of the Mahoosuc
    Mountain range, which is the northerly extension of the White Mountains
    in northeastern New Hampshire. Acquisition of this property would
    enhance protection for three major peaks in the area, including Bald
    Cap Peak, Bald Cap, North Bald Cap, and the area around Mount Success.
    This acquisition also will protect a key side trail that provides
    access to one of the more remote sections of the trail.
        Greensboro Farm, New Hampshire.--ATC and the Trust for Public Lands
    request a fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriation of $2,251,000 for the
    National Park Service to acquire a 173-acre tract of land owned by
    Dartmouth College and located in the town of Hanover, New Hampshire.
    This acquisition will protect the ANST corridor from incompatible
    development and permanently protect side trails maintained by the town
    of Hanover which connect to the Appalachian Trail, but which do not
    have permanent protection status. Acquisition of this property, known
    as Hudson Farm, will also protect wetland and riparian systems,
    grassland bird habitat, rare plant sites, a significant wildlife
    corridor, and forest resources. The Hudson Farm is likely to be
    divested by Dartmouth College within the next 2 to 4 years, as it has
    been deemed a non-strategic real estate holding.
        Pomfret Pines Project, Vermont.--ATC and The Conservation Fund
    request funding in fiscal year 2015 of $533,000 for the National Park
    Service to acquire an easement interest in an 81-acre property, known
    as the Pomfret Pines Farm, situated on a hill adjacent to and above the
    Appalachian Trail in the town of Pomfret, Vermont, to conserve its
    natural and scenic character. The property may be under threat of
    subdivision and residential development.
        Hottle-Fahey Forest, Massachusetts.--ATC requests funding in fiscal
    year 2015 of $777,000 for the National Park Service to acquire a 306-
    acre tract of the Hottle-Fahey Forest that lies in the foreground
    viewshed of Warner Hill in Hinsdale, Massachusetts. In 2010, an
    industrial wind developer proposed constructing six large wind turbines
    within 500 feet of the ANST corridor at this point. This would have
    seriously altered the view from Warner Hill and significantly changed
    the character of this section of the trail through the small rural
    village of Hinsdale. In late 2012, the developer withdrew plans to
    develop the site, but the threat for industrial development and/or
    timber extraction remains. The Hottle-Fahey Forest lies in the center
    of the Hinsdale Flats, an area designated by the State of Massachusetts
    as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), a site that
    receives special recognition because of the quality, uniqueness, and
    significance of its resources.
        White Rocks Addition, Pennsylvania.--ATC requests a fiscal year
    2015 LWCF appropriation of $500,000 for the National Park Service to
    acquire a 107-acre property in the viewshed of the Appalachian Trail as
    it crosses the White Rocks formation just southeast of Boiling Springs,
    Pennsylvania. This tract is contiguous to a recently protected 800-acre
    tract. The most pressing threat to this landscape is the potential for
    additional development by the landowner.
        Tennessee Mountains Trails and Waters-Rich Mountain Inholding.--ATC
    requests a fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriation of $3,700,000, including
    the Rich Mountain inholding ($700,000), for the USDA Forest Service.
    This collaborative project includes funding for acquisitions associated
    with trails in Tennessee, including a 100-acre privately owned
    inholding situated in the northwest corner of the recently acquired
    10,000-acre Rocky Fork property, a significant acquisition for the
    ANST. This tract includes the highest point of land for the overall
    property as well as prominent cliffs. The cliffs are only a short
    distance from the ANST through a high elevation heath bald. The
    property provides sweeping views of the Sampson Mountain Wilderness and
    northeast Tennessee/southwest Virginia.
        North Carolina Threatened Treasures--Grassy Ridge Project.--ATC
    requests a fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriation of $1,100,000 for the
    USDA Forest Service to acquire 601 acres of high elevation grassy bald
    with several threatened and endangered species. This parcel is the
    largest unprotected parcel in the ANST and Overmountain Victory
    National Historic Trail viewshed. An additional $1,050,000 will be
    contributed to the project from the North Carolina Parks and Recreation
    Trust Fund and the North Carolina Clean Water Trust Fund.
        Sugarloaf Mountain, Tennessee.--ATC requests a fiscal year 2015
    LWCF appropriation of $330,000 for the USDA Forest Service to acquire
    this 80-acre inholding within the Cherokee National Forest to protect
    the viewshed of the Appalachian Trail. The tract hosts a cove hardwood
    forest, a waterfall, and abundant wildflowers, offering an outstanding
    recreational experience. ATC will contribute funding for the appraisal
    of this important tract.
        National Trails Collaborative Landscape.--ATC requests a fiscal
    year 2015 LWCF appropriation of $2,720,000 for the USDA Forest Service.
    This acquisition package includes several important ANST tracts,
    including:
      --Ripshin Wetlands.--This 403-acre property is adjacent to the
            Moffett Laurel Botanical Area Rare Community and Ripshin Ridge
            Rare Community. The Ripshin tract contains documented habitat
            and breeding grounds for the Bog Turtle, a State threatened
            species and federally listed threatened species within an
            Appalachian Highlands Bog. Cliff top viewpoints offer
            exceptional views of this tract for Appalachian Trail hikers.
            This tract is surrounded on three sides by the Cherokee
            National Forest.
      --Hump Mountain, Tennessee.--The 27-acre Hump Mountain tract is a
            high elevation southern Appalachian grassy bald, which is home
            to a unique ecosystem including several threatened and
            endangered species and species of concern. The tract is also
            part of the culturally significant Roan Highlands landscape and
            a national natural landmark, and it is surrounded on three
            sides by the Cherokee and Pisgah National Forests.
      --Shook Branch, Tennessee, Cherokee National Forest.--This 20-acre
            tract provides an important linkage for the Appalachian Trail
            corridor as it travels from Watauga Lake to the Pond Mountain
            Wilderness. Rerouting the trail onto this tract will provide a
            much safer crossing of the very busy U.S. 321, prevent
            development adjacent to a USFS/Tennessee Valley Authority
            recreation area, and provide an improved corridor for wildlife.
        National Park Service Funding.--ATC requests a $10 million
    appropriation for the Centennial Challenge and $2,283,852,000 for
    National Park Service (NPS) operations. As NPS prepares for its 100th
    anniversary, Congress has an achievable opportunity to begin reversing
    the damaging pattern of recent cuts and long-term underfunding and
    instead invest in the popular and economically important NPS, including
    the ANST. The troubled budget process of recent years has allowed a
    slow motion shutdown that has meant deferring significant maintenance
    projects and the hiring of key park staff that provide for safe and
    enjoyable visits.
        USDA Forest Service, Appalachian National Scenic Trail
    Operations.--ATC requests $183,000 in operational funds for the USDA
    Forest Service Southern Region 8 to provide a liaison for trail
    management. Operational funds also support volunteer trail maintenance
    crews and visitor outreach.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and for your
    consideration of our request.
                                                    Ron Tipton,
                            Executive Director/Chief Executive Officer.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the APS Four Corners Power Plant
                                                         April 9, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
    support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
    consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
    subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                     David C. Bloomfield, P.E.,
                                       Four Corners Site Plant Manager.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the ASME Environmental Protection Agency Task
                                     Force
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee: The
    ASME Environmental Protection Agency Task Force is pleased to provide
    this testimony on the fiscal year 2015 budget request for research and
    development programs in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
                                  introduction
        ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide educational and technical Society
    with more than 130,000 members. It conducts one of the world's largest
    technical publishing operations, holds more than 30 technical
    conferences and 200 professional development courses each year, and has
    authored over 600 industrial and manufacturing standards.
                                   background
        Scientists and engineers have a long-standing professional interest
    in applying Science & Technology (S&T) to improve the environment and
    human health in the U.S. Mechanical engineers increasingly collaborate
    with other professionals to develop innovative and cost-effective
    environmental technologies and systems.
        The EPA plays an essential role in the Nation's efforts to protect
    human health and safeguard the environment, and EPA's S&T research and
    development (R&D) activities are instrumental in improving
    environmental protection in a sound, sustainable, and cost-effective
    manner. R&D efforts are needed to improve environmental health, the
    ecology, environmental monitoring, environmental technology development
    and implementation. Pollution reduction is needed to address the
    emerging concerns of climate change, as well as homeland security and
    infrastructure protection.
                   overview of the asme epa task force review
        The fiscal year 2015 budget request for EPA is $7.9 billion, a $310
    million or 3.8 percent decrease from the fiscal year 2014 enacted
    amount of $8.2 billion. The EPA's Science and Technology account would
    increase by 0.6 percent or $4.6 million in fiscal year 2015 to $763.7
    million.
        EPA has seen declining budget figures for the last four budget
    cycles. The EPA Task Force feels that a higher appropriation is
    warranted for the agency in fiscal year 2015. Additional R&D funds are
    needed in order to enhance study responses to hydraulic fracturing and
    oil shale waste issues, climate change, terrestrial carbon
    sequestration and management, biofuels, and nanotechnology development.
        The Task Forces comments on the fiscal year 2015 budget focus on
    the R&D activities of the S&T portfolio within the EPA's Office of
    Research and Development (ORD) and the Superfund program that support
    eight strategic programmatic research areas:
        The change in funding levels supporting these core objectives
    between fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2015 is as follows:

                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                           2013         2014         2015
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indoor Air and Radiation.........        $6.39        $6.45        $6.09
    Homeland Security................        38.88        38.36        39.44
    Clean Air and Climate............       114.9        120.4        118.5
    Safe and Sustainable Water              106.2        111.0        114.1
     Resources
    Human Health Protection..........         3.6          3.6          3.6
    Air, Climate, and Energy Research        87.1         94.9        101.9
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     epa office of research and development
        Through research and technical assistance, ORD provides the
    scientific foundation for EPA by performing research and development to
    identify and solve present and future environmental issues and
    providing responsive technical support to its scientific partners. The
    ORD administers programs addressing both foundational research, to
    improve the scientific tools used to understand and evaluate
    environmental health, as well as problem-driven research designed to
    provide scientific solutions to high-priority environmental problems.
    It is an invaluable national resource.
        We note that the ORD workforce has declined by over 10 percent in
    the past several years and is now not sufficient to permit action on
    various topics of national importance. Effort should be made to ``right
    size'' the ORD staff so that it can continue to support R&D on current
    and future environmental problems.
        We support the increases requested for the EPA's S&T directorate,
    which partially reverses several years of funding decreases. An
    evaluation of EPA's resources is needed to ensure that it can balance
    between existing priorities and new challenges. Program specifics
    issues are outlined below:

                            INDOOR AIR AND RADIATION
                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                           2013         2014         2015
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indoor Air: Radon Program........        $0.56        $0.19        $0.0
    Reduce Risks from Indoor Air.....         0.36         0.31         0.41
    Radiation Protection.............         1.9          2.1          2.0
    Radiation Preparedness Response..         4.0          3.8          3.6
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Task Force supports the EPA's replacement of the Radon Program
    with the Federal Radon Action Plan, which will leverage industry and
    nonprofit efforts to amplify existing Federal efforts to reduce radon
    risk.

                                HOMELAND SECURITY
                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                           2013         2014         2015
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Critical Infrastructure                 $10.3        $10.4        $12.0
     Protection......................
    Preparedness, Response and               27.9         27.3         26.8
     Recovery........................
    Protection of EPA Personnel and           0.54         0.54         0.57
     Infrastructure..................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Homeland security activities are a significant component of the
    EPA's S&T activities, focusing on critical infrastructure protection
    and disaster preparedness and response. The Task Force plans to review
    the reduced program operation levels, particularly with respect to EPA
    personnel accounts, to insure that the reductions do not delay the
    completion of the program's objectives. The Task Force supports the
    additional funding allocated to the Critical Infrastructure Protection
    program.

                              CLEAN AIR AND CLIMATE
                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                           2013         2014         2015
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Climate Protection...............       $13.0         $8.31        $8.0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The EPA Task Force views Climate Protection Research as a critical
    issue and is troubled by the funding trajectory for this program given
    funding in the previous fiscal years. We urge Congress to appropriate
    additional funds for Climate Protection to exceed the fiscal year 2015
    requested level.

                        RESEARCH: AIR, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                           2013         2014         2015
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S&T Activities...................       $87.1        $94.9       $101.9
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The EPA Task Force supports the full fiscal year 2015 increased
    request for Air, Climate and Energy Research, particularly the $3.79
    million in additional funding for support for hydraulic fracturing
    research activities within the ACE research program.

                      SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES
                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                           2013         2014         2015
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Research                               $106.2       $111.0       $114.1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Safe and Sustainable Water Resources funding supports a variety of
    activities related to the challenges facing U.S. water resources,
    including drinking water and waste water from industrial activities
    like hydraulic fracturing. Funding for Sustainability research is
    slated for an increase of just over $3.1 million for this fiscal year.
    The Task Force is pleased that funding has been increased and supports
    the fiscal year 2015 request.

                             HUMAN HEALTH PROTECTION
                              [Dollars in millions]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                           2013         2014         2015
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Drinking Water Programs..........        $3.61        $3.63        $3.68
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Overall, the fiscal year 2015 budget request calls for a slight
    increase from the fiscal year 2014 appropriated amount. The Task Force
    considers the long term development of infrastructure related to water
    quality issues as a high priority of the EPA and supports this request
    given the constrained budget environment.
                   water quality research and support grants
        The EPA Task Force urges Congress to again support funding for the
    Water Quality Research and Support Grant program. Last year, Congress
    provided $4.23 million for this nationally competitive grant program to
    fund water quality and availability research. Given the severe droughts
    and water resource challenges facing many parts of the country, the
    Task Force supports funding at the fiscal year 2014 appropriated level
    for this grant program.
                            environmental education
        The fiscal year 2015 EPA budget does not request any funding to
    support Environmental Education, which was funded at $8.7 million in
    fiscal year 2014. It is essential to encourage students to pursue
    careers in environmental science and engineering. Such investments are
    critical to addressing environmental concerns, bolstering our Nation's
    workforce, and maintaining its competitiveness. If Congress and the
    Administration proceed with the transfer of EPA environmental education
    activities to the National Science Foundation (NSF), close coordination
    and consultation with EPA should be conducted to ensure that the goals
    of EPA's programs are continued under NSF administration.
                                   conclusion
        The administration's fiscal year 2015 request is, in part,
    reflective of a difficult fiscal environment where tough choices have
    to be made to support priorities within the EPA. As this Task Force has
    previously stated, however, difficult budget choices should not
    preclude certain priorities from receiving funding. The Task Force
    requests that additional funding be allocated for the Homeland Security
    programs to insure that security enhancements to our water supply are
    not delayed nor disrupted. Further, the Task Force proposes the
    continued funding of EPA's Water Quality Research Support Grant
    program.
        This statement represents the views of the EPA Task Force of the
    Environmental Engineering Division (EED) of ASME's Technical
    Communities and is not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Association of Art Museum Directors
        The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) respectfully
    requests funding of no less than $155 million each for the National
    Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the
    Humanities (NEH).
        In addition, AAMD requests a revision of the Arts and Artifacts
    Indemnity Act (Public Law 94-158) as amended (Public Law 110-161, Sec.
    426) to increase the amount of indemnity that may be outstanding at any
    given time and for any single exhibition. Congress last amended the Act
    in 2005 and 2007, and both times it did so through the appropriations
    process.
                    i. the arts and artifacts indemnity act
        Congress and President Gerald Ford approved the Arts and Artifacts
    Indemnity Act in 1975 to promote the international exchange and
    exhibition of major artworks. Officially a program of the Federal
    Council on the Arts and Humanities, the program is administered by the
    NEA. In 2007, Congress expanded eligibility to include coverage of
    works of art owned by U.S. entities while on exhibition in the United
    States.
        Federal indemnity only covers objects in major exhibitions. It
    usually does not cover every object, as some are excluded because they
    are fragile, or for other reasons. When objects are excluded, the
    museum must either secure private insurance or cover them through its
    own blanket policy. Having indemnity for some objects makes getting
    insurance for the remainder easier and more affordable.
        Absent indemnification, some exhibitions would have to be cut back
    in scale, whether by traveling to fewer venues or including fewer
    objects. In some cases, exhibitions would not go forward at all. For
    this reason, fine arts insurers as well as museums support the
    indemnity program, since they would rather insure some objects in an
    exhibition than not have the exhibition presented in the first place.
        The program has run smoothly and incurred minimal costs to the
    Federal Government, which since 1975 has paid just two claims, totaling
    $104,700. It currently saves art museums approximately $30 million
    annually, while enabling major exhibitions to be presented to audiences
    around the country, with all of their attendant educational and
    economic benefits.
        The program's cost has been so low for several reasons. First, it
    imposes high deductibles: for exhibitions indemnified for over $500
    million, the deductible is $500,000. Second, the program is very strict
    about what it will cover, with entire classes of objects ineligible due
    to fragility. Third, the program demands the highest standards in
    security and environmental controls; for example, all exhibitions must
    have human guards 24 hours a day, and all works must travel with
    couriers.
        The Act allows no more than $10 billion in indemnity for
    international exhibitions to be outstanding at any one time, and no
    single international exhibition may receive indemnity for more than
    $1.2 billion of value. No more than $5 billion may be outstanding at
    any one time for domestic exhibitions, and no single domestic
    exhibition may receive indemnity for more than $750 million of value.
        In 2012, museums requested indemnity for nearly $16 billion in
    value for international exhibitions and over $6 billion for domestic.
    Museums report that the caps are preventing indemnity from being
    extended to objects that would have been covered in past years. Simply
    put, there is not enough coverage to go around. As both inflation and a
    rising art market take their toll, the situation is bound to worsen.
        A list of recently indemnified exhibitions appears on the NEA's Web
    site. While only the museum that organizes the exhibition applies for
    indemnity, all museums that present or lend to the exhibition benefit
    from it. For example, the Art Museum at the Rhode Island School of
    Design recently shared a Manet portrait and a Renoir with audiences far
    beyond Rhode Island, thanks to the indemnity program. The Joslyn Art
    Museum in Omaha sent its Veronese to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts as
    part of a major exhibition of Venetian painting, Titian, Tintoretto,
    Veronese: Rivals in Renaissance Venice.
        Nor is it only large institutions that present qualifying
    exhibitions. For example, the Speed Art Museum in Louisville, Kentucky
    organized ``Rembrandt, Rubens, Gainsborough and the Golden Age of
    Painting,'' which traveled with indemnity to the Philbrook Museum of
    Art in Tulsa, Oklahoma; Dixon Gallery and Gardens in Memphis,
    Tennessee, Flint institute of Arts in Flint, Michigan; and the El Paso
    Museum of Art in El Paso, Texas. In this case, indemnity coverage
    permitted the Speed to control the exhibition's costs and translated
    into a reduced participation fee for these moderate sized art museums.
        Since 1975, Congress has raised the international caps several
    times, the last being in 2005, generally anywhere from 25 percent to
    100 percent. A partial legislative history is included below.
        AAMD requests that Congress once again raise the international caps
    and, for the first time since instituting the domestic program in 2007,
    raise its caps as well. Using previous congressional actions as
    precedent, we suggest that it would be reasonable to institute an
    overall cap of $15 billion for international exhibitions with the limit
    per exhibition rising to $1.8 billion, and an overall cap of $7.5
    billion for domestic exhibitions with the limit per exhibition rising
    to $1 billion.
    Partial Legislative History of the Indemnity Act
        1975 S. 1800.--An Act to provide indemnities for exhibitions of
    artistic and humanistic endeavors, establishes aggregate cap of
    $250,000,000, with $50,000,000 maximum per international exhibition.
        1980 S. 1386.--Reauthorization of National Foundation on the Arts
    and Humanities Act and the Museum Services Act, increases aggregate cap
    to $400,000,000.
        1985 S. 1264.--Arts, Humanities and Museums Amendments of 1985,
    increases the aggregate of loss or damage covered at any one time by
    indemnity agreements made under such Act. Increases the maximum level
    of indemnification for each exhibition.
        1990 H.R. 5769.--Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
    increases aggregate cap and exhibition cap.
        1999 H.R. 4328.--Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
    Appropriations Act, amends the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act to
    increase certain coverage limits for loss or damage of items covered by
    indemnity agreements under such Act.
        2003 H.R. 13.--Museum and Library Services Act, increases aggregate
    cap from $5 billion to $8 billion and exhibition cap from $500 million
    to $600 million.
        2005 H.R. 2361.--Department of the Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Act, increases aggregate cap to $10
    billion and exhibition cap to $1.2 billion.
        2007 H.R. 2764.--Consolidated Appropriations Act, establishes
    program for domestic exhibitions with aggregate cap of $5 billion and
    exhibition cap of $750 million.
                      ii. national endowment for the arts
        As stated above, AAMD requests that Congress appropriate no less
    than $155 million for the NEA. The agency continues to make modest but
    important grants that leverage significant private support.
        For this statement we would like to focus on the Blue Star Museums
    program, which is an outstanding example of NEA leadership. In 2013, 80
    percent of AAMD's membership participated in the Blue Star program,
    which calls on museums to offer free admission to active-duty military
    families at least from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Many museums offered
    free admission year-round. We have asked our members to enroll for 2014
    and are receiving an enthusiastic response.
        Inspired by the Blue Star program, many AAMD members have tailored
    programs to the military audience:
      --The Frist Center for the Visual Arts in Nashville, Tennessee
            presented ``Steve Mumford's War Journals, 2003-2013.'' Thanks
            to a generous donor, the Frist also offers free membership to
            military families.
      --The Minneapolis Institute of Art has created a specialized tour for
            veterans attending the Psychiatry Partial Hospital (PPH)
            program at the Minneapolis VA. The tour, titled ``Honoring the
            Warrior'' combines art history, art appreciation and art
            therapy into a unique therapeutic experience where veterans can
            explore their thoughts and feelings through their reactions to
            particular works of art.
      --The Honolulu Museum of Art is particularly proud of the Warriors'
            Eyes on Art program, a partnership with Honolulu's Tripler Army
            Medical Center. Servicemen and servicewomen in treatment for
            P.T.S.D. visit the museum before hours to visit the galleries
            and create art works of their own with professionals from the
            museum and medical center.
      --At the Bronx Museum of the Arts, a series of paintings, interviews
            and stories ``convey the pressing need for a civilian awareness
            of the realities and experiences of veterans from current and
            past generations,'' according to the museum's website.

        Each of these AAMD members is a Blue Star Museum.
                   iii. national endowment for the humanities
        Finally, and as stated above, AAMD requests that Congress
    appropriate no less than $155 million for the NEH.
        This important agency assists art museums in presenting humanities
    scholarship to the general public. It also has historically played an
    invaluable role in assisting with the preservation and conservation of
    important collections. This is exactly the type of unglamorous work for
    which it is chronically difficult to raise private funding, making
    Federal support all the more valuable.
        Both the NEA and NEH rely on the participation of non-governmental
    peer reviewers in making funding decisions, ensuring that political
    interference is non-existent. This system is the envy of many nations,
    and we strongly encourage Congress to maintain its vitality though
    continued and increased funding.
        We would be happy to answer any questions or provide more
    information as needed.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Association of State Drinking Water
                                 Administrators
        Who We Are: I am John Calkins, president of the Association of
    State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA). 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 2015, the
    subcommittee appropriate funding for three 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; $1.3 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. Over 90 percent of the population
    receives water used for bathing, cooking, and drinking from a public
    water system--overseen by State drinking water program personnel.
    Firefighting also relies on 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 U.S. 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 over 155,000 public water systems to ensure
    potential health-based violations do not occur or are remedied in a
    timely manner. Over 90 contaminants are regulated in Federal drinking
    water regulations and the pace of regulatory activity has accelerated
    in recent years. Beyond the 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 U.S. 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, $15.7
    billion in cumulative Federal capitalization grants since 1997 have
    been leveraged by States into over $25.8 billion in infrastructure
    loans to small and large communities across the country (through the
    end of 2013). Such investments pay tremendous dividends--both in
    supporting our economy and in protecting our citizens' health. Many
    State drinking water programs have also used ``set-asides'' from the
    DWSRF 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 SDWA requirements.
        State Drinking Water Security Responsibilities.--State drinking
    water programs are critical partners in emergency planning, response,
    and resiliency at all levels of government. In fact, States are
    typically the critical nexus between Federal and local levels officials
    in emergency situations. 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 a
    challenging economic climate. 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 integrity. 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 17 years from the date of those amendments,
    falls far short of the amount needed. $101.9 million was appropriated
    for the PWSS program in fiscal year 2014 and the administration
    requested only $109 million in fiscal year 2015. 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 (in a report we released in January 2014), 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.
        Drinking Water Infrastructure Investment is Well Below Documented
    Need.--In 2013, the Association of Civil Engineers gave the Nation's
    water infrastructure a D+ grade and EPA's most recent National Drinking
    Water Infrastructure Needs Survey (2011) indicated that drinking water
    system infrastructure needs total $384 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, pumps, and distribution lines that carry water to our
    Nation's homes, businesses and schools. States are also providing, in
    many cases, State funding to augment Federal assistance, as the total
    loan figures noted above demonstrate. The DWSRF must continue to be a
    key part of the solution to the Nation's infrastructure crisis.
    Further, as mentioned earlier, States can ``set-aside'' funds from the
    DWSRF (up to 31 percent of the grant) for a variety of critical tasks,
    such as shoring up the technical, managerial, and financial capacity of
    public water systems. Set-asides are thus an essential source of
    funding for States' public health protection programs and these efforts
    work in tandem with infrastructure loans.
        State Drinking Water Security Funds Are Urgently Needed.--After 7
    years of congressional support for State security programs through a
    small grant of approximately $5 million in EPA's appropriations (from
    fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2008), no funds have been provided
    for this purpose since fiscal year 2009 and none are requested by the
    administration for fiscal year 2015. It is very difficult to understand
    why this small, but essential grant to States has been zeroed out of
    EPA's proposed budget and why Congress has not supported State drinking
    water security programs. State drinking water programs urgently need
    funds to continue to maintain and expand their security activities,
    particularly in partnership with small and medium public water systems.
           detailed justification for fiscal year 2015 request levels
        For the PWSS Program in fiscal year 2015, ASDWA respectfully
    requests $200 million.--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.'' 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. The figure
    recommended below is based on ASDWA's January 2014 resource needs
    report and begins to fill the above-described resource gap. These funds
    are urgently needed for 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.
        For the DWSRF Program in fiscal year 2015, ASDWA respectfully
    requests $1.3 billion.--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, $854 million for fiscal
    year 2013 (a figure not seen since 2006), and, a somewhat better $907
    million in fiscal year 2014. Of particular concern to the drinking
    water community is the administration's request of $757 million for
    fiscal year 2015; a figure we consider to be unacceptably low. 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 10,000 projects,
    improving health protection for millions of Americans. The U.S.
    Conference of Mayors reports that each public dollar invested in water
    infrastructure increases private long-term Gross Domestic Product
    output by $6.35. In light of these indicators of success and documented
    needs, we believe funding at the $1.3 billion level (commensurate with
    the fiscal year 2010 appropriation) will better enable the DWSRF to
    meet the SDWA compliance and public health protection goals for which
    it was designed.
        For State Drinking Water Security Programs in fiscal year 2015,
    ASDWA respectfully requests $10 million.--Given the realities and the
    lessons learned from recent catastrophic events such as Hurricane Sandy
    in New York and New Jersey; tornados in central Oklahoma; wildfires and
    floods in Colorado; and continuing drought in Texas--to name but a
    few--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 resilient, ``all
    hazards'' approach to water security and to assist public water systems
    of all sizes--with a particular focus on smaller water systems that
    most need help.
                                   conclusion
        ASDWA respectfully recommends that the Federal fiscal year 2015
    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 2015, ASDWA asks that the promise of that
    support be realized.
                                     ______

          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 213 U.S.
    accredited zoos and aquariums. Specifically, I want to express my
    support for the inclusion of $10,000,000 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 2015 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 $21 billion in annual
    economic activity, and support more than 204,000 jobs across the
    country. Annually, AZA-accredited institutions spend $160,000,000 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 12,000,000 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 U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service. While I am aware of the budget challenges facing
    Congress and the agencies, I encourage you to ensure that the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service 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 $10,000,000 for the Multinational Species Conservation Funds
    operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and $9.7 million for
    National Environmental Education Act programs at the Environmental
    Protection Agency in the fiscal year 2015 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 (BBAHC) for
    the fiscal year 2015 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows:
      --Allocate at least an additional $8.5 million to the IHS to fully
            fund Village Built Clinic (VBC) leases, and direct the IHS to
            use its fiscal year 2015 appropriations to fully fund the VBC
            leases in accordance with section 804 of the Indian Health Care
            Improvement Act.
      --Ensure that Contract Support Costs continue to be fully funded by
            moving the program to mandatory entitlement spending.
      --Support reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians
            at $200 million annually.
      --Allocate $50 million to the IHS from the Prevention and Public
            Health Fund for tribal behavioral health grants.
      --Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis.
      --Improve the safety of Alaska Native communities by affirming tribal
            jurisdiction.
        The 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.
        Funding for Village Built Clinics in Alaska.--For the last several
    years, BBAHC has submitted testimony to this subcommittee on the need
    to address chronic underfunding of VBCs in Alaska. VBCs are clinic
    facilities leased by the IHS from other entities and are a vital
    component of the provision of basic healthcare services in rural
    Alaska. VBCs serve as the clinic space for the Community Health Aide
    Program (CHAP) under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA).
    The CHAP, which IHS is directed by the IHCIA to carry out, utilizes a
    network of community health aides and practitioners to provide primary
    healthcare services in rural and isolated areas where access to those
    services might not otherwise exist.
        In 1989, Congress specifically authorized the operation of 170 VBCs
    in Alaska and provided approximately $3 million in funding for the
    program for that year. Since then, Congress has not provided amounts
    specifically for VBCs in the IHS appropriation, and IHS has had
    discretion to fund VBCs from its lump sum appropriation. But even
    though the 1989 appropriation was not a cap restricting IHS allocation
    of funds in later years, IHS has treated it as such and has refused to
    increase funding for VBC leases. Funding therefore has not kept pace
    with inflation or the rising costs of healthcare in rural and isolated
    areas. In fact, the chronic underfunding over decades has resulted in
    deterioration and in some cases closure of VBC facilities, threatening
    the CHAP itself and access to basic healthcare services for rural
    Alaskans that hinges on the continued availability of properly
    maintained VBC space.
        According to an estimate calculated several years ago by the Alaska
    Native Health Board and adjusted for inflation, at least $8.3 million
    is needed to fully fund the VBC leasing program. However, that estimate
    is outdated and likely falls significantly short of the actual need.
    BBAHC therefore urges that Congress appropriate at least an additional
    $8.5 million to fully fund VBC leases and that IHS be directed to use
    its existing appropriations to fully fund such leases in accordance
    with section 804 of the IHCIA.
        This subcommittee should also be aware that, having attempted
    without success for many years to convince IHS to accept its
    responsibilities for the VBCs as part of the mandated CHAP program,
    some tribal organizations in Alaska are taking a new approach. The
    Maniilaq Association recently requested that the IHS enter into a
    mandatory lease under 105(l) of the ISDEAA for one of the VBCs that
    Maniilaq owns. Implementing regulations require payment under the lease
    to fully compensate for the costs of adequately operating and
    maintaining the facilities. However, the IHS refused to enter into the
    lease, and the matter is now being litigated. If Maniilaq prevails, the
    case could establish legal precedent that will allow tribal contractors
    in Alaska to negotiate for full funding for VBCs as part of their
    funding agreements under the IHS's ISDEAA leasing authority. Though
    funding should be provided in full through the VBC program directly,
    the option to enter into a Sec. 105(l) lease must also be preserved as
    an alternative funding mechanism.
        Ensure Contract Support Costs Remain Fully Funded via Mandatory
    Spending.--We are pleased that the administration is following the
    subcommittee's lead, and seeks to fully fund contract support costs
    (CSC) under the ISDEAA in fiscal year 2015, and we urge Congress to
    continue supporting that goal. Contract support costs fund vital
    administrative functions that allow us to operate programs that provide
    critical services to our members--such as dental care, urgent care in
    village clinics, wide ranging community health services, and 24-hour
    medical care in Kanakanak Hospital. If CSC are not fully funded,
    however, our programs and services are directly impacted as we are
    forced to divert limited program funding to cover fixed overhead
    expenses instead. We therefore appreciate Congress' support in fiscal
    year 2014 and hope that it carries through to fiscal year 2015 and
    beyond.
        However, the CSC funding problem is not yet solved. Full funding
    for CSC must not come with a penalty--namely, a reduction in program
    funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds.
    That result would have the same devastating effect on our service
    delivery as the failure to fully fund CSC. Yet Congress, in the Joint
    Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act, noted that ``since [contract support costs] fall
    under discretionary spending, they have the potential to impact all
    other programs funded under the Interior and Environment Appropriations
    bill, including other equally important tribal programs.'' Moreover,
    without any permanent measure to ensure full funding, payment of CSC
    remains subject to agency discretion from year to year, even though
    tribes are legally entitled to full payment under the ISDEAA. Noting
    these ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to
    consult with tribes on a permanent solution.
        In our view, there is a logical permanent solution which Congress
    is empowered to implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory
    entitlement. Under the ISDEAA, the full payment of CSC is not
    discretionary; it is a legal obligation, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme
    Court. Yet the budget authority for CSC is currently provided and
    controlled through appropriation acts--as if it were a discretionary
    program. Congress recognized that the current fundamental mismatch
    between the mandatory nature of CSC and the current appropriation
    approach leaves both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
    in the ``untenable position of appropriating discretionary funds for
    the payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.'' As the
    Joint Explanatory Statement also noted, ``Typically obligations of this
    nature are addressed through mandatory spending.'' The obvious solution
    then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the statutory
    requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory
    entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge
    the Congress to move to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory
    basis.
        Reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program.--While the entitlement
    funding for the Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) is not part
    of the IHS appropriations process, those funds are administered through
    the IHS. With the recent enactment into law of a 1-year extension of
    the SDPI as part of the Medicare ``doc fix'' bill (Public Law 113-93),
    it is funded through fiscal year 2015 at $150 million, minus a 2
    percent reduction ($3 million) due to the sequestration of non-exempt
    mandatory programs (Public Law 112-240). This funding level has not
    increased since 2004. The SDPI has proven highly effective in Indian
    country, and has produced excellent results. For example, in the 4
    years preceding the last report on the SDPI in 2011, the average blood
    sugar level dropped nearly a percentage point overall, corresponding to
    a 40 percent decline in the risk of eye, kidney, and nerve
    complications due to diabetes. We ask that you support ongoing efforts
    to reauthorize this program for a 5-year period at an annual funding
    level of $200 million.
        Increase Funding for Behavioral Health, Suicide Prevention, and
    Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment.--Alaska faces particular
    hardships in providing for our communities' behavioral and mental
    health. There is a dire need for more prevention funding for suicide
    intervention as well as alcohol and substance abuse prevention,
    particularly for our youth. These efforts go hand in hand, as the
    problems often overlap. Alaska has twice the national rate of suicide,
    and ranks second in the Nation in suicide attempts requiring
    hospitalization. Alaska Native teens commit suicide at a rate nearly
    six times that of non-Native teenagers. The suicide rate among all
    Alaskans increased by 33 percent between 2005-2008--a period when the
    national rate remained steady. Compounding and complicating the suicide
    epidemic is alcohol and substance abuse, or a mental health disorder.
    The overwhelming majority of the people we lose to suicide suffer from
    diagnosable, treatable mental health or substance abuse problems.
    However, the waiting list for treatment averages nearly 9 months, and
    due to lack of funding there is often no place to refer people,
    particularly young people.
        Alcohol and substance abuse contributes to myriad other problems as
    well, including crime, domestic violence, child abuse or neglect.
    Oftentimes, tribes in Alaska have a difficult time working through the
    State of Alaska to provide these services, which adds layers of
    guidelines, regulations, and reduced funding. We have found that tribes
    and tribal organizations should receive behavioral funds directly,
    because programs that implement traditional cultural values are more
    successful than those that don't. Included in the Affordable Care Act
    (ACA) is mandatory funding ($17.7 billion over 10 years) for a
    Prevention and Public Health (PPH) Fund from which Congress may
    allocate funding to various programs. In fiscal year 2012 the
    administration requested that $50 million of it be allocated to a new
    tribal behavioral health grant program; unfortunately Congress did not
    provide that allocation. We urge that Congress allocate $50 million to
    the IHS in fiscal year 2015 for this purpose and that it be recurring.
        IHS on an Advance Appropriations Basis.--We support legislation
    that would place the IHS budget on an advance appropriations basis. The
    goal is for the IHS and tribal healthcare providers to have adequate
    advance notice of the amount of Federal appropriations to expect and
    thus not be subjected to the uncertainties of late funding and short-
    term continuing resolutions. Congress provides advance appropriations
    for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is
    for parity in the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Legislation to
    authorize IHS advance appropriations has been introduced--H.R. 3229 by
    Representative Young and S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski and Begich.
        Support Tribal Jurisdiction To Protect Alaska Communities.--We
    support the ongoing efforts to amend S. 1474, the Alaska Safe Families
    and Villages Act, in a manner that would recognize Alaska tribes'
    jurisdiction to protect their communities by dealing locally with
    domestic violence, sexual assault and drug and alcohol abuse. At the
    same time, we greatly appreciate the provision that is already in S.
    1474 which would repeal section 910 of the Violence Against Women Act
    Reauthorization that left Alaska tribes out of the expanded tribal
    jurisdiction over domestic violence affirmed in that law. These changes
    will require additional Bureau of Indian Affairs resources regarding
    law enforcement and courts. We look forward to continued work with our
    congressional delegation and others on this legislation of such crucial
    importance to Alaska Native communities.
        Thank you for your consideration of our requests. We will be glad
    to provide any additional information the subcommittee may request.
                                     ______

                       Prepared Statement of Jay Bushnell
                                                         April 4, 2014.
    To:  Hon. Jack Reed, Chair of Senate Subcommittee on the Interior,
    Environment and Related Agencies

    From:  Dr. Jay Bushnell, immediate past president and advocacy chair,
    Friends of the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuges

    Re:  Support the 2015 $476 million proposed budget for the National
    Wildlife Refuge System

        I would encourage your subcommittee to develop a plan to eventually
    fully fund the refuge system. The proposed budget of $476 million is a
    small step in that direction. This does not represent a major increase
    in funding from what has been budgeted since 2007. Yet over the last 7
    years the refuge system has increased from some 500 to over 561
    refuges. It has become increasing difficult, if not impossible, to
    fulfill the refuge mission as outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge
    System Improvement Act of 1997 with continued budget constraints. The
    predicted cut in positions continues to plague the refuge system and
    specifically hampers the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Key National Wildlife
    Refuges (NWRs).
        While the primary mission of the refuge system is focused on
    wildlife conservation, it is also important to recognize that the
    system is an economic engine. The report Banking on Nature points out
    that in 2011 for every dollar invested there was a return of $4.87 to
    the local communities. Over 70 percent of the revenue contributed came
    from non-local visitors who were attracted to non-consumptive
    activities like wildlife viewing, photography and hiking in the
    refuges. The fact that the Friends of the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys
    NWR are having 3,000-4,000 folks visiting our Web page each month
    verifies the fact that we are reaching a large non-local crowd (please
    check us out at friendsofrefuges.org). Funding of the refuge system
    should be considered an investment with a great rate of return.
        The Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys NWRs have four positions that
    have not been refilled, including a designated biologist we have been
    without since 2006 when I first started volunteering, and now a full
    time law enforcement officer. We also face the possibility of not
    acquiring a critical piece of land that has been on the approved U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) acquisition list. Some 2,000 acres that
    are a part of what is referred to Caber property are now on the market.
    This has been considered a vital acquisition for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund portion of the proposed budget.
        The Lower Suwannee NWR comprises over 52,000 acres that are split
    by the historic Suwannee River for the last 20-25 miles where the river
    empties into the Gulf of Mexico. The Cedar Keys NWR is composed of some
    727 acres on 13 islands in the Gulf of Mexico. Because of their non-
    contiguous nature, both refuges face challenging management issues.

        The Lower Suwannee NWR is special and unique in the following ways:

      --The pristine natural condition of the refuge helps protect the
            environmental health of the Suwannee River and the surrounding
            area.
      --The Suwannee River is home to a wide variety of plant and animal
            life. The river is the most important spawning ground for the
            protected gulf sturgeon. The river is also an important habitat
            for the endangered manatee.
      --The refuge contains a unique combination of upland hardwood,
            wetland/swamp, and saltwater marsh habitats. Uniquely, one can
            find both temperate and tropical types of vegetation in the
            refuge.
      --The refuge provides habitat for a wide variety of birds including
            15 endangered or threatened species like the bald eagle. The
            refuge is an important nesting site for the short-tailed hawks
            of which there are only an estimated 200 mating pairs in the
            wild. The swallowtail kite, once widespread, now is restricted
            to just the southeastern portion of the United States with the
            refuge being a very important nesting site.
      --Combined with surrounding State parks, the refuge will become an
            even more important conservation area as Florida's population
            increases.
      --With constructed bat houses, the refuge has successfully
            established a viable bat population that serves as a model for
            future bat projects.
      --Many important cultural heritage sites are also to be found in the
            refuge.

        The Cedar Keys NWR is special and unique in the following ways:

      --The 727-acre refuge composed of 13 islands is a major rookery for
            pelicans and a wide variety of shore birds.
      --As studied by the University of Florida's Florida Marine Center, of
            particular interest is the symbiotic relationship of
            cottonmouth moccasins and nesting birds on Seahorse Key. The
            moccasins provide protection from predators like raccoons and
            rats for the nesting birds. In return, the birds provide a
            steady diet of fish for the moccasins. This is the only place
            on earth that such a relationship between snakes and birds
            exists.
      --The Lower Suwannee Archaeological Survey of the University of
            Florida has uncovered prehistorical sites dating back over
            4,000 years.
      --Historically, the refuge contains important historical structures
            including the Seahorse Key Lighthouse designed in the 1850s by
            Lieutenant George Meade, later to become General Meade of
            Gettysburg fame. It is also of interest that the lighthouse
            sits on a natural dune that is some 50+ feet above sea level.
            This makes it one of the highest points in the Big Bend area of
            Florida.
      --This refuge also provides a vital barrier island system.

        Presently, the most critical problem we face involves staffing.
    With adequate staffing, along with operational funding, the refuge
    staff, with the help of the Friends of the Lower Suwannee and Cedar
    Keys NWR, would be able to:

      --Provide better monitoring of the health of the refuges' habitat;
      --Consistently police the proper utilization of the resources of the
            refuges and to protect the habitat and its wildlife;
      --Conduct more programs for school children to learn about
            conservation;
      --Expand the conservation efforts across other public agencies as
            well as private stakeholders to deal with common problems like
            invasive species eradication and the protection of endangered
            species;
      --Upgrade and maintain public facilities like roads, docks,
            boardwalks, observation stations and signage;
      --Expand public access and use of the refuges; and
      --Monitor, manage, and protect the flora and fauna in the refuges.

        Thank you for considering these requests.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Center for Biological Diversity
        Chairman Reed, Senator Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony. I am Brett
    Hartl, endangered species policy director at the Center for Biological
    Diversity. The Center is a non-profit environmental organization
    focused on the protection of native species and their habitats through
    science, policy and environmental law. The Center has more than 775,000
    members and online activists dedicated to the protection and
    restoration of imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water
    quality.
        The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is America's strongest
    environmental law. It has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of the
    1,500 domestic species it protects. Were it not for the Act, scientists
    estimate that 227 of these plants and animals would have disappeared by
    2006, and even more by 2012. The Act also has had considerable success
    moving species towards recovery. A 2011 study by the Center identified
    110 listed species that have seen substantial recovery with Endangered
    Species Act protection, with over 90 percent of these species
    recovering at the rate projected in their recovery plan.
        However, not all species have approved recovery plans yet, and some
    species with recovery plans continue to decline. The Service's 2010
    report to Congress indicated that approximately 339 threatened and
    endangered species are still declining towards extinction. As the
    extinction crisis worsens due to threats including climate change, many
    other once-common species, such as monarch butterflies and greater
    sage-grouse, have experienced major population declines and may need to
    be listed in the future.
        Simply put, Federal funding has not kept up with the biological
    needs of listed species in the United States. The Fish and Wildlife
    Service received $170.5 million for endangered species in fiscal year
    2014 to conserve approximately 1,500 protected species. By comparison,
    the National Marine Fisheries Service received $176 million to conserve
    approximately 180 species protected by the ESA and Marine Mammal
    Protection Act. And the U.S. Agency for International Development
    received $184 million for biodiversity conservation internationally.
    The Center has identified three areas where funding beyond what is
    proposed for the Fish and Wildlife Service in the President's 2015
    budget proposal is required to address the continuing extinction crisis
    in the United States: (1) listing of endangered species; (2) species
    recovery funding; and (3) land acquisition for endangered species.
           additional funding for listing under section 4 of the esa
        Protecting a species as threatened or endangered is the keystone of
    the ESA because it is only after a species is listed that it receives
    meaningful protections under the Act. In fact, the length of time a
    species has been protected and has had designated critical habitat
    significantly increase the likelihood a species will improve. Species
    designated as ``candidates'' for protection due to lack of funding, are
    far more likely to become extinct. Most recently, the Tacoma pocket
    gopher (Thomomys mazama tacomensis) was declared extinct in 2014. The
    species was first identified as declining in 1985 and declared a
    candidate for ESA protection in 2001. But its last populations winked
    out while waiting for ESA protections.
        Although the Service has long-struggled to list species according
    to the deadlines established by the ESA, the backlog of candidate
    species that warrant protection under the Act greatly increased
    following the moratorium imposed on listing in 1995. Since then,
    Congress has imposed a funding cap on the amount of money the Service
    can spend in a year on listing. Currently, using the best-available
    science, the Service has identified 146 candidate species that warrant
    protection under the ESA, but for which funding is insufficient to
    complete the listing process. Some of these species, such as the band-
    rumped storm-petrel and Great Basin Columbia spotted frog, have awaited
    protections since 1989. Many more have waited for ESA protections since
    the early 1990s.
        Funding for listing peaked in fiscal year 2010 at $22.1 million and
    has since fallen by 10 percent. Hamstringing the Service budget does
    not further the recovery of any of these candidate species. Instead,
    delaying listing invariably leads to greater population declines,
    making recovery harder, longer, and more costly to achieve. The facts
    have demonstrated that for nearly all endangered species, the only path
    to recovery has been through protection under the ESA. The more quickly
    species are listed, the more quickly recovery planning and recovery
    work can begin, and the faster species can be delisted as recovered.
        The current average cost of completing the listing process for a
    candidate species under the ESA is approximately $650,000. Raising the
    budget subcap from the fiscal year 2014 level of $20 million to $30
    million a year would allow the Service to completely address the
    listing backlog and address all candidate species in the next 3 years.
    Eliminating the backlog would not only provide an immediate
    conservation benefit to these species, but would also potentially allow
    the Service to more efficiently list species moving forward. Because
    funding has historically been insufficient to complete the listing
    process, the Service must add an additional step in the listing process
    and publish a separate 12-month finding that the species is
    ``warranted-but-precluded''--and each of these 12-month findings costs
    $100,000. Eliminating the backlog would save the Service $100,000/
    species and would allow the Service to use the more-streamlined process
    already employed by the Service when it delists recovered species.
                              funding for recovery
        The purpose of the ESA is not only to save species from extinction
    but also to recover them to the point that the protections provided by
    the Act are no longer necessary. Recovering species under the ESA
    requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to address and alleviate the
    threats that caused a species to decline in the first instance,
    including controlling invasive species, restoring degraded habitat,
    reducing illegal poaching, reintroducing new populations, and other
    forms of intensive management. All recovery actions are costly,
    especially with new and growing threats such as climate change. As
    shown in Figure 1, funding for recovery in inflation-adjusted dollars
    has remained flat to declining.

        Figure 1.--Recovery Funding Fiscal Year 1989 to Fiscal Year 2014
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        As the extinction crisis continues and more species need protection
    under the ESA, the average amount of money available per species
    continues to decline. In real dollars, the average amount in inflation-
    adjusted dollars spent per species on recovery peaked in 1999 at
    $40,915 per species and has since dropped to $30,090/species. Nearly
    150 listed species receive less than $1,000 per year, or three dollars
    per day, to address their recovery and almost 100 species are getting
    no money at all. Many of the species that the Service has identified as
    declining are those that receive little to zero funding per year.
        If Congress wants to see more species recovered more quickly, then
    it should restore all of the cuts to ESA recovery funding that have
    occurred in the past 5 years and provide additional funding to the
    Service moving forward. First, Congress should restore full funding to
    the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF). In 2001,
    Congress allocated $104.7 million to the CESCF and has since reduced
    funding to this program by 47 percent to a level of only $50.1 million.
    This program provides valuable conservation tools and funding to
    States, territories and private landowners to participate in a wide
    array of conservation projects for candidate and listed. Cutting this
    program dis-empowers States and makes it harder for them to
    meaningfully participate in the conservation and recovery of endangered
    species.

    Figure 2.--Average Recovery Funding/Species Fiscal Year 1989 to Fiscal
                               Year 2014 Species

        Second, Congress should significantly increase the amount of
    funding for recovery by ensuring that each listed species receives at
    least $7,500 each year in direct recovery funding. Doing so would
    require Congress to provide at minimum, an additional $26 million per
    year in recovery funding. This would better ensure that endangered
    species that are continuing to decline receive some attention each year
    from conservation professionals.
        The longer a species is in crisis, the more expensive it becomes
    for that species to fully recover. Failing to ensure that each species
    receives a nominal amount of money for recovery makes recovery of
    declining species much less likely. Increasing the overall funding for
    recovery will prevent species from declining to the point where listing
    is necessary and will reduce the amount of recovery work that Fish and
    Wildlife will have to do down the road.
                                land acquisition
        For listed species with finalized recovery plans, approximately 450
    plans have identified land acquisitions (either through outright
    purchase or the securing of easements) as priority actions that would
    improve the conservation status of those listed species. For example,
    the El Segundo blue butterfly population size has increased by 22,312
    percent since it was protected by the ESA in 1984. However, the
    butterfly's recovery plan states that until four parcels of expensive,
    coastal land near the Los Angeles International Airport can be secured
    through purchase or acquisition, this species probably cannot be either
    downlisted to threatened or considered recovered. Simply put, land
    conservation could significantly improve the recovery rate of listed
    species.
        Funding available through the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) to secure habitat for endangered species has simply not kept up
    with the biological need. The Center recommends that Congress amend the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to (1) make all money that is
    authorized for land acquisition each year immediately available in full
    without further appropriation, and (2) that the conservation fund cap
    be indexed to the amount of royalties and revenues received from oil
    and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
        In 1968, Congress first made revenues from OCS development part of
    the conservation fund and set the annual authorization level at $200
    million. At that time, OCS revenues were approximately $500 million per
    year.\1\ In other words, the conservation fund was authorized to use
    around 40 percent of the annual revenue stream from the OCS. In 1977,
    after OCS revenues increased to $4 billion/year,\2\ Congress increased
    the authorized level of the fund to $900 million. This authorization
    represented approximately 22.5 percent of total OCS annual revenues.
    Since 1977, the conservation fund authorization amount has remained at
    $900 million while the total revenues from the OCS have continued to
    rise and are now reaching levels of up to $9 billion/year. The
    percentage of OCS revenues potentially going into the conservation fund
    has dropped from 40 percent of annual OCS receipts in 1968, to only 6
    percent in 2014.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ S. Rep. No. 90-1071, at 2618 (1968), reprinted in 1968
    U.S.C.C.A.N. 2613, 2618.
        \2\ S. Rep. No. 95-162, at 8 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N.
    322, 328.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Increasing the conservation fund to 22.5 percent of current OCS
    revenues would mean that approximately $2.025 billion would be
    available each year for land acquisition. Providing this full amount
    for land acquisition would allow the entire Department of Interior to
    address its priority land acquisitions. While this increase is
    substantial, it is important to remember that the purchasing power of
    the conservation fund has diminished because the average cost of land
    acquisition has risen nearly ten-fold from an average of $162 per acre
    in the 1960s to $1,515 per acre in the 2000s. At current funding
    levels, the Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that it would take 44
    to 75 years to acquire the land that has already been identified as
    priority acquisitions by the Service. Thank you for the opportunity to
    submit testimony.
                                     ______

               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
    2015. 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-foot 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 $295 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. On November 20, 2012, a 5-year agreement, known as
    Minute 319, was signed between the U.S. 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 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 2015 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 Central Utah Water Conservancy District
                                                         April 3, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
    support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
    consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
    subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                          Gene Shawcroft, P.E.,
                                                Deputy General Manager.
                                     ______

       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
    2015 appropriations for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). We
    seek funding levels of $9 billion for EPA and $76.2 million for ATSDR.
        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 & Disease Prevention Research
            Centers
      --Office of Research & Development
      --School and Child Care Environmental Health
      --The Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units
        CEHN also urges the restoration of the State Indoor Radon Grants
    and full funding of all activities that advance healthy school and
    childcare environments for all children, including those supported by
    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-respected
    experts in children's environmental health science and policy. We
    recognize that children, in our society, have unique moral standing.
        Today's children are facing the distressing possibility that they
    may be the first generation to see a shorter life expectancy than their
    parents due to poor health. Key contributors to this trend are the
    modern pediatric epidemics of obesity, asthma, learning disabilities,
    and autism. For all of these conditions, the child's environment plays
    a role in causing, contributing to or mitigating these chronic
    conditions. The estimated costs of environmental disease in children
    (such as lead poisoning, childhood cancer, and asthma) were $76.6
    billion in 2008.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Trasande, Liu Y. ``Reducing The Staggering Costs Of
    Environmental Disease In Children, Estimated At $76.6 Billion In 2008,
    Health Affairs. No. (2011): doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.1239.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Investments in programs that protect and promote children's health
    will be repaid by healthier children with brighter futures. Thus it is
    vital that the Federal programs and activities that protect children
    from environmental hazards receive adequate resources.
        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, policy makers 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 each 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 and early life exposures to a child's health and future.
                        environmental protection agency
        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 (OCHP).--OCHP has been
    leading EPA's efforts to protect children from environmental hazards
    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. There is great interest but
    few resources for these approaches. We urge increased funding for this
    vital office.
        Children's Environmental Health & Disease Prevention Research
    Centers.--These 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. It was these centers, for example, that generated the
    findings mentioned earlier about connections between prenatal exposures
    and lower IQ at age 7.
        Several Centers have established longitudinal cohorts, which in
    some cases are more than 10 years old. The ability to look for linkages
    between exposures and health outcomes in infants, toddlers, and, now,
    adolescents, is vital. If these cohorts are disbanded due to funding
    cuts, at best it will take years and untold resources before it is
    possible to replicate them. Few if any longitudinal cohort studies on
    adolescents, puberty and environmental exposures exist. The Network is
    concerned that inadequate funding may result in the loss of these
    valuable cohorts. We urge the subcommittee to support these centers at
    $33 million in fiscal year 2015.
        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 fiscal year 2015. 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.
        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. To
    date, only a small number of the thousands of chemicals currently in
    commerce have been assessed for their potential toxicity and for their
    effects on the child's developing nervous system. These new testing
    methods can screen in hours to days instead of months to years and will
    provide faster, less expensive ways of assessing potential toxicity.
        These new testing methods, however, do not replace the need for
    continued research in childhood exposures and health effects. Much of
    the research in this field cannot be conducted in a short timeframe and
    requires sustained funding if scientists are to conduct research and
    measure effectiveness.
        State Radon Grants.--Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer in
    non-smokers, and the EPA reports that it is one of the most serious
    public health problems in the United States, responsible for up to
    21,000 lung cancer deaths annually. While we applaud the Agency's
    continued work on indoor air quality, asthma, and its plans to
    ``continue to lead on radon activities,'' we are not convinced that the
    way to do so is to eliminate the State Indoor Radon Grants. We urge you
    to restore this program.
        School and Child Care Environmental Health.--In America today,
    millions of children, 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 childcare centers or how to assure that these
    facilities are protecting this highly vulnerable group of children.
    Environmental health is rarely if ever considered in licensing
    regulations or in 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.--Pediatric
    Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSUs) form a valuable resource
    network for parents and clinicians around the Nation. They are funded
    jointly by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
    and the EPA with a very modest budget. PEHSU professionals provide
    medical consultation to healthcare professionals 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 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 on-going priorities for
                         this and every administration
        We have seen much progress in recognizing the impact of
    environmental toxicants on children's health. 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
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal year 2015
    Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations for the
    Indian Health Service (IHS) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). On
    behalf of Chief Gary Batton, I submit this testimony which identifies
    the funding priorities and budget issues important to the citizens of
    Choctaw. We request that the subcommittee work with tribes and not
    allow tribal programs in the Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, as well as throughout the entire Federal Government, to incur
    further sequestration budget decreases and across the board rescissions
    that are not imposed on other beneficiaries of the Federal budget.
        We recommend the following:

    Indian Health Service
        1.  Joint Venture Program--Increase President's Request to $170
    million.
        2.  Special Diabetes Program for Indians--Reauthorize for 5 years
    at $200 million/year.
        3.  Restore Funding to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance--$6
    million.

    Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs
        1.  Contract Support Costs--Full Funding with an Annual Special
    Appropriation.
        2.  Restore Sequestered Funds and Exempt Tribes from Future
    Sequestration.

        The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma is the third largest Native American
    tribal government in the United States, with over 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 over 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.
      joint venture program--increase president's request to $170 million
        The Joint Venture Construction Program (JVCP) allows IHS to enter
    into agreements with tribes that construct their own health facilities.
    The funding for the construction of the health facility comes from the
    tribe using their resources, financing or other funding sources with
    the exception of the IHS healthcare facility construction
    appropriations. Tribes apply for the JVCP during a competitive process
    and projects that are approved enter into agreements with IHS. Upon
    projected completion of construction by the respective tribe, the IHS
    agrees to request congressional appropriations for additional staffing
    and operations based on the tribes' projected dates of completion,
    fully executed beneficial occupancy and opening.
        The President's proposed level of $85 million will not support the
    intent of the JVCP and should be increased to $170 million at a
    minimum. Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2012, 17 joint
    venture project agreements signed by IHS and tribes were initiated and
    9 have been completed. The interest of tribes to assume the cost and
    build or repair the facilities represents the viability of the JVCP and
    the future of healthcare access and delivery of services in American
    Indian and Alaska Native rural and remote communities.
        Another key element to a successful JVCP partnership is full
    payment of contract support costs. Without reimbursement of contract
    support cost, offsetting program reductions must be made and services
    are reduced. Upon entering an agreement the IHS should include staffing
    and contract support costs in the IHS annual appropriations requests to
    ensure that the facility can open and begin operations as planned.
    special diabetes program for indians--support 5 year reauthorization at
                               $200 million/year
        The Choctaw Nation would like to thank the U.S. House of
    Representatives for passing H.R. 4302, Protecting Access to Medicare
    Act, which includes the extension of the Special Diabetes Program for
    Indians (SDPI) through 2015 at the current level of $150 million.
    Although we requested that Congress reauthorize the program for 5 years
    and increase the funding to $200 million a year, we are grateful that
    you sustained the program which allows us an opportunity to continue
    our advocacy for an extended reauthorization period.
        Since the program was initially authorized in 1997 there has been
    tremendous improvement in the status of diabetes, as well as building a
    desperately needed infrastructure for diabetes throughout American
    Indian and Alaska Native communities. SDPI funding is not part of the
    IHS appropriations process, but the funds are administered through IHS.
    The success can be attributed to nearly 400 Indian Health Service,
    Tribal and Urban (I/T/U) Indian health programs who 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 to extend
    the reauthorization to 5 years and increase funding to $200 million for
    the SDPI program.
      restore funding to the office of tribal self-governance (otsg)--$6
                                    million
        In 2003 Congress reduced funding for OTSG by $4.5 million in
    addition to congressional rescissions in 2005 and 2006 to total more
    than a 50 percent cut. In the recent Murray/Ryan spending plan OTSG was
    cut another $1 million. Self-Governance was permanently authorized in
    the IHS under Public Law 106-260; Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of
    2000 which increased the responsibilities of the OTSG, yet with the
    reduction in funding it is not able to fulfill the legal requirements
    under the law. In addition, there are now 341 tribes and 84 compacts
    and 109 funding agreements in Self-Governance and OTSG distributes
    approximately $980 million to Self-Governance tribes. We request that
    you restore the $6 million cut to OTSG to fulfill legal requirements
    under title V of Public Law 106-260.
          contract support costs--full funding with an annual special
                                 appropriation
        Full funding of contract support cost in the fiscal year 2014 and
    fiscal year 2015 budgets is timely and appreciated. However, funding
    for tribal programs is seriously impacted. Although our requests to
    honor the contracts and the compacts and pay full contract support
    costs have been fulfilled, it has come at a price that is
    insurmountable and detrimental to past, present and future tribal
    program funding. And, even though CSC claims are paid from the Judgment
    Fund, the day-to-day cost of tribes doing business with the Federal
    Government has forever compromised how tribal governments operate and
    provide essential services to our citizens.
        The Choctaw Nation is requesting that contract support costs be an
    annual special appropriation that is not tied to the ``Operations of
    Indian Programs'' account or the Indian Health Service funding. While
    it is true that contract support costs is based on the programs,
    services, functions and activities tribes include in the contracts or
    compacts with the agencies, most of these funding agreements are multi-
    year and the levels can be computed beforehand for inclusion in an
    appropriations measure separate from the larger appropriations bill.
    This will allow the agencies to more accurately capture the contract
    support costs and provide Congress with approximate amount for a
    special appropriation. We welcome the opportunity to discuss this in
    further detail with members of this subcommittee.
        restore sequestered funds and exempt tribal funding from future
                                 sequestration
        Tribes have borne an unfair share of the budget deficit. The
    Choctaw Nation request that tribal programs be exempt from future
    sequestration considering that we have already contributed to the
    deficit at a rate that is not commensurate with other stakeholders. The
    percentage of the entire United States' budget that is going to Indian
    Country is only 0.07 percent. That is a third less than what the
    percentage was in 1995. Yet we incurred a cut of $220 million in the
    Indian Health Service and $119 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    Operations of Indian Programs Account--both under the 2013
    sequestration. It is not realistic to expect tribes to continue to
    absorb the debt of this Nation and ignore the Trust obligation and
    Trust relationship between our governments. We are in fiscally tough
    times and our requests, as well as your responses, are tough choices
    and decisions that we will all have to live with.
        In 2013, the Choctaw Nation testified and shared our concern about
    the impending sequestration. When Congress approved legislation for the
    budget cuts, they specifically exempted many programs that benefit low-
    income Americans, including Medicaid, tax credits for working families
    and food stamps. However, basically none of the tribal programs funding
    in the Departments of Interior, Education, Health and Human Services or
    Agriculture were exempt.
        This issue was further exacerbated when the agencies consulted with
    the tribes on the fiscal year 2014 Spending Plans as a means of
    ``damage control'' and to soften the impact of the sequestration. It
    was our understanding that the Murray/Ryan budget deal was an attempt
    to lessen the blow of the sequestration cuts but such is not the case.
    Our requests to assist in the development of the Spending Plans, or at
    a minimum to review them prior to submission, was not an option and we
    were once again left outside of the process, the decisionmaking and
    impacted by the outcome.
        In general, all tribal programs, not just the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Services (IHS) budgets should be exempt
    from any budget recessions and discretionary funding budget reductions.
    We remain extremely concerned about the consequences of sequestration
    and strongly urge Congress to fully restore sequestration cuts from
    fiscal year 2013. This action threatens the trust responsibility and
    reduces portions of the budget that are not major contributors to the
    deficit.
        Thank you for considering the requests of the Choctaw Nation of
    Oklahoma.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Choose Clean Water Coalition
                                                        March 28, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies,
    U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Minority Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies,
    U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: As members of the
    Choose Clean Water Coalition, we are requesting continued support for
    programs that are essential to maintaining and restoring clean water to
    the rivers and streams throughout the Chesapeake Bay region, and to the
    Bay itself. At least 11 million people in this region get their
    drinking water directly from the rivers and streams that flow through
    the cities, towns and farms throughout our region. The quality of this
    water is critical to both human health and to the regional economy.
        The efforts to clean the Chesapeake began under President Reagan in
    1983. In his 1984 State of the Union speech President Reagan said,
    ``Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative
    challenge, it's common sense.''
        To follow a common sense path to maintain healthy local water and
    restore Chesapeake Bay, which is critical for our regional economy, we
    request funding for the following programs in fiscal year 2015:
                      u.s. environmental protection agency
    Chesapeake Bay Program--$73.1 million
        We support the President's 2015 budget request of $73.1 million for
    the base budget of the Chesapeake Bay Program, which coordinates
    Chesapeake Bay watershed restoration and protection efforts. The
    majority of the program's funds are passed through to the States and
    local communities for on-the-ground restoration work through programs
    such as the Small Watershed Grants, Innovative Nutrient and Sediment
    Reduction Grants, State Implementation Grants, and the Chesapeake Bay
    Regulatory and Accountability Program grants. Last year $29.5 million
    of this went exclusively to the six Chesapeake Bay watershed states and
    the District of Columbia to achieve water quality restoration goals.
        In particular, we urge you to increase funding for both the
    Chesapeake Small Watershed Grants (SWG) Program and the Innovative
    Nutrient and Sediment Reduction grants to $6 million each--a modest
    increase over fiscal year 2014. These are two well-run, competitive
    grants programs that have contributed significantly to water quality
    improvements throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These are the Bay
    Program's only grants that go to restoration efforts by local
    governments and communities, not just the States. In the fiscal year
    2014 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, Congress directed EPA to increase
    funding for the SWG, which goes specifically to local communities for
    restoration work.
    Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)--$1.44887 billion
        This program is critical to the 1,779 local governments throughout
    the Chesapeake region. The funding level has eroded over the years as
    the clean water needs of local communities have increased dramatically,
    but Congress has stabilized this important program for the past 3 years
    and we urge you to do so again in fiscal year 2015. These low interest
    loans are critical for clean water and for ratepayers in the Chesapeake
    region and nationwide. We urge you to support the same funding level as
    fiscal year 2014 that provided $327 million in low interest loans to
    local governments in Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania,
    Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. This SRF
    allocates money to the States based on a set formula, which is then
    used for low interest loans to local governments for critical capital
    construction improvement projects to reduce nutrient and sediment
    pollution from wastewater treatment and stormwater facilities; nonpoint
    sources of pollution, such as farms and development; and other sources.
    The SRF enables local governments in the Chesapeake watershed to take
    actions to protect their local waters to meet Clean Water Act
    requirements. As the list of clean water infrastructure needs in the
    Chesapeake region continues to expand we request that the Clean Water
    SRF not be cut in 2015.
                           department of the interior
    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)--Chesapeake Bay Studies--$9.557 million
        We support the President's 2015 budget request of $9.557 million
    for the U.S. Geological Survey for the science that undergirds the
    restoration and protection efforts in the Chesapeake Bay region. This
    funding supports restoration of fish and wildlife and their habitats;
    and to assess and explain water-quality changes. There are four key
    focus areas for the USGS Chesapeake work in 2015: (1) restoring brook
    trout and their habitats in headwater areas of the Chesapeake
    watershed; (2) identifying the endocrine-disrupting compounds and other
    contaminants that threaten fisheries and wildlife in the Chesapeake
    watershed; (3) furthering understanding of the effects of development
    and sea-level rise on coastal wetlands important for waterfowl; and (4)
    monitoring and explaining changes to water quality. The efforts of USGS
    are critical to preserving and restoring healthy fish and wildlife
    resources to the Chesapeake region.
    National Park Service--Chesapeake Regional Programs--$2.991 million
        The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office runs a number of
    small, but very important programs that focus on increasing public
    access and the use of ecological, cultural and historic resources of
    the Chesapeake region. Expanding access and public awareness fosters
    stewardship and protection efforts.
        The key programs in the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request
    that we support are: Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Trails ($1,999,000);
    Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail ($368,000); Star
    Spangled Banner National Historic Trail ($148,000); and, support for
    coordinating these programs through the National Park Service
    Chesapeake Bay Office ($476,000).
    National Park Service--Land Protection in Maryland, Pennsylvania &
            Virginia through the Land and Water Conservation Fund--$9.832
            million
        We support the President's 2015 budget that calls for the strategic
    use of funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to protect and
    preserve key assets in the National Park System at Gettysburg National
    Military Park ($376,000) and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail
    ($500,000) in Pennsylvania; Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County
    Battlefields National Military Park ($1.519 million) and the Captain
    John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail ($6.0 million) in
    Virginia; and Piscataway Park ($1.437 million) in Maryland. In addition
    to enhancing public access and education and preserving key historic
    and heritage sites, these acquisitions, including the battlefield and
    military parks and the national scenic trail, will protect key
    freshwater and tidal habitat areas critical to an array of fish and
    wildlife species.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--Land Protection in Virginia through the
            Land and Water Conservation Fund--$5.56 million
        The President's 2015 budget calls for two targeted additions to the
    Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge. We support the
    expansion of the Refuge for both public access and wildlife habitat
    protection.
        Thank you for your consideration of these very important requests
    to maintain funding for these programs which are critical to clean
    water throughout the mid-Atlantic region.
                Sincerely,
                        1000 Friends of Maryland; American Rivers;
                                Anacostia Watershed Society; Audubon
                                Naturalist Society; Blue Water Baltimore;
                                Chapman Forest Foundation; Citizens for
                                Pennsylvania's Future; Clean Water Action;
                                Conservation Pennsylvania; Delaware Nature
                                Society; Elk Creeks Watershed Association;
                                Friends of Dyke Marsh; Friends of Frederick
                                County; Friends of Lower Beaverdam Creek;
                                Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah
                                River; Friends of the Rappahannock; Friends
                                of the Rivers of Virginia; Interfaith
                                Partners for the Chesapeake; James River
                                Association; Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy;
                                Maryland Academy of Sciences at the
                                Maryland Science Center; Maryland
                                Conservation Council; Maryland League of
                                Conservation Voters; Mattawoman Watershed
                                Society; and
                        National Parks Conservation Association; National
                                Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources
                                Defense Council; Nature Abounds; New York
                                State Council Trout Unlimited; Pennsylvania
                                Council of Churches; Pennsylvania Council
                                of Trout Unlimited; Piedmont Environmental
                                Council; Potomac Conservancy; Rivanna
                                Conservation Society; Rock Creek
                                Conservancy; Sassafras River Association;
                                Savage River Watershed Association;
                                Shenandoah Riverkeeper; Shenandoah Valley
                                Network; Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna;
                                St. Mary's River Watershed Association;
                                Trout Unlimited; Trout Unlimited Mid-
                                Atlantic Council Upper Susquehanna
                                Coalition; Virginia Conservation Network;
                                Virginia League of Conservation Voters;
                                Waterkeepers Chesapeake; West Virginia
                                Rivers Coalition.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the City of Aurora
                                                         April 5, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
    support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
    consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
    subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                             Marshall P. Brown,
                                                Director, Aurora Water.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the City of Farmington
                                                         April 7, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
    support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
    consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
    subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                               Robert Campbell,
                                                Assistant City Manager.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Civil War Trust
                                                          May 21, 2014.
        To the Chair and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Civil War Trust. I
    write today to respectfully request that the Senate Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies fund the
    Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program at its authorized amount of
    $10 million.
        The Civil War Trust is a national nonprofit organization dedicated
    to preserving America's remaining Civil War battlefields. Thanks to the
    generosity of our 200,000 members and supporters, the Civil War Trust
    has protected more than 38,500 acres of hallowed ground in 20 States.
        The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program 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 promotes cooperative
    partnerships between State and local governments and the private sector
    to protect 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. When preserved, battlefields serve as outdoor
    classrooms to educate current and future generations about this
    defining moment in America's history. They are living monuments, not
    just to the men in blue and gray who fought there, but to all who have
    proudly worn our Nation's uniform. 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 are
    learning about our Nation's unique history by visiting Civil War
    battlefields and historic sites throughout the country.
                             origins of the program
        In 1990, Congress created the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission
    (CWSAC), a blue-ribbon panel composed of lawmakers, historians and
    preservationists, to examine the status of America's Civil War
    battlefields. Three years later, the Commission released a report
    identifying the most important Civil War battlegrounds, prioritizing
    them according to preservation status and historic significance. In
    addition, the Commission also recommended that Congress establish a
    Federal matching grantd program to encourage the private sector to
    invest in battlefield preservation. The Commission's proposal for a
    Federal matching grants program was the genesis of the Civil War
    Battlefield Preservation Program.
        Since the program was first funded in fiscal year 1999, the grants
    have been used to protect 22,000 acres of hallowed ground in 16 States.
    Among the many battlefields that have benefited from this program are:
    Antietam, Maryland; Bentonville, North Carolina; Champion Hill,
    Mississippi; Chancellorsville, Virginia; Chattanooga, Tennessee;
    Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; Mill Springs,
    Kentucky; Prairie Grove, Arkansas; and Wilson's Creek, Missouri. It is
    important to note that grants are awarded for acquisition of lands from
    willing sellers only; there is--and never has been--any eminent domain
    authority.
                            urgent need for funding
        The Civil War Trust wishes to thank the subcommittee for its
    previous support for this valuable program. We recognize that these are
    difficult economic times and appreciate the constraints on this
    subcommittee.
        We also want to emphasize that the clock is ticking on the
    remaining battlefields of the Civil War. The Civil War Trust estimates
    that, in the next decade, most unprotect battlefield land will be
    either developed or preserved. Full funding for the Civil War
    Battlefield Preservation Program at its authorized level of $10 million
    a year will enable nonprofit groups like the Trust to protect as many
    key battlefield lands as possible in the limited time remaining. The
    ongoing 150th anniversary commemoration of the Civil War is the most
    opportune time to provide robust funding for the Civil War Battlefield
    Preservation Program.
                                   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.
    Preserved battlefields help insure that the sacrifices of that
    turbulent period of our Nation's history are never forgotten.
        I sincerely hope the subcommittee will consider our request to
    provide funding for the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program at
    its authorized level of $10 million. We look forward to working closely
    with you as we continue our important work to preserve our sacred Civil
    War battlefields. Thank you for the opportunity to present this
    testimony to the subcommittee.
                                           O. James Lighthizer,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Coalition Against Forest Pests
        The Coalition Against Forest Pests is asking the Subcommittee on
    Interior, Environment and Related Agencies to appropriate a total of
    $111 million for the Forest Health Management programs (combining the
    Federal and cooperative lands programs); and $303 million for Forest
    and Rangeland Research programs.
        Our Coalition of non-profit organizations, for-profit corporations,
    landowners, State agencies and academic scholars seeks to improve our
    Nation's efforts to address the critical threat posed to our forests by
    non-native and native pests.
        Our Nation's forests and trees provide numerous benefits in both
    rural and urban areas. They sustain the health of our environment and
    our economy by providing clean air and water, wildlife habitat,
    enhanced property values, renewable energy sources, and carbon
    sequestration. Healthy forests support numerous jobs; for example, the
    U.S. forest products industry employs nearly 900,000 people in all 50
    States. Visitors to National Forest System lands generate more than $13
    billion of recreation and other related economic activity. One million
    tourists view fall foliage displays, generating $1 billion in revenue
    in New England annually.
        Forests' ability to continue providing these benefits is threatened
    by damaging invasive species that are arriving and spreading at an
    increasing rate. At least 28 new tree-killing pests have been detected
    over the last decade. Some cause enormous damage. For instance,
    thousand cankers disease threatens black walnut trees; walnut growing
    stock is valued at $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 an additional $1 billion to
    remove and replace trees on their properties and are absorbing an
    additional $1.5 billion in reduced property values.
        The Forest Health Management programs (FHM) manage forest health
    through direct action on the National forests and through assistance to
    other Federal agencies, State agencies, local agencies and private
    landowners. The total allocated by FHM to non-native forest pests has
    fallen 15 percent since fiscal year 2011, with concomitant cuts for
    management of several pests: 90 percent for emerald ash borer; 46
    percent each for Asian longhorned beetle and hemlock woolly adelgid. We
    appreciate the near doubling of the account addressing three pests:
    goldspotted oak borer, thousand cankers disease, and laurel wilt.
    Still, the additional funds fall short of the level appropriate given
    the economic and ecological importance of the walnut, oak, and redbay
    trees at risk and the expectation that laurel wilt will nearly
    eradicate redbay just 25 years after the disease's discovery.
        In fiscal year 2013, the FHM Program combated pests on over 285,000
    acres of Federal lands and over 444,000 acres of Cooperative lands.
    Funding cuts meant 321,000 fewer acres were treated on Cooperative
    lands in fiscal year 2013 than in fiscal year 2011. The President's
    budget projects an increase in acres treated in fiscal year 2015,
    although it is unclear how this will be accomplished.
        Our awareness of the need to restore these programs and address
    additional pests such as western bark beetles, southern pine beetle,
    gypsy moth, white pine blister rust, Port-Orford-cedar root disease,
    oak wilt, and polyphagous shot hole borer underlies our request for an
    appropriation of $111 million--the fiscal year 2012 level.
        The USFS Forest and Rangeland Research program provides the
    scientific foundation for developing effective tools to detect and
    manage forest pests and the pathways by which they are introduced and
    spread. Due to budget cuts in earlier years, this program has lost 71
    percent of entomologists and pathologists on staff in 1985. These
    scientists' expertise is needed now more than ever due to the ever-
    growing number of non-native pests. Since 1985, more than 40 new forest
    pests have been detected in the U.S., including the Asian longhorned
    beetle, emerald ash borer, sudden oak death, laurel wilt, thousand
    cankers disease, goldspotted oak borer, and polyphagous shot hole
    borer. New pathways of introduction and spread have required analysis,
    e.g., wood packaging and firewood. Yet, the President's budget request
    for these programs would make a further cut of 6 percent, thereby
    jeopardizing vitally important research on these pests and pathways as
    well as hemlock woolly adelgid, white pine blister rust, and newly
    detected invaders. Already, recent cuts have forced significant
    reductions in several programs:
      --The Asian longhorned beetle kills many hardwood trees, especially
            the maples and birches making up much of the forest reaching
            from Maine to Minnesota and urban trees worth an estimated $600
            billion. Due to the difficulty in detecting this beetle, large
            but previously unsuspected outbreaks have been detected in
            2008, 2010, and 2013. Yet funding for research on this species
            has been cut by 66 percent since fiscal year 2011.
      --The emerald ash borer occupies more than 171,000 square miles in 22
            States. More than 200 million ash trees in the Plains States
            and additional trees in the South might be protected if better
            detection and control methods were available. Despite the
            desperate need for better tools, including breeding of trees
            resistant to the beetle, funding for research on this species
            has been cut by 9 percent since fiscal year 2011.
      --Sudden oak death affects 143 different plant species and continues
            to spread in 15 California counties as well as Curry County,
            Oregon. In 2012 and 2013, sudden oak death killed nearly
            700,000 trees in California. Many types of trees and shrubs in
            the East are vulnerable to the pathogen. Yet funding for
            research on this species has been cut by 87 percent since
            fiscal year 2011.
        We applaud the significant increase in funding for research on the
    goldspotted oak borer and thousand cankers disease. The goldspotted oak
    borer has killed up to 80,000 California live oak and black oak trees
    in San Diego and Riverside Counties in less than 15 years and threatens
    oaks throughout California.
        In a time when America's forests and trees face significant threats
    regarding their present and long-term health, USFS must be provided
    with adequate funds to support these key programs.
        Thank you for your time and consideration of this important
    request.
                Sincerely,
                        Alliance for Community Trees (ACTrees); American
                                Forest Foundation; American Forests;
                                California Forest Pest Council; Davey Tree
                                Expert Company; National Association of
                                State Departments of Agriculture; National
                                Association of State Foresters; National
                                Wild Turkey Federation; National Woodland
                                Owners Association; Society of American
                                Florists; Society of American Foresters;
                                The Nature Conservancy; and Vermont
                                Woodlands Association.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
                                                           May 6, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior,
            Environment, and Related Agencies

    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior,
            Environment, and Related Agencies
        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 2015 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 specifically 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 salinity
    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 control 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.
                                                Don A. Barnett,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Colorado River District--Colorado River Water
                             Conservation District
                                                         April 2, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
    support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
    consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
    subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                                     Eric Kuhn,
                                                       General Manager.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Colorado Springs Utilities
                                                        April 14, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
    support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
    consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
    subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                              Brett W. Gracely.
                                     ______

     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 Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) fiscal year
    2015 budget. We have specifically identified the following funding
    needs and one request for review:
      --$7.7 million for Columbia River Fisheries Management under Rights
            Protection Implementation, ($3.1 million above the request), to
            meet the base program funding needs of the Commission and the
            fisheries programs of our member tribes;
      --$4.8 million for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty, ($500k above
            the request), to implement obligations under the recent
            agreements adopted by the U.S. and Canada;
      --$500 thousand for Youth Program Initiatives (supports the request);
      --$352.5 million for Public Safety and Justice, of which $716,00
            supports enforcement of Federal laws at In-Lieu and Treaty
            Fishing Access Sites on the Columbia River;
      --$3.1 million in Rights Protection Implementation and $10 million
            for Cooperative Landscape Conservation to assist tribes in
            climate change adaptation and planning; and
      --$1.25 million to the Office of the Secretary of Interior's
            Leadership and Administration Activity for Federal/Tribal
            collaborative analytical work and consultations during domestic
            reconsideration of the Columbia River Treaty.
                             history and background
        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 the 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, an area the size
    of the State of Georgia.
        In 1855, the U.S. 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The CRITFC tribes are leaders in fisheries restoration and
    management working in collaboration with State, Federal and private
    entities. We 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, our 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 enforcement
    burden. Funding shortfalls prohibit the achievement of tribal self-
    determination goals for fisheries management, ESA recovery effort,
    protecting non-listed species, conservation enforcement and treaty
    fishing access site maintenance. We request an increase of $3.1million
    over fiscal year 2014 for a new program base of $7.7 million 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,
    namely enforcement and harvest monitoring.
        In 2008, CRITFC and its member tribes struck 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 10-Year Fisheries Management Plan with Federal, tribal and State
    parties under U.S. 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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
    legal, public and private forums.
           u.s./canada pacific salmon treaty under rights protection
                                 implementation
        The U.S. 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 U.S. 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.
        For tribal participants in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the U.S.
    Section has identified a program need of $4,800,000 for participating
    tribes. These funds provide 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 2015 recommended level for
    this program is an increase of $520,000 above the fiscal year 2014
    enacted level. Our request correlates to the U.S. Section's
    recommendation.
                           youth program initiatives
        The Columbia River Treaty tribes place an emphasis on preparing our
    youth for careers in Natural Resources Management. However, our tribes,
    like tribes nationwide, struggle to overcome barriers to Science,
    Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics achievement, high drop-out
    rates, and low percentages of students pursuing natural resources
    majors. Our Place-Based Workforce Development Initiative seeks to
    address these barriers through a blend of technical assistance, inter
    and externship opportunities and a summer Salmon Camp.
     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 also very
    pleased that the BIA has created Office of Justice Services (OJS)
    District 8 and housed it in Portland. CRITFC entered into a Public Law
    93-638 contract with BIA in February 2011 for enforcement services
    along the Columbia River. That contract currently 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. Shifts
    are occurring in salmon run timing, and berry and root ripening cycles.
    We support the President's request of $10 million to implement the
    Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Change Policy for Indian
    Tribes, Alaska 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.
                      columbia river treaty modernization
        The Columbia Basin tribes are a coalition of 15 tribes whose
    rights, as well as management authorities and responsibilities, are
    substantially affected by the implementation of the Columbia River
    Treaty. In order for treaty modernization to succeed, the Columbia
    Basin tribes need to continue to coordinate internally and with other
    regional and national entities, as well as continue their analytical
    evaluation of the treaty including the impacts of climate change, while
    the State Department evaluates the Regional Recommendation and
    completes their national interests review.
              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: U.S. v. Oregon,
    Pacific Salmon Treaty and the Columbia Basin Fish Accords.\4\ Salmon
    managers should be provided the latitude to make case-by-case decisions
    whether to mark fish and, if so, in the appropriate percentages.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In summary, through combined efforts of the four tribes supported
    by a staff of experts, we are proven natural resource managers. Our
    activities benefit the region while also essential to the U.S.
    obligation under treaties, Federal trust responsibility, Federal
    statutes, and court orders. We ask for your continued support of our
    efforts. We are prepared to provide additional information you may
    require on the Department of Interior's BIA budget.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the
     International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Volunteer
                                  Fire Council
    Hon. Barbara Mikulski, Chairwoman,
    Committee on Appropriations,
    U.S. Senate, Capitol Building, Washington, DC.

    Hon. Richard Shelby, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Appropriations,
    U.S. Senate, Capitol Building, Washington, DC.

    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
            Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
            Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, Chairman Reed and
    Ranking Member Murkowski: Our organizations request that you include a
    minimum of $16 million in funding for the Volunteer Fire Assistance
    (VFA) grant program in fiscal year 2015 appropriations. VFA provides
    matching funds to volunteer fire departments protecting communities
    with 10,000 or fewer residents to purchase equipment and training for
    wildland fire suppression.
        According to the President's fiscal year 2015 budget justification
    for the U.S. Forest Service, volunteer fire departments provide nearly
    80 percent of initial attack on wildland fires in the United States.
    Unfortunately, these departments frequently lack the financial
    resources to adequately equip and train their firefighters to engage in
    wildland fire suppression. For example, the Third Needs Assessment of
    the U.S. Fire Service report published in 2011 by the National Fire
    Protection Association found that 68 percent of all fire departments
    that are responsible for wildland firefighting have not formally
    trained all their personnel to the recommended national standard.
        When local fire departments are unable to suppress wildland fires
    during the initial phase, the fires spread and State and Federal
    firefighters are deployed. This is an extremely expensive process that
    can cost the Federal Government anywhere from hundreds of millions of
    dollars to more than $1 billion in fire suppression costs alone in a
    single year depending on the severity of the fire season.
        The costs of wildland fire suppression have been increasing
    steadily as commercial and residential development pushes further into
    the wildland/urban interface (WUI). The National Interagency Fire
    Center reports that in 2012, increased building in the WUI led to an
    above average number of structures burning in wildland fires.
    Throughout the year, a total of 4,244 structures were lost--2,200 of
    which were residential structures. With suppression costs rising, all
    stakeholders must increase efforts to prevent wildland fires, respond
    to wildland fires quickly before they become uncontrollable, and
    educate communities in the wildland/urban interface so that they can
    take precautions to minimize losses due to wildland fire.
        In recent years, Federal funding for volunteer fire departments to
    prepare for wildland fire suppression has been dwindling. VFA has seen
    funding reduced from $16 million in fiscal year 2010 to $15.662 million
    in fiscal year 2011 and approximately $13 million in fiscal year 2012,
    fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014. Additionally, the Rural Fire
    Assistance (RFA) program, which had historically been funded at $7
    million to $10 million per year and provided matching grants to fire
    departments that agreed to assist in responding to wildland fires on
    Federal lands, hasn't been funded since fiscal year 2010.
        Federal support is critical to ensure volunteer fire departments
    are able to safely and effectively respond to wildland fires. Our
    organizations recognize the challenges that Congress faces in trying to
    adequately fund a range of important programs in today's difficult
    budget environment. At the same time, we believe that reducing the
    funding for programs like RFA and VFA from a combined $23 million in
    fiscal year 2010 to $13.025 million in fiscal year 2014 leaves
    volunteer fire departments with fewer resources to prepare to respond
    to wildland fires and will lead to higher Federal spending on fire
    suppression in the long run. We urge you to provide a minimum of $16
    million for VFA in fiscal year 2015.
                                     ______

                  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 outside witness
    testimony on behalf of The Conservation Fund (TCF). The Conservation
    Fund supports full funding of the President's budget request of $900
    million in fiscal year 2015 for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) discretionary and mandatory proposals, which includes the
    Federal land acquisition programs of the Bureau of Land Management
    ($89.397 million), National Park Service ($171.041 million), U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service ($168.772 million), U.S. Forest Service ($127.673
    million), as well as three State grant programs: the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service's Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
    ($100 million); National Park Service's State Conservation Grants ($100
    million); and the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Legacy Program ($100
    million). TCF also supports full funding of the President's request for
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-North American Wetlands Conservation
    Fund ($34.145 million); the U.S. Forest Service--Community Forest and
    Open Space Conservation Program ($1.683 million); the Department of
    Interior--Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Program
    ($7.676 million); and the Bureau of Indian Affairs--Operations of
    Indian Programs: Trust--Real Estate Services ($127.002 million).
    Additionally, TCF supports the proposals for the Federal Land
    Transaction Facilitation Act reauthorization, the National Park Service
    Centennial Initiative, and the U.S. Forest Service Wildland Disaster
    Fund Act.
        The Conservation Fund (TCF) is a national, non-profit 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 7.4 million acres. These
    accomplishments are due, in large measure, to the leadership of this
    subcommittee over many years to appropriate funds to acquire lands for
    future generations, working forests, recreational opportunities,
    wildlife habitat, and many other benefits.
        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, Environment 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 2015 President's budget request.
        1. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million.--
    Funding at the recommended $900 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. LWCF
    represents a promise to the Nation that proceeds from offshore oil and
    gas development will help protect the public trust and these projects
    will fulfill that mission.
        The LWCF budget includes Collaborative Landscape Planning (CLP)
    areas that we ask you to support: National Trails System, Florida-
    Georgia Longleaf Pine Initiative, South Carolina Longleaf Pine, High
    Divide, Greater Yellowstone, Grasslands/Prairie Potholes, California
    Southwest Desert, and Upper Rio Grande. In each CLP, several Federal
    land agencies are partnering with States, local groups, non-profits and
    private interests to support conservation and make a lasting impact.
        2. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land Acquisition at $89.397
    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:
      --Upper Snake South Fork, Idaho: $1 million (#2); and $1.9 million
            (#14)
      --North Platte River Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA),
            Wyoming: $1.2 million (#5)
      --Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Colorado: $1.2 million
            (#6)
      --CLP National Trails-Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (NHT),
            Montana: $1.032 mil. (#7); and $1.148 mil. (#17)
      --McInnis Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA), Colorado: $210,000
            (#8), and $1.625 million (#18)
      --Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon: $906,000 (#12); and $5
            million (#21)
      --Upper Missouri River National Wild and Scenic River, Montana:
            $3.408 million (#23)
      --Aqua Fria National Monument, Arizona: $3.3 million (#24)
      --Colorado River Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), Colorado:
            $2 million (#27)
      --CLP High Divide--Oregon National Historic Trail (NHT), Idaho:
            $440,000 (#28)
      --CLP High Divide--Upper Madison, Montana: $868,000 (#28)
        3. National Park Service (NPS) Federal Land Acquisition at $171.041
    million.--Hosting more than 275 million visitors every year, the over
    400 National Park units 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, including along the Captain John Smith National
    Historic Trail and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. We
    respectfully request funding for the following projects:
      --CLP National Trails--Captain John Smith National Historic Trail
            (NHT), Virginia: $4 million (#4), and $2 million, (#13)
      --CLP National Trails--Appalachian National Scenic Trail (NST), New
            Hampshire, $200,000 (#13)
      --Olympic National Park, Washington: $5.22 million (#14)
      --CLP High Divide--Big Hole National Battlefield, Montana: $150,000
            (#21)
        4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Land Acquisition at
    $168.772 million.--National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) are our Nation's
    protectors of clean water, clean air, abundant wildlife and world-class
    recreation. Funding for fiscal year 2015 FWS LWCF will help preserve
    grizzly bear territory of the Rocky Mountain Front in Montana and
    protect key longleaf pine at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in
    Georgia. We respectfully request funding for the following projects:
      --Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area (WMA), North
            Dakota/South Dakota: $3.887 million (#2), and $3.887 million
            (#11)
      --Dakota Grassland Conservation Area, North Dakota/South Dakota: $7
            million (#3) and $7 million (#12)
      --Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area, Montana: $2 million (#5)
      --Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and
            Conservation Area, Florida: $3 million (#6) and $5 million
            (#14)
      --CLP Florida-Georgia Longleaf Pine--Okefenokee National Wildlife
            Refuge (NWR), Georgia: $4 million (#9)
      --Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area, Kansas: $1 million (#22)
      --Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Texas: $2
            million (#23)
      --CLP Grasslands/Prairie Potholes--Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife
            Management Area (WMA): $3 million (#27)
      --CLP Grasslands/Prairie Potholes--Dakota Grasslands Conservation
            Area: $7.5 million (#27)
        5. U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Land Acquisition at $127.673
    million.--USFS LWCF funds help with forest management by protecting key
    inholdings and reducing 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 project
    areas and respectfully request funding:
      --CLP National Trails--Appalachian National Scenic Trail (NST),
            Tennessee: $330,000 (#4); and $2.72 million (#32)
      --North Carolina Threatened Treasures, North Carolina: $2.1 million
            (#5), and $3.5 million (#30)
      --CLP Florida-Georgia Longleaf Pine Initiative--Osceola, Florida: $5
            million (#7); and $3.677 million (#34)
      --Missouri Ozarks Current River, Mark Twain National Forest,
            Missouri: $1 million (#16)
      --Tennessee Mountains Trails and Waters, Tennessee: $3.7 million
            (#21)
      --Greater Yellowstone Area, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming:
            $3 million (#25)
      --Georgia-Disappearing Wildlands of Georgia Mountains and Rivers,
            Georgia: $2.7 million (#27)
      --Great Lakes Northwoods, Superior National Forest, Minnesota: $3
            million (#33)
      --Cube Cove, Tongass National Forest, Alaska: $3 million (#38)
        6. LWCF State Grant Programs: FWS-Section 6 Cooperative Endangered
    Species Fund, NPS-State Conservation Grants, and USFS-Forest Legacy.--
    We encourage the subcommittee to fully fund fiscal year 2015
    President's Budget request for:
      --FWS-Section 6 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund:
            $100 million
      --NPS-State Conservation Grants: $100 million
      --USFS-Forest Legacy Program: $100 million. Project highlights
            include:
        --Bobcat Ridge, Texas, $2.37 million (#3 ranking)
        --East Fork of the French Broad Headwater II, North Carolina, $3.5
                million (#9)
        --Liberty Hill, South Carolina, $2 million (#21)
        --Sherwood Forest, Tennessee, $3 million (#24)
        --Windham Region Working Forest, Vermont, $1.5 million (#34)
        7. Priority Land Acquisition Programs.--TCF encourages the
    Committee to fund:
      --FWS-North American Wetlands Conservation Fund: $34.145 million
      --USFS-Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program: $1.683
            million
        8. Department of Interior--Natural Resource Damage Assessment and
    Restoration Program at $7.676 million.--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 2015
    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.
        9. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)--Operations of Indian Programs:
    Trust-Real Estate Services at $127.002 million.--We support the BIA
    Trust-Real Estate Services program, including funding to support the
    Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.
        10. Reauthorization of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation
    Act (H.R. 2068) (S. 368).--We support the fiscal year 2015 President's
    budget request to reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation
    Act (FLTFA) an 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, North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act (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 150 groups are working
    together to support Congress' efforts to reauthorize FLTFA.
        11. Wildlife Disaster Funding Act (H.R. 3992)(S. 1875) and Avoiding
    Transfers to Wildland Fire Suppression.--We support the proposal in the
    President's budget that would avoid transferring funds Congress
    appropriates to other priority programs to fund wildland fire
    suppression. We support language mirroring the bipartisan Wildfire
    Disaster Funding Act (S. 1875 & H.R. 3992). This important change to
    fire funding at the Federal level is needed to prevent future transfers
    and ensure that the USFS and Department of the Interior can achieve
    their land management objectives by implementing activities needed to
    address the growing buildup of hazardous fuels on Federal lands.
        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 Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the
    fiscal year 2015 (fiscal year 2015) Interior Appropriations bill. We
    sincerely thank you for the desperately needed funding increase for
    fiscal year 2014 and respectfully request a funding level of $476.4
    million for the Operations and Maintenance accounts of the National
    Wildlife Refuge System for fiscal year 2015. The National Wildlife
    Refuge System stands alone as the only land and water conservation
    system with a mission that prioritizes wildlife and habitat
    conservation alongside human, 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 landscapes. 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 testimony is submitted on behalf of CARE's 23 member
    organizations, which represent over 16 million American hunters,
    anglers, bird and wildlife watchers, scientists and concerned citizens
    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
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
    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
    562 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts
    across the U.S. 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 a refuge within an hour's drive from most
    metropolitan areas, the Refuge System attracts a growing number of
    visitors each year (46.5 million in fiscal year 2013) with
    opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography,
    kayaking, and outdoor education. In fact, from 2006-2011, during our
    Nation's greatest economic recession since the Great Depression,
    visitation to our national wildlife refuges increased by 30 percent.
        According to a report issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    in late 2013, ``Banking On Nature'', these visitors generated $2.4
    billion annually to local and regional economies--on average returning
    $4.87 in economic activity for every $1 appropriated--and support
    35,000 U.S. jobs. In addition, refuges provide major environmental and
    health benefits, such as filtering storm water before it is carried
    downstream and fills municipal aquifers; reducing flooding by capturing
    excess rainwater; and minimizing the damage to coastal communities from
    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 over $65 for every $1 appropriated by Congress.
        At minimum, CARE estimates that the Refuge System needs at least
    $900 million in annual operations and maintenance funding to meet
    conservation targets, including wildlife management and habitat
    restoration and opportunities for the public to recreate.
    Unfortunately, inadequate funding threatens the System's ability to
    carry out its mission, mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System
    Improvement Act of 1997. Between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013,
    Refuge System funding was reduced by $50 million--a 10 percent cut. As
    a result, System performance levels dropped substantially.
        The fiscal year 2013 Refuge Annual Performance Plan (RAPP) reports
    revealed falling performance rates in several important System
    categories, including habitat condition, habitat restoration,
    recreation opportunities, volunteerism, and scientific research. The
    following data shows the systemic impact of budget cuts from fiscal
    year 2010-fiscal year 2013.

    Measures for which performance declined more than 50 percent from
    fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2013

      --Acres of forest/shrubland improvement (-51 percent)
      --Wetland acres restored (-77 percent)
      --Open water acres restored (84 percent)
      --Acres of non-native, invasive plants controlled (-60 percent)

    Measures for which performance declined 25-50 percent from fiscal year
    2010 to fiscal year 2013

      --Number of invasive animal populations controlled during the year
            (-46 percent)
      --Acres treated for non-native, invasive plants (-37 percent)

    Measures for which performance declined 15-25 percent from fiscal year
    2010 to fiscal year 2013

      --Acres of moist soil managed (-21 percent)
      --Number of population management actions (-23 percent)
      --Acres of mowed/hayed grasslands (-20 percent)
      --Acres managed by ``other'' techniques (-15 percent)
      --Riparian miles restored (-19 percent)
      --Number of research studies (-15.5 percent)
      --Number of surface water acres impaired according to State 303d
            listings

    Measures for which performance declined 3-15 percent from fiscal year
    2010 to fiscal year 2013

      --Uplands receiving needed management (-9 percent)
      --Number of Inventory & Monitoring Surveys accomplished (-14 percent)
      --Open water receiving needed management (-5 percent)
      --Total refuge acres receiving needed management (-6 percent)
      --Restoration deferred on upland acres (-4.5 percent)
      --Restoration deferred on wetland acres (-12.5 percent)
      --Acres of water-level manipulation (-8 percent)
      --Upland game hunt visits (-6 percent)
      --Big game hunt visits (down 3.1 percent from fiscal year 2011 to
            fiscal year 2013)
      --Total hunt visits (down 3 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal
            year 2013)
      --Fishing visits (-3 percent)
      --Number of volunteers (-8.7 percent)
      --Volunteer hours (down 3 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal
            year 2013)
      --Total ``other'' recreational participants (-7 percent)

        As habitat management declines, the System's fragile ecosystems are
    subject to opportunistic invasive species. And the foothold they gain
    in refuge lands can quickly transfer to adjacent private and State
    lands; an issue of great concern in places like southeastern Idaho
    where the CARE group visited in 2012. Between fiscal year 2010 and
    fiscal year 2013, the System treated 37 percent less acreage for
    invasive plants and, sadly, saw a 60 percent drop in acreage where
    invasive plants were successfully controlled. One step forward and
    several steps back is an inefficient way to manage the Refuge System
    and threatens years of cooperative efforts with partners and
    landowners.
        Of particular concern to CARE is the drop in hunting, fishing and
    other recreational visits, which include bird and wildlife watching,
    photography, hiking and kayaking. Due to staffing cuts, refuges are
    unable to sustain visitor hours and public use programs. This in turn
    leads to fewer visitors and could have serious impacts on the economic
    return these refuges have in local communities. Further, investments
    made at the urging of CARE regarding the System's Inventory and
    Monitoring program are threatened. The System must have current,
    accurate data to make informed management decisions, yet the System had
    a 15.5 percent decline in research studies, and a 14 percent decline in
    essential Inventory and Monitoring Surveys conducted.
        CARE thanks the subcommittee and Congress for the much needed, 4
    percent increase ($18.5 m) in funding for fiscal year 2014. It was
    hoped that the budget increase could reverse the systemic declines in
    performance but because the System needs at least $15 million annually
    to maintain management capabilities, there is in reality, only $3.5
    million was left to address these declines. And unfortunately,
    emergencies nationwide such as natural disasters and looming endangered
    species listing could force the System to deal with these crises
    instead, further exacerbating the issues. Because of the constraints of
    the budget agreement reached in December 2013, CARE is supporting the
    President's request of $476.4 million for fiscal year 2015, although it
    is substantially less than what the System needs. Albeit roughly half
    the optimal funding amount, $476.4 million may steady falling, System
    performance levels. If the requested funding level is satisfied, the
    Refuge System can better address the following tasks:
      --Conduct management and restoration activities to provide healthy
            habitats that attract wildlife and, in turn, draw visitors and
            increase economic return to communities;
      --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.
        Refuge visitation is growing and is expected to continue. In fact,
    from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2013, the Refuge System welcomed
    6.7 percent more visitors. Wildlife observation visits, too, increased
    by 12 percent, and photography visits increased by 33 percent. However,
    refuges are losing valuable staff committed to visitors and volunteers.
    The number of volunteers dropped by 8.6 percent, particularly troubling
    considering this work force is a 20 percent boost to existing Refuge
    System staff. Refuges rely on volunteers for welcoming and greeting
    visitors, staffing refuge nature stores, maintenance, interpretation,
    and much more. Volunteer service, however, is only possible if the
    System is reasonably staffed and thus able to extend requisite
    volunteer training and oversight. Arguably, the System's mission cannot
    be fully achieved without refuge volunteers and Friends groups.
        If the Refuge System is forced to sustain further reductions,
    future RAPP reports will likely show continued decline in the System's
    conservation work and public use opportunities. Funding cuts are
    already impacting America's refuges. If annual operations and
    maintenance funding does not rise, CARE anticipates further impacts
    both within and outside of refuge boundaries, including:
      --A reduction in the treatment of invasive plants, reducing habitat
            quality needed to support wildlife (both game and non-game) 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 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 operating at reduced hours, and plans to add or
            expand hunting programs at refuges being postponed;
      --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 main window to the vast marine
            national monuments.
        We urge Congress to fund the Refuge System at $476.4 m in fiscal
    year 2015--to bridge the growing gap between what the System needs and
    what it receives, enabling refuges to continue moving America forward.
    On behalf of our more than 16 million members and supporters, CARE
    thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit comments on the
    fiscal year 2015 Interior Appropriations bill, and we look forward to
    meeting with you to discuss our request.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of The Corps Network
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Chocran, and members of the
    subcommittee: My name is Mary Ellen Sprenkel and I am the president and
    CEO of The Corps Network. The Corps Network is the national association
    of service and conservation corps with over 100 member organizations
    operating in all 50 States, and enrolling nearly 26,000 young people
    between the ages of 16 and 25 each year. It is The Corps Network's
    mission to provide critical leadership to the Corps movement and to our
    Nation's Service and Conservation Corps as they harness the power of
    youth and young adults to tackle some of America's greatest challenges
    and transform their own lives.
        The Corps Network requests the subcommittee's support for fiscal
    year 2015 programs that will allow public land and water management
    agencies to engage young adults and veterans to meet our Nation's
    backlogged maintenance needs, address record youth unemployment, and
    prepare a diverse group of youth to be the next generation of natural
    resource employees and stewards.
        Corps are comprehensive youth development programs that provide
    their participants with job training, academic programming, leadership
    skills, and additional support through a strategy of service that
    improves communities and the environment. They are a direct descendant
    of the Depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps, which mobilized
    about three million young men who dramatically improved the Nation's
    public lands while receiving food, shelter, education, and a precious
    $30-a-month stipend.
                             the impact in numbers
        In 2013 alone, the 100-plus members of The Corps Network
    collectively:
      --Restored and improved 240,000 acres of ecological habitat;
      --Maintained and improved 2,900 parks, gardens, and urban
            greenspaces;
      --Built and maintained 8,000 miles of trails; and
      --Removed over 300,000 acres of invasive and exotic plant species.
          corps enroll participants reflective of america's diversity
        At present, our member Corps enroll nearly 26,000 Corpsmembers a
    year, the majority of whom come from diverse and disadvantaged
    backgrounds, and are looking for a second chance to succeed in life.
    Many Corpsmembers are ``opportunity youth,'' meaning that they have
    either dropped out of school or are unemployed at the time that they
    enter a Corps program.
        In addition to the normal work week, Corpsmembers receive a wide
    range of personal and professional development opportunities and
    services including, but not limited to: guidance from adult leaders who
    serve as mentors and role models, academic programming designed to lead
    to a high school diploma or GED, opportunities to pursue certificates
    and credentials with demonstrated value, and a modest stipend--all to
    prepare them for postsecondary education and labor market success.
        In 2012, 65 percent of all Corpsmembers were unemployed at the time
    of entry, 31 percent were not in school and did not have a GED, 61
    percent came from families below the poverty line, and 20 percent were
    formerly incarcerated or court-involved. After completing their
    programs, 54 percent of alumni said that they were employed or enrolled
    in further service. Sixty-eight percent reported that they were in
    college or a high school diploma/GED program.
                                  quality work
        Each year, Corps complete hundreds of high-quality and often
    technical projects on public lands and waters. Project sponsors
    consistently express a high degree of satisfaction with the quality of
    work and productivity of the Corps. Virtually all Federal project
    partners (99.6 percent) say they would work with Corps again.
        Types of work include, but are not limited to:
      --Protecting wildlife and improving access to public land and waters;
      --Preparing communities for disasters and responding when needed;
      --Enhancing recreation on public lands;
      --Protecting communities and public lands from the devastating
            effects of wildfire;
      --Preserving historic structures; and
      --Enhancing neighborhoods and community public spaces.
                                  cost savings
        By partnering with Conservation Corps, Federal land and water
    management agencies achieve more with their operating budgets. Research
    conducted by the National Park Service's Park Facility Management
    Division indicates that hiring Conservation Corps to complete
    maintenance and trail projects resulted in significant savings.
        The analysis considered 15 diverse trail and maintenance projects
    throughout the country in places including Mesa Verde National Park,
    Glacier National Park, Point Reyes National Seashore, and Voyageurs
    National Park. The research found that using Conservation Corps to
    complete maintenance and trail projects provided a cost savings of over
    50 percent.
                            fiscal year 2015 request
        The Corps Network requests the subcommittee's support for fiscal
    year 2015 programs that will allow public land and water management
    agencies to engage young adults and veterans to meet our Nation's
    backlogged maintenance needs, address record youth unemployment, and
    prepare a diverse group of youth to be the next generation of natural
    resource employees.
        We respectfully request that in fiscal year 2015 the subcommittee
    fund the following accounts:
      --$2,283,852,000 for ``Operation of the National Parks.''
      --$10,000,000 for the ``Centennial Challenge'' for the National Park
            Service.
      --$50,600,000 for Department of Interior Youth Programs.
      --Increased funding for operational accounts of the Department of the
            Interior (DOI) Bureaus and United States Forest Service (USFS).
        The first two accounts fall under National Park Service and the
    third is under the Department of Interior. National Park ``Operations''
    is a preexisting account governing operation of our national parks and
    the ``Centennial Challenge'' is a new program and was also proposed
    under the most recent Bush administration. These funds will allow
    thousands of veterans, youth, and others to work upgrading the National
    Park System for its 100th anniversary in 2016. The Department's Youth
    Program funding would also provide work and training opportunities for
    young people and veterans during 2014 and 2015. A key component of the
    Department's efforts will be partnering with youth organizations
    through the 21st Century Conservation Corps. We also support increased
    funding for all operational accounts at the other Bureaus (Bureau of
    Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS)) and at the U.S. Forest Service that could fund
    partnerships with Conservation Corps.
        As the National Park Service prepares for its 100th Anniversary,
    Congress has an opportunity to invest in the popular and economically
    important National Park Service. An investment this year will help
    parks recover from years of underfunding and restore parks for the
    Centennial. Every dollar invested in the National Park Service
    generates $10 in economic activity. The operations investment would
    provide for park rangers to maintain facilities and provide services to
    park visitors. The Centennial Challenge investment would allow for the
    park service to leverage private matching funds through a 1:1 match for
    specific projects.
        Beginning with the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps
    during the Great Depression, and continuing to the recent launch of the
    21st Century Conservation Service Corps Initiative, organizations like
    Vermont Youth Conservation Corps, Southeast Youth Corps, and California
    Conservation Corps have helped millions of young Americans gain job
    training, further their education, and contribute to America's
    communities through service and the conservation of national and State
    parks, forests, and other treasured places.
        The future of our Nation's public lands depend upon the next
    generation becoming active resource stewards. I hope that you will
    provide the funding to put thousands of youth and returning veterans to
    work restoring some of America's greatest historical, cultural, and
    natural treasures. With the approaching National Park Service
    centennial, billions in backlogged maintenance across all of the land
    management agencies, record youth unemployment, and the cost savings
    nature of public private partnerships, this funding is an absolute win-
    win for our country.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments
        I am pleased to submit this testimony to the subcommittee on behalf
    of the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (CATG). We are a
    consortium of 10 tribal governments located along the Yukon River and
    its tributaries in northeastern Alaska. We provide a variety of
    services to our tribal members, including full healthcare services at
    the Yukon Flats Health Center and village-based clinics in four of our
    villages. We request that you implement the following measures in the
    fiscal year 2015 appropriations cycle:
      --Make full Contract Support Costs funding mandatory spending.
      --Increase funding for Village Built Clinics at least $8.5 million.
      --Fund the Indian Health Service (IHS) budget with advanced
            appropriations.
      --Reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program for Indians.
      --Allocate $50 million to the IHS from the Prevention and Public
            Health Fund for tribal behavioral health grants.
      --Support Tribal jurisdiction to protect Alaska communities.
                  mandatory funding for contract support costs
        We are pleased that the Administration has sought to fully fund
    contract support costs (CSC) under the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) in fiscal year 2015, and we urge
    Congress to support that goal. We also acknowledge that the
    administration's request is a direct response to Congress' actions with
    regard to fiscal year 2014 appropriations, which removed historical
    caps on CSC funding and rejected the administration's proposal--put
    forward without consultation and vehemently opposed by tribes--to
    individually cap contract support cost recovery at the contractor
    level. Contract support costs fund vital administrative functions that
    allow us to operate programs that provide critical services to our
    members. If contract support costs are not fully funded, however, our
    programs and services are directly impacted because we are forced to
    divert limited program funding to cover fixed overhead expenses
    instead. We therefore appreciate Congress' support in fiscal year 2014
    and hope that it carries through to fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
        However, the CSC funding problem is not yet solved. Full funding
    for CSC must not come with a penalty--namely, a reduction in program
    funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds.
    That result would have the same devastating effect on our service
    delivery as the failure to fully fund CSC. Yet Congress, in the Joint
    Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act, noted that ``since [contract support costs] fall
    under discretionary spending, they have the potential to impact all
    other programs funded under the Interior and Environment Appropriations
    bill, including other equally important tribal programs.'' Moreover,
    without any permanent measure to ensure full funding, payment of CSC
    remains subject to agency ``discretion'' from year to year, even though
    tribes are legally entitled to payment under the ISDEAA. Noting these
    ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to consult
    with tribes on a permanent solution.
        In our view, there is a logical permanent solution which Congress
    is empowered to implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory
    entitlement. Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act, the full payment of CSC is not discretionary; it is a
    legal obligation, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet the budget
    authority for CSC is currently provided and controlled through
    appropriation acts--as if it were a discretionary program. The fiscal
    year 2014 Joint Explanatory Statement recognized that the current
    fundamental mismatch between the mandatory nature of CSC and the
    current appropriation approach leaves both the House and Senate
    Committees on Appropriations in the ``untenable position of
    appropriating discretionary funds for the payment of any legally
    obligated contract support costs.'' As the Joint Explanatory Statement
    also noted, ``Typically obligations of this nature are addressed
    through mandatory spending.'' The obvious solution then is to bring the
    appropriations process in line with the statutory requirements and to
    recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory entitlement, not a
    discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge the Congress to move
    to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory basis.
                  funding for village built clinics in alaska
        For the last several years, Alaska organizations have submitted
    testimony to this subcommittee on the need to address chronic
    underfunding of Village Built Clinics (VBCs) in Alaska. VBCs, which are
    clinic facilities leased by the IHS from other entities, are a vital
    component of the provision of basic healthcare services in rural
    Alaska, as they serve as the clinic space for the Community Health Aide
    Program (CHAP) under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA).
    The CHAP, which IHS is directed by the IHCIA to carry out, utilizes a
    network of community health aides and practitioners to provide primary
    healthcare services in rural and isolated areas where access to those
    services might not otherwise exist.
        In 1989, Congress specifically authorized the operation of 170 VBCs
    in Alaska and provided approximately $3 million in funding for the
    program for that year. Since then, Congress has not provided amounts
    specifically for VBCs in the IHS appropriation, and IHS has had
    discretion to fund VBCs from its lump sum appropriation. But even
    though the 1989 appropriation was not a cap restricting IHS allocation
    of funds in later years, IHS has treated it as such and has refused to
    increase funding for VBC leases. Funding therefore has not kept pace
    with inflation or the rising costs of healthcare in rural and isolated
    areas. In fact, the chronic underfunding over decades has resulted in
    deterioration and in some cases closure of VBC facilities, threatening
    the CHAP itself and access to basic healthcare services for rural
    Alaskans that hinges on the continued availability of properly
    maintained VBC space.
        According to an estimate calculated several years ago by the Alaska
    Native Health Board and adjusted for inflation, at least $8.3 million
    is needed to fully fund the VBC leasing program. However, that estimate
    is outdated and likely falls significantly short of the actual need.
    CATG therefore urges that Congress appropriate at least an additional
    $8.5 million to fully fund VBC leases and that IHS be directed to use
    its existing appropriations to fully fund such leases.
        This subcommittee should also be aware that, having attempted
    without success for many years to convince IHS to accept its
    responsibilities for the VBCs as part of the mandated CHAP program,
    some tribal organizations in Alaska are taking a new approach. The
    Maniilaq Association recently requested that the IHS enter into a
    mandatory lease under Sec. 105(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act for one of the VBCs that Maniilaq owns.
    Implementing regulations require payment under the lease to fully
    compensate for the costs of adequately operating and maintaining the
    facilities. However, the IHS refused to enter into the lease, and the
    matter is now being litigated. If Maniilaq prevails, the case could
    establish legal precedent that will allow tribal contractors in Alaska
    to negotiate for full funding for VBCs as part of their funding
    agreements under the IHS's ISDEAA leasing authority. Though funding
    should be provided in full through the VBC program directly, the option
    to enter into a Sec. 105(l) lease must also be preserved as an
    alternative funding mechanism.
                  fund the ihs through advanced appropriations
        An important goal for CATG--and for all of Indian Country--is the
    reliable, advance appropriation of the IHS budget 1 year in advance.
    The goal is for IHS and tribal healthcare providers to have adequate
    notice of the amount of Federal appropriations to expect and thus not
    be subjected to the uncertainties of late funding and short-term
    Continuing Resolutions. Congress provides advance appropriations for
    the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is for
    parity in the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Legislation to
    authorize IHS advance appropriations has been introduced--H.R. 3229 by
    Representative Young and S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski and Begich. We
    request that you support such efforts to authorize and then appropriate
    the funds for IHS advance appropriations.
                    reauthorize the special diabetes program
        While the entitlement funding for the Special Diabetes Program for
    Indians (SDPI) is not part of the IHS appropriations process, those
    funds are administered through the IHS. With the very recent passage by
    the House and Senate of a 1 year extension of the SDPI as part of the
    Medicare ``doc fix'' bill, it is funded through fiscal year 2015 at
    $150 million, minus a 2 percent reduction ($3 million) due to the
    sequestration of non-exempt mandatory programs (Public Law 112-240).
    This funding level has not increased since 2004. The SDPI has proven
    highly effective in Indian Country, and has produced excellent results.
    For example, in the 4 years preceding the last report on the SDPI in
    2011, the average blood sugar level dropped nearly a percentage point
    overall, corresponding to a 40 percent decline in the risk of eye,
    kidney, and nerve complications due to diabetes. We ask that you
    support ongoing efforts to reauthorize this program for a 5-year period
    at increased funding levels.
    increase funding for behavioral health, suicide prevention, and alcohol
                          & substance abuse treatment
        Alaska faces particular hardships in providing for our communities'
    behavioral and mental health services. There is a dire need for more
    prevention funding for suicide intervention as well as alcohol and
    substance abuse prevention, particularly for our youth. These efforts
    go hand in hand, as the problems often overlap. Alaska has twice the
    national rate of suicide, and ranks second in the Nation in suicide
    attempts requiring hospitalization. Alaska Native teens commit suicide
    at a rate nearly six times that of non-Native teenagers. The suicide
    rate among all Alaskans increased by 33 percent between 2005-2008--a
    period when the national rate remained steady. Compounding and
    complicating the suicide epidemic is alcohol and substance abuse or a
    mental health disorder. The overwhelming majority of the people we lose
    to suicide suffer from diagnosable, treatable mental health or
    substance abuse problems. However, the waiting list for treatment
    averages nearly 9 months, and due to lack of funding there is often no
    place to refer people, particularly young people.
        Alcohol and substance abuse contributes to myriad other problems as
    well, including crime, domestic violence, child abuse or neglect.
    Oftentimes, tribes in Alaska have a difficult time working through the
    State of Alaska to provide these services, which adds layers of
    guidelines, regulations, and reduced funding. We have found that tribes
    and tribal organizations should receive behavioral funds directly,
    because programs that implement traditional cultural values are more
    successful than those that don't. Included in the Affordable Care Act
    (ACA) is mandatory funding ($17.7 billion over 10 years) for a
    Prevention and Public Health (PPH) Fund from which Congress may
    allocate funding to various programs. In fiscal year 2012 the
    administration requested that $50 million of it be allocated to a new
    tribal behavioral health grant program; unfortunately Congress did not
    provide that allocation. We urge that Congress allocate $50 million
    from the PPH to the IHS in fiscal year 2015 for this purpose and that
    it be recurring.
           support tribal jurisdiction to protect alaska communities
        We support the ongoing efforts to amend S. 1474, the Alaska Safe
    Families and Villages Act, in a manner that would recognize Alaska
    tribes' jurisdiction to protect their communities by dealing locally
    with domestic violence, sexual assault and drug and alcohol abuse. At
    the same time, we greatly appreciate the provision that is already in
    S. 1474 which would repeal section 910 of the Violence Against Women
    Act Reauthorization that left Alaska tribes out of the expanded tribal
    jurisdiction over domestic violence affirmed in that law. These changes
    will require additional Bureau of Indian Affairs resources regarding
    law enforcement and courts. We look forward to continued work with our
    congressional delegation and others on this legislation of such crucial
    importance to Alaska Native communities.
        Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and requests. We
    are happy to respond to questions or provide any additional information
    you may request.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, distinguished members of
    the subcommittee; I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify in
    support of funding for certain programs for American Indians and Alaska
    Natives. They include programs under the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
    Indian Health Service, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, Secretary of Interior's Office, and the National Park
    Service.
                                   background
        Since the Cowlitz Indian Tribe was restored to Federal recognition
    in 2002, we have strived to develop services to protect and promote the
    well-being of our people. We have approximately 3,800 tribal members
    with the majority residing within or close to our traditional homelands
    in southwestern Washington State. Although we still have no
    reservation, our leadership continues to move forward the vision to
    provide for our people. We have established several Departments and
    Programs since 2002. The work of this subcommittee is critical in our
    ability to continue our obligation to serve our people.
        Federal grant programs are particularly critical to our well-being
    because without a reservation, we have no trust land on which to
    conduct economic development to fund governmental services. Making our
    situation even more difficult, we are ineligible for the wide variety
    of Federal grant programs that are tied to reservation lands. As a
    result, the Federal grant programs discussed in this testimony are of
    even more critical importance to the Cowlitz Indian Tribe.
        Despite the fact that we are landless, we do what we can to provide
    essential services to our people, and in so doing we believe we also
    directly and indirectly benefit surrounding communities. We also
    participate extensively at the local, State, and Federal level through
    established and emerging partnerships across a broad range of programs
    and initiatives. We believe that it is important to not only provide
    for our memberships' well-being, but work to be a positive and
    contributing influence with our neighbors. Planning, supporting, and
    implementing activities that restore and protect our economies, natural
    surroundings, and future stability is important to us. The Cowlitz
    Tribal leadership is very much appreciative and dependent on the
    programs under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. It would be impossible
    for us to be a contributing partner without your support.
                      the cowlitz tribe's seven priorities
        The Cowlitz Indian Tribe respectfully requests that the
    subcommittee:

        1.  Bureau of Indian Affair's (BIA) ``Aid to Tribal Government''
    Program.--Increase program funding from the $24.614 million proposed in
    the President's fiscal year 2015 budget to $30 million.
        2.  Indian Health Service (IHS) fiscal year 2015 Appropriations
    Report Congress.--Ensure IHS makes revisions to the Health Facilities
    Construction Priority System as directed in the fiscal year 2000
    Interior Appropriations Bill.
        3.  Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) ``Indian General
    Assistance Program'' (GAP).--Support the President's fiscal year 2015
    budget request of $96.4 million.
        4.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency's (USFWS) ``Tribal Wildlife Grant
    Program''.--Increase proposed fiscal year 2015 budget from $4 million
    to $10 million.
        5.  Support $1.25 million to be directed to the Office of the
    Secretary of Interior's Leadership and Administration Activity for
    fiscal year 2015 for Federal/Tribal collaborative analytical work and
    consultations during domestic reconsideration of the Columbia River
    Treaty.
        6.  BIA administered tribal transportation programs.--Support the
    Tribal Transportation Unity Caucus's (TTUC) proposed increase for
    fiscal year 2015.
        7.  National Park Service (NPS) proposed fiscal year 2015 for
    ``National Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
    Grants''.--Increase funding from the President's $1.657 million request
    to $2 million.

        1. BIA ``Aid to Tribal Government'' Funding Increase.--The primary
    backbone of support for our tribe's general operations is funded
    through BIA's Aid to Tribal Government program. It is an essential
    source of funds that supports the general operations of our
    administration, Natural & Cultural Resources Department, and provides
    many other services critical to our people and governance. With this
    core funding, we have been able to provide essential government
    services, employment opportunity, regional partnerships, grant
    programs, and to provide increased security for our tribe and
    employees. For a tribe that continues to struggle in obtaining our own
    economic base, this funding source remains critical to keep
    governmental operations functioning. Funding under this program does
    not meet all the needs of our tribe, but as we try and obtain our own
    economic base, it improves our tribe's ability to oversee program
    implementation and allows us to deliver essential services to our
    members. In sum, funding for tribal administration of programs is a key
    element towards our ability to support tribal self-governance.
        2. IHS Facilities Construction Priority System.--The IHS system is
    significantly underfunded and an imbalance of resources has developed
    within the system. An example of this is the frozen facilities
    construction list. We respectfully request the subcommittee to address
    this underfunding and also the delivery system imbalance and require
    the IHS to report to Congress its revisions to the Health Facilities
    Construction Priority System as directed in the fiscal year 2000
    Interior Appropriations Bill. The current system was developed over 23
    years ago and prioritizes construction projects on antiquated data in a
    completely changed healthcare delivery environment. Most projects would
    not score high enough to be funded today relative to the needs of other
    tribes nationally. The system is broken and unfairly prohibits tribes
    from accessing important facilities construction funding on an equal
    basis as the tribes on the current priority list. The subcommittee
    should direct IHS to develop a facility construction priority system to
    address the unmet facility construction needs of all tribes and not
    just those on the current priority list. A new priority system should
    also incorporate the staffing needs for those tribes that have built
    their own health facilities without IHS resources. The Cowlitz Tribe
    received its appropriation for funding its Health Systems in 2000. In
    November 2002 we received funding for Contract Health Services only and
    no funding for direct services.
        3. EPA Indian General Assistance Program (GAP).--GAP has been a
    vital program for our tribe since Federal acknowledgement. It has
    allowed for our ability to build capacity for the many natural resource
    programs and tends to the needs of our memberships health and well-
    being. It gave us the ability to deal with very important resources
    issues of the tribe such as representation on key resource management
    concerns in the region. It has allowed our ability (and maintain) to
    forge positive relationships and work with local communities to protect
    and restore resources. EPA heard from the tribes in past years that
    funding under this program was well short to meet the needs to build
    capacity for addressing environmental issues within their homelands. We
    believe that this is a key program that needs to be maintained
    adequately well into the future in order to protect and restore the
    quality of life and culture for Indian Country.
        4. USFWS Tribal Wildlife Grant Program Increase.--Our tribe has
    been fortunate to receive two Tribal Wildlife Grants (TWG) administered
    by USFWS. With these grants we continue to contribute toward positive
    partnerships with State and Federal managers over recovery efforts of
    endangered Columbian White-tailed deer (CWTD) of the Lower Columbia
    River region. This species was one of the first to be listed under the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 1970s. Since we received our TWG,
    our involvement has heightened awareness to the issue of recovery of
    this long-standing recovery concern. We brought fresh new skills and
    thoughtfulness as to what was needed to create a path to recovery and
    eventual de-listing under ESA. We are proud to be one of the primary
    participants that are leading CWTD towards recovery and eventual de-
    listing. We believe it is important that collaborative partnerships
    with Tribal, Federal, and State resource managers are the key to
    achieve success towards species recovery efforts. The TWG program
    provides tribes capacity and opportunity to contribute to efforts that
    is deeply tied to traditional and cultural life-ways. We request that
    funding be restored to this program so other tribes can experience the
    great work that can be accomplished under this program.
        5. Columbia River Treaty Coordination and Technical Capacity
    Funding.--There are 15 Columbia Basin tribes, supported by three tribal
    organizations of the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Upper
    Columbia United Tribes, and the Upper Snake River Tribes, who have
    participated in the development of a regional consensus based
    recommendation on the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty
    between the U.S. and Canada. The Columbia Basin tribes have been key
    participants in the development and adoption of the U.S. Entity's
    regional recommendation (coordinated by the Bonneville Power
    Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). The Cowlitz Tribe
    along with other tribes participated extensively in this effort and
    continues to be committed towards future improvements on how the
    Columbia Basin water resources are managed. The recommendation is
    currently being considered by the U.S. Department of State to determine
    next steps in working with Canada to modernize the treaty. During this
    time there is a need for on-going evaluation and coordination by the
    Columbia Basin tribes. The tribes have very limited availability of
    time and funds to conduct this vital work. The Columbia Basin tribes
    need approximately $1.25 million to continue to collaborate on
    necessary technical evaluations and assessments, as well as to consult
    with the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Entity, other sovereigns,
    and stakeholders for fiscal year 2015.
        6. BIA Administered Tribal Transportation Programs.--Transportation
    infrastructure serving tribal communities is the most unsafe,
    rudimentary and under-maintained transportation network in the Country.
    Approximately 1,069 of 4,400 Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program
    bridges are currently rated as deficient. Cost of rehabilitating or
    replacing the 1,069 IRR bridges is likely to exceed $595 million.
    Consistent with TTUC recommendations, we support and request for an
    increase in funding levels for fiscal year 2015 to $1,050,000,000 for
    Federal Lands Highway (FLH) Program: (A) Indian Reservation Roads under
    section 204 of title 23; increase funding levels for fiscal year 2015
    to $100 million for FLH program: (XX) Indian Reservation Road Bridge
    Program under Section 202(d)(4); and increase Highway Trust Fund
    funding for Tribal High Priority Projects Program for fiscal year 2015
    with $35 million including $5 million annual increases until fiscal
    year 2020.
        7. National Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
    Grants.--The Cowlitz Tribe has in the past received a NAGPRA grant
    which helped fund a successful multi-tribe consortium to allow the re-
    interment of multiple ancestors at Fort Vancouver, Washington. The
    success of this project has created great opportunity for future multi-
    tribal projects to deal with long-standing concerns about repatriation
    issues. We would like to see continued funding of such projects,
    because there are still Native people and materials needing to be
    returned to their rightful places, as well as other projects the
    Cowlitz Tribe would like to undertake so we can continue to address
    these or similar situations as they arise.
                                   conclusion
        The Cowlitz Tribe would like to re-iterate our thanks and
    appreciation for the opportunity to testify on the development of
    appropriations under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. We look forward
    to working with members of Congress to continue to build upon our
    successes and address future needs. We urge Congress to uphold its
    solemn promises to tribes, even as policymakers seek to reduce the
    deficit through spending reductions and revenue generation. The Federal
    Government's obligations to Indian tribes reflect the Federal
    Government's general trust responsibility for tribes and are based on
    numerous long-standing agreements made between tribes and the United
    States.
        The Cowlitz Indian Tribe is happy to answer any questions Congress
    may have about the testimony we have provided here or about the
    programs we implement. Thank you again for your time to consider our
    testimony.
                                     ______

                        Prepared Statement of Dance/USA
    the importance of funding for the national endowment for the arts (nea)
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Dance/
    USA is grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of
    Dance/USA, its board of directors and its 500 members. We strongly urge
    the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies of the
    Committee on Appropriations to designate a total of $155 million to the
    National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2015. 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.
        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 dance, 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.
    the nea is a great investment in the economic growth of every community
        Despite diminished resources, including a budget that has decreased
    by over $20 million since 2010, the NEA awarded more than 2,100 grants
    in 2013, totaling more than $112 million in appropriated funds, and
    reaching more than 38 million people who attended live arts events
    through NEA-supported programs. 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. In 2013, the American creative sector was measured by the
    Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA and the NEA
    developed an ``Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account'' which
    calculated the arts and culture sector's contributions to the gross
    domestic product (GDP) at 3.2 percent (or $504 billion) of current-
    dollar GDP in 2011. Additionally, the nonprofit arts industry generates
    $135.2 billion annually in economic activity, supporting 4.13 million
    full-time equivalent jobs in the arts and related industries.
        On average each NEA grant leverages at least $9 from other State,
    local, and private sources, generating roughly $600 million in matching
    support. 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 cutbacks in the recent years, the NEA
    continues to be a beacon for arts organizations across the country.
        The return on investments 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 fiscal year 2013, the NEA awarded 164 grants to
    the dance field through Art Works, totaling $3,972,000.
                axis dance company--$20,000; oakland, california
        To support Dance Access and Dance Access/Kids! educational and
    outreach programs in the Bay Area and on a national tour. These
    activities will offer a variety of events for youth and adults with and
    without disabilities who are based locally and nationally.
            diavolo dance theatre--$20,000; los angeles, california
        To support educational and outreach programs during the company's
    national tour. The project will include a Young People's Concert,
    community workshops, master classes, and residencies. The Young
    People's Concert is an interactive student matinee show that includes
    choreography excerpts, discussion of teamwork, interactive exercises
    about movement and fitness, and active audience participation. Diavolo
    will work with presenters to tailor an educational and outreach program
    for each community on its tour.
                     eugene ballet--$30,000; eugene, oregon
        To support regional dance touring and outreach activities. The
    company will present a repertory program featuring Artistic Director
    Toni Pimble's ``Silk and Steel,'' ``Concerto Gross,'' a full-length
    ``Cinderella,'' and Gerald Arpino's ``Light Rain.'' The repertory
    program will also include school presentations of ``Pulcinella,'' with
    accompanying study guides for students.
               kansas city ballet--$20,000; kansas city, missouri
        To support New Moves, a showcase for new dance works by emerging
    local and national choreographers. The program will afford Kansas City
    Ballet members the opportunity to create, produce, and perform works
    while learning from nationally recognized choreographers. Performances
    will take place at the Michael and Ginger Frost Studio and Theater at
    Kansas City Ballet's Todd Bolender Center for Dance Creativity.
                nashville ballet--$20,000; nashville, tennessee
        To support the staging and presentation of choreographer Jiri
    Kylian's ``Petite Mort'' with live accompaniment by The Nashville
    Symphony. The work will be presented on the same bill as George
    Balanchine's ``Serenade,'' along with a new dance production by
    Artistic Director Paul Vasterling, choreographed to an original
    composition by Ben Folds.
                  the non-profit professional dance community
        America's dance companies perform a wide range of styles and
    genres. These include both classical and contemporary ballet, classical
    and contemporary modern, as well as jazz, tap, cross-disciplinary
    fusions and traditional to modern work rooted in other cultures. Over
    two-thirds of America's professional dance companies are less than 45
    years old; as an established art form with national identity and
    presence, dance has burst onto the scene almost entirely within living
    memory. And yet, America can boast some of the greatest dance companies
    of the world and can take credit for birthing two indigenous dance
    styles--tap and modern dance.
        One key to this spectacular achievement has been the creation of a
    national marketplace for dance. When the National Endowment for the
    Arts instituted its Dance Touring Program in the 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 14,800 people in a mix of full-time and part-time
            positions;
      --Paid approximately $345.7 million, or 53 percent of expenses, in
            wages and benefits;
      --Earned $200 million, or 29 percent of their income, from
            performances;
      --Received $326.6 million, or 48 percent of their income in
            contributions (including public support, corporate
            contributions, foundation support, and individual donations);
      --Generated more than $661.5 million in economic activity across the
            United States.
        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. Dance/USA's membership currently consists of nearly 500
    aerial, ballet, modern, culturally specific, 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 over $50 million.
                                   conclusion
        Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending
    Federal tax dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered
    from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties and found its budget
    further decreased by $22 million since 2010, leaving its programs
    seriously underfunded. We urge you to continue toward restoration and
    increase the NEA funding allocation to $155 million for fiscal year
    2015.
        On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Defenders of Wildlife
        Mister 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 one 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 U.S.
    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\ Cuts since fiscal year 2010 to Federal programs that
    conserve wildlife and habitat have severely undermined sound
    management. Funding decreases in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Endangered
    Species program delayed the recovery of endangered Florida manatees by
    preventing crucial habitat restoration work. 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 a 27 percent cut in the fiscal year 2014 House
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. FWS
    needs robust funding, not cuts, if it is to recover threatened and
    endangered species and protect migratory birds and fish, species of
    global conservation concern and other trust species, and stop or
    prevent wildlife crimes.
        Cooperative Recovery.--Defenders supports the President's requested
    increases of $1.5 million in Conservation and Restoration under
    Ecological Services and $300,000 under Migratory Bird Management. This
    initiative is supporting more efficient and strategic efforts across
    landscapes to recover threatened and endangered species on National
    Wildlife Refuges and surrounding lands.
        Renewable Energy.--Defenders supports the President's requested
    increases of $1.1 million in Planning and Consultation under Ecological
    Services to support approvals of renewable energy projects while
    ensuring they do not significantly harm wildlife, and $1.4 million
    under Service Science to assess potential impacts of energy
    transmission corridors on sensitive lands and wildlife in the West and
    to identify mitigation strategies.
        Endangered Species.--The President's request proposes a major
    restructuring of the Ecological Services Activity which includes the
    Endangered Species program. Defenders is concerned about whether the
    new structure will allow for adequate transparency and accountability,
    particularly in the large ``General Program Activities'' program
    elements. Before any such restructuring is permitted, the agency must
    show that it has adequate controls in place to ensure the strategic use
    of this funding and a transparent process for developing priorities and
    reporting how funds are allocated. Absent this information, Defenders
    supports maintaining the current budget structure and requests
    increases for the endangered species portion of Ecological Services,
    $21.7 million, which includes:
      --A $4 million increase to support the unprecedented effort to
            conserve the greater sage-grouse and its sagebrush habitat.
      --A $2.3 million increase for listing species. This funding will
            support progress in listing approximately 145 candidate
            species, many of which have awaited Endangered Species Act
            (ESA) protection for years.
      --An $11.1 million increase to support the recovery of the more than
            1,500 listed U.S. species so that ESA protection is no longer
            necessary.
      --Defenders opposes a $1 million reduction for the Wolf Livestock
            Loss Demonstration Program that assists livestock owners co-
            existing with wolves, and we urge its restoration.
        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 $2.4 billion each year for local
    economies. A September 2013 memorandum from the System's Chief detailed
    significant damage from budget cuts since fiscal year 2010 with
    conservation effectiveness in numerous areas declining dangerously. The
    request includes a $4.2 million increase which includes funding for
    Challenge Cost share projects with partners and volunteer groups and
    for law enforcement but it is not sufficient. Instead, Defenders
    supports an $8 million increase over fiscal year 2014 which is the
    minimal amount needed each year to keep up with operating costs such as
    fuel, utilities and rent. We also support legislative language proposed
    by the administration that would provide authority to recover
    compensation from responsible parties who injure or destroy Refuge
    System or Hatchery System resources similar to that of the National
    Park Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    and allows compensation to be applied directly to repair the injury
    without further appropriation by Congress.
        Cooperative Landscape Conservation.--Defenders supports the
    President's requested increase of $3.3 million that will support the
    continued development and work of the Landscape Conservation
    Cooperatives that are working to solve complex problems across large
    landscapes.
        Science Support.--The requested $14.4 million increase will help to
    answer pressing questions about climate adaptation and other landscape
    level ecological changes as well as about energy development, White-
    Nose Syndrome that is devastating bat populations, and other agency
    management challenges.
        Migratory Bird Management.--U.S. bird populations have experienced
    precipitous declines in recent years. Full funding of the program's
    $46.922 million request will support the program's work to survey and
    monitor, reduce hazards, manage permits, and restore habitat for
    migratory birds.
        Environmental Contaminants.--Under Ecological Services, a $1.2
    million increase in Planning and Consultation will help to support the
    process for national consultations related to pesticide registrations
    and a $2 million increase in Conservation and Restoration will help
    increase capacity to respond to impacts of contaminant releases.
        Office of Law Enforcement.--A $2.5 million increase requested by
    the President will support wildlife science forensics and efforts to
    combat an unprecedented level of illegal trade in wildlife.
        International Affairs.--A $1.1 million increase in the request will
    support local communities in reducing poaching of flagship species such
    as tigers, rhinoceros, and elephants.
        Other key grant programs.--Defenders supports the requested funding
    amounts for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, the
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, and the Cooperative Endangered Species
    Fund (CESF). We are opposed to the $8.695 million cut for State and
    Tribal Wildlife grants and urge that the program be funded at no less
    than the fiscal year 2014 level. In addition, we are opposed to the
    request to fund non-land acquisition planning and conservation grants
    from the Land and Water Conservation Fund under the CESF.
                  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.--The administration has again proposed merging a
    number of accounts, including Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat
    Management, into an integrated budget. Instead, Defenders supports
    maintaining funding for Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management at no
    less than the fiscal year 2014 level and continuing IRR as a pilot so
    that the agency can demonstrate its ability to adequately protect
    habitat for fish and wildlife under the consolidated program.
    ``Evaluating the Integrated Resource Restoration Line Item: Results
    from Phase 1,'' a recent independent study of the pilot program through
    the University of Oregon and Colorado State University, indicated that
    a combination of hard targets, including hard timber targets, coupled
    with declining budgets, may reduce investment in wildlife conservation.
        FS Land Management Planning/Inventory and Monitoring.--The request
    again proposes 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 at no
    less than the fiscal year 2014 level.
        FS Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.--We support
    the requested increase of $20 million for this proven cost-effective
    program established specifically to create job stability, achieve
    reliable wood supply, restore forest and watershed health, improve
    wildlife habitat, and reduce both the costs of fire suppression in
    overgrown forests and the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires.
        FS Forest and Rangeland Research (FS R&D).--We are opposed to the
    $17.490 million cut in the request for FS R&D and we urge funding at no
    less than the fiscal year 2014 level. Adequate funding for this program
    is crucial in providing relevant tools and information to support
    sustainable management of National Forest System lands as well as non-
    Federal forest lands. Generally, we are concerned that the Forest
    Service may lack adequate applied scientific capacity to implement
    critical planning and management actions, including the 2012 planning
    rule.
        BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy.--Defenders
    supports continued full funding of the $65.2 million request for the
    Wildlife and Fisheries Management program, a $347,000 increase, which
    includes support for the greater sage-grouse planning initiative, on-
    the-ground habitat restoration, and monitoring. We recently released an
    analysis of all draft plans developed under the Planning Strategy, ``In
    the Red: How Proposed Conservation Plans Fail to Protect Greater Sage-
    Grouse,'' which found that the plans in their current form recommend
    inconsistent and inadequate conservation measures. We urge the
    subcommittee to work with the agency to ensure that the plans are
    improved so that the final plans will be adequate to conserve and
    restore this iconic bird.
        BLM Threatened and Endangered Species Management.--According to
    agency reports, the BLM has funding to implement only about 10 percent
    of the work it is required to do in recovery plans for ESA listed
    species on BLM lands, but the request includes just a $178,000
    increase. Instead, Defenders supports an increase of $1 million over
    the request which simply restores the budget to the fiscal year 2010
    level and will better help move listed species to recovery.
        BLM Renewable Energy.--Full funding of the $29.2 million request, a
    $171,000 increase, will help BLM to move forward with renewable energy
    development on public lands while avoiding areas with natural resource
    conflicts, including conflicts with sensitive wildlife species.
        BLM Resource Management Planning.--The $5.2 million increase in the
    President's request is crucial to support priority planning efforts for
    vast areas of BLM lands, including maintaining the currency of resource
    management plans.
                             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 the
    following increases:
        National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center/Climate Science
    Centers.--An $11.6 million increase in the request will support
    scientific needs in planning for climate change adaptation and building
    resiliency of ecosystems.
        Ecosystems.--A $9.2 million increase in the request will help to
    support development of crucial scientific information for sound
    management of our Nation's biological resources including research into
    declines of native pollinators and measures needed to avoid harming
    sensitive wildlife, especially bats and birds, from renewable energy
    development.
                    land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
        Defenders supports the proposal in the request for full and
    permanent funding of LWCF that will help to save some of the 6,000
    acres of open space, including wildlife habitat, that are lost each day
    in the United States.\4\ Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/coop_across_boudaries.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

                       Prepared Statement of Denver Water
                                                         April 7, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: On behalf of Denver
    Water, I am requesting your support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations
    to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery
    Implementation Program consistent with the President's recommended
    budget. I request that the subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                             James S. Lochhead,
                                                           CEO/Manager.
                                     ______

              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 2015 programs for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
        The U.S. electric generation fleet is facing numerous challenges.
    Among these are EPA regulations, including pending rulemakings on Clean
    Water Act section 316(b) cooling water intake structures, coal ash
    disposal, ``waters of the U.S.,'' steam-electric effluent limitation
    guidelines, and greenhouse gas new source performance standards, as
    well as other significant pending Clean Air Act regulations. These
    requirements will dramatically affect individual utility decisions
    regarding 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.
                          waters of the united states
        On March 25, 2014, EPA released a draft proposed rule to revise the
    regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States'' (WOTUS) for
    purposes of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The draft would have the effect
    of expanding the scope of Federal CWA jurisdiction at the expense of
    State jurisdiction to virtually all waters and every program under the
    CWA.
        The draft rule, if implemented, would vastly expand the triggering
    of CWA regulatory and permitting requirements for electric utility
    land-use activities, including generation construction and operations,
    as well as transmission construction and maintenance. Decommissioning
    operations would also be negatively impacted.
        EPA asserts it is not changing the existing exemption from WOTUS
    for waste treatment systems; however, that is not clear from the
    proposed rule text. Modifying the current exclusion by regulatory fiat
    could require electric facilities to comply with CWA limitations prior
    to discharge into impoundments. Often, this is not even technically or
    economically feasible.
        Under EPA's proposal, the energy industry would face significant
    challenges in its effort to expand and upgrade infrastructure,
    primarily in the form of major project permitting delays, costly
    resource outlays for new permit applications, and an unprecedented
    level of regulatory uncertainty and inconsistency in the administration
    of CWA permitting programs. Such an outcome disregards the
    administration's commitment to streamline permitting timelines and
    promote early Federal, State and local coordination for Federal
    permitting processes applicable to domestic energy infrastructure
    programs.
        In light of the significant and numerous legal, economic and
    scientific deficiencies with this proposal, EEI respectfully urges the
    subcommittee to adopt a legislative amendment to its fiscal year 2015
    legislation that would bar EPA from implementing a final rule. In the
    alternative, we request that the subcommittee require the agency to
    contract with the National Academy of Sciences for a study to establish
    a scientific basis for defining a ``significant nexus'' to guide
    development of a more scientifically grounded regulatory standard.
      clean waters act section 316(b) cooling water intake structures rule
        In 2011, EPA issued a proposed rule under Section 316(b) of the
    Clean Water Act. The proposal, which is now expected to be finalized by
    April 17, 2014, will require changes in ``cooling waters intake
    structures,'' physical constructions through which water is withdrawn
    for cooling purposes, 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 attributed to ``impingement'' on intake structure
    screens and ``entrainment'' into cooling water systems.
        The proposed 316(b) rule would apply to facilities whose
    construction began before January 18, 2002, and where the total design
    intake flow of the cooling water intake structure(s) is greater than 2
    million gallons of water per day. It would apply to all existing steam-
    electric facilities, including ones that have closed-cycle cooling and
    those that have once-through cooling. Importantly, the rule does not
    distinguish between nuclear, coal and gas units.
        EEI continues to believe that a science-based rule, one that is
    fair and flexible, should include reasonable compliance requirements
    and deadlines. In order to protect the environment and avoid
    unnecessary burdens on electricity consumers, such a rule should only
    impose technically justifiable mandates when costs--commensurate with
    benefits--are part of the appropriate course of action. We remain
    concerned that an overly prescriptive, rigid rule would encourage
    unnecessary retrofits and result in significant negative environmental,
    energy, cost, and local reliability impacts on hundreds of electric
    generation facilities across the country.
        With several unresolved implementation issues undergoing final
    interagency review, EEI urges the subcommittee to ensure that a final
    316(b) rule addresses electric system reliability and encourages the
    use of flexible compliance mechanisms in a cost-effective manner.
                       coal combustion product regulation
        EPA's Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule is currently in proposed
    form. The proposal offers two options--regulating coal ash as either
    hazardous waste or as non-hazardous waste. EEI continues to advocate
    for the non-hazardous regulatory framework that provides a workable
    timeline for implementation and protects safety, human health and the
    environment.
        In addition, we continue to advocate for legislation that would
    establish a Federal non-hazardous, State-implemented waste regulatory
    program for coal ash disposal. In July 2013, the House of
    Representatives passed such legislation, H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals
    Reuse and Management Act. Later this year the Senate is expected to
    introduce a companion bill.
        EEI urges subcommittee support for a non-hazardous regulatory
    program for CCRs similar to the provisions outlined in H.R. 2218. Such
    an approach would build on existing State regulatory programs and
    ensure proper disposal of CCRs in a manner that is cost-effective and
    without unintended consequences. This approach enjoys bipartisan
    support in Congress and has been endorsed by the States, ash recyclers
    and our industry.
                   effluent limitation guidelines rulemaking
        In June 2013, EPA proposed the first significant revision of the
    Clean Water Act steam effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) in more
    than 30 years. The proposal sets strict technology-based effluent
    limitations that will force technological and operational changes at
    existing coal-based facilities, many gas-based combined-cycle
    facilities, and some nuclear generation facilities. The impact to
    industry on the effluent guidelines rule could be in the hundreds of
    billions of dollars.
        In September 2013, EEI filed extensive agency comments, noting that
    most of the proposed compliance options would impose substantial costs
    on the electric generation fleet without providing corresponding
    benefits. We have requested the agency to provide adequate time for
    utilities to implement any new requirements in the final ELG rule, as
    well as coordinate compliance with other rulemakings that affect the
    power industry. EPA must also revise its technical approaches with more
    current and reliable data.
        We look forward to working with the subcommittee to ensure EPA
    fully considers the economic challenges and obligations of the power
    sector as a whole, and that criteria for the final rule is based on
    credible and sound data to achieve maximum, cost-effective reductions.
      greenhouse gas new source performance standards (nsps) for new and
                                existing sources
        The electric power sector has made impressive reductions in its
    greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including a 15 percent reduction from
    2005 levels as of 2012. Nevertheless, major steps in the development of
    GHG emissions regulations will occur this year as EPA moves forward
    with Clean Air Act performance standards for both new and existing
    sources.
    New Sources
        In September 2013, EPA issued re-proposed New Source Performance
    Standards (NSPS) for new units. These re-proposed standards, which
    replaced a proposal in April 2012, were published in the Federal
    Register on January 8, 2014.
        EEI is developing industry comments that will largely track those
    filed on the original 2012 proposal. We remain concerned about the
    ability of natural gas units to comply with the standards under normal
    operating conditions, especially as more variable renewable resources
    are deployed, causing natural gas units to cycle more to support the
    integration of such resources into the grid.
        We also are concerned about the lack of an explicit exemption for
    simple-cycle combustion turbines, and continue to object to EPA's
    determination that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a commercially
    demonstrated technology for coal-based electric generating units at
    this time. While EPA has proposed a separate standard for coal, it has
    not created a workable pathway for coal going forward given the costs
    and other regulatory barriers to CCS.
        EPA is not compelled to finalize the new source standards by any
    particular date. At this time, the agency is not expected to finalize
    these standards until mid-2015, when existing source guidelines are
    expected to be promulgated.
    Existing Sources
        EPA has begun its initial, pre-proposal efforts to develop State
    guidelines for existing plants under CAA section 111(d). EPA,
    separately, will be addressing modified and reconstructed plants. The
    timeline includes proposing State emissions guidelines for existing
    sources by June 2014 and the finalization of guidelines by June 2015.
    Theoretically, States would have 1 year to develop and submit to EPA a
    plan to implement the guidelines, though expectations are that this
    process will take longer.
        We believe EPA should provide States with maximum flexibility when
    creating compliance plans and should give credit for a wide range of
    actions taken to date that have resulted in GHG emission reductions. It
    is also 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.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, EEI truly values the partnership that
    we share with your subcommittee, and we look forward to continuing our
    dialogue with you throughout the year.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Entomological Society of America
        The Entomological Society of America (ESA) respectfully submits
    this statement for the official record in support of funding for
    entomology-related activities at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
    Forest Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ESA
    requests a robust fiscal year 2015 appropriation for the Forest Service
    and requests that the Forest and Rangeland Research budget is
    maintained at a level at least equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted
    amount of $292.8 million to preserve valuable invasive species research
    and development. The Society also supports continued investment in
    Forest Health Management programs across the Forest Service in fiscal
    year 2015. In addition, ESA recommends strong funding for EPA,
    including Pesticides Licensing Program Area activities within its
    Science & Technology and Environmental Program & Management budgets, as
    well as continued support for State & Tribal Assistance Grants for
    Pesticide Program Implementation. Finally, ESA supports a proposal in
    the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request to establish a $45
    million multi-agency initiative addressing pollinator health, including
    involvement by EPA to examine the potential impact of pesticides and
    ensure that pesticides represent acceptable risks to pollinator health.
        Advances in forestry and environmental sciences, including the
    field of entomology, help to protect our ecosystems and communities
    from threats impacting our Nation's economy, public health, and
    agricultural productivity and safety. Through improved understanding of
    invasive insect pests and the development of biological approaches to
    pest management, entomology plays a critical role in reducing and
    preventing the spread of infestation and diseases harmful to national
    forests and grasslands. The study of entomology also contributes to the
    development of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques, which use
    science-based, environmentally friendly, comprehensive methods to take
    preventative action against pests, often resulting in lower costs and a
    more targeted use of pesticides. In addition, entomology improves our
    knowledge of pollinator biology and the factors affecting pollinator
    health and populations, helping to ensure safe, reliable crop
    production that meets the needs of a growing world population.
        The U.S. Forest Service sustains the health, diversity, and
    productivity of 193 million acres of public lands in national forests
    and grasslands across 44 States and territories. Serving as the largest
    supporter of forestry research in the world, the agency employs
    approximately 35,000 scientists, administrators, and land managers. In
    addition to activities at the Federal level, the Forest Service
    provides technical expertise and financial assistance to State and
    private forestry agency partners.
        The Forest Service's Forest and Rangeland Research budget supports
    the development and delivery of scientific data and innovative
    technological tools to improve the health, use, and management of the
    Nation's forests and rangelands. Within Forest and Rangeland Research,
    the Invasive Species Strategic Program Area provides scientifically
    based approaches to reduce and prevent the introduction, spread, and
    impact of non-native invasive species, including destructive insects,
    plants, and diseases that can have serious economic and environmental
    consequences for our Nation. For example, Forest Service scientists are
    working to prevent the devastation of ash trees across North America by
    the emerald ash borer, an invasive beetle that was accidentally
    introduced from Asia. Emerald ash borer was first detected in 2002 and,
    since then, has killed countless millions of ash trees. This biological
    invasion threatens to eliminate all ash trees from North America, and
    is the most costly invasion from a forest insect to date. To attempt to
    address the problem, researchers have developed a multi-tiered program
    that includes removal of infested trees, new insecticides, and
    introduction of several species of parasitic wasps into ash borer-
    infested U.S. forests. The scientists found that the wasps, known to
    parasitize and kill emerald ash borer eggs and larvae, have helped to
    slow the spread of the ash borer invasion in recent years.\1\ Emerald
    ash borer is just one of the exponentially growing list of invasive
    insects and diseases that cause harm to our Nation's forests and to our
    Nation's economy. Forest health is also affected by invasive weeds, and
    those weeds are often best controlled by beneficial insects used as
    biological control agents, resulting in permanent and often spectacular
    control. ESA strongly opposes the proposed cuts to Forest and Rangeland
    Research included in the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request,
    especially the 8.0 percent reduction directed at invasive species
    research and development.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Forest Service fiscal year 2015 Budget Justification: http://
    www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2015/FS15-FS-Budget-Justification.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Also under the purview of the Forest Service is the Forest Health
    Management program, which conducts mapping and surveys on public and
    private lands to monitor and assess risks from potentially harmful
    insects, diseases, and invasive plants. The program also provides
    assistance to State and local partners to help prevent and control
    outbreaks that endanger forest health. According to a 2011 study,
    invasive forest insects cost local governments alone an average of over
    $2 billion per year; direct costs to homeowners from property loss,
    tree removal, and treatment exceed an additional $2.5 billion per
    year.\2\ The program's ``Slow the Spread'' activities, for example,
    have led to a 60 percent reduction in the rate of the spread of an
    invasive species known as gypsy moth, resulting in an estimated
    benefit-to-cost ratio of 3:1. Without the program, it is estimated that
    50 million additional acres would have been infested by the moth.\3\ To
    support these important functions, ESA requests that the subcommittee
    maintain strong funding for the Forest Health Management Program in
    fiscal year 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Aukema, J.E.; Leung, B.; Kovacs, K.; [et al.]. 2011. Economic
    impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States.
    PLoS ONE 6(9): e24587.
        \3\ Forest Service fiscal year 2015 Budget Overview: http://
    www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2015/FY15-FS-Budget-Overview.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EPA carries out its mission of protecting human health and the
    environment by developing and enforcing regulations, awarding grants
    for research and other projects, conducting studies on environmental
    issues, facilitating partnerships, and providing information through
    public outreach. Through these efforts, EPA strives to ensure that our
    Nation enjoys clean water, clean air, a safe food supply, and
    communities free from pollution and harmful chemicals.
        EPA's Pesticides Licensing Program Area, supported by EPA's Science
    & Technology and Environmental Program & Management budgets, serves to
    evaluate and regulate new pesticides to ensure safe and proper usage by
    consumers. Through the mandate of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
    and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA utilizes scientific expertise and
    data, including knowledge gained from entomological sciences, to set
    maximum tolerated residue levels and to register pesticide products as
    effective and safe. By controlling insects that act as vectors of
    diseases of humans and domesticated animals, and invasive insect
    species that endanger our environment, pesticides registered by EPA
    help protect public health and the Nation's food supply. EPA's
    activities in this area also include the development of educational
    information and outreach to encourage the use of IPM and other reduced-
    risk methods of controlling pests. For example, EPA recently awarded
    three grants to universities to help facilitate the use of IPM
    practices in schools in multiple States, helping to promote cost-
    effective strategies that reduce student exposure to pesticides and
    pests. Due to previous work in this area, 18 Indiana schools have
    reduced pest control costs by 90 percent by employing new IPM
    techniques.\4\ The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request includes
    plans to reduce funding for IPM efforts in schools in favor of other
    priority activities. However, IPM strategies used in schools reduce
    student exposure to pesticides as well as allergens from pests
    themselves. Therefore, ESA supports continuing the modest funding that
    EPA has invested in school IPM.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ March 12, 2014 EPA press release: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/
    admpress.nsf/596e17d7cac720848525781f0043629e/
    ebef2aed5d69e01585257c99006af60d!OpenDocument.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Among EPA's State & Tribal Assistance Grants, categorical grants in
    the area of Pesticides Program Implementation help to facilitate the
    translation of national pesticide regulatory information into real-
    world approaches that work for local communities. For example, these
    grants fund efforts to reduce health and environmental risks associated
    with pesticide use by promoting, facilitating, and evaluating IPM
    techniques and other potentially safer alternatives to conventional
    pest control methods. ESA requests that the subcommittee maintain
    support for Pesticides Program Implementation grants.
        ESA is in favor of increased funding for scientifically based
    studies of pollinator populations and health. Pollinators play a vital
    role in our Nation's agriculture industry; for example, bees pollinate
    more than 90 crops in the United States and are essential for the
    production of an estimated 70 percent of all the food we eat or export.
    To ensure a healthy bee population, more research is needed to fully
    understand the complexities of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and to
    examine the diverse factors that endanger bee health. Pesticides
    represent just one potential risk to bees, but both the risks and
    benefits must be balanced, and those risks and benefits will vary among
    different crops and different crop-producing regions of the United
    States. EPA is well-positioned to help identify methods for protecting
    bee health; the agency recently awarded agricultural grants to three
    universities to aid in the development of IPM practices that lower
    pesticide risks to bees while protecting valuable crops from pests. For
    this reason, ESA supports EPA's participation in a proposed multi-
    agency initiative to investigate pollinator health and develop
    implementation plans to prevent pollinator population decline.
        ESA, headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, is the largest
    organization in the world serving the professional and scientific needs
    of entomologists and individuals in related disciplines. Founded in
    1889, ESA has nearly 7,000 members affiliated with educational
    institutions, health agencies, private industry, and government.
    Members are researchers, teachers, extension service personnel,
    administrators, marketing representatives, research technicians,
    consultants, students, pest management professionals, and hobbyists.
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer the Entomological Society of
    America's support for Forest Service and EPA programs. For more
    information about the Entomological Society of America, please see
    http://www.entsoc.org/.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition
        The following testimony is submitted on behalf of the Federal
    Forest Resource which represents purchasers of Federal timber in 32
    States, with over 650 member companies and affiliated associations,
    collectively representing over 390,000 employees.
        We make the following specific programmatic recommendations for
    fiscal year 2015:
        Enact the budget cap exception recommended in the President's
    request and in H.R. 3992, the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act; Focus
    increased investments (15 percent increases) on National Forest Timber
    Management, Wildland Hazardous Fuels Reduction, and Capital Improvement
    & Maintenance; Continue CFLR projects to demonstrate collaborative
    forest management. We strongly applaud the administration's budget for
    proposing to increase timber outputs by almost 16 percent, and we
    endorse the bi-partisan approach to wildfire funding in the Wildfire
    Disaster Funding Act.
        Our Mills Rely on Predictable, and Growing Supplies of Timber.--The
    forest products industry is extremely capital intensive. Our member
    companies have significant investments in logging and mill
    infrastructure, which can help offset the costs of managing the
    National Forests and return money to the Treasury. After weathering the
    worst recession our industry has seen in almost a century, forest
    products companies are seeing the benefits of a rebounding economy and
    international markets, providing us an opportunity to modernize and
    remain competitive. Several issues at the Forest Service inhibit our
    ability to grow and compete. Unpredictable timber supplies caused by
    erratic appropriations, fire borrowing, and obstructionist tactics by a
    minority of radical groups make it difficult to commit to the
    investments needed to keep our companies viable.
        Eliminating Fire Borrowing, Provide Stable Appropriations.--Last
    year was the second in a row in which the Forest Service redirected
    significant funds (over $600 million) from other programs to pay for
    wildfire suppression activities. Programs which directly support
    improved forest health are among those penalized the most by this
    process. The pattern of borrowing disrupts forest management and delays
    timber sale projects unnecessarily, while doing nothing to help ensure
    honest budgeting or reduced costs. Suppression borrowing concerns cause
    the Forest Service to freeze accounts early in the summer, stopping
    vital timber sale projects and Stewardship contract negotiations. The
    Wildfire Disaster Funding Act holds tremendous promise and we urge the
    Committee to move forward with it this year.
        We also stress that the Forest Service has had to manage through a
    long series of continuing resolutions, some lasting as little as a few
    days. This culminated with the disruptive Government shutdown, which
    halted 1,200 active timber sales. Contractors were given very little
    time to close up operations and remove machinery from the woods. The
    working men and women on our logging crews and in our mills should not
    be the unintended collateral damage in high stakes political fights.
    Disruptions in the timber sale program make it harder to manage the
    National Forests, harder to reduce fuel loads, and harder for our
    member companies to justify making the capital investments needed to
    remain competitive. We urge Congress to use the appropriations process
    to minimize these disruptions to the greatest extent possible.
        The Need for Management.--As you know, the National Forest System
    is experiencing significant forest health challenges. The Chief has
    testified that the National Forests have between 65 and 82 million
    acres in need of active management, with 45 million acres decimated by
    bark beetles in the Rocky Mountains alone. Further, the Forest Service
    has a $5.6 billion capital facilities maintenance backlog. 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. Faced with deteriorating forest health and crumbling facilities,
    we urge Congress to prioritize management and maintenance over
    expansion of an overtaxed National Forest System.
        The Need to Increase the Pace and Scale of Forest Management.--In
    early 2012, the administration publicly committed to increasing the
    pace and scale of managing the National Forest System, arguing that by
    expanding forest restoration programs, forest health would improve,
    fire danger would decrease, and timber outputs would climb to over 3
    billion board feet. We applaud their 2015 budget request for attempting
    to translate that commitment into action. However, we urge the
    subcommittee to take a more direct route than that proposed by the
    administration.
        The administration has once again proposed a consolidated line
    item, ``Integrated Resource Restoration'', funded at $820 million for
    fiscal year 2015. As you know, this program has been implemented as a
    pilot program in Regions 1, 3, and 4 since 2010. We have not seen any
    indication that the pilot regions are experiencing a reduction in unit
    costs, whether the metric is acres treated or units of wood produced.
    Region 1, in particular, remains extraordinarily dysfunctional, with
    timber output plummeting by more than 58 percent in Montana since the
    pilot program began. There is no indication that an integrated or
    collaborative approach has reduced the appetite for obstruction among
    extremist groups who oppose all management.
        Further, each of these Regions relies heavily on personal use fire
    wood to meet their timber harvest goals and to artificially reduce
    their unit costs. The three pilot Regions' timber programs included 31
    percent, 21 percent, and 43 percent firewood, respectively. When
    firewood is factored out, Region 1 and Region 4 had unit costs of over
    $224 and $137 per thousand board feet each, making them the least
    efficient Regions in the lower 48. IRR has made use of funds more
    difficult to track and budget comparisons item to item or year to year
    almost impossible.
        Fiscal Year 2015 would be the 5th full fiscal year of IRR at the
    pilot level. Ultimately, we aren't getting restoration or treatments
    achieved through this program. We urge you to end the pilot program and
    we oppose expansion to the rest of the country.
        The administration has also recommended expanding the Collaborative
    Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLR) by 50 percent, increasing
    the funding from the currently authorized level of $40 million per year
    to $60 million per year. We have similar concerns about CFLR as we do
    the IRR program. The Federal Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC) members
    are actively engaged in CFLR projects across the country. In many
    cases, our members are among the leaders in these collaborative
    efforts. However, as of today, we have yet to see significant results
    from these projects, and drastically increasing the allocation of funds
    to CFLR is not justified at this time.
        We recently surveyed our members on the successes and failures of
    the CFLR projects they are involved in. Just 60 percent said that the
    program had led to increased timber outputs and increased acres
    thinned. Only 53 percent said the program had reduced controversy
    around managing the National Forests. In many cases, our members
    reported that CFLR projects had completed no new National Environmental
    Policy Act (NEPA) documents, and in fact were reporting accomplishments
    from projects whose NEPA was completed prior to the designation of the
    CFLR projects.
        We are extremely concerned about the lack of concrete matching
    funds for already selected CFLR projects. We support continued funding
    for CFLR at the authorized level. Congress should take steps to ensure
    that CFLR funds are truly supplemental to, not displacing, regular
    funds for the National Forest System (NFS) units with projects.
    Stricter matching requirements to ensure concrete financial matches
    should also be implemented. We urge the Committee to direct the Forest
    Service to expand management across the country, and not simply focus
    on CFLR project areas. There are many opportunities, and many
    authorities, for expanded management.
        The Need to Increase Efficiency in NFS Management.--As an industry,
    we have learned how to economize, reduce costs, and do more with less.
    We recognize that the Nation's fiscal situation demands austerity, and
    we dialogue constantly with Federal land managers to find ways to
    reduce costs and increase efficiency. Congress has been at the
    forefront of these efforts. In recent years, the Congress has: Replaced
    cumbersome administrative appeals with a streamlined objection process;
    exempted projects that use a Categorical Exclusion from administrative
    appeal or objection; expanded the use of designation by description to
    all timber sales; and expanded forest health authorities beyond the
    Wildland-Urban Interface.
        We strongly urge you to continue these efforts by directing 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; focus higher yielding forest management
    projects on lands designated as suitable for timber production; and
    meet a goal of 3.5 billion board feet in fiscal year 2015.
        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 in existing forest plans. In many Regions, the
    Forest Service is falling short of its own management goals; including
    response to the bark beetle outbreak in the Rockies and in managing
    aspen habitat in the Lake States. Stepping up management, through
    collaboratives where they exist and normal timber programs elsewhere,
    will address pressing forest health concerns while bolstering
    employment in economically distressed rural communities. 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.
        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, significantly reduce threats
    from wildfire and forest pests.
        BLM Forest Management.--The President's fiscal year 2015 budget
    includes a 9.1 percent reduction in funding for the Bureau of Land
    Management Oregon and California (BLM O&C) Land Management Program.
    FFRC strongly supports reforming these critically important and
    productive timberlands. We urge the Committee to reject the proposed
    reduction and fund the O&C program at least at the 2014 enacted level.
    Aggressive action is needed to offer regeneration harvests from these
    lands that meet the needs of local mills and communities. We strongly
    support the Presidential Decree (PD) Forest Management Program at no
    less than the President's recommended level of $9.9 million.
        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 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 insure that USFS sales are not offered as deficit sales.
        Conclusion.--Wood product demand remains strong, providing an
    opportunity to expand management on the National Forests. More forest
    management work 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 Federation of State Humanities Councils
        The Federation of State Humanities Councils respectfully requests
    that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior allocate
    $154.5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and
    $46 million for the Federal/State Partnership for fiscal year 2015.
        We would like to thank the members of this subcommittee for your
    past support. The funding included in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus bill
    for State Humanities Councils was extremely helpful to these
    organizations, particularly following the severe cuts of the previous
    year. Councils are careful stewards of these funds, which they
    administer strategically to achieve the maximum benefit for the
    communities in their States. As full partners of the NEH, councils
    receive their core funding through the Federal/State Partnership line
    of the NEH budget, which they use to leverage additional support from
    foundations, corporations, private individuals, and State governments.
    In 2013, every Federal dollar the councils awarded through grants to
    local institutions leveraged, on average, $5.00 in local contributions.
    Councils further extended their resources by forming partnerships with
    more than 9,000 organizations throughout their States.
        These numbers tell part of the story--but not the most important
    part. Council programs improve not just individual lives but also the
    civic and cultural lives of the communities in your States. The
    benefits of the Federal funds invested in the State Humanities Councils
    are realized through programs that (1) preserve local history and
    culture, (2) support veterans, (3) serve rural communities, (4) reach
    diverse audiences, (5) boost local economies, (6) enhance national
    security, and (7) promote lifelong learning.
        Council programs preserve local history and culture.--Programs that
    help communities understand and appreciate their history have been a
    staple of council work from the beginning, illuminating the events and
    conditions that have shaped these unique places. Consider, for example,
    the Idaho Humanities Council's ``Wilderness Considered'' reading and
    discussion series, developed to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the
    1964 Wilderness Act. This program is designed not only to look at the
    idea of wilderness in the American imagination but also to explore the
    particular relationship that Idahoans ranging from ranchers to
    snowmobilers to hunters and hikers have to wild places and the impact
    this relationship has had on the State's character. Humanities
    Washington, in partnership with the State Historical Society, is
    travelling an exhibit entitled ``Hope in Hard Times'' to eight
    communities. The exhibit and related activities will allow participants
    to reflect on the ways Washingtonians during the Great Depression coped
    with their struggles and sustained hope for a better future. It will
    also invite them to share family and community stories as a means of
    looking at the impact of that history on their own lives, reminding
    themselves to look for their own opportunities to create change.
        Though councils have been supporting such programs throughout their
    history, they have continually explored fresh approaches, involving
    scholars in new ways, engaging audiences more interactively, and
    employing the many electronic tools at hand. The online State
    encyclopedias developed by councils have given residents, visitors, and
    educators unprecedented and constantly evolving access to the history
    of the State. The Virginia encyclopedia, to cite an outstanding
    example, allows visitors to scroll through an alphabetical index of
    State figures and events, browse an interactive map, or bore more
    deeply into topics covered by the blog. The encyclopedia also provides
    resources for teachers and researchers.
        In addition, council programs bring to light stories long hidden
    but crucial to the State's or a community's understanding of its
    culture and identity. The Minnesota Humanities Center, in partnership
    with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council and the National Museum of
    the American Indian, developed an exhibit, ``Why Treaties Matter: Self-
    Government in the Dakota and Ojibwe Nations,'' that has given more than
    50,000 Minnesotans in 39 communities a deeper understanding of the
    circumstances surrounding Minnesota land, its use, and the treatment of
    the land's indigenous people, historically and today. The exhibit has
    also been used in schools, prompting Kevin Gover, Director of the
    National Museum of the American Indian to observe, ``Together, we can
    work to educate a new generation of Minnesotans who understand basic
    important facts about Minnesota's tribal nations.''
        Finally, the Rhode Island Council for the Humanities is
    collaborating with Brown University on Rhode Tour, a new statewide
    digital history project. Rhode Tour features a smartphone app with GPS
    that uses oral histories, pictures, and sound to tell Rhode Island's
    story. The Rhode Island Council is partnering with organizations
    throughout the State to provide the content for this digital history
    tour, including stories on environmental, economic, and social issues.
        Councils serve veterans.--A number of agencies and groups provide
    services and programs for veterans, but the humanities have a special
    role to play. Humanities scholars and facilitators have proven skill at
    drawing out stories and exploring their meaning. Council programs look
    at larger and deeper questions of what it means to individuals to be in
    violent circumstances and what it means to a society to place their men
    and women in such conditions. Over the past few years, councils have
    developed a rich array of programs for and about veterans. These
    include, among others, the Missouri Humanities Council's ``Proud to
    Be'' volumes of veterans writings, the council-sponsored Literature and
    Medicine reading and discussion programs for veterans' caregivers
    throughout the country, and the Veterans' Voices programs sponsored by
    the Minnesota Humanities Center and Humanities Texas that explore the
    veteran experience through plays and discussion groups.
        Cal Humanities recently announced a statewide multi-year program,
    ``War Comes Home,'' that will launch hundreds of events involving
    dozens of partners throughout the State. Through speakers, reading and
    discussion groups, public forums, oral histories, and teacher
    resources, the program will help veterans and their families and
    communities explore how Californians are welcoming their returning
    veterans. All these council-sponsored programs have the potential not
    only to allow veterans to tell their stories and to begin to re-
    integrate into their communities, but also to compel the public to
    listen, to wrestle with the consequences of sending people to war and
    bringing them home, and to claim their own role and responsibility in
    this process.
        Councils serve rural communities.--A recent Federation survey
    revealed that council programs reached more than 6,000 communities last
    year, many in rural, even remote areas, where they are often the only
    programs of this sort that small towns have access to. Whether they
    involve individual speakers who stimulate a discussion well into the
    evening, a reading and discussion program at the local library, or a
    facilitated community conversation about an issue of concern, these
    programs strengthen and revitalize communities. They unite and
    enlighten residents. They encourage habits of dialogue.
        The highly successful Museum on Main Street program, the product of
    a partnership between State councils and the Smithsonian and designed
    specifically for rural communities, shows the lasting benefits of a
    relatively modest investment. Last year Frederick, Oklahoma, with a
    population just under 4,000, hosted the exhibit ``New Harmonies:
    Celebrating American Roots Music,'' which explored music, history, and
    cultural movements such as desegregation and gender equality. The
    Center's exhibit and program attendance grew by 50 percent and
    donations increased by 150 percent. The Alaska Humanities Forum's
    ``Take Wing Alaska'' program helps rural Native Alaska students adjust
    to urban college settings, with the ultimate aim of their gaining
    knowledge to strengthen their communities once they return. The Forum
    sponsors Urban and Campus Immersions in Anchorage that focus not only
    on academic skills, but also on cultural strengths the students can use
    to transition from a rural to an urban environment.
        Council programs reach citizens of all ages, incomes, and levels of
    education.--Increasingly, council programs engage young adults as well
    as seniors, a variety of ethnic communities, immigrants, low-income
    families, prison populations, and Native Americans. These groups are
    not just passive recipients of council programs but partners and active
    participants.
        As our future leaders, teens and young adults are especially
    important participants in humanities programs. Several councils support
    or coordinate their State's National History Day, which offers students
    intellectual, practical, and even emotional benefits. The Pennsylvania
    council offers vibrant interactive programming for students with the
    library-based Teen Reading Lounge. These programs supplement formal
    education for young people and help instill habits of communication and
    critical thinking that will serve them well into adulthood.
        Councils also conduct programs that help immigrants and refugees
    adjust to their new homes and enable long-time residents to learn about
    the cultures of these new citizens. The New York Council for the
    Humanities, in collaboration with the Citizens Committee for New York
    City and several other groups, provided grants to faith-based or
    neighborhood-based immigrant and cultural groups to encourage unity
    through active engagement between new immigrant groups and their
    longer-term neighbors as well as residents of different faiths.
    Projects funded in 2013 through this first-of-its-kind program included
    an interfaith celebration of Eid hosted by Afghans United, a cross-
    cultural mural project with students from different ethnic and racial
    backgrounds, and a film series sponsored by the National Council of
    Negro Women that encouraged members of diverse communities to view and
    discuss films about a variety of immigrant experiences.
        Council programs boost local economies.--Council programs help
    improve and revitalize such institutions as libraries, museums, and
    schools, which gives communities a vibrancy that draws both new
    residents and potential investors. Many councils conduct books
    festivals that bring dollars to local economies. Many use the Museum on
    Main Street exhibits to draw tourists. Still others are steadily
    building cultural tourism programs that leverage local dollars. In
    Ohio, where tourism is the fourth largest economic drive in the State,
    Ohio Humanities offers grants and technical assistance to communities
    seeking to engage in heritage tourism, offering authentic place-based
    experiences for travelers. The council has also produced driving tours
    drawing from ``The Ohio Guide,'' the 1940 publication of the Federal
    Writers Project. Communities along the 11 selected routes report that
    the tours have increased visitation.
        The many book festivals that councils conduct in States including
    Tennessee, Montana, Colorado, Virginia, South Carolina, and South
    Dakota serve as another economic boost for host communities, drawing
    readers and tourists from all regions of the State and beyond. A recent
    economic impact study by the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and
    Visitors Bureau estimated the Virginia Festival of the Book's total
    impact at $3.9M. Over 600 hotel rooms are booked each year for the
    South Carolina Book Festival, which generates more than $100,000 in
    book sales. The Utah Humanities Council's statewide Book Festival has
    for 16 years brought Utah readers and writers together with authors
    from around the world to talk about books and ideas. Throughout the
    month of October (National Book Month) historians, journalists,
    biographers, politicians, and members of the public mingle with poets,
    novelists, and children's writers in communities in every corner of the
    State, both enriching the intellectual and cultural lives and
    contributing to the economies of those communities.
        The humanities and the humanities councils increase national
    security.--Clearly councils do not directly affect national security
    policy-making, but council programs contribute to the citizen
    understanding of global issues that is the necessary prerequisite to
    citizen involvement with the decisionmaking process and the elected
    officials who do make these decisions. The Maine Humanities Council
    offers evidence of the validity of this assumption with ``The World in
    Your Library: A Foreign Policy Speakers Series,'' a speaker series
    through which local libraries host three one-hour presentations, with
    discussion, on foreign policy issues of their choice, providing a rare
    opportunity for residents to explore these issues with experts in
    foreign policy.
        Finally, council programs promote lifelong learning.--This learning
    extends to citizens who participate in the many community conversations
    conducted by councils, to teachers who benefit from the council-
    sponsored institutes and seminars that enrich and re-energize them, to
    the parents and children who improve their reading skills and engage
    with ideas through councils' family literacy programs.
        The Virginia Foundation for the Humanities recently offered a
    program, ``Segregation, Desegregation and Civil Rights in Virginia,''
    that provided learning opportunities for several audiences. First, it
    offered a day-long seminar that used events surrounding the 1959 school
    closings in Arlington and Prince Edward county to help teachers
    ``consider new ways to understand and teach this multi-layered history;
    the ways our collective understanding of citizenship and community was
    challenged during the desegregation era; and why this history still
    matters--and the issues remain current--in the present day.'' The
    workshop was followed by a community conversation inviting residents to
    recall their own experience of those years and discuss why these issues
    still matter.
        We have offered only a small sampling of the programs that enrich
    and enliven communities throughout the Nation. We hope these examples
    have demonstrated the significant difference that this modest
    investment in Federal funds makes. And we hope you will look with favor
    on our request for $46 million for the councils and $154.5 million for
    NEH.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Fire Suppression Funding Solutions Partner
                                     Caucus
        The undersigned organizations, members of the Fire Suppression
    Funding Solutions Partner Caucus, urge the subcommittee to address the
    vexing issue of wildfire suppression funding in fiscal year 2015
    appropriations. We respectfully request that the subcommittee correct
    this wildfire suppression funding issue by including language from the
    bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (WDFA--H.R. 3992; S. 1875) in
    the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill. This language provides the structure to fund a
    portion of the USDA Forest Service (USFS) and Department of the
    Interior (DOI) wildfire suppression costs through a budget cap
    adjustment under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
    of 1985, as amended. This would provide the USFS and DOI with a funding
    structure similar to that used by other agencies who respond to natural
    disaster emergencies.
        The Partner Caucus is a diverse coalition of organizations brought
    together in January of 2009 to find a solution to the impacts of
    increasing suppression costs on land management agencies. Our coalition
    includes national and local organizations, State forestry,
    environmentalists, outdoor and recreation industry, sportsmen, timber
    industry, local governments and many other groups interested in Federal
    lands.
        Our organizations are concerned current spending levels for the
    suppression and FLAME accounts will not be sufficient for fiscal year
    2015 and certainly not sustainable over the long term. The current
    wildfire suppression funding model and cycle of transfers and
    repayments has negatively impacted the ability to implement forest
    management activities. The agencies and first responders need a
    predictable, stable, and efficient budget structure to deliver their
    congressionally directed land management missions.
        Numerous fire seasons over the past decade have required fire
    funding transfers from non-suppression accounts, clearly demonstrating
    the urgent need to change the suppression funding model at the USFS and
    DOI. The last few fiscal years have increasingly reflected the need for
    a new funding approach:

            Fiscal Year 2012 and Fiscal Year 2013

              Carry-over levels in the FLAME accounts were rescinded in
            fiscal year 2012, suppression was funded below the forecast,
            and the fire season was very costly, particularly at the end of
            the fiscal year. Suppression was also funded below the ten-year
            average in fiscal year 2013 and the fire season was once again
            very costly. Over $1 billion were transferred from USFS and DOI
            programs at the end of fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013
            combined.
              In the past, repayments of transfers occurred through
            emergency supplemental appropriations, which would occur well
            after the USFS and DOI Bureaus had been severely impacted by
            the transfers. However, fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013
            suppression transfers were ``repaid'' from the entire Interior
            bill for the following fiscal year. The result is that all
            Interior Agencies and their programs are now impacted by
            suppression funding. Additionally, the transfers have had long
            lasting effects on the USFS' and DOI's implementation of
            impacted programs that continue to this day.

            Fiscal Year 2014

              Suppression is funded at the full ten-year average. However,
            with the increasing drought conditions across the Nation, the
            fiscal year 2014 fire season is expected to be particularly
            active and costly. There is every indication that the USFS and
            DOI will run out of suppression funds and be forced to transfer
            before the end of the season.

        This pattern of funding is neither efficient nor sustainable. The
    Wildfire Disaster Funding bill would provide the USFS and DOI with a
    funding structure similar to that used by other agencies that respond
    to natural disaster emergencies, which have budget cap exemptions for a
    portion of disaster funding. This important change would free the
    agencies to reinvest in core activities which have been reduced in
    recent years due to a continued shift of limited resources to fund
    wildfire suppression, including the very programs that would help to
    decrease wildfire costs over time. Further, this change would end the
    highly disruptive process of canceling and/or significantly delaying
    ongoing project work, most often at the time such work is being
    executed on the ground.
        We appreciate this subcommittee's attention to this increasing and
    unsustainable natural resource challenge. The fiscal year 2015
    appropriations bill can provide for both necessary wildfire suppression
    and also fire risk reduction activities that create jobs and reduce
    firefighting costs in the long run. We are prepared to help and look
    forward to assisting Congress in developing a sustainable and long-term
    solution to fund emergency wildfire suppression.

    The following are 226 groups supporting the Wildfire Disaster Funding
    Act:

    3 Legs Collaboration Services
    4FRI: Four Forest Restoration Initiative Collaborative Stakeholder
    Group
    ACA  Canoe--Kayak--SUP--Raft--Rescue
    Alamo Navajo School Board, Inc.
    Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group
    Alliance for Community Trees
    American Bird Conservancy
    American Farm Bureau Federation
    American Forest & Paper Association
    American Forest Foundation
    American Forest Resource Council
    American Forests
    American Hiking Society
    American Loggers Council
    American YouthWorks
    Appalachian Mountain Club
    Applegate Partnership and Watershed Council
    Arid Land Innovation
    Arizona Conservation Corps
    Arizona Fire Chiefs Association
    Arizona Prescribed Fire Council
    Arizona Wildlife Federation
    Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
    Association of National Grasslands
    Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
    Black Hills Forest Resource Association
    Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition
    Black Hills Resource, Conservation, and Development
    Blue Goose Alliance
    Blue Mountains Forest Partners
    Boulder County, CO
    BRL Services Inc./BRL Logging
    Bull Moose Sportsmen's Alliance
    California Deer Association
    California Fire Safe Council
    California Forestry Association
    California Ski Industry Association
    California Waterfowl
    Center for Heirs' Property Preservation
    Center for Sustainable Communities
    Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council
    Choose Outdoors
    City of Ashland, OR
    Civil War Trust
    Clearwater Resource Council
    Colorado Timber Industry Association
    Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
    Conservation Legacy
    Conservation Northwest
    ConservationCorps, MN & IA
    Criley Consulting
    Defenders of Wildlife
    Ducks Unlimited
    Eastern Arizona Counties Organization
    Ecosystem Workforce Program
    El Tesoro Retreat Center
    Elliotsville Plantation, Inc
    Endangered Species Coalition
    Environment America
    Environmental Stewards
    Estrada Collaborative Resource Management, LLC
    Federal Forest Resource Coalition
    Flagstaff Fire Department
    Flathead Economic Policy Center
    Foothill Conservancy
    Foothills Conservancy of North Carolina
    Forest Business Network
    Forest County Economic Development Partnership
    Forest Energy Corporation
    Forest Guild
    Forest Health Task Force
    Fourth Sector Strategies
    Framing Our Community, Inc.
    Friends of the Columbia Gorge
    Friends of the Urban Forest
    Front Range Roundtable
    Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology (FUSEE)
    Future Forest, LLC
    Gila Tree Thinners
    Gila WoodNet
    Global Parks
    Grassroots Outdoor Alliance
    Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association
    Great Old Broads for Wilderness
    Greater Yellowstone Coalition
    Hawks Aloft, Inc.
    International Association of Fire Fighters
    Idaho Conservation League
    Idaho Forest Owners Association
    Indiana Forestry & Woodland Owners Association
    Intermountain Forest Association
    Intermountain Roundwood Association
    International Association of Fire Chiefs
    International Association of Wildland Fire
    International Mountain Bicycling Association
    Intertribal Timber Council
    Jara Landworks
    KHII Radio
    Lake County Resources Initiative
    Lemhi County
    Little Colorado River Plateau RC&D
    Lomakatsi Restoration Project
    Louisiana Forestry Association
    Maine Audubon
    Mainland Planning, Inc
    Mass Audubon
    Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions
    Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition
    Massachusetts Resident
    Masters of Foxhounds Association
    McCutchanville Volunteer Fire Department
    Mid Klamath Watershed Council
    Montana Conservation Corps
    Montana Wilderness Association
    Montana Wood Products Association
    Mottek Consulting
    Mountain States Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association
    Mt. Adams Resource Stewards
    Mt. Taylor Machine, LLC
    Mule Deer Foundation
    National Association of Conservation Districts
    National Association of Forest Owners
    National Association of Forest Service Retirees
    National Association of State Foresters
    National Association of University Forest Resources Programs
    National Cattlemen's Beef Association
    National Network of Forest Practitioners
    National Parks Conservation Association
    National Rifle Association
    National Trust for Historic Preservation
    National Volunteer Fire Council
    National Wild Turkey Federation
    National Wildfire Institute
    National Wildlife Federation
    National Wildlife Refuge Association
    National Woodland Owners
    Nevada Conservation Corps
    New Mexico Forest Industry Association
    New Mexico Prescribed Fire Council
    New Mexico State Land Office
    Northbrook Public Works
    Northern Arizona Wood Products Association
    Northern Forest Center
    Northwest Connections
    Northwest Forest Worker Center
    Northwest Youth Corps
    National Ski Areas Association
    Outdoor Alliance
    Outdoor Industry Association
    Partnership for Rural America
    Partnership for the National Trails System
    Pheasants Forever/Quails Forever
    Pinchot Institute for Conservation
    Public Lands Council
    Public Lands Foundation
    Public Lands Service Coalition
    Quality Deer Management Association
    Quail and Upland Wildlife Federation
    Restoration Technologies
    Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
    Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research
    Ruffed Grouse Society
    Rural County Representatives of California
    Safari Club International
    Salmon Valley Stewardship
    San Juan Forest Health Partnership
    Sierra Club
    Sierra Forest Legacy
    Siuslaw Institute
    San Juan Woody-Invasives Initiative
    Society of American Foresters
    South Carolina Wildlife Federation
    South Dakota Campground Owners Association
    South Dakota ATV/UTV Association
    Southeast Youth Corps
    Southern Environmental Law Center
    Southern Oregon Climate Action Now
    Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative
    Southern Oregon Timber Industries Assn.
    Southwest Conservation Corps
    Southwest Forests Sustainable Partnership
    Spatial Interest, LLC
    Sustainable Northwest
    Swan Ecosystem Center
    Taos County Economic Development Corporation
    Teller County Home Builders Association
    Texas Forestry Association
    The Conservation Fund
    The Corps Network
    The Forest Guild
    The National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds
    The Nature Conservancy
    The Trust for Public Land
    The Watershed Center
    The Wilderness Society
    The Wildlife Society
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
    Tierra y Montes SWCD
    Town of Laona, Forest County, Wisconsin
    Tree Musketeers
    Tribal Environmental Policy Center
    Trout Unlimited
    Twin Willows Ranch
    Upstate Forever
    Ute Mountaineer
    Vail Resorts
    Village of Taos Ski Valley
    Village Reconstruction and Development Project
    Wallowa Resources
    Washington State Fire Fighters' Association
    Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition
    Watershed Research & Training Center
    West Range Reclamation, LLC
    Western Environmental Law Center
    Wild South
    WildEarth Guardians
    Wildlife Forever
    Winter Wildlands Alliance
    Wisconsin Off-Road Vehicle Park, Inc.
    Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association Inc.
    Wyoming Mining Association
    Wyoming Stock Growers Association
    York Land Trust
    Zuni Mountain Forest Collaborative

                                     ______

       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 in support of the National Wildlife
    Refuge System, which is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service. FBSNWR is a nonprofit volunteer organization formed in 1996
    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 National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) provides vital
    habitat for neotropical migratory birds and nesting habitat for
    endangered sea turtles. In addition, the refuge is a component of a
    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.
        Our organization is an active partner with the National Wildlife
    Refuge Association, who has focused on several key areas where support
    of the National Wildlife Refuge System is sorely needed. Within this
    context, we urge your action on the following:

    1.  Move towards fully funding the National Wildlife Refuge System at
    $900 million annually for operations and maintenance, beginning with
    $476 million in fiscal year 2015.

        The present emphasis on budget austerity is especially troubling
    for refuges on the Gulf Coast, for we may lose opportunities to
    leverage funds generated by criminal and civil penalties associated
    with the 2010 oil spill into long-term investments for these refuges.
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may be reluctant to expand or
    improve facilities with these funds if the agency does not have
    operational funds to staff and maintain facilities.
        Bon Secour NWR needs a functional visitor and education center. The
    Act that established the refuge in 1980 directed that the refuge
    ``serve as a living laboratory for scientists and students''. Bon
    Secour is a natural wonder that contains all aspects of the marine
    environment, so the refuge could demonstrate the importance of the
    marine environment to coastal culture and economy as well as the very
    survival of the planet.

    2.  Appropriate $168.8 million in fiscal year 2015 from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to acquire conservation easements on
    working lands and to purchase in-holdings and vital habitat for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System and reauthorize LWCF at $900 million
    annually.

        Again, Gulf Coast wildlife refuges may lose opportunities to
    leverage oil spill funds into acquisition of in-holdings and sensitive
    habitats if LWCF funds area not available. Coastal properties are
    expensive, so it will be difficult to rely solely on spill funds to
    acquire land. However, combining LWCF funds with other sources would
    likely enhance our chances to acquire key properties.

    3.  Appropriate $35 million in fiscal year 2015 for the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and reauthorize the Act at $75
    million.

        The Bon Secour NWR is one of three refuges within the Gulf Coast
    National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The Grand Bay NWR (located in Jackson
    County, Mississippi and Mobile County, Alabama) is also within the
    complex and has relied heavily on NAWCA funds to acquire lands within
    the currently approved acquisition boundary. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service proposed in 2011 to expand the acquisition boundary by
    approximately 8,000 acres.

    4.  Increase appropriations for essential conservation programs
    including State Wildlife Grants, the Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Fund, Coastal Grants, and the Department of the Interior's
    Fire Management Program.

        The Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR is also one of the three refuges
    within the Gulf Coast NWR Complex and supports one of the elite fire
    management operations with the National Wildlife Refuge System. Their
    program represents over three decades of public investment in the
    restoration of fire-dependent habitats that include critical habitat
    for the endangered Mississippi sandhill crane and vital habitat for
    numerous species of neotropical migratory birds. Managing fire-
    dependent habitats that are bisected by an interstate highway and
    surrounded by commercial and residential development has not been easy.
    Moreover, these areas will burn by managed fires or wildfires, so it is
    not a matter of choosing to exclude fire from these areas. Therefore,
    supporting the continued investment of using prescribed fire becomes a
    public safety and economic impact in southern Mississippi, for
    wildfires present far more potential to create hazardous smoke
    conditions along the busy I-10 corridor.
        I will conclude with a reminder that the citizens of the Gulf Coast
    were faced with a dire threat to their economy and culture when the
    spill began 4 years ago, for our lives are directly connected to the
    natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico. These National Wildlife
    Refuges represent are a vital component for the stewardship of these
    natural resources and represent decades of public investment. They
    directly support the environment and economy through the science-based
    management of the lands and waters for the benefit of wildlife, and
    they connect citizens to these resources through opportunities to enjoy
    the fish and wildlife.
        The spill no longer dominates the headlines, but the Gulf Coast is
    still hurting. While the nature-based tourism has rebounded well since
    the spill, sustaining the natural features and resources that attract
    customers cannot be certain. Assessing the long-term environmental
    impacts of the spill will take time. Commercial fishing continues to
    struggle, as water quality degradation and other impacts tied to
    various types of coastal development hamper fishery productivity.
    Development is resuming despite the recession. The hurricanes, oil
    spill, and failure to meet the challenges now may leave a gap that will
    be even more costly to fill in the future. Families who have been tied
    to the fishing industry for generations question whether not they are
    witnessing the end of their livelihood.
        We need to support these refuges so that they can be engaged
    partners in the coastal recovery. Our culture and economy depend on
    active and sustainable stewardship of these natural resources, and the
    Gulf Coast is a major component of the national economy.
        Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to call
    upon the Friends of Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge if we can be of
    any assistance.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Friends of Maine's Seabird Islands (FOMSI)
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the 250
    members of the Friends of Maine's Seabird Islands from across the
    country, thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on
    the fiscal year 2015 Interior Appropriations bill. Thank you for your
    past support of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world's
    premier system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve
    America's fish, wildlife and plants.
        FOMSI is an all-volunteer group whose mission is to support the
    Maine Coastal Islands National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge manages 59
    islands on our 250-mile long coast, and several thousand acres of
    mainland wildlife habitat. First, let me emphasize that we are grateful
    that we have a National Wildlife Refuge on the coast of Maine. Why? For
    many reasons, all of which lead back to the positive economic and
    social benefits that are produced by the conservation of wild lands and
    wise use of our natural resources. The 2006 National Survey of Hunting,
    Fishing and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, found that, in Maine alone,
    hunters, anglers, and wildlife watchers generated nearly $1.5 billion
    in revenue for Maine. Clearly, wild lands and healthy fish and wildlife
    populations are important to this State's economy, and the National
    Wildlife Refuges in Maine are a significant part of that!
        Although we understand and take very seriously the economic
    challenges that our Nation faces, it is important to point out the
    positive economic impact that this Refuge has on local economies. In
    Maine, according to studies conducted by Dr. Charles Colgan from the
    University of Southern Maine, 120 companies provide services involving
    seabird viewing as a recreational activity. These include small kayak
    guides and outfitters all the way to large ships that go on seabird
    watching cruises several times each day. An estimated 5,000 to 7,500
    trips are made by people annually primarily for seabird viewing and
    350,000 to 450,000 trips with seabird viewing as a secondary activity.
    The total estimate for seabird-related spending was $5 million to $10
    million in 2001. This does not count the number of birders and others
    who have their own boats and do not take the organized trips, yet come
    to this area specifically to see seabirds; accordingly, they have a
    significant, but uncalculated impact on the economy, too. Nor does it
    count the revenues from stores that sell merchandise from t-shirts to
    binoculars that go along with birding.
        Thousands of people come to the Maine coast each year to see the
    charismatic Atlantic puffin, a bird that nests in the United States
    only in Maine. Currently, over 90 percent of the Atlantic puffins
    nesting in Maine nest on Refuge islands, where they are actively
    protected by Refuge staff and partners, such as the National Audubon
    Society and Maine Division of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. If funding
    for this management is not maintained, these nesting birds will abandon
    their colonies and Maine will return to the pre-Refuge situation in the
    1970's and early 1980's when only gulls nested on many of the islands.
    Seabird viewing and birder expenditures will fall, and our already
    fragile economy will suffer further.
        The economic impact described above is only a part of the positive
    impact that the Refuge has on the State's economy. Others visit the
    Refuge units to hunt, hike, fish, and learn about conservation. The
    Fish and Wildlife Service's ``Banking on Nature'' report showed that
    the local economic effects of recreational visits to this refuge
    totaled $7.9 million in 2011, with associated employment of 71 jobs,
    $2.2 million in employment income and $930,700 in total tax revenue.
        That is a brief summary of the economic impacts that one refuge has
    in our part of the country. There are five other refuges in Maine that
    are also important to Maine's economy. Multiply that by the 556
    National Wildlife Refuges in the System, and it is clear that Congress'
    investment in the System pays off many-fold to our Nation's economy.
    Our National Wildlife Refuges are often economic powerhouses,
    especially in rural areas. In fact, ``Banking on Nature,'' found that
    for every $1 that is appropriated for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System (NWRS), $5 is returned to our Nation's economy.
        Therefore, we respectfully ask you to:
        1. Maintain management capabilities for the National Wildlife
    Refuge System by approving a $4 million increase over fiscal year 2014
    levels. The System actually needs $900 million annually to adequately
    manage its 150 million acres; a funding allocation of $476 million in
    fiscal year 2012 will simply maintain the status quo.
        2. Appropriate $168.8 million in fiscal year 2015 from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to acquire conservation easements on
    working lands and to purchase in-holdings and vital habitat for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System, and reauthorize LWCF at $900 million
    annually. Created in 1965 and authorized at $900 million per year (more
    than $3 billion today), the LWCF is Refuges' most important land
    acquisition tool. More than 8 million acres are unprotected within
    existing refuge boundaries and there is an increasing need to establish
    key wildlife corridors and connections between protected areas making
    the LWCF more important than ever.
        There are four significant inholdings for sale at the Maine Coastal
    Islands National Wildlife Refuge, and more are expected to come on the
    market soon. Funding of the LWCF at the authorized level will allow the
    Refuge to acquire these important inholdings to further protect its
    integrity.
        3. Appropriate $35 million in fiscal year 2015 for the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and reauthorize the Act at
    $75 million. This Act helps the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service leverage
    Federal conservation efforts through partnerships that enable the
    acquisition and restoration of critical wetlands to deliver multiple
    benefits including habitat restoration and improved water quality.
        The Refuge received partial funding from NAWCA this year to help
    acquire Mahoney Island in Brooklin, Maine, a critical seabird nesting
    island. We are grateful for that, and hope to receive more funding from
    this important Act in the future.
        4. Increase appropriations for essential conservation programs
    including State Wildlife Grants ($58.7 million), the Neotropical
    Migratory Bird Conservation Fund ($4 million), Coastal Grants ($13
    million), and the Department of Interior's Fire Management Program ($60
    million).
        The State Wildlife Grant program is a very successful Federal-State
    program that helps keep our Nation's wildlife from becoming endangered.
        Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) grants conserve
    the habitats that neotropical birds use along their migration north and
    south and in their wintering range throughout the Caribbean, Central,
    and South America. This Act fortifies investments on national wildlife
    refuges by conserving ``our'' birds during critical periods of their
    lifecycles spent outside of refuges and often outside the United
    States.
        The Coastal Program provides technical and financial assistance for
    voluntary efforts to protect and restore coastal habitats for wildlife.
    This program is critical to implementing recovery projects such as
    restoring and enhancing estuarine habitats, removing invasive species
    and derelict fishing gear, and stabilizing shoreline. This program has
    been a very important partner with the coastal refuges in Maine.
        Fire is one of the Service's most important tools for managing
    wildlife habitat; however, due to the catastrophic western wildfires
    made worse by climate change and fuel loading, funds for refuge fire
    management have been consistently diverted to fighting wildfires and
    protecting the forest-urban interface. Resources are needed to allow
    refuges to manage dangerous fuel loads in fire-dependent systems and to
    use fire management to improve habitat for many threatened and
    endangered species. The refuges in Maine actively use fire to protect
    and enhance habitats for many species such as arctic terns and
    woodcock.
        We are proud of our National Wildlife Refuges, one of our country's
    greatest conservation achievements. We are but one of 230 ``friends''
    groups who support National Wildlife Refuges throughout the country.
    Friends groups provide assistance to our National Wildlife Refuges
    through monetary and equipment donations and volunteer labor. Last year
    over 40,000 friends and volunteers provided services for the NWRS equal
    to over 600 positions, saving taxpayers millions of dollars. Volunteers
    throughout the country provide an astonishing 20 percent of the work
    done of Refuges each year! This is a further indication of how many
    Americans support the National Wildlife Refuge System.
        The interest in our National Wildlife Refuge System is significant
    and we are showing our support with our donated time and funds.
    However, we need proper funding of the System so we can leverage our
    taxpayer dollars to provide even more economic and social benefits to
    our country.
        Finally, let me also add that with all the negative stories in the
    press today about Government appropriations and politics, the National
    Wildlife Refuge System remains a positive success story since the first
    Refuge was created by President Theodore Roosevelt over 100 years ago.
    It has always enjoyed support from Congress and we thank you for that,
    and for your continued support!
                                     ______

             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 23 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.
        1. We are requesting an overall funding level of $476 million in
    fiscal year 2015 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; last year there
    were over 46 million visitors to all of the Refuges combined. 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife's request of $476 million
    for O&M for the NWRS.
        2. 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 $168.8 million level. Created
    by Congress in 1964 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 2015 budget, and I support
    the administration's commitment to fully funding the program in the
    near future. I urge a minimal commitment of $168.8 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; it is critical for our public lands and wildlife
    habitat.
        3. Appropriate $35 million in fiscal year 2015 for the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and reauthorize the Act at
    $75 million. NAWCA supports habitat restoration, water quality
    improvements and carbon sequestration.
        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. Last year, we celebrated the 50th
    anniversary of Rachel Carson's publication of her historic book,
    ``Silent Spring'' and look forward in continuing her message through
    various programs at the refuge here in Maine.
        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 $476 million
    for the Refuge System's fiscal year 2015 Operations & Maintenance (O&M)
    budget, and fund the LWCF at the $168.8 million level for fiscal year
    2015. The LWCF request is constant every year, we need Congress to
    standby their commitment that was made in 1964: stabilize the fund at
    the $900 million level.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of protecting wildlife and it's habitat. Enjoy
    your next walk out on a National Wildlife Refuge.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Friends of the
    Florida Panther Refuge recommends the following funding for fiscal year
    2015:

    National Wildlife Refuge System.........................  $476.4 million
    Land and Water Conservation Fund........................  $168.8 million
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.............    $3.7 million
    State Wildlife Grants...................................   $58.7 million
    Coastal Program.........................................   $13.0 million

        We also support funding changes within the fiscal year 2015 U.S.
    Department of the Interior Wildlands Fire Budget to include:
      --Preparedness.--A program increase of $34.1 million, including $15.0
            million for tribal resource management;
      --Resilient Landscape.--Program established at $30.0 million;
      --Burned Area Rehabilitation (BAR).--A program increase of $2.0
            million; and
      --Fixed Costs Increases.--Fixed cost increases of $4.2 million.
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony concerning the
    funding of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the Department of
    the Interior's Wildlands Fire Management Budget. The 26,400 acre
    Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR) was established in
    southwest Florida to protect the critically endangered Florida panther
    and its habitat. The FPNWR is also populated with many other species
    that are listed as threatened or endangered by Federal and State
    agencies. The Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge is a non-profit
    volunteer organization with a mission to support the FPNWR and protect
    the Florida panther in the wild. Our members are concerned for the
    future of the habitat and wildlife on our refuge and Florida panther
    habitat in general.
        We are also concerned about maintaining Florida's unique
    environment on public and private lands. Southwest Florida supports a
    large tourist industry that is dependent on maintaining a healthy
    environment. Funds spent on protecting species and water quality have a
    significant economic impact on the region.
                  funding the national wildlife refuge system
        Our National Wildlife Refuge system needs to be fully funded to
    protect America's natural heritage. The Friends of the Florida Panther
    Refuge urges the Senate to appropriate $476 million in fiscal year
    2015. A budget of $900 million every year, with a minimum of $476
    million for fiscal year 2015, is required to fully fund the operations
    and maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Funding less
    than these amounts threatens permanent damage to the system.
        Refuge mangers at the FPNWR are challenged by a variety of funding
    shortfalls to fully carry out habitat restoration, invasive species
    control, prescribed burning, baseline and updated wildlife inventories,
    education/interpretation, law enforcement, visitor services as well as
    technical assistance and collaborative efforts across boundaries with
    private land holders. The staff at the FPNWR has been reduced by six
    full time employees over the last 3 years representing a 32 percent
    decrease in staff and is hard pressed to meet their goals.
                  the land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) should be appropriated
    $168.8 million in fiscal year 2015 to acquire conservation easements on
    working lands and to purchase outright the vital habitats to support
    the National Wildlife Refuge System.
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is an essential tool
    for protecting the integrity of Florida panther habitat. Funds of this
    program along with funds from the State of Florida are critical to the
    survival of the Florida panther and other Federal listed species. There
    is an opportunity with private land easements to not only protect
    Florida panther habitat but also the ranching heritage of central and
    south Florida for future generations. This is a critical time through
    easements and acquisition to provide wildlife corridors through central
    and south Florida that will protect our life style, traditions, and
    natural resources for future generations. Time will run out on this
    opportunity with lasting negative effects. The window of to secure a
    place for Florida panthers, conservation and compatible agriculture in
    Florida is rapidly closing.
        Increase appropriations for essential conservation programs
    including State Wildlife Grants, the Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Fund, Coastal Grants, and the Department of Interior's
    Fire Management Program.
        State Wildlife Grants.--The Fish and Wildlife Service works with
    Florida to keep common species common and restore declining species
    before they warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act. We ask
    the Senate to fund the State Wildlife Grants Program at $58.7 million
    for fiscal year 2015 to fulfill the shared Federal-State responsibility
    for keeping our Nation's wildlife from becoming endangered.
        Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA).--Populations
    of Neotropical birds are high on the Florida Panther National Wildlife
    Refuge and our sister Refuge, the Ten Thousand Islands National
    Wildlife Refuge. NMBCA grants conserve the habitats that neotropical
    birds use along their migration north and south and in their wintering
    range throughout the Caribbean, Central, and South America. This Act
    fortifies investments on national wildlife refuges by conserving
    ``our'' birds during critical periods of their lifecycles spent outside
    of refuges and often outside the United States. We request that the
    Senate reauthorize the NMBCA and provide $3.7 million for fiscal year
    2015.
        Coastal Program.--Water birds, sea turtles, game fish and other
    flora and fauna attract many visitors to our sister Refuge, Ten
    Thousand National Wildlife Refuge. The Coastal Program provides
    technical and financial assistance for voluntary efforts to protect and
    restore coastal habitats for wildlife. The coastal program is critical
    to implementing recovery projects such as restoring and enhancing
    estuarine habitats, removing invasive species and derelict fishing
    gear, and stabilizing shoreline. We ask Senate to fund the Coastal
    Program at $13 million for fiscal year 2015.
        U.S. Department of the Interior Wildlands Fire Management Budget.--
    The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge is highly dependent on the
    use of prescribed burns to manage the habitat for the Florida panther
    and its prey. Reduced funding of the fire operation budget has forced
    the Refuge to reduce positions over the last several years. This
    situation has left critical habitat unburned and increased dangerous
    fuel loads in this highly fire-dependent system. The State and the
    Federal governments have invested billions of dollars to restore the
    Everglades, making a more resilient ecosystem. Fire management in this
    region is needed complement the restoration. We urge the Senate to
    include in fiscal year 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior Wildlands
    Fire Budget:
      --Preparedness.--A program increase of $34.1 million, including $15.0
            million for tribal resource management;
      --Resilient Landscape.--Program established at $30.0 million;
      --Burned Area Rehabilitation (BAR).--A program increase of $2.0
            million; and
      --Fixed Costs Increases.--Fixed cost increases of $4.2 million.
        Thank you for consideration of our comments.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Silvio O. Conte Fish and
                                Wildlife Refuge
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf
    of the Friends of the Silvio O. Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Friends
    of Conte). The Friends of Conte respectfully request $5 million ($2
    million in discretionary funding; $3 million in mandatory funding) for
    land acquisition projects in the Connecticut River Watershed as well as
    full funding, $900 million, for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
        The Friends of Conte represent organizations big and small, from
    all corners of our four-State watershed. Our diverse membership
    includes groups that focus on educating urban constituencies in
    Hartford, Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts, groups that focus
    on providing recreational access to the river, business interests and
    local and regional watershed groups that focus on protecting the water
    that we drink and swim and fish in, and national non-profits whose work
    includes the Connecticut River watershed. We have been dedicated to
    recreation, education and conservation in the Connecticut River
    Watershed for the past 7 years and represent more than 65 organizations
    with more than 100,000 members.
        The Connecticut River, New England's main artery for commerce and
    transportation throughout the region's early development, gained
    additional notoriety in 1991 when President George H. W. Bush signed
    legislation establishing the Silvio O. Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge
    (Conte Refuge). Uniquely legislated among other refuges in the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service system, the Conte Refuge was founded on three
    pillars: land protection, cooperative management and environmental
    education. The Conte Refuge is also unique as it attempts to conserve
    an entire watershed in which 2.3 million individuals co-exist with
    nature. Additionally, the Conte Refuge calls for only a small acreage
    in public ownership, with the vast majority of the watershed in
    privately-held lands. The refuge also works with those landowners to
    help them achieve their personal conservation goals for their
    properties.
        The 4,840 acres and 35 tracts (1,274 acres and 14 tracts with
    discretionary funding and an additional 3,566 acres and 21 tracts with
    mandatory funding) in our funding request spans the entire four-State
    Connecticut River watershed, protecting critical forests, wetland and
    rivers. These acquisitions from willing sellers represent a key
    opportunity to protect critical habitats and to provide recreational
    access to the more than 2 million citizens of the watershed, as well as
    to the 70 million individuals who are within a day's drive of the Conte
    Refuge.
        Providing these recreational opportunities not only makes
    conservation sense, it makes good economic sense. In 2013, the Outdoor
    Industry Association documented an economic impact of $23.6 billion in
    consumer spending on outdoor recreation and more than 200,000 in direct
    jobs in the four watershed States of Vermont, New Hampshire,
    Massachusetts and Connecticut.
        More specifically, New England's healthy fish and wildlife
    populations are also a backbone of the region's economy. New England's
    fish and wildlife support a $5.31 billion-dollar wildlife-related
    economy. This includes a $2.57 billion-dollar hunting and angling
    economy and a $2.74 billion-dollar wildlife watching economy. In
    addition to outdoor recreation, the nature services these lands provide
    include water quality and streamflow protection, as water filters
    through our forests prior to entering our rivers and streams, and flood
    protection as floodplain forests absorb and slow flood waters.
        As you know, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was
    established by Congress nearly 50 years ago and will expire next year.
    We are at an important juncture. If we miss this opportunity to
    celebrate and commemorate the 50th Anniversary of LWCF in all 50 States
    at the full funding level and continue the conservation legacy of LWCF
    for another 50 years; the quality of the natural environment will
    impact the human environment. These impacts will be exacerbated by
    changes in climate and land use. Actions made possible by the LWCF Act
    of 1965 allow agency and elected leaders the opportunity to invest in
    monumental ways to create another chapter in our Nation's conservation
    legacy for future generations.
        In closing, we thank you again for the opportunity to comment. The
    Friends of Conte is a diverse association of organizations and
    individuals from conservation, education, and recreation communities,
    who are avid supporters of the Conte Refuge and the Connecticut River
    watershed. We believe the investment of funds from the LWCF will
    enhance recreation and conservation, protect clean water, and support
    jobs and economic vitality across the entire four-State watershed.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
                                 Refuges, Inc.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the 192
    members of the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges
    (FTBNWR), 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). The 4 percent
    funding increase that you passed for fiscal year 2014 made a huge
    difference throughout the refuge system. We realize that in this time
    of budget cuts, it may be difficult to justify increasing the NWRS
    funding again, 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 $476 million in fiscal
            year 2015.
      --Fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million
            for fiscal year 2015, including a minimal commitment of $168.8
            million for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
      --Fund $35 million in fiscal year 2015 for the North American
            Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and reauthorize the Act at
            $75 million.
      --Increase funding for essential conservation programs including
            $58.7 million for State Wildlife Grants, $4 million for the
            Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, $13 million for
            Coastal Grants, and $60 million for the Department of
            Interior's Fire Management Program.
        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 Refuge
    System cannot fulfill its obligation to the American public, our
    wildlife, and 46.5 million annual visitors without increases in
    maintenance and operation funds. The current budget is far short of the
    amount actually required to effectively operate and maintain the
    Refuges. We respectfully request that you increase the NWRS budget to
    $476 million so that the Refuges do not backslide even further in
    protecting these valuable lands and ecosystems. The investment yields
    an impressive return, generating approximately 35,000 jobs and $2.4
    billion in economic output each year. Every dollar appropriated to the
    Refuge System returns and average of $4.87 to local economies as well
    as providing $33 billion dollars' worth of clean water and other
    environmental benefits such as clean air and water and a cool climate.
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created in 1965 and
    authorized at $900 million. We ask that you reauthorize the LWCF at
    $900 million for fiscal year 2015 with a minimal commitment of $168.8
    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 still 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 2015 with $168.8 million to
    acquire conservation easements on working lands and to purchase in-
    holdings and vital habitat for the NWRS. The LWCF is not funded by
    taxpayer money.
        We ask that you appropriate $35 million in fiscal year 2015 for the
    North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and reauthorize the
    Act at $75 million. NAWCA supports habitat restoration, water quality
    improvements, and carbon sequestration. These projects developed by
    individuals and at the community level benefit our declining migratory
    bird species as well as ducks and waterfowl.
        Essential conservation programs to protect habitat and wildlife
    will cut expenses in the future by protecting and improving what we
    have today. We request that you fund the State Wildlife Grants Program
    at $58.7 million to fulfill the shared Federal-State responsibility for
    keeping our Nation's wildlife from becoming endangered. The NMBCA
    grants conserve habitats for Neotropical birds as they migrate. It
    covers areas outside of refuges and often outside the U.S. that many of
    our birds utilize during critical periods of their life. We request you
    fund the NMBCA at $4 million for fiscal year 2015. The Coastal Program
    provides technical and financial assistance for voluntary efforts to
    protect and restore coastal habitats for wildlife. We ask that you fund
    this program at $13 million for fiscal year 2015. Lastly, prescribed
    burns keep our refuges from becoming overgrown or having catastrophic
    fires due to high fuel loads due to fire suppression. It is an
    important tool for managing wildlife habitat. We urge you to provide
    $60 million in dedicated funding to the Refuge System's fire program
    through the Department of the Interior's Hazardous Fuel Reduction
    program.
        The Tampa Bay Refuges (TBR) 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 budget
    decreases, much of that planning will not be implemented.
        The recent budget decreases and the sequestration have hurt our
    refuges.
      --The Crystal River NWR Complex which included the Tampa Bay Refuges
            was comprised of 5 refuges. It is now part of the 9 refuge
            North Florida NWR complex. In 2013, the Project Leader and both
            refuge managers from the Crystal River Complex moved to other
            refuges, leaving no manager at the Tampa Bay Refuges.
      --We are coming into the summer nesting season on Egmont & Pinellas
            NWR's. Without a manager and with the heavy visitation in the
            warmer months, this is a big problem. The refuge law
            enforcement (LE) officers are not able to patrol Egmont Key as
            often during the key summer nesting season due to restrictions
            in travel and overtime. This leaves the nesting birds open to
            more intrusions by refuge visitors and nesting failures.
      --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 budgets. We have already lost a maintenance
            position to keep the equipment, including the boats used to
            access the island refuges, in good working order and now we are
            down managers as well.
      --The refuge was able to eradicate exotic plants and predators on the
            refuges, but with the budget, 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 refuges and their
            wildlife, including nesting failures.
      --Fire management budgets have been cut and prescribed fires have not
            been conducted Egmont Key as needed. This opens the island, its
            historic buildings, & visitor center up to a much higher
            catastrophic wildfire risk.
      --There simply isn't enough money in the budget to purchase safety
            equipment, like a GPS, for the refuge boat. The Tampa Bay
            Refuges 2014 budget didn't have enough money to pay for storage
            at a marina for the boat used to get to the refuges. Our
            Friends group made up the difference. Without a boat at a
            convenient location, the staff must waste valuable time and
            wages towing a boat from the maintenance yard 80 miles away and
            then launching it near the islands. If the staff has to waste
            3-4 hours of their day getting a boat ready they only have a
            few hours to work, rather than a full 8 hour day working.
      --The Ft. Dade Guardhouse on Egmont Key NWR has been restored and
            will become the visitor center. The Refuge had grant money and
            installed the first phase of the displays, but with the budgets
            the way they are staff may not have time to keep this important
            environmental education center open to the public, much less
            finish the next phase.
      --Egmont Key NWR has a huge erosion problem and can possibly be lost.
            Because it is in an urban setting, the 32,000 pairs of birds
            who nest there yearly don't have another location to go to.
            Because of the lack of funding, this refuge and nesting habitat
            could be lost in the not too distant future. Passage Key NWR
            has eroded to the point that it is a sandbar at low tides and
            no longer useful for nesting: those birds moved to Egmont.
            There is nowhere else to go if Egmont is lost.
        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 $476 million for the
    fiscal year 2015 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 2013
    FTBNWR was able to provide over 3000 volunteer hours to assist the
    refuge staff with exotic invasive control, refuge cleanups, and
    education. FTBNWR has been able to raise money to fund continued
    removal of invasive plants on the Pinellas Refuges that degrade the
    habitat for the wildlife. FTBNWR has also purchased equipment for the
    refuge boat and contributed to the local storage of the boat. The
    FTBNWR also continued their 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 4th
    & 5th 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 them.
        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 $476
    million for the fiscal year 2015 National Wildlife Refuge System
    Operations and Maintenance budget managed by FWS and to approve $900
    million for fiscal year 2015 for the LWCF land acquisition budget as
    well as a dedicated $168.8 million for the NWRS. Additionally, we urge
    you to appropriate $35 million in fiscal year 2015 to the NAWCA, $58.7
    million to the State Wildlife Grants Program, $4 million to the NMBCA,
    $13 million to the Coastal Program, and $60 million dedicated to the
    Refuge System's fire program through the Department of the Interior's
    Hazardous Fuel Reduction Program.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America
                                    summary
        The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges Congress to at least
    fully fund the fiscal year 2015 request for the U.S. Geological Survey
    (USGS). As one of our Nation's key science agencies, the USGS plays a
    vital role in understanding and documenting mineral and energy
    resources needed for economic growth; researching and monitoring
    potential natural hazards that threaten U.S. and international
    security; and determining and assessing water quality and
    availability--keys to a healthy and prosperous society. Approximately
    two-thirds of the USGS budget is allocated for research and
    development. In addition to underpinning the science activities and
    decisions of the Department of the Interior, this research is used by
    communities across the Nation to make informed decisions in land use
    planning, emergency response, natural resource management, engineering,
    and education. Despite the critical role played by the USGS, funding
    for the Survey has stagnated in real dollars for more than a decade and
    the request is still below the fiscal year 2010 budget. Given the
    importance of the many activities of the Survey that protect lives and
    property, stimulate innovations that fuel the economy, provide national
    security, and enhance the quality of life, GSA believes that balanced
    growth in Federal funding for the Survey is necessary for the future of
    our Nation.
        The Geological Society of America, founded in 1888, is a scientific
    society with over 26,000 members from academia, government, and
    industry in all 50 States and more than 100 countries. Through its
    meetings, publications, and programs, GSA enhances the professional
    growth of its members and promotes the geosciences in the service of
    humankind.
    u.s. geological survey contributions to national security, health, and
                                    welfare
        The USGS is one of the Nation's premier science agencies.
    Approximately two-thirds of the USGS budget is allocated for research
    and development. In addition to underpinning the science activities and
    decisions of the Department of the Interior, this research is used by
    communities across the Nation to make informed decisions in land use
    planning, emergency response, natural resource management, engineering,
    and education. USGS research addresses many of society's greatest
    challenges for national security, health, and welfare. Several are
    highlighted below.
      --Natural hazards--including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic
            eruptions, wildfires, and landslides--are a major cause of
            fatalities and economic losses. Recent natural disasters,
            including the landslide in Washington and California
            earthquakes, provide unmistakable evidence that the United
            States remains vulnerable to staggering losses. An improved
            scientific understanding of geologic hazards will reduce future
            losses through better forecasts of their occurrence and
            magnitude and allow for better planning and mitigation in these
            areas. GSA urges 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. GSA is
            concerned about cuts to this important program in the request.
      --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.'' Improved scientific understanding of these
            resources will allow for their more economic and environmental
            management and utilization. Nevertheless, Federal programs in
            minerals science, research, information, data collection and
            analysis have been severely weakened. Funding for the USGS
            Mineral Resources Program, the only primary source for minerals
            science and information, has been cut by 30 percent in constant
            dollar terms over the last decade, reducing its ability to
            provide critical information on mineral potential, production,
            and consumption that is used for decisionmaking across the
            Federal Government and by a range of businesses and industries.
      --Many emerging energy technologies--such as wind turbines and solar
            cells--depend on rare earth elements and critical minerals that
            currently lack diversified sources of supply. China accounts
            for 95 percent of world production of rare earth elements
            (USGS, 2010). USGS research will play a lead role in helping
            ease our dependence on these foreign sources.
      --The ongoing water crisis in California and elsewhere is a testament
            to our dependence on water. The availability and quality of
            surface water and groundwater are vital to the well being of
            both society and ecosystems. Greater scientific understanding
            of these resources through monitoring and research is necessary
            to ensure adequate and safe water resources for the health and
            welfare of society.
      --USGS research on climate impacts is used by the Department of the
            Interior and local policymakers and resource managers to make
            sound 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.
      --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. Last year's
            successful launch of Landsat 8 is an important step to continue
            to provide these resources. GSA supports interagency efforts to
            plan a path forward for future 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.
        The report Emerging Workforce Trends in the Energy and Mining
    Industries: A Call to Action, found, ``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. 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.
        As the National Science Board's recent 2014 Science & Engineering
    Indicators reports, America's share of the world's R&D fell from 37
    percent to 30 percent from 2001 and 2012. As other nations have been
    increasing their support for long-term, high-risk research, we have
    been allowing ours to stagnate or decline. We must reverse that trend
    and tackle our mounting innovation deficit if we want to retain our
    global economic leadership.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about the U.S.
    Geological Survey. For additional information or to learn more about
    the Geological Society of America--including GSA Position Statements on
    water resources, mineral and energy resources, natural hazards, and
    public investment in Earth science research--please visit
    www.geosociety.org or contact Kasey White at kwhite@geosociety.org.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Great Salt Lake Council of the Boy Scouts of
                                    America
        Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I am
    representing the Great Salt Lake Council of the Boy Scouts of America,
    and we wish to express our support for the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund, particularly the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request for
    Forest Service land acquisition.
        The President's proposed budget includes two line items, one in the
    discretionary portion of the budget and the other in the mandatory
    section, totaling $3 million, for Wasatch Watersheds-Bonneville
    Shoreline Trail. Property currently owned by the Boy Scouts in Mill
    Creek Canyon would be acquired by the Forest Service if Congress
    approves sufficient funding. The requested funds, though not enough to
    acquire all of the Boy Scout property available for sale, would allow
    for a substantial first phase purchase. The Council has been interested
    in selling approximately 700 acres to the Forest Service since 2011.
    This is the first year, however, that funding has been included in the
    Federal budget for the project.
        Mill Creek Canyon is one of the main canyons in the Wasatch Front,
    the iconic backdrop for the major population area of Utah. In the mid-
    1800s, early settlers of Salt Lake City established 20 mills in the
    canyon that provided everything from lumber to flour for the growing
    population of settlers. Today, Mill Creek Canyon is well known to
    residents of the Salt Lake Valley and has long been a popular area for
    hiking, biking, and many other recreational activities. The Great Salt
    Lake Council of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) would like to sell five
    parcels of land in this area that are considered surplus to its Camp
    Tracy. The BSA will continue to own and operate the camp, while
    planning to use the proceeds from the proposed sale to acquire land and
    facilities elsewhere to benefit the youth of our community and
    organization. These parcels were originally placer mining claims that
    were donated to the Scouts nearly a century ago. Adding these parcels
    to the national forest would also preserve the essential camp
    experience for the 17,500 scouts and volunteers who visit Camp Tracy
    each year.
        Nearly all of the parcels contain segments of trails, including the
    Bonneville Shoreline Trail, Pipeline Trail, Grandeur Peak Trail, and
    Thayne Canyon Trail. Mill Creek Canyon is a major recreational
    destination for hiking, biking, snowshoeing, cross country skiing, and
    picnicking due to its proximity to Salt Lake City and the greater
    Wasatch Front area; the canyon entrance borders the Salt Lake City
    limits. Currently the public lands in the area are being managed
    jointly by Salt Lake County and the Forest Service. Including these
    private parcels in the surrounding national forest will ensure public
    access into the future and provide for better management of the trails,
    trailheads, and other recreational sites.
        Mill Creek Canyon is one of seven major canyons listed in Salt Lake
    City's Watershed Management Plan and will play a role in the future
    city water supply. The Watershed Management Plan recommends watershed
    protection through acquisitions by Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County,
    and the Forest Service. The resource management plan for the Uinta-
    Wasatch-Cache National Forest charges the Forest Service with managing
    and protecting watersheds used as a municipal water source in
    cooperation with Salt Lake City. The property contains a portion of
    Mill Creek--a tributary to the Jordan River--in addition to a number of
    gulches and smaller canyons that feed into Mill Creek. The Forest
    Service Watershed Condition Framework rating for Mill Creek is Class
    Two--functioning at risk--meaning one or more existing attributes make
    it susceptible to degradation. Forest Service ownership will protect
    this important water resource, which could be impaired if the
    surrounding land were to be sold for development rather than
    conservation. The Forest Service is currently working with State
    wildlife authorities on a project designed to support recovery of the
    Bonneville cutthroat trout, which is native in this drainage and is
    included on the Utah Sensitive Species List. Other wildlife found on
    and around this land include bald eagle, deer, elk, mountain lion,
    bighorn sheep, and Canada lynx--a species listed as threatened by the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        It is our desire that these lands be conserved, but we may have to
    offer the property on the open market--and possible development--if the
    Forest Service is unable to acquire the land in a timely fashion. As
    mentioned previously, we have been working on this proposal with the
    Forest Service for over 3 years and we need to utilize the proceeds
    from the sale of this property to improve services to the growing
    number of Scouts in the Salt Lake City metroplex. We want to work with
    the Forest Service to preserve this land for its abundant natural
    resources and recreational opportunities dear to the hearts of so many
    visitors.
        We urge the Interior Subcommittee to provide appropriations from
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund to protect Mill Creek Canyon
    through this proposed land acquisition. I want to thank the Chairman
    and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on
    behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Utah, and I
    appreciate your consideration of this funding request.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition
        Members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to provide this
    testimony about one of our world's most prized natural and economic
    treasures--our Great Lakes. The Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes
    Coalition joins a bi-partisan group of 46 Representatives and 11
    Senators in asking you to support $300 million for the Great Lakes
    Restoration Initiative in fiscal year 2015. We appreciate the trust you
    have shown the region over the last 4 years and ask you to maintain
    this support.
        Our Coalition is comprised of more than 120 environmental,
    conservation, hunting, and fishing organizations; museums, zoos, and
    aquariums; and businesses representing millions of people whose goal is
    to restore and protect the Great Lakes. We came together to fight for
    the Great Lakes, and we recognize the need for Federal assistance for
    all great waters, including Puget Sound, the Everglades, Coastal
    Louisiana, and Chesapeake Bay.
        Mr. Chairman and ranking member, 30 million people rely on the
    Great Lakes for their drinking water, and the entire country benefits
    from the commerce that depends on these waters. Protecting and
    restoring them is a huge non-partisan priority for the people in the
    region. We recognize that the Federal Government is our partner in an
    endeavor to help heal the lakes through the undertaking of one of the
    world's largest freshwater ecosystem restoration projects. Non-
    governmental groups, industries, cities, and States are forging public-
    private partnerships to clean up toxic hot spots, restore fish and
    wildlife habitat, and combat invasive species. Our Coalition has
    invested almost half a million dollars of our own resources to help our
    member groups restore and protect this resource. The philanthropic
    community has also invested approximately $100 million over the past 4
    years through initiatives to educate citizens and policy makers about
    the Great Lakes environment and to identify actions and policies that
    most effectively will restore its health.
                               economic benefits
        We do this work because cleaning up the Great Lakes is critical for
    the health and quality of life of the region. It also drives economic
    development--and jobs--in communities all around the Basin. Investments
    in Great Lakes restoration are creating jobs and leading to long-term
    economic benefits for the Great Lakes States and the country. A
    Brookings Institution report shows that every $1 invested in Great
    Lakes restoration generates at least $2 in return, making Great Lakes
    restoration one of the best investments on the dollar in the Federal
    budget. Research from Grand Valley State University shows that the
    return for certain projects is closer to 6-to-1. The University of
    Michigan has also demonstrated that over 1.5 million jobs are connected
    to the Great Lakes, accounting for more than $60 billion in wages
    annually. According to the Great Lakes Commission, more than 37 million
    people boat, fish, hunt, and view wildlife in the region, generating
    over $50 billion annually. Great Lakes businesses and individuals
    account for about 28 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product,
    according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.
        We have also seen jobs being created by our Nation's efforts to
    clean up the Great Lakes and restore fish and wildlife habitat. These
    jobs include wetland scientists, electricians, engineers, landscape
    architects, plumbers, truck drivers, and many others. While we do not
    know how many jobs have been created to clean up the Great Lakes, it is
    likely in the thousands. Consider:
      --125 jobs were created for a $10 million project to restore fish and
            wildlife habitat in Muskegon Lake, a Great Lakes Area of
            Concern in Michigan.
      --177 people are employed to control the invasive sea lamprey in the
            Great Lakes, which costs the U.S. Government around $20 million
            annually.
      --174 jobs were created, some of which were filled by at-risk youth,
            to remove dams and other barriers in a 150-mile stretch of the
            Milwaukee River system.
        Specifically, stories like that of business owner Jim Nichols of
    Carry Manufacturing are increasingly common. Jim tells of how Great
    Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) projects are adding new orders for
    his manufacturing business. Carry Manufacturing has manufactured water
    control equipment since 1987. Their employees are being kept busy
    building submersible pumps for GLRI projects that flood duck habitat or
    drain areas to re-establish native habitat for sport fishing. The jobs
    add up when you begin counting the men and women at other companies who
    manufacture the pipes for the pumps, the control structures in which
    the pumps are housed, and the hunters, anglers, and wildlife watchers
    that benefit from the improved environment the pumps help create.
                         investments producing results
        The people that have been put to work protecting and restoring the
    Great Lakes are working on projects that are producing results (from
    EPA's 2014 congressional budget justification and 2013 report to
    Congress):
      --The Presque Isle, PA, Area of Concern (AOC) was delisted, the first
            since 2006, and the second U.S. AOC since they were established
            in 1987. The management actions necessary for delisting the
            Sheboygan, Wisconsin, AOC were also completed, Ashtabula, Ohio,
            is very close, and two more de-listings are expected in fiscal
            year 2015. (EPA 2014)
      --Between 2010 through 2013, 29 beneficial use impairments (BUIs) at
            13 AOCs were removed in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York,
            Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, more than tripling the total
            number of BUIs removed in the preceding 22 years. More BUIs
            have been removed since the GLRI began than between 1987 and
            2009. (EPA 2014)
      --From 2004 to 2009, the Great Lakes region was the only area in the
            country to show a gain in wetland acreage. Now the GLRI is
            building on that foundation with a goal to restore one million
            acres in the Basin. So far, the Fish and Wildlife Service
            (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), Natural Resources
            Conservation Service (NRCS), and National Oceanic and
            Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (among others) restored,
            protected, or enhanced over 115,000 acres of wetlands and other
            habitat. (EPA 2014)
      --1,900 river miles were cleared of over 250 barriers resulting in
            fish swimming into stretches of river where they have been
            absent for decades. (EPA 2014)
      --Based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service monitoring, GLRI-sponsored
            actions are increasing self-sustaining populations of native
            species important to the Great Lakes, like lake sturgeon. For
            example, efforts in the Saginaw River watershed have
            contributed to the now self-sustaining walleye population in
            Saginaw Bay, Michigan. (EPA 2013)
      --Nearly 800,000 acres of Great Lakes agricultural land were put into
            U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation contracts to
            reduce erosion and nutrient runoff into Great Lakes
            tributaries. (EPA 2014)
        These numbers are impressive. The stories behind them, however, are
    more illuminating as to the types of results that we are seeing and
    what is being accomplished. The Coalition has documented more than 100
    restoration success stories across the region.\1\ Among them:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Found at www.healthylakes.org/successes/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --At the Ashtabula River in Ohio, a sediment cleanup and habitat
            restoration project has restored the lower two miles of the
            river and advanced efforts to get it de-listed as a Great Lakes
            Area of Concern. The project has improved water quality and
            deepened the river channel, making the lower Ashtabula suitable
            again for maritime commerce, fishing, and recreation boating.
      --The Grand Calumet River in Indiana, which flows through a heavily
            industrialized area south of Chicago, was for years considered
            America's most polluted river. Thanks to a major cleanup, a
            large wetland was restored and more than 575,000 cubic yards of
            toxic mud was removed from the Lake Michigan tributary. The
            restoration project addressed pollution that had led to fish
            consumption advisories, drinking water restrictions, beach
            closings, habitat destruction, and an array of other
            environmental problems.
      --At Clear Creek in Freedom, New York, excess stream erosion and
            sediment, in-stream barriers, elevated water temperatures, and
            competition from invasive fish restricted brook trout to a few
            tributaries in the watershed. A Great Lakes Restoration
            Initiative project restored 1,200 linear feet of in-stream
            habitat and re-established fish passage over a sheet-pile grade
            control structure, reconnecting six miles of prime trout
            habitat.
                           how we are doing the work
        How the region is accomplishing all this work is as impressive as
    what we are doing. The GLRI, which President Obama first proposed in
    2010, is a model for large, land-scape scale restoration. It ensures
    that the focus remains on the highest regional priorities that were
    identified through a large stakeholder process in 2005, which was
    initiated by President George W. Bush. The initiative itself is
    implementing a restoration strategy called the Great Lakes Regional
    Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes that over
    1,500 people helped build. It also provides an outlet for the United
    States to meet its obligations under the new Great Lakes Water Quality
    Agreement with Canada. The GLRI is a critical component towards
    ensuring that the goals we set for ourselves in both the agreement and
    comprehensive plan can be achieved.
        Additionally, the GLRI sought to fix problems the Government
    Accountability Office identified in 2003 when it complained that there
    was inadequate coordination among Federal agencies and between Federal
    and non-Federal stakeholders.\2\ Now, the EPA, working with other
    Federal agencies like the Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, NRCS, and
    the National Park Service, can quickly convert the funding they receive
    to supplement restoration activities through their existing, authorized
    programs. This structure allows for funds to move quickly from EPA
    through the interagency agreements EPA reaches with the other agencies
    and onto the ground to complete important restoration work. This model
    also ensures accountability through the establishment of an ``orchestra
    leader'' (EPA), helps accelerate progress, and avoids potential
    duplication, all of which help save taxpayers money while focusing
    efforts on the highest, consensus-based priorities.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ We anticipate that the GLRI Action Plan for fiscal year 2015-
    2019 will incorporate changes that address the concerns raised by GAO
    in 2013. Those concerns included, in part, recommending the initiative
    incorporate climate change into its goals and create metrics of success
    that better link the ecological change being sought to the actions
    being supported and undertaken.
        \3\ Even with quick Federal action, the Great Lakes region has a
    shortened work season because of winter conditions. This can result in
    a longer time period for grantees to outlay GLRI funds rather than just
    the obligation of funds.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   maintaining results until the job is done
        Unfortunately, the health of the Great Lakes continues to be
    seriously threatened by problems such as sewage overflows that close
    beaches, toxic pollution that poses a threat to the health of people
    and wildlife, algal blooms that harm local drinking water supplies, and
    invasive species that hurt fish and wildlife populations and our
    outdoor recreation economy. While we have cleaned up two AOCs, there
    are still 27 more to go. Algal blooms in Lake Erie and other lakes
    still result in cancelled charter boat tours and closed beaches.
    Communities are still dealing with legacy pollutants that have led to
    drinking water restrictions, beach closings, and fish consumption
    advisories. Our work is not done so maintaining Federal funding is
    needed.
        Additionally, this Congress should remove all doubt that the region
    is on the right path and pass legislation that specifically authorizes
    the GLRI. Currently, EPA is using existing authorities coupled with the
    legislative language you provide as the statutory basis for its
    coordinating role. Passing legislation, such as that introduced by
    Representative David Joyce and Senator Carl Levin, creates greater
    certainty for the program and allows everyone to focus on getting the
    job done.
        Lastly, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) noted in a 2012 report
    that the GLRI Action Plan supported initial Federal investments to
    restore the Lakes because enough was known about the problems and
    potential solutions to impairments in the Great Lakes to initiate
    action; the Action Plan identified most of the key actions needed; and
    the Action Plan is largely consistent with previous plans and
    strategies. However, the SAB's report pointed out that the GLRI needs
    to do better research, monitoring, and assessment. It also pointed out
    that the GLRI lacks a formal science-based framework for assessing
    progress and evaluating future priorities. We believe this science-
    based framework and independent science advice is critical to make
    Great Lakes restoration efforts as efficient and effective as possible;
    that the region's scientists must be engaged in producing and helping
    implement that plan and not just asked to react to a federally-
    generated adaptive management blueprint; and that EPA must use an
    appropriate portion of GLRI funds to implement, coordinate, and better
    communicate the Federal and non-Federal research, monitoring, and
    assessment--ongoing and required--for future success.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you again for the opportunity to share our views with you.
    The GLRI is delivering results. But more work remains. Cutting
    restoration funding now will only make projects harder and more
    expensive the longer we wait. While we are greatly encouraged by the
    progress we are seeing in local communities across the region, we all
    must keep in mind that it will take time for all of us to see lakewide
    environmental improvement in an ecosystem the size of the Great Lakes.
    We are seeing hundreds of trees but it still will take time to make
    them into a forest.
        We also recognize the tough choices you face, but we believe that
    restoring the Great Lakes is not only good for the environment but also
    is good for the national economy as well. We hope you will maintain
    $300 million for the GLRI next year.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of the Hopi Tribe
        The Hopi Tribe: Issues of the Consolidated Tribal Government
    Programs:

      --Contract Support Cost.--The Hopi Tribe recommends that Congress
            amend the Contract Support Cost (CSC) issue to include (1) full
            funding (100 percent) for Indian tribes needed for CSC for
            fiscal year 2015; (2) that fiscal year 2015 contain a separate
            appropriation for CSC in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
            budget structure; and (3) that the BIA propose the repeal of
            the term ``not to exceed'' in the appropriations statutory
            language with reference to the annual CSC appropriations.
      --The Hopi Tribe request the following from the Bureau of Indian
            Affairs.--Fiscal year 2015 operating plan funding level on
            internal transfers for Consolidated Tribal Government Program
            contracts, Federal pay costs, tribal pay costs, and other
            administrative cost. Pursuant to fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
            Appropriations Act, the Department of the Interior was directed
            to submit an operating plan to the Senate Committee on Indian
            Affairs. Our tribe is requesting this information so that we
            can better understand how fiscal year 2015 Indian Affairs
            funding levels will be determined.

        There are many other important issues that need to be addressed,
    including:

      --The impacts of the fiscal year 2013 sequester for the BIA and
            Indian Health Service.
      --The proposed ``administrative cost savings'' cuts that will reduce
            BIA staffing at BIA agencies and will reduce funding for future
            638 contracts, in particular, the cuts to the real estate
            services program.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
        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 2015 Department of Interior
    appropriation.
                              rock creek park deer
        The HSUS requests that funds made available in this Act give
    preference to non-lethal deer management programs over lethal at Rock
    Creek Park. The National Park Service (NPS) has been using lethal
    methods for controlling the deer population in Rock Creek Park despite
    the availability of non-lethal methods that cost significantly less
    taxpayer money and result 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
        In March 2010, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a
    proposed rule to list nine large constrictor snakes as injurious under
    the Lacey Act. However, in January 2012 the Secretary announced that
    only four species would be listed. We encourage this subcommittee to
    direct the FWS 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 comprehensive
    report by the U.S. Geological Survey showed these non-native snakes all
    pose a medium or high risk to the health of our Nation's ecosystems.
    Large constrictor snakes have been released or escaped into the
    environment and have colonized Everglades National Park, continue to
    threaten areas in Hawaii, and have established populations in Puerto
    Rico. Scientists warn they may also become established in other areas
    of the country. 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'' hold considerable promise to speed up the
    assessments of chemicals in the EDSP and reduce, and ultimately, may
    replace animal use. We urge the subcommittee to incorporate the
    following report language, which is also supported by the American
    Chemistry Council:
        The subcommittee recognizes that the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) is implementing the use of Tox21 information in the
    prioritization of chemicals for screening in the Endocrine Disruptor
    Screening Program (EDSP). The subcommittee supports this activity as
    part of a pathway-based approach to endocrine assessment, and directs
    EPA to focus its efforts to develop adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for
    estrogen, androgen and thyroid modes of action and, when sufficient
    scientific confidence has been demonstrated, to utilize mechanistic
    information not only in prioritization, but also in hazard and risk
    assessment to reduce, refine or replace tests involving living animals.
    EPA is directed to develop a scientific confidence framework for AOPs
    and associated prediction models, and after public comment and peer
    review, implement this framework to assure confidence in specific AOPs
    is explicitly demonstrated for intended uses.
        The subcommittee 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
    subcommittee 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 subcommittee 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 these multigenerational studies, 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 and peer review. The subcommittee
    also directs EPA to minimize or to eliminate unnecessary endocrine
    screening and testing, and to use existing scientific data in lieu of
    requiring new data, when possible and scientifically supportable. The
    subcommittee 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,
    cell- and tissue-based methods 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 subcommittee 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 subcommittee encourages EPA to continue to
    expand its extramural and intramural support for the use of pathway-
    based approaches in environmental and human 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 cell
    and tissue-based mechanistic methods, interpretation and prediction
    tools, including pilot studies of pathway-based hazard and risk
    assessment. The data sets and prediction models generated should be
    transparent, publicly disseminated, consistent with corresponding
    international efforts, 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
    subcommittee 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 and other related activities and prediction models and
    activities specifically focused on establishing scientific confidence
    in them for regulatory purposes. The subcommittee 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 2015 budget requests $9.06 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (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.
            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 U.S. 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.
        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 has proven itself to be an unsustainable method of management of
    our Nation's wild horses, 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. 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, and the agency spends more than 50 percent of
    its annual Wild Horse and Burro budget on holding costs. The BLM must
    balance the number of animals removed from the range annually with the
    number of animals it can expect to adopt in a given year if it hopes to
    effectively reduce off-the-range management costs.
        Further, the BLM's current program of management of wild horses has
    negative effects that go beyond a simple cost-benefit analysis. For
    instance, the recommendations in the National Academy of Sciences 2013
    report ``Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program:
    A Way Forward,'' commissioned by the BLM itself, stated that it is
    BLM's own practices of managing wild horses ``below food-limited
    carrying capacity'' by rounding up and removing a significant
    proportion of the herd's population every three to 4 years that is
    facilitating high horse population growth rates on the range.
        As such, it is incumbent that the BLM move away from current
    management practices to create a long-term, humane and financially
    sustainable path. It is our belief that the most cost-effective and
    humane approach is for the BLM to move aggressively forward with a
    contraceptive program which prioritizes on-the-range management of wild
    horses and burros. This path forward is supported by the National
    Academy of Sciences report, which called for an increased usage of on-
    the-range management tools, including the usage of the fertility
    control vaccine PZP. 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 a paper describing an economic model
    commissioned by The HSUS indicates that by treating wild horses on one
    hypothetical Herd Management Area (HMA) with the fertility control
    vaccine Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP), the BLM could save approximately
    $5 million dollars over 12 years while achieving and maintaining
    Appropriate Management Levels (AML) of 874 horses. Since the BLM
    estimates that more than 40,000 wild horses roam on 179 HMAs in the
    United States, the use of PZP could result in a cost-savings of tens of
    millions of dollars if applied broadly across all HMAs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ GAO, Rangeland Management: Improvements Needed in Federal Wild
    Horse Program, GAO/RCED-90-110 (Washington D.C.: Aug. 20, 1990).
        \2\ Bartholow, J. 2007. Economic benefit of fertility control in
    wild horse populations. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 71(8):2811-2819.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For these reasons, while we support the BLM's request for a 2.8
    million dollar budget increase to fund additional research on
    contraception and population growth suppression methods, we request
    that the agency be required to immediately begin usage of the NAS-
    recommended fertility control methods that are currently available.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Independent Tribal Courts Review Team
        Thank you for the opportunity to address the serious funding needs
    that have limited and continue to hinder the operations of tribal
    judicial systems in Indian Country. I am the lead judge representing
    the Independent Tribal Court Review Team. We thank this subcommittee
    for the funding provided in prior years. These funds were a blessing to
    tribes. It is the strong recommendation of the Independent Tribal
    Courts Review Team that the Federal tribal courts budget be
    substantially increased in fiscal year 2015 to support the needs of
    tribal judicial systems.
                budget priorities, requests and recommendations
        1.  +$10 million Increase for tribal courts above the fiscal year
    2010 enacted level.
        2.  +$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).
        3.  Support the requests and recommendations of the National
    Congress of American Indians.

        The increase will support:

        1.  Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.
        2.  Compliance with the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010.
        3.  Compliance with the VAWA Act of 2013.
        4.  Salary Increases for Existing Judges and Court Personnel.
        5.  State-of-the-Art Technology for Tribal Courts.
        6.  Security and Security Systems To Protect Court Records and
    Privacy of Case Information.
        7.  Tribal Court Code Development.
        8.  Financial Code Development.

        The Independent Court Review Team supports the proposed $1.35
    million increase in the fiscal year 2014 President's budget but do not
    support the $2.98 million internal transfer out by the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA). 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 C.F.R. (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 than any other entities. For
    approximately 7 years, the Review Team travelled throughout Indian
    Country assessing how tribal courts operate. During this time, the
    Review Team completed 84 court reviews, and 28 Corrective Actions.
    There is no other entity with more hands-on experience and knowledge
    regarding the current status of tribal courts.
                           justification for request
        1.  Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.--Tribal courts make do
    with underpaid staff, under-experienced staff and minimal resources for
    training. (We have determined that hiring tribal members limits the
    inclination of staff to move away; a poor excuse to underpay staff.);
        2.  Compliance with the Tribal Law & Order Act of 2010.--To provide
    judges, prosecutors, public defenders, who are attorneys and who are
    bared to do ``enhanced sentencing'' in tribal courts;
        3.  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 and
    court personnel in domestic violence cases as in TLOA, etc.);
        4.  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;
        5.  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;
        6.  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;
        7.  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.); and
        8.  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
        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.

      --Example.--At one tribal court 14 jury trials scheduled in 2013
            never occurred due to the lack of sufficient funds to perform
            the following; the required number of potential jurors could
            not be summoned, a jury of six people could not be seated, and
            service to potential jurors could not be delivered.

        Nationwide, there are 184 tribes with courts that received $23.241
    million in Federal funding in 2014. 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. 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 Department of Justice (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 seven fiscal years through September 31, 2011
    there were only two isolated incidents of a questionable expenditure of
    Federal funds. It has been speculated that because of limited
    resources, tribal courts compromise a person's due process and invoke
    ``speedy trials'' violations to save money. To the contrary everyone
    who is processed through the tribal judicial system is afforded their
    constitutional civil liberties and civil rights.
        Tribal courts need an immediate, sustained and increased level of
    funding. There are strong indications that the courts will put such
    funding to good use.
        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 by increasing funding for tribal courts. Thank You. Independent
    Review Team: Elbridge Coochise, Chief Justice Retired; Ralph G.
    Gonzales, Esq.; Charles D. Robertson, Esq. and Myrna R. Rivera, Court
    Reporter.
                                     ______

         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 (IMCC). I appreciate the
    opportunity to present this statement to the subcommittee regarding the
    views of the Compact's 26 member States on the fiscal year 2015 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 $53.2 million to fund title V grants to
    States and Indian tribes for the implementation of their regulatory
    programs, a reduction of $15.4 million or 22 percent below the fiscal
    year 2014 enacted level. OSM also proposes to reduce mandatory spending
    for the abandoned mine lands (AML) program by $64 million pursuant to a
    legislative proposal to eliminate all AML funding for certified States
    and tribes.
        The Compact is comprised of 26 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 $53.2 million for title V grants to
    States and tribes in fiscal year 2015, 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 2014, Congress approved $68.6 million for State
    title V grants pursuant to the Omnibus Appropriations bill.\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 grant funding over the past several fiscal years.
    These 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
    2014, Congress noted that: ``The bill provides $122,713,000 for
    regulation and technology. Within this amount, the bill funds
    regulatory grants at $68,590,000, equal to the fiscal year 2012 enacted
    level. The Committees find the budget proposal to reduce regulatory
    grants would undermine the State-based regulatory system. It is
    imperative that States continue to operate protective regulatory
    programs as delegation of authority to the States is the cornerstone of
    the surface mining regulatory program.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In its fiscal year 2015 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 22 percent
    cut in Federal funding generally translates to an additional 22 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 is doomed from its inception. We
    strongly urge the subcommittee to reject this approach and mandate that
    OSM continue to 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\
    Some of these efforts have recently begun and may prove useful.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \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 March 26 of last year, OSM
    republished a proposed rule (78 Federal Register 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 were
    due on May 28, 2013. OSM has asserted that the rule could serve as a
    template for similar efforts by the States (even though, to date, the
    agency has still not promulgated a final rule). Regardless of whether
    OSM's assertion is true, 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 four 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. 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 4 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 (almost $4 million) for Federal oversight of State
    programs, including an increase of 12 full-time equivalents (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 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 Congress agreed with this assessment when it commented as
    follows on OSM's proposed increase in fiscal year 2014: ``The [Omnibus
    Appropriations] agreement does not provide funds to expand and enhance
    Federal oversight activities of State programs.'' Furthermore, the
    States are confounded by OSM's desire to increase its staff by 12 FTEs
    when it currently has more than twice that number of unfilled positions
    in the agency. Is OSM attempting to add 12 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 $69 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 continue to be 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''
    (TDNs) as part of increased Federal oversight or through Federal
    responses to citizen complaints. Aside from the fact that these actions
    undermine the principles of primacy that underscore SMCRA and are
    therefore likely to have debilitating impacts on the State-Federal
    partnership envisioned by the act, they also have very direct impacts
    on limited State and Federal resources that must be devoted to
    addressing all TDNs, regardless of their veracity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 $250 million in fiscal year
    2015. Instead, OSM has budgeted an amount of $186 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 $64 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 $250 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 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 Technical Innovation
    and Professional Services (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 $1.5
    million.
        With regard to the proposal contained in OSM's budget to establish
    a hardrock AML program, the States have consistently advocated for
    legislation that would allow them to address historic hardrock AML
    problem areas, beginning with the inclusion of section 409 of SMCRA in
    1977. There is clearly a need to establish both the funding mechanism
    and the administrative program to address these legacy sites, be it
    through a fee or through a meaningful Good Samaritan program that
    provides liability protection for those undertaking this type of work.
    We believe that OSM is in the best position to administer a hardrock
    AML 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.
        We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement on the
    Office of Surface Mining's proposed budget for fiscal year 2015. We
    would be happy to answer any questions or provide additional
    information at your request.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Intertribal Timber Council
                                    summary
        Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Phil Rigdon,
    president of the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) and deputy director
    of natural resources for the Yakama Nation. The ITC offers the
    following recommendations for fiscal year 2015 Indian forestry-related
    activities in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Department of
    Interior (DOI) Office of Wildland Fire Management (OWF), and the USDA
    Forest Service (USFS):
                            bureau of indian affairs
    1.  Increase BIA forestry by $25 million as a first step to providing
    the $100 million needed for funding parity with other Federal forestry
    programs, as recommended by the Indian Forest Management Assessment
    Team (IFMAT) III report.
    2.  Increase BIA forestry projects by $12.7 million to initiate a BIA
    Forestry Workforce Development program, as recommended by IFMAT III.
    3.  Increase BIA Cooperative Landscape Conservation funding to $20
    million to support tribal participation.
    4.  Increase the BIA Endangered Species funding to $10 million.
    5.  Support the BIA Invasive Species request of $6.7 million.
                       office of wildland fire management
    6.  Support the Preparedness increase of $37 million.
    7.  Increase Fuels Management funding to $206 million.
    8.  Support the Disaster Fire Funding legislative proposal.
    9.  Support the $30 million Resilient Landscapes initiative.
                          united state forest service
    10.  Encourage expanded support for the ITC Anchor Forest initiative.
    11.  Encourage the USFS to make implementation of the Tribal Forest
    Protection Act (TFPA) a ``priority.''
                  indian forest management assessment team iii
        Many of our comments and recommendations reflect the third IFMAT
    report, the statutorily required (Public Law 101-630, Sec. 312) decadal
    review and report on tribal forests and forestry conducted by an
    independent Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT). Previous
    IFMAT reviews and reports were done in 1993 and 2003. The 2013 report,
    IFMAT III, was mailed to this subcommittee about a month ago. We urge
    the subcommittee to review the report and consider its findings and
    recommendations in your fiscal year 2015 deliberations.
        The IFMAT III report examines tribal forests using a ``FIT''
    framework: Fire, Investment and Transformation:

      --"Fire'' represents the increasingly large role wildland fire and
            other threats present to the health and productivity of tribal
            forests;
      --"Investment'' represents the need for Federal funding and trust
            support to meet forest-related fiduciary obligations and ensure
            a sustainable future for Indian forests; and
      --"Transformation'' represents the emergence of Indian forestry as a
            model for sustainable landscape management.

        IFMAT III examines eight specific review areas required by the
    statute, including staffing and funding, and also looks at additional
    issues such as climate change, the Anchor Forests initiative, and
    implementation of the TFPA.
        IFMAT III found that chronically insufficient funding and worsening
    staff shortages pose threats to tribal forests and communities from
    both foregone economic opportunities and resource losses due to
    wildland fire, insects, disease, and climate change. Federal trust
    management funding of Indian forests is still only one-third of that
    for National Forests; an additional $100 million is needed to bring
    Indian forestry and wildfire management to parity. Staffing shortfalls
    are jeopardizing the capacity to care for forest resources; IFMAT III
    found that 800 additional positions in a wide variety of skill areas
    are needed to provide adequate staffing and $12.7 million is needed
    annually for recruitment, training and retention.
        Against this background, the ITC makes the following comments and
    requests for fiscal year 2015:
                            bureau of indian affairs
    1.  Increase BIA forestry by $25 million as a first step to provide the
    $100 million needed for funding parity with other Federal forestry
    programs, as recommended by IFMAT III.

        We request that the fiscal year 2015 BIA forestry budget be
    increased by $25 million, to $70.9 million, to begin to reduce the
    glaring $100 million funding disparity with other Federal forestry
    programs as discussed in the IFMAT III report. Of the $25 million
    increase, allocate $20 million to Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)
    Forestry to strengthen base BIA and tribal forest staffing and
    management activities and $5 million to forestry projects to reduce the
    Forest Development planting and thinning backlog that covers one-sixth
    of the trust forest area. As additional staffing capacity is developed
    (see item 2 below), further budget movement toward parity funding can
    be accommodated.

    2.  Increase BIA forestry projects by $12.7 million to initiate a BIA
    Forestry Workforce Development program, as recommended by IFMAT III.

        BIA and tribal forestry are facing a staffing crisis. The IFMAT III
    report states 800 additional BIA forestry positions are needed, and an
    increasing number of existing positions are unfilled due to retirements
    and funding shortfalls. Trained personnel are needed to enable the
    sustainable trust management of our forests, including the harvest of
    timber needed to maintain forest health and support economies that
    provide jobs and income for tribal communities. For example, on the
    Yakama Reservation, 33 of the 55 BIA forestry positions have not been
    filled for a long time, despite repeated tribal pleas. Harvest targets
    sought by the tribe are not being met, forest health is suffering, and
    economic opportunities are being lost. To begin to address this large
    and growing personnel shortage and its negative consequences on the
    Federal trust and tribal economies, $12.7 million is needed to start a
    program to attract, train and retain forestry staff.

    3.  Increase BIA Cooperative Landscape Conservation (CLC) funding to
    $20 million to develop tribal capacity.

        We request that CLC funding be increased by $10 million, with the
    additional amount dedicated to supporting sustained tribal technical
    and administrative engagement in DOI's climate initiatives. Because of
    dependence on place and natural resources, tribes are particularly
    vulnerable to climate change. The BIA's fiscal year 2015 CLC budget of
    less than $10 million is inadequate to support the needs of the 566
    federally-recognized tribes to monitor and address the impacts of
    climate change over the long term.

    4.  Increase BIA Endangered Species funding to $10 million.

        ITC requests BIA ESA be funded at $10 million so the myriad listed
    species throughout Indian Country nationwide can be better addressed.
    BIA's $2.7 million request for ESA is an improvement over past years,
    but the proposal is just half of the ESA per-acre funding for BLM and
    still below the $3 million appropriated for BIA ESA in fiscal year
    2002. A further significant increase in BIA ESA to $10 million is fully
    warranted.

    5.  Support the BIA Invasive Species request of $6.7 million.

        Invasive species are inflicting increasing damage on tribal trust
    resources, including tribal forests. The $6.7 million request is needed
    and welcome to help stem the invasive species encroachment that is
    threatening trust resources.
              department of the interior wildland fire management
    6.  Support the $37 million Preparedness increase.

        The increase will alleviate the penalty BIA and the tribes now bear
    in absorbing contract support costs (CSCs) for carrying out
    Preparedness functions. This is in line with the policy goal of fully
    funding CSCs without harming services. The requested increase also
    strengthens tribal wildfire management capacity and provides for
    recruitment and training of future generations of Native American
    wildland fire fighters, whose jobs are a source of pride and economic
    opportunity in tribal communities and provide a national asset in
    wildland fire fighting.

    7.  Increase Fuels Management funding to $206 million.

        ITC supports fiscal year 2015 Fuels Management funding restored to
    its fiscal year 2010 $206 million level. The Department's fuels
    reduction backlog remains huge, preventative projects are much more
    cost effective than suppression, and fuels funding has never come close
    to the projected amount needed to reduce risks of fuels. Within the
    fiscal year 2015 Fuels Management appropriation, ITC strongly supports
    the designation of $10 million for tribal resource management landscape
    restoration, to allow tribes to engage in proactive fuels and forest
    health projects on or off trust lands to protect tribal trust assets
    and treaty rights. The ITC wishes to extend our gratitude to OWF for
    moving beyond the difficult Hazardous Fuels Prioritization and
    Allocation System (HFPAS) fuels fund allocation process, and its
    efforts to seek the involvement of tribes in determining how available
    funding can best be allocated to protect tribal communities and values.

    8.  Support the Disaster Fire Funding legislative proposal.

        ITC supports the legislative proposal to treat extreme fire costs
    (above 70 percent of the 10 year average) as the natural disasters that
    they are, reducing the consequences of fire costs both on DOI's
    operations and budgets.

    9.  Support the $30 million Resilient Landscape initiative.

        With the initiative, fuels and health projects can be more broadly
    applied beyond the wildland-urban interface (WUI).
                          united states forest service
    10.  Encourage expanded support for the ITC Anchor Forest initiative.

        We ask that you support, and encourage continued Forest Service
    support of, the ITC's Anchor Forest initiative. The initiative is
    fostering long-term collaborative active forest management across the
    landscape to maintain ecological functions and sustain economically
    viable infrastructure for harvesting, transportation, and processing
    forest products. Tribes, with long-term commitment to stewardship, can
    and must play a key role in fostering Anchor Forests. Currently, the
    ITC Anchor Forest initiative involves three study areas in the States
    of Washington and Idaho (involving Yakama, Colville, and the Spokane
    and Coeur d'Alene Tribes), with participatory and resource support from
    the USFS Regional Office. The project is bringing diverse interests to
    the table to begin to develop the collaborative process of working
    together in common purpose. Now, tribes in the Lakes States, the
    Midwest and the Southwest are expressing interest in the Anchor Forest
    concept for landscape-based forests. We ask the subcommittee to
    encourage the USFS and other agencies within the Department of
    Agriculture, such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the
    Rural Development Administration, to support and participate in Anchor
    Forests.

    11.  Encourage the USFS to make implementation of Tribal Forest
    Protection Act (TFPA) a ``priority.''

        Finally, we ask that you urge the USFS to make reform and
    implementation of the TFPA (Public Law 108-278) a ``priority.'' The
    TFPA was enacted to enable tribes to undertake fuels management and
    forest restoration projects on Forest Service or BLM lands that pose a
    fire, disease or other threat to tribal trust forests, reserved rights
    and cultural resources. But only a handful of TFPA projects have been
    implemented in the decade since the authority was enacted. USFS has
    been painfully slow in adoption of the recommendations of an ITC review
    of TFPA implementation, done in collaboration with the USFS and BIA. An
    effective TFPA will help restore the landscape to a healthy and
    resilient condition. We ask that you urge the Forest Service to make
    the TFPA a ``priority'' to save landscapes at high risk to climate
    change.
                     intertribal timber council background
        The ITC is a 38-year-old association of some 60 forest owning
    tribes and Alaska Native organizations that collectively manage more
    than 90 percent of the 18 million acres of BIA trust timberland and
    woodland. These forests cover about one third of the Indian trust land
    base and provide thousands of jobs and significant economic activity in
    and around Indian Country. Beyond their economic importance, forests
    also store and filter the water and purify the air to sustain life
    itself. They sustain habitats for the fish and wildlife, produce foods,
    medicines, fuel, and materials for shelter, transportation, and
    artistic expression. In short, our forests are vital to our economies,
    cultures and spiritual well being.
        Mr. Chairman, subcommittee members, we invite you to come visit our
    reservations and our forests to see what we have done and what we hope
    to do in the future.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
        On behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, I respectfully submit
    these requests and recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets to honor
    the trust responsibility and support tribal prosperity and well-being.
    We renew our request that Congress work together to achieve a balanced
    approach to the budget which includes raising new revenue sources and
    do not rely solely on cuts to discretionary spending. We request the
    following:

        1.  Move BIA and IHS contract support costs to mandatory spending.
        2.  Provide advanced appropriations for the Indian Health Service.
        3.  Increase Tribal Priority Allocation funding, and provide $15
    million for the Housing Improvement Program within that fund.
        4.  Provide a $181.2 million increase for Purchased/Referred Care.

        The Federal approach to deficit reduction has been significantly
    unbalanced with non-defense Federal programs shouldering the fiscal
    burden of these budget cuts. Discretionary programs have already
    experienced $2.5 trillion in spending cuts as a result of reductions in
    the fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution, the Budget Control Act, the
    American Taxpayer Relief Act, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, and
    the Farm Bill. At the same time, revenue has increased by only $778
    billion. Tribes are funded out of the non-defense 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.
        In addition to the items detailed below, our tribe would like to
    reiterate that we are a direct beneficiary of the collective tribal
    efforts and continuing efforts of the National Congress of American
    Indians, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, the Northwest
    Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian Fisheries
    Commission. The tribe supports the requests and recommendations of
    those organizations specifically.
        1. Ensure that Contract Support Costs are Mandatory Spending.--We
    are pleased that the administration has sought to fully fund contract
    support costs (CSC) under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act (ISDEAA) in fiscal year 2015, and we urge Congress to
    support that goal. We acknowledge that the administration's request is
    a direct response to Congress' actions with regard to fiscal year 2014
    appropriations, which removed historical caps on CSC funding and
    rejected the administration's proposal--put forward without tribal
    consultation and vehemently opposed by tribes--to individually cap
    contract support costs recovery at the contractor level. Contract
    support costs funds vital administrative functions that allow us to
    operate programs that provide critical services to our members--
    programs like our full-service OB-GYN facilities in the Jamestown
    Health Clinic, our comprehensive dental services in our dental clinic,
    and the many services provided by our Community Health & Wellness
    Program. If contract support costs are not fully funded, our programs
    and services are directly impacted because we are forced to divert
    limited program funding to cover fixed overhead expenses instead. We
    therefore appreciate Congress' support in fiscal year 2014 and hope
    that it carries through to fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
        However, the CSC funding problem is not yet solved. Full funding
    for CSC must not come with a penalty--namely, a reduction in program
    funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds.
    That result would have the same devastating effect on our service
    delivery as the failure to fully fund CSC. Yet Congress, in the Joint
    Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act, noted that ``since [contract support costs] fall
    under discretionary spending, they have the potential to impact all
    other programs funded under the Interior and Environment Appropriations
    bill, including other equally important tribal programs.'' Without any
    permanent measure to ensure full funding, payment of CSC remains
    subject to agency ``discretion'' from year to year, even though tribes
    are legally entitled to full payment of CSC under the ISDEAA. Noting
    these ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to
    consult with tribes on a permanent solution.
        In our view, there is a logical permanent solution which Congress
    is empowered to implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory
    entitlement. The Congressional Budget Office defines ``Entitlement'' as
    ``A legal obligation of the Federal Government to make payments to a
    person, group of people, business, unit of government, or similar
    entity that meets the eligibility criteria set in law and for which the
    budget authority is not provided in advance in an appropriation act.''
    Further, ``Spending for entitlement programs is controlled through
    those programs' eligibility criteria and benefit or payment rules.''
    \1\ CSC meets every part of this definition except that the budget
    authority is currently provided and controlled through appropriation
    acts--as if CSC were a discretionary program. Under the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act, the full payment of CSC is
    not discretionary, but is a legal obligation of the United States.
    Indeed, the underlying purpose of the ISDEAA--to end Federal domination
    of Indian programs and allow for meaningful control by Indian tribes
    over their own destinies in the face of Federal bureaucratic
    resistance--will always be threatened so long as the mechanisms that
    allow the statute to function are considered ``discretionary.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Congressional Budget Office Glossary, available at http://
    www.cbo.gov/publication/42904 (updated January 2012).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        From an appropriations standpoint, the fiscal year 2014 Joint
    Explanatory Statement recognized that the current fundamental mismatch
    between the mandatory nature of CSC and the current appropriation
    approach leaves both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
    in the ``untenable position of appropriating discretionary funds for
    the payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.'' As the
    Joint Explanatory Statement also noted, ``Typically obligations of this
    nature are addressed through mandatory spending.'' The obvious solution
    then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the statutory
    requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory
    entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge
    the Congress to move to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory
    basis.
        2. The Need for Indian Health Service Advance Appropriations.--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. Even after enactment of an appropriations bill (or a series of
    increasingly confusing continuing resolutions), 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.
        Seriously delayed 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 our tribe'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 Native people. 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 receive
    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 2016 advance appropriations for the IHS were
    included in the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and Related
    Agencies Appropriations Act, those advance appropriations would not be
    counted against the fiscal year 2015 Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee's funding allocation but rather would be counted against
    its fiscal year 2016 allocation. It would also be counted against the
    ceiling in the fiscal year 2016 Budget Resolution, not the fiscal year
    2015 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 2015) and
    (2) an advance appropriation for the following year (fiscal year 2016).
    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. However, 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 detailed budget estimates, the
    funds necessary for the medical care accounts of the VA 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. Currently there are to bills (H.R. 813/S. 932)
    seeking to expand VA advance appropriation to all discretionary
    accounts not just medical. We also note that there is legislation (H.R.
    3229 and S. 1570) pending in this Congress that would expand advance
    appropriations to the IHS. 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.
        3. $15 Million Increase for HIP Program in Tribal Priority
    Allocation (TPA) Funding in the BIA Budget.--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 Funding to the Housing Improvement Program.--The HIP
    program is an important component of TPA funding. It serves the
    neediest population--those at 125 percent of the Federal income poverty
    guidelines. The President requests only $8 million for this fund--even
    funding from last year, which was a drastic reduction from the nearly
    $12 million in fiscal year 2013. This reduction is based on the false
    presumption that the program is duplicative of HUD programs. The
    assumption is wrong, and we urge you to provide $15 million in funding
    for this program that provides an essential service to our tribal
    citizens: safe and sanitary housing.
        4. $ 181.2 Million Increase Funding for Purchased/Referred Care
    (formally called Contract Health Services).--Most IHS and tribally
    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 critical need. Purchased/Referred Care
    funds are used to purchase essential healthcare services, including
    inpatient and outpatient care, routine emergency ambulatory care,
    transportation and medical support services (like diagnostic imaging,
    physical therapy, laboratory, nutrition, and pharmacy services).
        Thank you on behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Jicarilla Apache Nation
                                                        March 31, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
    support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
    consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
    subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                                    Ty Vicenti,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Mrs. Barbara King
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee: My name
    is Barbara King and I am a resident of Texas, an owner of rural
    property in Colorado, and an advocate for land exchange reform. I
    testified in 2011 before the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Environment, Interior and Related Agencies, and appreciate your
    willingness to consider this additional testimony on the same subject.
    I am convinced of the need for revising BLM land exchange regulations
    to protect the public, based on what my neighbors and I experienced as
    participants in the 2007, Emerald Mountain Land Exchange (EMLEX.) Your
    committee can prevent the recklessness by which the land exchange
    program is being managed by interviewing the officials responsible for
    overseeing it to assess their actual knowledge of land exchange
    regulations and the Land Exchange Handbook policies on public
    notification and working with land exchange facilitators (specifically
    for-profit real estate brokers.) I believe you will be astounded at
    what you find, and will see an immediate need to revise these
    regulations so they are clear and reasonable.
        At the State level, land managers such as Colorado's John Beck
    should be asked why they admittedly do not follow the BLM Land Exchange
    Handbook policies, cavalierly putting your constituents' historic land
    use patterns and land values at risk. Mr. Beck had told me that the
    Handbook is only a guide, and no case law enforces it. Obviously, the
    very wide discretion given to land managers to ignore these policies
    can easily lead to poor decisions with enormous consequences.
    Specifically, as shown in the EMLEX, BLM does not exercise the Full
    Disclosure policy whereby land exchange facilitators must reveal all
    purchase contracts they hold with prospective owners of the Federal
    land prior to land appraisals. If BLM does not provide this information
    to appraisers, as they failed to do in the EMLEX, Federal land
    appraisals cannot be guaranteed to meet regulation standards. Why does
    BLM not make this a regulation given the reports year after year of the
    inadequacy of the appraisal process? Nor, in the EMLEX, were the names
    of all prospective owners added to the mailing list, ignoring a
    Handbook requirement to include everyone expressing an ownership
    interest in the Federal land. This action is crucial to the public, but
    irrelevant to and ignored by BLM. Failure to obtain full disclosure,
    according to the very critical 2009, Government Accountability Office
    (GAO) report, ``BLM and the Forest Service Have Improved Oversight of
    the Land Exchange Process, but Additional Actions Are Needed,'' has
    predictable results. GAO writes ``Without consistent application, the
    agencies fail to obtain critical information and potentially risk
    losing the ability to control the exchange process.'' A big part of the
    problem is lack of trained staff. As GAO wrote ``The agencies cannot
    ensure that realty staff develop and maintain necessary skills.''
        The two problems, inadequate public notification and failure to
    provide appraisers with complete information, are serious, but the
    solutions are so straightforward and cost-neutral that I believe your
    subcommittee will support revising land exchange regulations as you
    consider funding for the FLPMA this year. Your answers to two questions
    should determine whether you are willing to do so. First, should BLM
    notify rural landowners adjacent to Federal land when BLM plans to
    dispose of it? The Department of the Interior (DOI), and most
    vehemently, the acting Inspector General, Mary Kendall, says ``NO!''
    That is a clue there is a big problem with common sense at DOI.
        Second, do you believe a Federal land appraisal can be guaranteed
    to be accurate if the appraiser is unaware of its intended use by those
    holding purchase contracts for it? Of course not! However, DOI says,
    yes.
        I believe that your subcommittee, charged with oversight of the BLM
    land exchange program, will serve the public well by challenging the
    Administration's counterintuitive thinking.
        The public needs you to find out why BLM officials do not follow
    their Handbook and its checklist of procedures critical to running a
    program that, if mismanaged, can literally ruin your constituents'
    livelihoods. Who can't follow a checklist?
        Interviewing two current Department of the Interior (DOI) officials
    who are responsible for oversight within DOI will reveal why these
    problems persist. Challenging them directly by asking them detailed
    questions will show you the remarkable lack of competence and interest
    within the DOI to do any oversight of this program. Since my
    Congressional representative, John Culberson (R-TX) and I began our
    inquiries about the program in 2009, DOI employees have revealed a
    systemic, evidently coordinated, refusal to examine the problems with
    the BLM land exchange program identified in the 2009, GAO report. I was
    told by BLM Deputy Secretary Ned Farquhar in 2009 that he had neither
    the time nor staff to look into the fact that the Colorado BLM office
    had not followed its policies regarding public notification or working
    with facilitators in the EMLEX. Subsequently, he relied on a report
    from the Colorado office defending their management of the exchange. No
    one at DOI ever challenged its accuracy by examining case file records
    or documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
    requests which clearly showed that all BLM officials, including
    Director Bob Abbey simply repeated numerous demonstrably false
    statements about the exchange to Mr. Culberson and me. Finally, and
    shockingly, the acting Inspector General, Mary Kendall, somehow
    ``confirmed'' Mr. Abby's false statements, and refused to offer a shred
    of support for her conclusion that BLM had, indeed followed its
    policies. If Democrats on your subcommittee take an interest in this,
    it will be an outstanding example of principle over partisanship. If
    not, the reverse is apparent.
        Why does the land exchange program need your oversight? When
    Federal officials make false statements to congressional appropriators
    who question them, they must believe you do not have the staff or time
    to hold them accountable for what is either gross incompetence or
    willful disregard for facts in order to protect the administration.
    Thorough public notification of BLM's actions and obtaining fair value
    for Federal land are of critical importance to the public, so the
    regulations and policies addressing those issues should be written
    clearly for everyone to understand. BLM's cavalier disregard for your
    own fundamental property rights will be apparent to members and staff
    who talk with administration officials about land exchange regulations
    and policies. Mr. Farquhar and Ms. Kendall should be asked to explain
    their interpretations of and opinions about the following:

        1. Public notification regulations and Handbook policies.

        2. Regulations and Policies regarding oversight of facilitators:
    GAO report 09-611 made excellent recommendations for improving
    oversight of facilitators that could be implemented fairly easily if
    BLM would simply acknowledge the problem. Unfortunately, DOI's response
    included in that report, written by Acting Assistant Secretary, Land
    and Minerals Management, Mr. Ned Farquhar does not even acknowledge the
    problems with oversight noted in the report, or comment on GAO's
    suggestions to correct them. In the report, GAO states the need for
    additional documentation by the National Land Exchange Team that the
    Full Disclosure provision of the agreement to initiate (ATI) is indeed
    exercised in a facilitated land exchange. BLM still refuses to do so.
    The influence of lobbyists for facilitators may be the reason for this
    because the risk of inaccurate appraisals is clear.

        3. Oversight of land exchange and appraisal processes within BLM
    and DOI: GAO report 08-106 ``Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act
    Restrictions and Management Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and
    Acquisitions and 10-259T ``Challenges to Implementing the Federal Land
    Transaction Facilitation Act'' identify management weaknesses and the
    lack of staff. ``BLM officials reported that they lacked knowledgeable
    realty staff to conduct land acquisitions, as well as other BLM or
    department staff to conduct appraisals, surveys, and resource studies.
    The turnover of management in the State Office conducting the most
    exchanges, Colorado, is remarkably high. Colorado has had seven State
    Directors during the period 2002-2014 (Wenker, Koza, Wisely, Hunsaker,
    Barden, Hankins, Welch). The turnover at the Federal level just with
    the Obama administration shows the need for clear regulations and
    policies that these officials and the public can understand. Hopefully,
    DOI Secretary Jewell, BLM Director Kornze and Assistant Secretary for
    Land and Minerals Management Schneider will, unlike their predecessors,
    accept public and congressional scrutiny and make the changes that need
    to be made. Ironically, it was Secretary Salazar who stated, in his
    2011, ``Plan for Retrospective Regulatory Review'' that ``Through this
    process, we want to gather the best ideas from the public on how to fix
    regulations that need fixing, eliminate those that are no longer
    needed, and make government work better for the people we serve.'' Your
    subcommittee has the power to take these problems seriously and fix
    them. Here is a start. Ms. Kendall's refusal to provide Mr. Culberson
    with a full report on her ``appraisal review'' of one of the EMLEX
    parcels indicates her profound lack of transparency and contempt for
    Congressional scrutiny.

        4. Suggested Revisions to land exchange regulations and Handbook

        a. Regulations CFR 43 2201. 2 and 2201.7-1 should be amended such
    that the category of those ``appropriate'' includes

              1. adjacent landowners

                      2015 Appropriations Bill Language proposed by
                    Representative John Culberson (R-TX): ``Section 206 of
                    the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
                    U.S.C. 1716) is amended by adding at the end the
                    following new subsection: `(j) In the case of any
                    exchange involving public land or National Forest
                    System land to be carried out (whether directly or
                    through a third-party) under this Act or other
                    applicable law, the Secretary concerned shall provide
                    written notice of the proposed land exchange to each
                    owner of non-Federal land adjoining the parcel of
                    public land or National Forest System land proposed for
                    exchange and each owner of non-Federal land adjoining
                    the non-Federal land proposed to be acquired in the
                    exchange. The Secretary shall determine adjoining
                    landowners using the most-recent available tax records.
                    For purposes of providing notification under this
                    subsection, adjoining land means land sharing any
                    length of border with the public land, National Forest
                    System land, or non-Federal land subject to the
                    proposed exchange, including contact solely at a
                    boundary corner.

              2. ``interested parties'' defined as (a) parties who
            requested information about the exchange directly from BLM (as
            required by the Handbook) (b) any party known to the
            facilitator to have an ownership interest in the BLM land shown
            by a contract with the facilitator or a related agreement to
            purchase all or part of the newly exchanged BLM property. This
            information is required to be provided to BLM through the Full
            Disclosure provision of the ATI.

        b. Implement these Specific Directives regarding Land Exchanges
    based on the GAO report GAO-09-611 through revising regulations to
    require this:

      --ensure careful and fully documented reviews by National Land
            Exchange Team (NLET) that identify key problems and record
            their resolutions
      --Clearly define third-party facilitators
      --Consistently apply disclosure policies to them an, crucially,
            include documentation of the disclosure in the case file and
            verification of the disclosure by NLET

        c. Revisions to the BLM Land Exchange Handbook Chapter 11E.

              Role of Facilitators in Assembling Multiple Parcels or
            Multiple Ownerships.

              BLM should plainly define the meaning of words used in their
            regulations, policy and personal communications such as
            ``interested party,'' ``participant'' and ``client.'' Exchange
            facilitators must be required to be aware of all exchange
            regulations and policy. BLM realty staff must review all
            facilitator's Employment Agreements to verify that the Scope of
            Work offered to clients is consistent with exchange policy. BLM
            should add an additional step to the land exchange review
            process, as GAO-09-611 recommends (p. 42) so that the National
            Land Exchange Team documents that the Full Disclosure provision
            was exercised, shown by BLM realty staff having reviewed all
            contracts the facilitator holds. Both the State realty office
            and the NLET reviews should be in the exchange case file.

        --BLM should distribute a Land Exchange Fact Sheet to ``interested
                parties'' holding a contract or related agreement with the
                facilitator, clarifying the roles of BLM and its
                facilitator and the exchange parameters.
                                     ______

            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 2015 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 approximately 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. The League remains committed to helping
    orchestras engage with their communities, and the NEA plays an
    invaluable role through its direct grants, Federal/State partnerships,
    and research on trends in public participation and workforce
    development.
        The award of a competitive NEA grant is widely considered an
    affirmation of national artistic significance. The ability to present
    nationally recognized programs is highly valued by communities large
    and small, and being an NEA grant recipient is critical in securing
    additional funding for a variety of programming and operations. In
    fiscal year 2013, the NEA's Grants to Organizations included 100 direct
    grants to orchestras in the Art Works and Challenge America categories.
    In the current fiscal year 2014 period, the following eleven
    highlighted awards total $200,000 in NEA grants, supporting orchestras
    that together employ more than 800 musicians and 360 full- and part-
    time staff.
            nea funding increases access for underserved communities
        Together with the organizations it supports, the NEA is dedicated
    to improving public access to the arts. With a Challenge America grant,
    the Gulf Coast Symphony Orchestra produced ``Something Old, Something
    New,'' a classical music concert featuring trombonist Joe Alessi. The
    project was created to serve a low-income, rural community. In addition
    to the public performance, there was also a public dress rehearsal, a
    master class for a local high school, and free community outreach
    performances held in Gulfport and Ocean Springs, Mississippi. The
    public dress rehearsal attracts a full range of local citizens--from
    high school and college students to residents of retirement homes and
    local veterans. The Gulf Coast Symphony and its musicians accomplish
    all of this with the help of just three staff members and an active
    board.
        Another Challenge America recipient serving many with a modest
    grant is the Bismarck-Mandan Symphony Orchestra (BMSO), the only full
    symphony orchestra in western and south central North Dakota. With two
    full-time and two part-time staff, roughly 75 musicians, and more than
    40 volunteers, the BMSO will present a series of concerts and
    activities with guest violinist Michael Ludwig in Bismarck, the
    orchestra's home base, and Mott, a rural community of 732 people. The
    orchestra and Mr. Ludwig will work with local partners in Mott to
    present a classroom program for student musicians at Mott-Regent
    Junior/Senior High School, a recital for residents of the Good
    Samaritan Society-Mott, which provides shelter and supportive services
    to older persons and others in need, and perform a free evening recital
    at Mott's Playhouse Theater. These activities will benefit a community
    that would otherwise need to travel more than 100 miles to Bismarck in
    order to enjoy professional music performances.
        Orchestras are finding ways to engage underserved communities that
    are nearby as well as those many miles away. The Seattle Symphony
    Orchestra (SSO), which employs 150 full-time staff including 84
    musicians, will utilize its NEA Art Works grant to help support the New
    Music Works performance project, which employs music composition as a
    tool to increase public participation in the arts and creates skill
    development opportunities for youth. The project will feature
    compositions that bridge traditional and contemporary cultures. Among
    these works is a new piece co-created by northwest Native American
    youth and artists through the SSO's Cultural Exchanges, which are
    hosted at tribal venues on a quarterly basis to foster closer
    relationships and collaborative work with the tribes.
     nea grants help orchestras engage, educate, and equip america's youth
        The experience of live music can bring disparate communities and
    partners together, united in the purpose of educating and encouraging
    young people. The Greensboro Symphony's OrKIDStra program, for example,
    partners with Guilford County Head Start to serve preschoolers
    throughout the Piedmont Triad. Tying together literacy skills with
    classical music, the symphony provides more than 600 Head Start
    children with free books related to a specific concert theme. Head
    Start educators work with the children, who later see the book brought
    to life in an interactive concert featuring the symphony's Percussion
    Ensemble and a professional storyteller. Building upon the great
    success of last year's program, the Greensboro Symphony, with its 13
    full and part-time staff and more than 80 musicians, is expanding its
    OrKIDStra program this year to include several public performances at
    the Greensboro Science Center's new Carolina SciQuarium facility in May
    2014.
        The Kansas City Symphony, with 80 full-time musicians, 31 full-time
    staff members, and as many as 200 part-time/seasonal employees, offers
    more than 170 performances and also education programs that connect
    with more than 40,000 children and teachers each year, many of whom are
    in rural and underserved areas. The Kansas City Symphony's ``Festival
    of Rhythm'' program featured performances by percussionist Martin
    Grubinger playing John Corigliano's percussion concerto Conjurer, and
    the Festival also included a free community concert of percussion
    works, a public lecture by Corigliano, and a master class and pre-
    concert discussions with Grubinger, all reaching more than 6,000
    people. In addition, nearly 17,000 students and teachers from 20
    communities in northwest Missouri and 21 communities in northeast
    Kansas learned about rhythm and percussion at 12 KinderKonzerts and
    Link Up performances.
        Thanks to an NEA Challenge America grant, the Fort Smith Symphony
    Orchestra, which employs four full-time staff and 93 per-service
    professional musicians, was able to offer for free, an interactive
    educational program called EARQUAKE!TM. In partnership with
    both public and private schools, this award-winning, live concert
    series reached 3,500 sixth-graders in a five county region in western
    Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma, engaging them in a total symphony
    experience designed to encourage music appreciation and future
    participation in the arts. EARQUAKE!TM concerts featured
    exciting music by the full orchestra, complete with video projection,
    audience participation, and performances by violist Tazonio Anderson.
    Nearly one-fourth of the Fort Smith students live in poverty, and
    participating rural Arkansas and Oklahoma schools have acute economic
    disadvantages with limited arts education budgets.
        The San Francisco Symphony Youth Orchestra will use its Art Works
    grant from the NEA to support the Artistic Development Program. The
    program complements the youth orchestra's core activity of weekly
    rehearsals and concert performances by providing students with
    coaching, mentorship, and specialized training in chamber music.
    Students will receive free tickets to San Francisco Symphony
    performances and participate in master classes with guest artists such
    as composer John Adams, violinist Joshua Bell, and pianist Garrick
    Ohlsson. Participants will also rehearse at least twice a year with San
    Francisco Symphony Music Director Michael Tilson Thomas. The San
    Francisco Symphony currently employs 107 full-time orchestra members
    and 123 full-time staff.
              nea funding encourages new works and local artistry
        NEA grants to orchestras help support the creative work of American
    composers and musicians. Whether the music is newly composed, inspired
    by classics, or blends music from different genres, the artistry
    supported by the NEA is as diverse as the communities that surround
    their grantees. The Utah Symphony  Utah Opera, whose 56 full-
    time and 20 part-time employees and 85 full time musicians help bring
    music to 450,000 residents in Utah and the Intermountain region,
    received an Art Works grant to support the premiere performance of a
    percussion concerto by Andrew Norman. Mr. Norman chose the percussion
    as the solo medium due to its physicality, which he feels compellingly
    demonstrates the theatrical aspect of live orchestral performance. The
    world premiere performance of his concerto will feature guest artist
    Colin Currie in Abravanel Hall, Salt Lake City.
        The Portland Symphony Orchestra, led by 82 musicians along with 12
    full-time and 5 part-time staff, received an Art Works grant to support
    audience engagement with both traditional and contemporary compositions
    in celebration of the orchestra's 90th anniversary season. The
    orchestra will perform all nine of Beethoven's symphonies over the next
    three concert seasons, with the upcoming season's February concert to
    feature Beethoven's Symphony No. 3 and a Beethoven-inspired
    commissioned piece by a young American composer. A national,
    competitive application process will held to help launch and promote
    the career of the selected young American composer, who will also
    participate in a ``mini-residency'' which will involve participating in
    community events such as education symposiums, master classes in local
    schools, and Q&A events for concert audiences.
        Also supporting the work of living composers is the Arkansas
    Symphony Orchestra, which will use its Art Works funding to support a
    residency, commission, and premiere of a new work by American composer
    Christopher Theofinidis. In addition to working with orchestra
    musicians prior to the premiere, Mr. Theofinidis will also work with
    underserved students in central Arkansas and take part in pre-concert
    lectures. The orchestra, which employs eleven full-time musicians,
    eighty part-time musicians, and twelve full-time staff members, serves
    over 120,000 Arkansans a year with live music and is proud to premiere
    the work of Mr. Theofinidis.
        The Chicago Sinfonietta, with its 62 musicians, a staff of 4 full-
    time and 7 part-time employees, and 30-member board, will use its Art
    Works grant to present unique programming that blends musical and
    cultural genres. The Cross-Cultural Genre Fusion concert, with related
    educational activities, is a multicultural exploration of the
    intersection between symphonic and electronic music and will feature a
    Bhangra DJ together with two guest conductors--one Brazilian and one
    African American. Each conductor will conduct one half of the concert
    and will focus on their individual cultural heritage. Educational
    activities will include pre-concert discussions and school visits.
        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 Maniilaq Association
        Summary.--The Maniilaq Association is an Alaska Native regional
    non-profit organization representing twelve tribes in Northwest Alaska.
    We provide health services through a self-governance agreement with the
    Indian Health Service (IHS) and social services through a self-
    governance agreement with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). We make
    the following recommendations regarding fiscal year 2015 IHS funding.
      --Increase funding for the Village Built Clinic leases in Alaska by
            at leaset $8.5 million
      --Make full Contract Support Costs funding mandatory spending.
      --Reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program for Indians
      --Fund the IHS budget with advanced appropriations.
      --Provide a $50 million allocation to the IHS from the ACA's
            mandatory Prevention and Public Health Fund for tribal
            behavioral health grants.
      --Improve the safety of Alaska Native communities by affirming tribal
            jurisdiction.
                  funding for village built clinics in alaska
        Maniilaq urges Congress to provide full funding for Village Built
    Clinics (VBCs) in Alaska. VBCs are vital to the provision of basic
    healthcare in rural Alaska, as they serve as the clinic space for the
    Community Health Aide Program (CHAP) under the Indian Health Care
    Improvement Act (IHCIA). The CHAP, which IHS is directed by the IHCIA
    to carry out, utilizes a network of community health aides and
    practitioners to provide primary healthcare services in rural and
    isolated areas where access to those services might not otherwise
    exist.
        Despite the statutory requirement in the IHCIA that the IHS carry
    out the CHAP in order to ensure access to healthcare in rural Alaska,
    over the years the IHS has failed to fund VBC leases anywhere near the
    level of current need. Instead, the IHS has insisted that its funding
    for VBC leases is capped at $3 million--the amount appropriated by
    Congress for VBC leases in 1989. The 1989 appropriation was not a cap
    restricting IHS allocation of funds in later years, however, and the
    IHS has discretion to fund VBCs from its lump sum appropriation. The
    failure of the IHS to allocate funding to VBC leases to meet its
    statutory obligations under the IHCIA has forced Maniilaq to divert
    funding from critical healthcare programs to make up the difference,
    meaning that Maniilaq must offer fewer healthcare services to our
    communities.
        Maniilaq, along with other tribes and tribal organizations in
    Alaska, has discussed this issue with the IHS on several occasions, and
    has proposed solutions that the IHS continues to ignore. Accordingly,
    Maniilaq has recently sought to restructure funding for its VBC
    facilities by requesting that the IHS enter into leases for those
    facilities under its Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
    Act (ISDEAA) Section 105(l) leasing authority, and that the leases be
    incorporated into Maniilaq's ISDEAA funding agreement. Section 105(l)
    and its implementing regulations at 25 C.F.R. Part 900 require that the
    Secretary enter into a lease with a tribe or tribal organization, on a
    mandatory basis upon the request of the tribe or tribal organization,
    for a facility used by the tribe or tribal organization for the
    administration and delivery of services under an ISDEAA compact. The
    statute and implementing regulations also require the Secretary to
    compensate the tribe or tribal organization for certain costs
    associated with the lease.
        The IHS, however, refused the lease proposal, stating that the
    agency will not enter into leases with ISDEAA tribal contractors for
    VBC facilities. IHS also took the position that even if it were to
    approve the lease, the Secretary may unilaterally elect to provide
    essentially meaningless ``non-monetary compensation'' in lieu of the
    costs listed in the statute and regulations for a Section 105(l) lease.
    In response, and with the support of several other major tribal
    organizations, Maniilaq filed suit in Federal District Court early last
    year asking the court to affirm that the IHS is required by statute to
    enter into a Section 105(l) lease and to negotiate monetary
    compensation as provided in the implementing regulations.
        If Maniilaq prevails, the case could establish legal precedent that
    will allow tribal contractors in Alaska to negotiate for full funding
    for VBCs as part of their funding agreements under the IHS's ISDEAA
    leasing authority. Such a victory could address the issue of IHS
    recalcitrance that has plagued the VBC program, since full compensation
    would finally be mandatory. However, support is still needed from
    Congress to ensure that adequate funding is available for VBC leases
    regardless of how the leases are structured. The CHAP in Alaska is
    critical to the provision of basic and essential healthcare services in
    isolated and rural areas, but the program hinges on the continued
    availability of properly maintained VBC space for program operation.
    Maniilaq therefore urges Congress to appropriate at least an additional
    $8.5 million in dedicated funds to fully fund the VBC leasing program.
                  mandatory funding for contract support costs
        We are pleased that Congress chose to fully fund contract support
    costs (CSC) under the ISDEAA in fiscal year 2014, and that the
    administration has supported that effort in fiscal year 2015. CSC fund
    vital administrative functions that allow us to operate programs that
    provide critical services to our community members. If contract support
    costs are not fully funded, however, our programs and services are
    adversely affected because we are forced to divert limited program
    funding to cover fixed overhead expenses instead. We therefore
    appreciate Congress' support in fiscal year 2014 and hope that it
    carries through to fiscal year 2015 and beyond. However, full funding
    for CSC must not come with a penalty--tribes should not have to see a
    reduction in program funding or effective permanent sequestration of
    Indian program funds. Without any permanent measure to ensure full
    funding, payment of CSC remains subject to agency ``discretion'' even
    though tribes are legally entitled to payment under the ISDEAA. Noting
    these ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to
    consult with tribes on a permanent solution.
        There is a logical permanent solution Congress can implement: CSC
    should be appropriated as a mandatory entitlement. Under the ISDEAA,
    the full payment of CSC is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation,
    affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet the budget for CSC is currently
    funded and controlled through appropriation acts--as if it were a
    discretionary program. Congress, in the Joint Explanatory Statement for
    the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations, recognized that the
    current fundamental mismatch between the mandatory nature of CSC and
    the current approach leaves the House and Senate Committees on
    Appropriations in the ``untenable position of appropriating
    discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract
    support costs.'' Congress also noted that, ``Typically obligations of
    this nature are addressed through mandatory spending.'' The obvious
    solution then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the
    statutory requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory
    entitlement, not a discretionary program. Maniilaq therefore strongly
    urges the Congress to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory basis.
                    reauthorize the special diabetes program
        While the entitlement funding for the Special Diabetes Program for
    Indians (SDPI) is not part of the IHS appropriations process, those
    funds are administered through the IHS. With the recent enactment
    (Public Law 113-93) of a 1 year extension of the SDPI as part of the
    Medicare ``doc fix'' bill, it is funded through fiscal year 2015 at
    $150 million, minus a 2 percent reduction ($3 million) due to the
    sequestration of non-exempt mandatory programs (Public Law 112-240).
    This funding level has not increased since 2004. The SDPI has proven
    highly effective in Indian Country, and has produced excellent results.
    For example, in the 4 years preceding the last report on the SDPI in
    2011, the average blood sugar level dropped nearly a percentage point
    overall, corresponding to a 40 percent decline in the risk of eye,
    kidney, and nerve complications due to diabetes. We ask that you
    support ongoing efforts to reauthorize this program for a 5-year period
    at increased funding levels.
                  fund the ihs through advanced appropriations
        Last year we provided extensive testimony to this subcommittee
    requesting advanced appropriations for the IHS budget. We refer you to
    that testimony for a full description of the benefits of such an
    approach. In sum, the goal is for the IHS and tribal healthcare
    providers to have adequate advance notice of the amount of Federal
    appropriations to expect and thus not be subjected to the uncertainties
    of late funding and short-term Continuing Resolutions. Congress
    provides advance appropriations for the Veterans Administration medical
    accounts, and the request is for parity in the appropriations schedule
    for the IHS. Legislation to authorize IHS advance appropriations has
    been introduced--H.R. 3229 by Representative Young and S. 1570 by
    Senators Murkowski and Begich. We submitted testimony to the Senate
    Committee on Indian Affairs' April 2, 2014, hearing on S. 1570. We
    request that you support such efforts, and work with these sponsors and
    tribal representatives to move the IHS to an advanced appropriations
    framework.
    increase funding for behavioral health, suicide prevention, and alcohol
                          & substance abuse treatment
        Alaska faces particular hardships in providing for our communities'
    behavioral and mental health. There is a dire need for more prevention
    funding for suicide intervention as well as alcohol and substance abuse
    prevention, particularly for our youth. These efforts go hand in hand,
    as the problems often overlap. Alaska has twice the national rate of
    suicide, and ranks second in the Nation in suicide attempts requiring
    hospitalization. Alaska Native teens commit suicide at a rate nearly 6
    times that of non-Native teenagers. The suicide rate among all Alaskans
    increased by 33 percent between 2005-2008--a period when the national
    rate remained steady. Compounding and complicating the suicide epidemic
    is alcohol and substance abuse, or a mental health disorder. The
    overwhelming majority of the people we lose to suicide suffer from
    diagnosable, treatable mental health or substance abuse problems.
    However, the waiting list for treatment averages nearly 9 months, and
    due to lack of funding there is often no place to refer people,
    particularly young people.
        Alcohol and substance abuse contributes to myriad other problems as
    well, including crime, domestic violence, child abuse or neglect.
    Oftentimes, tribes in Alaska have a difficult time working through the
    State of Alaska to provide these services, which adds layers of
    guidelines, regulations, and reduced funding. We have found that tribes
    and tribal organizations should receive behavioral funds directly,
    because programs that implement traditional cultural values are more
    successful than those that don't. Included in the Affordable Care Act
    is mandatory funding ($17.7 billion over 10 years) for a Prevention and
    Public Health (PPH) Fund from which Congress may allocate funding to
    various programs. In fiscal year 2012 the administration requested that
    $50 million of it be allocated to a new tribal behavioral health grant
    program; unfortunately Congress did not provide that allocation. We
    urge that Congress allocate $50 million from the PPH to the IHS in
    fiscal year 2015 for this purpose and that it be recurring.
           support tribal jurisdiction to protect alaska communities
        We support the ongoing efforts to amend S. 1474, the Alaska Safe
    Families and Villages Act, in a manner that would recognize Alaska
    tribes' jurisdiction to protect their communities by dealing locally
    with domestic violence, sexual assault and drug and alcohol abuse. At
    the same time, we greatly appreciate the provision that is already in
    S. 1474 which would repeal section 910 of the Violence Against Women
    Act Reauthorization that left Alaska tribes out of the expanded tribal
    jurisdiction over domestic violence affirmed in that law. These changes
    will require additional Bureau of Indian Affairs resources regarding
    law enforcement and courts. We look forward to continued work with our
    congressional delegation and others on this legislation of such crucial
    importance to Alaska Native communities.
        Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and requests.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Dr. Peter Meineck
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Peter
    Meineck and I am a professor of classics at New York University, the
    founding director of the Aquila Theatre Company and a proud member of
    the Bedford Fire Department in New York where I serve as a volunteer
    Firefighter and EMT. I write to testify on behalf of the National
    Humanities Alliance and Aquila Theatre in enthusiastic support for the
    Alliance's fiscal year 2015 request of $154.5 million in funding for
    the National Endowment for the Humanities--which is nothing less than a
    great American treasure.
        I mentioned in my introduction that I am a volunteer Firefighter in
    Bedford, New York. My hamlet of Katonah, part of the town of Bedford,
    includes the home of John Jay, the author of several of the Federalist
    Papers, member of the Continental Congress, signatory to the
    Declaration of Independence and our first Chief Justice. Like almost
    all the members of the Continental Congress, Jay received a classical
    education and could read both Greek and Latin. In fact, Thomas
    Jefferson was so enthusiastic he exclaimed, ``I thank on my knees, him
    who directed my early education, for having put into my possession this
    rich source of delight; and I would not exchange it for anything which
    I could then have acquired, and have not since acquired.'' John Jay's
    works and those of his colleagues reflect the profound influence the
    classical world had on the conception and creation of the United States
    of America.
        This is strikingly apparent in the Federalist Papers. Hamilton and
    Madison, Jay's fellow New York delegates to the Continental Congress,
    devoted the entirety of Federalist no. 18 to a sophisticated objective
    appraisal of why the Ancient Greek city states failed to coalesce into
    one nation. This became a powerful historical argument in support of
    the confederation of the 13 colonies into a Federal United States. They
    wrote, ``Had Greece been united by a stricter confederation, and
    persevered in her union, she would never have worn the chains of
    Macedon; and might have proved a barrier to the vast projects of
    Rome.'' Right from the start, Americans drew inspiration from their
    knowledge of the classical past.
        John Jay well understood that knowledge was essential if the
    American experiment was to succeed. In a letter to Pennsylvania
    delegate Benjamin Rush in 1785 he wrote, ``Knowledge is the soul of the
    Republic and the only way to diminish the weak and wicked.'' Later in
    1789, he echoed this theme by writing to Timothy Matlack that
    ``Knowledge is essential for the duration of liberty,'' and in the same
    year, he felt confident that the American Revolution would succeed
    because ``In my opinion more light and knowledge are diffused through
    the mass of the people of this country than any other.''
        Jay received his classical education at Kings College in New York,
    renamed as Columbia University, and I was able to read Jay's letters in
    his own hand because of a superb digital archive held there. These
    historic papers are available online for all and funded by the National
    Endowment for the Humanities, the agency which embodies the sentiments
    of John Jay that ``Knowledge is the soul of the Republic'' and
    essential for the survival of liberty.
        Long before there was the NEH to help scholars undergo important
    research and disseminate their knowledge, support documentary film
    makers and archives, and fund important public programs in libraries,
    museums, galleries, VA hospitals and community centers, the classics
    provided many early Americans with the historical exemplars and
    literary metaphors by which they examined their own lives. Abigail
    Adams wrote countless letters from Boston to her husband John, far away
    in Philadelphia, during the war. She signed them ``Diana,'' after the
    Roman goddess of the hunt and later ``Portia,'' the wife of the Roman
    republican, Brutus. Adams wrote back as ``Lysander,'' the famous
    Spartan General who ended the Peloponnesian War. Abigail's passion for
    the classics was evidently so great that John felt compelled to write,
    ``Amidst your Ardor for Greek and Latin I hope you will not forget your
    mother Tongue. Read Somewhat in the English Poets every day. . . . You
    will never be alone, with a Poet in your Pocket. You will never have an
    idle Hour.'' Now, there are a fair few more Americans than in 1780, and
    it is the National Endowment for the Humanities that brings us ``Poetry
    in Motion'' on the subway and places living poets in communities
    throughout America, offering access, education, inspiration and
    knowledge.
        With that in mind, I would like to briefly describe the NEH funded
    program that I directed called Ancient Greeks/Modern Lives that used
    the works of Homer, Aeschylus Sophocles and Euripides to foster
    informed public discussions on the veteran in American society. Between
    2010-2013, the program toured to 106 communities in 31 States, staging
    244 live events, comprising staged readings and discussions, public
    lectures, reading groups, film screenings and theatre workshops. We
    hired 62 classics professors and sent them out into the field where
    they worked with professional actors, librarians, museum curators,
    performing arts center staff and members of veteran organizations.
    110,865 people attended the live events. This works out to a cost to
    the Federal Government of only $7.22 per person, and if we add the
    program web site's recorded hits of 678,000, it only comes to around
    one dollar per person.
        The stated aim of the program was to use ancient dramatic
    literature to bring members of the veteran community and the public
    together around the common themes found between the ancient literature
    and the experiences of war and homecoming. We staged these free events
    in public spaces dedicated to reading, art and culture--places that
    were right in the heart of the inner city, rural and underserved
    communities we visited. Here, Americans had the opportunity to freely
    exchange ideas framed by the deeper context of the classical texts.
        One program participant, a U.S. Army Ranger sergeant who has served
    in several tours of Afghanistan and Iraq, summed up the way in which
    classical texts can be a context for modern military experience: ``With
    the Ancient Greeks/Modern Lives project I liked that the experiences
    were filtered through classical myth. This distance allows both
    performers and audience members to use their imaginations in an
    empathetic way, rather than merely evoking sympathy. The use of myth
    (or perhaps any fictionalized narrative) also helps free us from
    anachronistic terms such as PTSD or psychological wound, or whatever
    else they want to use to describe someone who has undergone a
    significant change due to military service. Classical myth places the
    emphasis back on character and story, and helps reject the laziness of
    labels. Arguably, the abstract nature of myth also allows individuals
    to reflect on their own experiences with the subject at hand, and to
    flesh out the experience with some combination of memory and
    imagination.''
        Of course, there are as many responses and experiences as there are
    veterans but one veteran of the Vietnam war felt that the program was
    helping to make American's literate about war, something he believed
    was essential in any democracy. It was always remarkable to see how the
    classical stories elicited deeply personal and heartfelt responses. At
    one event in a military museum in Iowa, a long serving non commissioned
    officer of the Iowa National Guard latched on to the tension inherent
    in the moment in Book 23 of Homer's Odyssey, when the hero is finally
    reunited with his wife, Penelope. This Iowan and his wife recognized
    the intimacy of something simple between them that could suddenly
    transcend the long separations of multiple deployments. Like Odysseus
    himself, who is moved to tears when he hears tales of the Trojan War
    sung by a bard, there were many sniffles in the audience at this
    beautifully simple and completely human moment that was captured and
    written down in a foreign land some 2750 years ago: for the humanities
    constantly remind us what it means to be human.
        In Mississippi, a leather-clad member of Rolling Thunder--the
    veteran motorcycle group--responded quite differently to the same
    passage. After hearing the Homeric simile of how Odysseus felt like a
    drowning man, he stood up and said ``I have told nobody this, not even
    my wife here, but when I came home from Vietnam I threw my uniform in
    the trash at the airport and went home in disguise, just like Odysseus
    and I too felt like a drowning man--all that death --I didn't think I
    could love any one or be loved by anyone again--I felt like I was
    drowning, until my girlfriend, my wife here, gave me her hand and
    rescued this drowning man. How did Homer know this?''
        As the program progressed, we met more veterans from Iraq and
    Afghanistan, mostly keeping silent at first, perhaps even suspicious,
    but we noticed the veterans of the Vietnam War making contact and
    talking to them after the event. New mutually supportive relationships
    were formed--veterans helping veterans. We also started to encounter
    female combat veterans, nurses from Vietnam who had been deployed in
    the field, Army personnel working with front line troops in Iraq and
    Afghanistan, sometimes telling us about two enemies--the one they were
    there to fight and the enemy within--harassment, sexual assault and
    rape. The ancient plays resounded even amongst the most difficult and
    uncomfortable of topics and allowed us to talk about them. These
    classical works became ``our mirror held up to nature,'' advice Hamlet
    gives the players after he has been moved himself by watching one of
    them perform a classical piece about Queen Hecuba at the fall of Troy.
        We met veterans from World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War and
    those who served in between, and we learned so much about the meaning
    of these classic plays from them. Their insights were often so keen and
    insightful that many of our classics scholars came to see aspects of
    these works in a completely new light. VA Psychologist Dr. Jonathan
    Shay in his book, Odysseus in America, wrote that Greek drama was
    theatre by combat veterans, performed by combat veterans for an
    audience made up of combat veterans--perhaps this was one reason why
    these ancient works resounded.
        The NEH has provided us with funds for a new humanities/veterans
    project called YouStories: Classics, Conversation, Connection. Here, we
    take the devices that worked so well on Ancient Greeks/Modern Lives and
    are creating a combination of live events and a new story collecting
    app, where veterans and the public can upload their own video stories.
    These are spoken into a smart phone, tablet or computer after being
    inspired by the ancient materials included with the app. These stories
    will then be collected, curated and displayed online and also archived
    at the Library of Congress. This program has a special focus on female
    veterans and we hope that these ancient plays might inspire, provoke
    and provide a context for their stories--their experiences as Americans
    serving their country at a time of war.
        The aim of my testimony today has been to try to convince you of
    the continuing power of the classics in American life and how the
    National Endowment for the Humanities has allowed a truly national and
    human program to flourish. Their prestigious award helped create media
    and institutional interest in the program and attract additional
    funding from private foundations and individuals. Their selection
    process is highly rigorous and the expert advice and tireless help of
    their program staff is nothing short of priceless.
        I conclude with the words of a great man far more eloquent than I.
    In his last speech delivered in Memphis on April 3, 1968--the day
    before my first birthday--Martin Luther King took us on a monumental
    and historic flight of fancy telling us:

            ``I would move on by Greece, and take my mind to Mount Olympus.
            And I would see Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Euripides and
            Aristophanes assembled around the Parthenon as they discussed
            the great and eternal issues of reality.''

        The National Endowment for the Humanities does just this--it
    enables those discussions of great and eternal issues of reality and
    via its excellent public programming sends them out across the Nation
    helping to empower our democracy with that most valuable of human
    resources--knowledge.
        Thank you very much.
                        the national humanities alliance
        Founded in 1981, the National Humanities Alliance advances national
    humanities policy in the areas of research, preservation, public
    programming, and teaching. More than one hundred 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.
                               the aquila theatre
        Founded in 1991, Aquila Theatre's mission is to bring the greatest
    theatrical works to the greatest number. To this end Aquila presents a
    regular season of plays in New York, at international festivals, and
    tours to approximately seventy American towns and cities each year.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
                                   California
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
    (Metropolitan) encourages the subcommittee's support for the U.S.
    Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air
    Management. The BLM Budget requests $45.352 million for this
    Subactivity. This Subactivity includes Colorado River Salinity Control
    as a primary focus area. For fiscal year 2015, Federal funding 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 is needed in this primary focus area to prevent
    further degradation of Colorado River water quality and increased
    downstream economic damages.
        The concentrations of salts in the Colorado River cause
    approximately $300 million in damages to water users each year. While
    this figure is significant, had it not been for the efforts of the
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program (Salinity Control
    Program), salinity concentrations of Colorado River water today would
    have been about 90 milligrams per liter (mg/L) higher, which has
    avoided additional damages of approximately $200 million per year.
        Metropolitan is the regional water supplier for most of urban
    southern California, providing supplemental water to retail agencies
    that serve over 18 million people. 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 in the municipal sector.
        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 salts in the Colorado River system are indigenous and
    pervasive, mostly resulting from saline sediments in the Basin that
    were deposited in prehistoric marine environments. They are easily
    eroded, dissolved, and transported into the river system, and enter the
    River through both natural and anthropogenic sources.
        The Salinity Control 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 Salinity Control 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 Salinity Control Program benefits 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 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.
        BLM proposes a 20 percent increase in Colorado River Salinity
    Control funding in the budget request over the 2014 level. Metropolitan
    encourages the subcommittee's support for sufficient funding in the
    Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management to allow for expenditure
    of $5.2 million for general water quality improvement efforts in the
    Colorado River Basin and an additional $1.5 million for salinity
    specific projects in 2015. These amounts are needed to prevent further
    degradation of the quality of the Colorado River and increased
    downstream economic damages.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
                                    Programs
        My name is Bruce Stover and I serve as the Director of the Inactive
    Mine Reclamation Program within the Colorado Department of Natural
    Resources. 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 $250 million in fiscal year 2015. In its fiscal year 2015
    proposed budget, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) is requesting $186
    million for State and tribal AML grants, a reduction of $64 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 35 years, the accomplishments of the States and
    tribes under the AML program has resulted in tens of thousands of acres
    of abandoned mine lands having been reclaimed, thousands of mine
    openings having been closed, and safeguards for people, property and
    the environment having been put in place. Be assured that States and
    tribes continue to be committed to address the unabated hazards at both
    coal and noncoal abandoned mines. We are 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. In this regard, a
    newly updated ``Safeguarding, Reclaiming, Restoring'' accomplishments
    report prepared by State and tribal administrators of AML programs
    under SMCRA is available at http://naamlp.net/documents/, which
    provides several on-the-ground examples of the type of work that is
    being done around the country.
        When passed in 1977, SMCRA set national regulatory and reclamation
    standards for coal mining. The act also established a Reclamation Trust
    Fund to work towards 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 noncoal 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
    on-going 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 as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
    Century Act (Public Law 112-14) in 2012. Furthermore, on October 2,
    2013, SMCRA was amended once again to increase the annual distribution
    amount for each certified State and tribe to $28 million in fiscal year
    2014 and $75 million in fiscal year 2015 (Helium Stewardship Act of
    2013, Public Law 113-40, section 10(d)).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over the course of the past few years, State and tribal AML program
    have seen heightened 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.'' There seems to be a fundamental
    disconnect between the way the States and tribes are required to
    administer, manage, and record the dispersal of their AML grant funds
    and the way Federal agencies like the Office of Surface Mining (OSM)
    report the usage of grant funds.
        From the perspective of OSM, there appears to be a substantial
    balance of ``undelivered orders'', money that has been allotted by the
    Federal program but has not yet been ``spent'' by the State or tribe
    (i.e. withdrawn from Treasury). In fact, this is a mischaracterization
    of the current status of these ``undelivered'' AML moneys. As the
    following table demonstrates (see the figure on the next page), the
    vast majority of the allotted AML grant fund money is already committed
    to reclamation projects at various stages. The States and tribes define
    their use of the term ``committed funds'' as those which have been
    exclusively applied to or reserved for a specific project or purpose,
    and thus are unavailable for any other purpose. This is consistent with
    the regulations which define ``expended'' as ``moneys have been
    obligated, encumbered, or committed by contract . . . ''. It is
    therefore more appropriate to view grants in terms of committed funds
    rather than undelivered orders, with regard to accurate tracking of
    grant distribution.

        A second dimension to the disconnect between how the States and
    tribes track grant expenditures and how OSM accounts for these funds is
    the amount of time and the number of regulatory obligations required to
    administer the AML contracting process in a responsible manner. A
    typical AML site requires a long and stringent process related to
    design, engagement of local citizens and leaders, interagency
    governmental review and coordination; bidding and contracting; and of
    course construction on the site--all of which must take place before
    the funds are drawn down, and are therefore finally considered
    ``spent'' by OSM.
        Further complicating the matter from the State/tribal perspective
    is the fact that the 2006 increases in mandatory funding required an
    increase in the staff and other administrative resources required to
    continue administering the program at the same level of efficiency and
    effectiveness. State and tribal AML programs have made these
    adjustments in a prudent manner over the last 5 years of funding
    expansion, and though there may have been some apparent initial lag,
    the programs have in fact maintained their ability to efficiently and
    responsibly commit program funding. It should also be kept in mind that
    AML administrators utilize a complex system for prioritizing AML sites
    in order to meet the mandates of the law and ensure that the grant
    funds are spent in the most effective and productive manner possible.
    Any analysis of AML grant expenditures must therefore be balanced
    against appropriate program management and the responsible improvement
    of the safety and health of our citizens and the environment, as set
    forth in SMCRA. We welcome the opportunity to brief your subcommittee
    in more detail regarding this issue should you so desire.
        One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML
    restoration work is through leveraging or matching other grant
    programs, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 319
    program. In fiscal year 2014, language was 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 mine drainage (AMD) from abandoned
    mines. This is an ongoing, and often expensive, problem, especially in
    Appalachia. NAAMLP therefore requests the subcommittee to once again
    include language in the fiscal year 2015 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 Technical Innovation and Professional Services (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 2015 appropriation. Finally, we
    support funding for the Watershed Cooperative Agreements in the amount
    of $1.5 million because it facilitates and enhances State and local
    partnerships by providing direct financial assistance to watershed
    organizations for acid mine drainage remediation.
        With regard to the proposal contained in OSM's budget to establish
    a hardrock AML program, the States and tribes have consistently
    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. 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.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement regarding
    OSM's proposed budget for fiscal year 2015. We would be happy to answer
    any questions you may have or provide additional information.
                                     ______

      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 provide testimony on the
    fiscal year 2015 budget for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA), particularly grants to State and local air pollution control
    agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, which are
    part of the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program.
    Specifically, NACAA recommends that: (1) grants to State and local air
    quality agencies be increased by $35 million above the President's
    fiscal year 2015 request, raising the total to $278.2 million; (2)
    State and local air pollution control agencies be provided with the
    flexibility to determine how best to use any additional resources; and
    (3) grant funds for fine particulate matter monitoring remain under
    Section 103 authority, rather than being shifted to Section 105
    authority, as EPA is proposing. NACAA's recommendations will be
    explained more fully in this testimony.
        NACAA is a national, non-partisan, non-profit association of air
    pollution control agencies in 42 States, the District of Columbia, four
    territories and 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 the member
    agencies have vast experience dedicated to improving air quality in the
    United States. These observations and recommendations are based upon
    that experience. The views expressed in this document do not
    necessarily represent the positions of every State and local air
    pollution control agency in the country.
       1. nacaa recommends a $35-million increase above the president's
                                    request
        The President's budget request for fiscal year 2015 proposes to
    increase Federal funding for State and local air quality grants by $15
    million over fiscal year 2014 levels (for a total of $243.2 million).
    Within the request, there is a proposed increase of $24.3 million for
    implementing greenhouse gas (GHG) activities. While NACAA supports
    additional funding for new GHG activities that will be required of
    State and local air agencies, the members are disappointed that part of
    this increase would be obtained by shifting--essentially cutting--$9
    million from the ``core'' programs of State and local air pollution
    control agencies, which are the foundation of their clean air
    implementation efforts. NACAA is gratified that the budget request
    recognizes the important work of State and local agencies to protect
    public health; however, a net increase of $15 million above fiscal year
    2014 levels is not nearly enough. Accordingly, NACAA requests an
    increase of $50 million above the amount appropriated in fiscal year
    2014--or $35 million above the President's fiscal year 2015 request--
    for State and local air agencies to carry out their responsibilities.
    State and Local Air Quality Agencies Face Many Challenges
        Section 101(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act finds that air pollution
    control is the ``primary responsibility of States and local
    governments.'' Accordingly, these agencies are continuously required to
    implement numerous, extremely important programmatic responsibilities
    to obtain and maintain healthful air quality for this country. These
    include not only new programs, but also ongoing activities that
    constitute the ``core'' of their clean air efforts, that is, the day-
    to-day responsibilities that are the foundation of their programs.
        One new initiative facing State and local air agencies, for which
    EPA is proposing increased funds, is the implementation of regulations
    to address greenhouse gases under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
    State and local agencies will be required to lay the groundwork to
    develop approvable State plans to meet Section 111(d) emission
    guidelines for reducing carbon dioxide. Additionally, State and local
    agencies will need funds for the collection, review and use of GHG
    emission data, as well as to support State and local permitting
    activities for new and existing sources of GHG emissions that trigger
    permitting requirements as established in the GHG Tailoring Rule.
        In addition to these new efforts, State and local air agencies must
    also continue their ongoing activities and core programs. These are the
    foundation of their clean air implementation efforts. For example,
    among the many tasks facing air quality agencies are those associated
    with the implementation of (1) the health-based National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards, including particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide,
    lead and carbon monoxide; (2) air toxics rules; (3) motor vehicle and
    fuels programs; and (4) permitting programs, including for ``minor''
    sources.
        For both the new activities and the ongoing programs, State and
    local air agencies must carry out a variety of resource- and labor-
    intensive activities. These include, among others, developing plans,
    including State Implementation Plans (SIPs); compiling comprehensive
    emission inventories; carrying out complex modeling; analyzing
    extensive data; expanding and operating monitoring networks; adopting
    and enforcing regulations; addressing complicated transport issues; and
    informing and involving the public in air quality decisions and issues.
    State and Local Air Agencies Have Long Been Underfunded
        State and local air quality agencies have struggled with
    insufficient resources for many years. A study NACAA conducted several
    years ago revealed an annual shortfall of $550 million in Federal
    grants for State and local air programs.\1\ The adverse economic
    situation at the State and local levels strains already overburdened
    budgets and causes air agencies to make painful choices to cut air
    pollution programs that are important for public health and/or
    eliminate staff. Due to these economic hardships, States and localities
    increasingly rely on Federal contributions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Investing in Clean Air and Public Health: A Needs Survey of
    State and Local Air Pollution Control Agencies, (April 2009), NACAA,
    www.4cleanair.org/Documents/reportneedssurvey
    042709.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 States and localities must provide a 40-percent
    match. In reality, State and local air agencies provide over three-
    fourths of their budgets (not including permit fees under the Federal
    title V program), while Federal grants constitute only one quarter.
    State and local agencies are certainly providing more than their fair
    share of the resources necessary, as the following table demonstrates:

        In addition to this inequity, the purchasing power of Federal
    grants has decreased due to inflation. In fact, between fiscal year
    2000 and 2014, purchasing power has decreased by nearly 16 percent. All
    this has taken place while State and local responsibilities have
    expanded each year.
        While the current economic climate does not allow for full Federal
    funding of all the necessary air programs, NACAA hopes that Congress
    will recognize the critical importance of public health and air quality
    and provide much-needed increases to these important programs.
    Our Air Pollution Problem Has Not Been Solved
        Federal, State and local efforts to implement the Clean Air Act
    have been hugely successful in providing significant health and welfare
    benefits throughout most areas of the country. Yet, notwithstanding
    this progress, much remains to be done. According to EPA,

            [S]ince passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990,
            nationwide air quality has improved significantly. Levels of
            those pollutants linked to the greatest health impacts continue
            to decline. From 2003 to 2012, population-weighted ambient
            concentrations of fine particulate matter and ozone have
            decreased 26 percent and 13 percent, respectively. Even with
            this progress, in 2012 approximately 45 percent of the U.S.
            population lived in counties with air that did not meet health-
            based standards for at least one pollutant.\2\

        With respect to hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), Federal rules,
    implemented by State and local air pollution control agencies, are
    estimated to reduce HAP emissions by approximately 1.5 million tons per
    year.\3\ However, in spite of this progress, EPA's latest HAP data
    showed that the entire population of the United States had an increased
    cancer risk of over 10 in one million (one in one million is generally
    considered ``acceptable'') in 2005, due to exposure to a variety of
    HAPs included in EPA's analysis.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Fiscal year 2015 EPA Budget in Brief (March 2014), page 13.
        \3\ www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/allabout.html.
        \4\ National Air Toxics Assessment for 2005--Fact Sheet, http://
    www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The sad fact is more people die or get sick from air pollution than
    from almost any other problem under this subcommittee's jurisdiction.
    Tens of thousands of people die prematurely each year \5\ and many
    others suffer serious health problems as a result of exposure to air
    pollution. According to EPA, ``[l]ong-term exposure to elevated levels
    of certain air pollutants has been associated with increased risk of
    cancer, premature mortality, and damage to the immune, neurological,
    reproductive, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems.'' \6\
    Additionally, air pollution exposure is associated with adverse effects
    on learning, memory, IQ and behavior.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ http://epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/.
        \6\ Draft fiscal year 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan (November 19,
    2013), page 8.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         2. nacaa recommends flexibility in the use of grant increases
        While NACAA is pleased that the budget request includes increased
    grant funding for climate-related responsibilities facing State and
    local air agencies, some of it would come at the expense of State and
    local core programs, which are essential to their efforts. NACAA
    strongly believes that significant increases are required for both.
    Rather than target specific amounts for climate or other air programs,
    NACAA recommends that State and local air agencies be given the
    flexibility to use any additional grants for whatever efforts are of
    the highest priority to them, whether they are climate-related or other
    clean air activities, including core programs.
     3. nacaa recommends that authority for monitoring grants remain under
                                  section 103
        EPA has once again proposed to begin shifting funds for fine
    particulate matter (PM2.5) monitoring from Section 103 authority, where
    no match is needed, to Section 105, which would require additional
    matching funds. In the past, Congress responded favorably to requests
    to keep these funds under Section 103 authority, which is very much
    appreciated. NACAA is making the same request for fiscal year 2015. For
    individual agencies that have concerns about the matching requirements,
    this will ensure that they do not have to refuse these critically
    needed monitoring funds simply because they do not have the resources
    to provide the required match. NACAA recommends that Congress call for
    these grants to be provided under Section 103 authority.
                                   conclusion
        While NACAA appreciates the proposed increase to State and local
    air grants contained in the President's fiscal year 2015 budget, it is
    insufficient for the State and local air agencies that are being called
    upon to take on significant new responsibilities and continue their
    current activities and it does not provide sufficient flexibility on
    how the funds are spent. Accordingly, NACAA recommends that Congress
    provide an increase of $35 million above the President's request for
    fiscal year 2015 for grants to State and local air agencies under
    Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, for a total of $278.2
    million, and that State and local agencies be given the flexibility to
    use any additional funds for the highest clean air priorities in their
    areas. Additionally, NACAA recommends that grant funds for fine
    particulate matter monitoring remain under Section 103 authority,
    rather than being shifted to Section 105 authority, as EPA is
    proposing.
        Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on this
    important issue and for considering the funding needs of State and
    local air quality programs.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
                                   Officials
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
    subcommittee, I am David Terry, Executive Director of the National
    Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO). NASEO represents the 56
    energy offices in the States, territories and the District of Columbia.
    NASEO is submitting this testimony in support of funding for the ENERGY
    STAR program (within the Climate Protection Division of the Office of
    Air and Radiation) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    NASEO supports funding of at least $55 million, including specific
    report language directing that the funds be utilized only for the
    ENERGY STAR program. The ENERGY STAR program is successful, voluntary
    and cost-effective. With increasing electricity prices and volatile
    natural gas markets, ENERGY STAR can help consumers and businesses
    control expenditures over the long term. The program is strongly
    supported by product manufacturers, and ENERGY STAR leverages the
    States' energy efficiency actions.
        The ENERGY STAR program is focused on voluntary efforts that reduce
    the use of energy, promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, and
    works with States, local governments and business to achieve these
    goals in a cooperative, public-private manner. NASEO has worked very
    closely with EPA and over 40 States are ENERGY STAR Partners. With very
    limited funding, EPA's ENERGY STAR program works closely with the State
    energy offices to give consumers and businesses the opportunity to make
    better energy decisions, and catalyzes product efficiency improvements
    by manufacturers without regulation or mandates.
        ENERGY STAR focuses on energy efficient products as well as
    buildings. In 2013, nearly 300 million ENERGY STAR products were
    purchased across more than 70 product categories. The ENERGY STAR label
    is recognized across the United States. It makes the work of the State
    energy offices much easier, by working with the public on easily
    recognized products, services and targets. In order to obtain the
    ENERGY STAR label a product has to meet established guidelines. ENERGY
    STAR's voluntary partnership programs include ENERGY STAR Buildings,
    ENERGY STAR Homes, ENERGY STAR Small Business, and ENERGY STAR Labeled
    Products. The program operates by encouraging consumers and working
    closely with State and local governments to purchase these products and
    services. Marketplace barriers are also eradicated through education.
    State energy offices are working with EPA to promote ENERGY STAR
    products, ENERGY STAR for new construction, ENERGY STAR for public
    housing, etc. In Alaska, the State's Home Energy Rebate Program
    leverages ENERGY STAR products in delivering this successful program.
    Another example of leveraging this key national program is the Nebraska
    Energy Office, which since 2005 has utilized ENERGY STAR as the
    standard for certifying home and office electronics that are eligible
    under the State's successful and long-running Dollar and Energy Savings
    Loan program (approximately $300 million in loans with only $106,000 in
    defaults). The Montana Alternative Energy Revolving Loan Program
    utilizes a 3.5 percent interest rate, with a 15-year time limit.
        In addition to the State partners, the program has over 16,000
    voluntary partners including over 2,000 manufacturers using the label,
    more than 1,000 retail partners, more than 5,000 builder partners,
    4,500 businesses, 550 utilities and thousands of energy service
    providers. The ENERGY STAR New Homes program works with States and home
    builders to develop the next generation of technologies and approaches
    to make homes more comfortable, healthy, and energy efficient. To date,
    over 1.5 million homes across the country have been certified by the
    ENERGY STAR New Homes program. In California, over 150,000 homes have
    been ENERGY STAR certified. Additionally, States such as Alaska, Rhode
    Island, Vermont, New Mexico, Oregon, Mississippi, Tennessee, and
    Missouri all have had at least 3,300 homes participating in the
    program. We are also working closely with EPA in the implementation of
    the ENERGY STAR Challenge, which is encouraging commercial and
    industrial building owners to reduce energy use by 10 percent or more,
    usually through very simple actions. There are over 4,300 participants
    in the ENERGY STAR Challenge, representing every State in the country.
    We are working with the building owners to identify the level of energy
    use and compare that to a national metric, establish goals and work
    with them to make the specified improvements. Again, this is being done
    without mandates.
        The State energy offices are very encouraged with progress made at
    EPA and in our States to promote programs to make schools more energy
    efficient, in addition to an expanding ENERGY STAR business partners
    program. In Kentucky, the State has partnered with school districts and
    engineering firms to advance ENERGY STAR rated schools, resulting in
    more than 250 ENERGY STAR rated schools in the State, a 400 percent
    increase since 2010. Other States that have over 150 ENERGY STAR rated
    schools include California, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina, and
    Michigan. Other types of buildings can receive ENERGY STAR
    certification; for example, a new data center in South Dakota recently
    obtained the ENERGY STAR certification, joining only 59 other data
    centers in the country with this distinction.
        EPA has been increasing the technical assistance work with the
    State energy offices in such areas as ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager
    (how to rate the performance of buildings), setting an energy target,
    and financing options for building improvements and building upgrade
    strategies. ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager is used extensively by State
    energy offices to benchmark performance of State and municipal
    buildings, saving taxpayer dollars. Nearly 40 percent of the country's
    commercial building space utilizes Portfolio Manager.
        The State energy offices are working cooperatively with our peers
    in the State environmental agencies and State public utilities
    commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies
    are developed recognizing both energy and environmental concerns. We
    have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues.
    We encourage these continued efforts.
                                   conclusion
        The ENERGY STAR program saves consumers billions of dollars every
    year. The payback is enormous. NASEO supports robust program funding in
    fiscal year 2015. Funding for the ENERGY STAR program is justified.
    NASEO endorses these activities and the State energy offices are
    working very closely with EPA to cooperatively implement a variety of
    critical national programs without mandates.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Foresters
        The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) appreciates the
    opportunity to submit written public testimony to the Senate
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies regarding
    our fiscal year 2015 appropriations recommendations. Our priorities
    focus primarily on appropriations for the USDA Forest Service (Forest
    Service) State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs.
        State Foresters deliver technical and financial assistance, along
    with forest health, water and wildfire protection for more than two-
    thirds of the Nation's 751 million acres of forests. The Forest Service
    S&PF mission area provides vital support for delivering these services
    alongside other socioeconomic and environmental health benefits in both
    rural and urban areas. The comprehensive process for delivering these
    services is articulated in each State Forest Action Plan, authorized in
    the 2008 Farm Bill and continued in the recently passed Agriculture Act
    of 2014. S&PF programs provide a significant return on the Federal
    investment by leveraging the boots-on-the-ground and financial
    resources of State agencies to deliver assistance to forest landowners,
    tribes, and communities. As we continue to face difficult financial
    challenges, State foresters, in partnership with the S&PF mission area
    of the Forest Service, are best positioned to maximize the
    effectiveness of the resources available to respond to priority forest
    issues and focus efforts in those areas where they are needed most.
        Your support of the following programs is critical to helping
    States address the many and varied challenges outlined in State Forest
    Action Plans.
                         wildland fire and forest fuels
        Wildland Fire Funding.--The Forest Service and Department of the
    Interior were forced to transfer a combined $636 million in fiscal year
    2013 to fund fire suppression activities. We greatly appreciate your
    support in reimbursing the Forest Service and Department of the
    Interior these transferred amounts through the continuing resolution
    last fall. Unfortunately early estimates for the cost of wildland fire
    suppression in fiscal year 2014 indicate that costs could once again
    exceed the 10-year average.
        In the span of only 2 years--from fiscal year 2012 to 2013--the
    agencies were forced to transfer more than $1 billion, funds that
    Congress had appropriated to other priority programs, to fund wildland
    fire suppression. In order to avoid these disruptive transfers in the
    future, we urge you to include language mirroring the bi-partisan
    Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, introduced in the House and Senate, in
    the fiscal year 2015 Interior Appropriations bill. This important
    change to fire funding at the Federal level is needed to enable the
    Forest Service to deliver on its own land management objectives and to
    deliver critical Research and State & Private Forestry Programs to the
    Nation's non-Federal forests without any further disruption from fire
    transfers.
        State Fire Assistance.--More people living in fire-prone
    landscapes, high fuel loads, drought and unhealthy landscapes are among
    the factors that led State foresters to identify wildland fire as a
    significant priority issue in their Forest Action Plans. These factors
    have created a wildland fire situation that has become increasingly
    expensive, complex, and, in many cases, threatens human life and
    property. In 2013, more than 47,500 wildland fires burned over 4.3
    million acres.\1\ In the wake of these larger fires, more than 2,135
    structures were destroyed, including at least 1090 residences.\2\ Of
    the 72,681 communities across the country currently at risk of wildland
    fire, only 12,434 (17.5 percent) are prepared for wildland fire.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Interagency Fire Center, Historical Wildland Fire
    Summaries, pg. 9. Last accessed March 3, 2014 at http://
    www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2013_Statssumm/intro_
    summary13.pdf.
        \2\ National Interagency Coordination Center.
        \3\ National Association of State Foresters, Communities at Risk
    Report Fiscal Year 2013.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State Fire Assistance (SFA) is the fundamental Federal mechanism
    that assists States and local fire departments to respond to wildland
    fires and conduct management activities to mitigate fire risk on non-
    Federal lands. Further, SFA helps train and equip local first
    responders who are often the first resources to arrive at a wildland
    fire incident and who play a crucial role in keeping fires and their
    costs small. By directing resources to actions that help reduce the
    number of large wildland fires--including prevention education,
    preparedness activities, and fuels mitigation--the SFA program directly
    addresses concerns over rising wildland fire suppression costs, while
    also reducing wildland fire risk to communities. In fiscal year 2013,
    SFA directly funded hazardous fuel treatments on nearly 130,000 acres
    (with another 119,120 acres treated with leveraged funding) and
    provided assistance to over 23,600 communities as they prepare for and
    mitigate the risk of wildland fire. NASF supports funding the State
    Fire Assistance program at $86 million in fiscal year 2015.
                        forest pests and invasive plants
        Among the greatest threats identified in the Forest Action Plans
    are exotic forest pests and invasive species. The growing number of
    damaging pests is often a result of the introduction and spread by way
    of wooden shipping materials, movement of firewood, and through various
    types of recreation. These pests have the potential to displace native
    trees, shrubs and other vegetation types in forests. The Forest Service
    estimates that hundreds of native and nonnative insects and diseases
    damage the Nation's forests each year. In 2010, approximately 6.\4\
    million acres suffered mortality from insects and diseases4 and there
    is an estimated 81.3 million acres at risk from insects and disease
    over the next 15 years.\5\ These losses impact the availability of
    clean and abundant water, wildlife habitat, clean air, and other
    environmental services. Further, extensive areas of high insect or
    disease mortality can set the stage for large-scale, catastrophic
    wildfire.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Man, Gary. 2011. Major Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in
    the United States: 2010 Update. Last accessed on March, 5, 2014 at:
    http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/
    ConditionsReport_2011.pdf.
        \5\ Tkacz, Bory, et al. 2014. NIDRM 2012 Report Files: Executive
    Summary. Last accessed on March, 5, 2014 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/
    foresthealth/technology/pdfs/2012_RiskMap_Exec_
    summary.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In response, the Cooperative Forest Health Management program
    provides technical and financial assistance to States and territories
    to maintain healthy, productive forest ecosystems on non-Federal forest
    lands. Funding for the Program supports activities related to
    prevention, suppression, and eradication of insects, diseases, and
    plants as well as conducting forest health monitoring through pest
    surveys. The Forest Health program helps protect communities already
    facing outbreaks and helps prevent exposure of more of the Nation's
    forests and trees to the devastating and costly effects of exotic and
    invasive pests and pathogens. NASF supports funding the Forest Health--
    Cooperative Lands Program at $48 million in fiscal year 2015.
             working forest landscapes--forest stewardship program
        Working forest landscapes are a key part of the rural landscape and
    provide an estimated 900,000 jobs, in addition to clean water, wood
    products, and other essential services to millions of Americans. For
    instance, 80 percent of renewable biomass energy comes from wood, 53
    percent of all freshwater in the U.S. originates on forest land and
    more than $200 billion in sales of consumer products and services are
    provided through the Nation's forests each year.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Society of American Foresters. The State of America's Forests.
    2007.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Private forests make up two-thirds of all the forestland in the
    United States and support an average of eight jobs per 1,000 acres.\7\
    The ability of working forests to continue providing jobs, renewable
    energy, clean and abundant water and other important services is in
    jeopardy as private forests are lost to development. The Forest Service
    estimates that 57 million acres of private forests in the U.S. are at
    risk of conversion to urban development over the next two decades. The
    Forest Stewardship Program, Forest Legacy Program, and other programs
    within USDA are key tools identified in the Forest Action Plans to keep
    working forests intact.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Forest2Market. The Economic Impact of Privately-Owned Forests.
    2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) is the most extensive family
    forest-owner assistance program in the country. Management assistance
    is delivered in cooperation with State forestry agencies through
    technical assistance services and the development and implementation of
    Forest Stewardship Plans. In fiscal year 2013, nationwide, more than 20
    million acres of private forest lands were managed according to Forest
    Stewardship Plans. The program provides information to private
    landowners to help them manage their land for wildlife, recreation,
    aesthetics, timber production, and many other purposes. The technical
    assistance provided through the FSP is a gateway to other effective
    USDA, State, and private sector programs designed to help keep working
    forests intact. For instance, the FSP enables landowners to participate
    in USDA programs including the Forest Legacy Program and Environmental
    Quality Incentives Program. NASF supports funding the Forest
    Stewardship Program at $29 million in fiscal year 2015.
                urban and community forest management challenges
        Urban forests provide environmental, social, and economic benefits
    to the more than 84 percent of Americans who live in metropolitan
    areas. Forest Action Plans identified a number of benefits associated
    with urban forests including energy savings, improved air quality,
    neighborhood stability, aesthetic values, reduced noise, and improved
    quality of life for communities across the country. At the same time,
    the plans reported a number of threats to urban and community forests
    including fire in the wildland urban interface (WUI), urbanization and
    development, invasive plants and insects, diseases and others.
        Since its expansion under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act
    of 1990 (CFAA), the Forest Service's Urban and Community Forestry
    (U&CF) program has provided technical and financial assistance to
    promote stewardship of urban forests in communities of all sizes across
    the country. The program is delivered in close partnership with State
    foresters and leverages existing local efforts that have helped
    thousands of communities and towns manage, maintain, and improve their
    tree cover and green spaces. This ``green infrastructure'' is a
    cornerstone for neighborhood stability and revitalization and the
    numerous contributions this program provides the urban environment
    should not be under estimated. In fiscal year 2013, the U&CF program
    delivered technical, financial, educational, and research assistance to
    7,292 communities in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, U.S.
    territories and affiliated Pacific Island nations. The program reached
    over 198 million Americans (i.e., over 60 percent of the U.S.
    population) in fiscal year 12. NASF supports funding the Urban and
    Community Forestry program at $31 million in fiscal year 2015.
        importance of forest inventory data in monitoring forest issues
        The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, managed by Forest
    Service Research, is the Nation's only comprehensive forest inventory
    system for assessing the health and sustainability of the Nation's
    forests across all ownerships.\8\ FIA provides essential data related
    to forest species composition, forest growth rates, and forest health
    data and delivers baseline inventory estimates used in State Forest
    Action Plans and by many others to understand forest trends and support
    investment in forest products facilities that provide jobs and needed
    products to society. The program provides unbiased information that
    serves as the basis for monitoring trends in wildlife habitat, wildfire
    risk, insect and disease threats, predicting spread of invasive
    species, and for responding to priorities identified in the Forest
    Action Plans.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ The program has not yet been fully implemented in all States
    including Interior Alaska.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Farm Bill directed the Forest Service to revise the FIA
    strategic plan, and State Foresters are actively engaged with the
    Agency as they consider a new strategic plan for this crucial program.
    This program has wide bipartisan support and NASF supports funding the
    Forest Inventory and Analysis program at $72 million in fiscal year
    2015.
                          landscape scale restoration
        We appreciate the support of the subcommittee for State Forest
    Action Plans demonstrated through the establishment of the Landscape
    Scale Restoration (LSR) budget line item in the Consolidated
    Appropriations Act of 2014. State foresters look forward to working
    with members of the subcommittee and the Forest Service to make sure
    that, through LSR, we prioritize funds and resources to maximize return
    on investments to conserve, protect, and enhance our Nation's forests.
    The LSR line item codifies the competitive allocation of Cooperative
    Forestry Assistance Act (CFAA) funds which began under direction from
    the 2008 Farm Bill--but State foresters believe that LSR can and should
    do more.
        In the fiscal year 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act Conference
    Report, the subcommittee directed the Forest Service to develop a
    process allowing State foresters flexibility, with appropriate
    accountability, to reallocate a percentage of authorizations for CFAA
    programs to address State priorities consistent with State Forest
    Action Plans. NASF has worked closely with the Forest Service to
    explore how States could utilize funding flexibility to meet their own
    unique and changing needs; however issues around the need to request
    reprogramming of funds has been a barrier to implementing funding
    flexibility. State foresters believe that LSR provides a perfect
    opportunity to demonstrate the value in providing States the
    flexibility to meet these unique needs through the allocation of their
    CFAA funds. Such a model would include continued funding for the
    competitive allocation of CFAA funds with the addition of an allocation
    to States to further implementation of each State Forest Action Plan.
        NASF supports funding the Landscape Scale Restoration program at
    $23.5 million in fiscal year 2015 and would like to work with the
    subcommittee to direct that a portion of LSR funds be made available to
    State forestry agencies, based on overall percentage of CFAA funds
    received, to further implement their State Forest Action Plan.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
                             Preservation Officers
        Fiscal Year 2015 Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) Total Request:
      --$50 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs);
      --$15 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs);
      --$6 million for survey, inventory and digitization of records;
      --$5 million for a competitive grant program for underrepresented
            populations; and
      --$10 million for a bricks & mortar competitive grant program.
        Funded through withdrawals from the Historic Preservation Fund (16
    U.S.C. 470h) U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service
    Historic Preservation Fund (HPF).
                unique and successful federal-state partnership
        In 1966 Congress, recognizing the importance of our heritage
    enacted the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA16 U.S.C. 470),
    which 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 Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic
    Preservation partner with the States and use SHPOs to: (1) locate and
    record historic resources; (2) nominate significant historic resources
    to the National Register of Historic Places; (3) cultivate historic
    preservation programs at the local government level; (4) provide funds
    for preservation activities; (5) comment on Federal rehabilitation tax
    credit projects; (6) review all Federal projects for their impact on
    historic properties; and (7) provide technical assistance to Federal
    agencies, State and local governments and the private sector. And,
    States provide a forty percent minimum match to the Federal
    appropriation.
                         jobs and economic development
        From the West to the East coasts, historic preservation plays a key
    role in creating, maintaining, and growing communities while preserving
    their historical significance. The Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit
    (HTC) program, administered by the State Historic Preservation Offices
    in cooperation with the National Park Service, is an important driver
    in economic development. The program benefits communities by:
      --Increasing the value of the rehabilitated property by returning
            vacant or underutilized structures to the tax roles and
            stimulating adjacent development projects.
      --Encouraging protection of landmarks through the promotion,
            recognition, and designation of historic structures, and acting
            as a catalyst for further community renewal.
      --Revitalizing downtowns and neighborhoods and often increasing the
            amount of available housing within the community.
        Since inception, the HTC has rehabilitated nearly 39,000 buildings,
    created 2.4 million jobs and leveraged $109 billion in private
    investment nationwide. On average, the HTC leverages $5 dollars in
    private investment for every $1 dollar in Federal funding creating
    highly effective public-private partnerships. In 2013, the HTC spurred
    $3.39 billion in rehabilitation work, created nearly 63,000 skilled,
    local jobs and over 25,000 new or renovated housing units. All of which
    brings short and long-term economic opportunities for the community.
        A recent successful example is the $100 million rehabilitation of
    Building 91 of the former R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. manufacturing plant
    in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. This 242,000 square foot building now
    houses the research department arm of the Wake Forest University
    Baptist Medical Center along with space for other biotechnology start-
    up companies. Winston-Salem Mayor Allen Joines said of the project,
    ``It's been extremely gratifying to watch this solid old building
    bounce back to life. It lets us preserve some of the city's tobacco
    heritage while putting us on a path toward a knowledge based future.''
        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 minimal $3 million increase in
    SHPO funding would allow SHPOs to expand their public outreach and
    assistance, enabling communities to take greater advantage of heritage
    tourism opportunities. Cultural and heritage travelers spend an average
    of $994 per trip and contribute more than $192 billion annually to the
    U.S. economy.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Cultural and Heritage Tourism Study (October 2009)
    conducted by Mandala Research, LLC for U.S. Cultural & Heritage Tourism
    Marketing Council, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Gozaic/Heritage
    Travel Inc., a subsidiary of the National Trust for Historic
    Preservation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            community revitalization
        Nationwide, communities have experienced how historic preservation
    plays a prominent and effective role in community and neighborhood
    revitalization. In many cases, historic preservation combats the
    effects of vacancy by using the historic built environment as a
    catalyst for community change. These changes result in historic
    downtown districts and neighborhoods becoming ``destinations''
    consisting of restaurants, office space, art galleries, specialty
    shops, living spaces, and civic centers.
        The City of Franklin, Tennessee has identified historic
    preservation as one of the main priorities in their Land Use Plan.
    Because of their preservation efforts and the ensuing economic
    development, the American Planning Association named the Downtown
    Franklin Neighborhood as one of the ``Great Places in America.''
    Franklin believes that taking care of their built environment does more
    than just save old buildings. It provides economic development,
    community pride, and a sense of belonging that helps build the future.
        The rehabilitation of the American Brewery building in Baltimore,
    Maryland is another success. The $25 million rehabilitation project is
    located in the Broadway East neighborhood, a low-income area of row
    houses and small commercial storefronts that suffer from abandonment
    and blight. The tenants in the newly restored structure include
    Humanim, a social services organization, which is providing workforce
    development services and job creation opportunities directly to the
    surrounding neighborhood. In addition to relocating its 250 employees
    there, the organization made 40 local hires and the once abandoned
    structure is now spurring greater developer confidence in the
    community.
                     finding and saving america's heritage
        While historic preservation generates economic development and
    community revitalization, it of course also saves old buildings and
    significant places. These sites represent the many people, places, and
    events that have left marks on and shaped our national landscape. The
    authors of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act wrote:

            ``the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should
            be preserved as a living part of our community life and
            development in order to give a sense of orientation to the
            American people;''

        The first step in preserving and protecting America's heritage is
    identifying it--which comes through survey, inventory and creating
    digital records. This information forms the fundamental building blocks
    of our Nation's historic preservation program and is a key program area
    that's lacking at the current level of appropriation. The NCSHPO
    requests a minimum of $6 million a year, for each of the next 10 years,
    specifically for survey, inventory, and records digitization.
        Having accurate, up-to-date, digitally accessible information on
    our Nation's historic resources would drastically increase the
    efficiency and effectiveness of all local, State, and Federal projects.
    From deciding on the design of local in-fill development, to State
    transportation planning projects, to Federal large-scale energy
    projects and disaster recovery efforts--every single project, and the
    American people would benefit.
        Once identified and documented, America's historic resources are
    primarily recognized at the local, State, and national levels through
    historic districts and listing on National and State Historic
    Registers. State Historic Preservation Officers, through the authority
    of the National Historic Preservation Act assist, support and encourage
    communities with their efforts. National Register recognition by the
    Secretary confirms citizens' belief in the significance of their
    community.
        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, State,
    and Federal Governments the tools they need to identify preserve and
    utilize the historic assets of importance to them.
        To that end, in addition to the $6 million for survey, inventory,
    and digitization, the NCSHPO requests a minimum of $50 million for
    SHPOs, to simply sustain their current operating levels. The NCSHPO
    also requests $3 million 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. SHPOs have created many programs and activities to
    support this effort but the current funding level restricts their
    ability to be fully implemented. Three million will provide a positive
    step in their implementation. The NCSHPO also supports $10 million for
    a competitive grant program that provides seed money for bricks &
    mortar rehabilitation projects listed at the local, State, and national
    levels of significance. There is currently no Federal funding provided
    for this activity.
        The NCSHPO also requests that in 2015, the subcommittee supports a
    reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund that includes full
    and permanent funding at $150 million a year.
           2013 state historic preservation offices' accomplishments
        SHPOs used their HPF allocations well in 2013. While virtually
    every State continues to experience staffing and operational
    reductions, SHPOs are still charged with implementing the requirements
    of the NHPA to the fullest extent. Highlights of 2013 historic
    preservation accomplishments include:
      --Reviewing nearly 103,000 Federal undertakings within 30 days.
      --Leveraging over $3.39 billion of private investment in the
            rehabilitation of commercial historic properties under HTC
            program.
      --An estimated 70,000 jobs created by the HTC program in 2013.
      --Over 7,000 low and moderate income housing units created through
            the HTC.
      --Approximately 16.3 million acres surveyed for the presence or
            absence of cultural resources.
      --1,175 new listings in the National Register of Historic Places.
      --82,100 National Register eligibility opinions.
      --29 new communities became Certified Local Governments (CLGs).
      --Under local law, CLG's newly designated 54,500 properties, and
            93,900 properties took part in local preservation review,
            programs, and incentives.
                                   conclusion
        On behalf of all 59 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 subcommittee for their commitment to historic
    preservation. The Federal Government plays an invaluable role in
    preserving our Nation's history and our collective sense of place.
    Through our partnership, SHPOs remain committed to working together to
    identify, protect, and maintain our Nation's historic heritage. Thank
    you.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
        On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), we
    thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on Native
    American programs in the Interior appropriations bill. 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. As the most representative organization of
    American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, NCAI serves the broad
    interests of tribal governments across the Nation. As Congress
    considers the fiscal year 2015 budget and beyond, leaders of tribal
    nations call on decision-makers to ensure that the promises made to
    Indian Country are honored in the Federal budget.
        NCAI includes recommendations for Interior bureaus, the Indian
    Health Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency, but the fiscal
    year 2015 Indian Country Budget Request \1\ includes many more specific
    recommendations and we urge this subcommittee to use it as a resource
    during this appropriations cycle. NCAI also supports the testimony of
    the National Indian Health Board, National Indian Child Welfare
    Association, National Indian Education Association, and American Indian
    Higher Education Consortium.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Congress of American Indians. (January 2014). Fiscal
    year 2015 Indian Country Budget Requests: An honorable budget for
    Indian country. Washington, DC: Author.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  introduction
        Annual funding decisions by Congress are an expression of our
    Nation's moral priorities. Numerous treaties, statutes, and court
    decisions have created a fundamental contract between tribal nations
    and the United States: tribes ceded millions of acres of land that made
    the United States what it is today, and in return tribes have the right
    of continued self-government and the right to exist as distinct peoples
    on their own lands. And for its part, the United States has assumed a
    trust responsibility to protect these rights and to fulfill its solemn
    commitments to Indian tribes and their members. Part of this trust
    responsibility includes basic governmental services in Indian Country,
    funding for which is appropriated in the discretionary portion of the
    Federal budget. The Federal budget for tribal governmental services
    reflects the extent to which the United States honors its promises to
    Indian people.
           department of the interior, bureau of indian affairs (bia)
        The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Operation of Indian
    Programs account is $2.4 billion, an increase of $33.8 million, or 1.4
    percent, above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The fiscal year 2015
    budget request for the Construction account is $109.9 million; a
    decrease of $216,000 below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget proposes a total of $922.6 million in
    Tribal Priority Allocations, an increase of $19.3 million over the
    fiscal year 2014 level, a 2 percent increase.
        The budget request for contract support is $251 million; including
    funding for the Indian Self-Determination Fund, an increase of $4
    million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The requested amount
    will fully fund estimated fiscal year 2015 contract support costs,
    according to BIA based on the most recent analysis. NCAI commends the
    administration for requesting full funding for Contract Support Costs
    in fiscal year 2015. NCAI recommends that the Tribal Grant Support
    Costs for tribally controlled schools and residential facilities should
    also be fully funded. Tribal Grant Support Costs (formerly referred to
    as Administrative Cost Grants) funding is provided to the schools to
    cover administrative and indirect costs incurred in operating contract
    and grant schools. In school year 2012-2013, tribally controlled grant
    schools received an estimated 64 percent of the grant support funding
    needed as defined by the administrative cost grants formula.
    Major Initiatives
        The Tiwahe (Family) Initiative would provide an additional $11.6
    million to expand Indian Affairs' capacity to address Indian child and
    family welfare and job training issues and implement processes to
    better sustain Indian families. Increases include: $10 million to build
    on social services and Indian child welfare programs that provide
    culturally-appropriate services toward health promotion, family
    stability, and strengthening tribal communities; $550,000 to expand job
    placement and training programs; BIA law enforcement would begin a
    pilot program to implement a strategy for alternatives to incarceration
    and increased treatment; $1 million to develop and institutionalize a
    program for evaluating social service and community development needs
    and to inform programmatic design, evaluation, management, and
    budgeting.
        Tribal leaders through the Tribal Interior Budget Council have
    repeatedly called for increases to Social services and Indian Child
    Welfare Act (ICWA) funding. NCAI also supports increases to these two
    activities. ICWA was enacted in 1978 in response to the troubling
    practices of public and private child welfare agencies that were
    systematically removing American Indian and Alaska Native children from
    their homes, communities, and culture, and placing them in non-Indian
    foster and adoptive homes. The Act not only provides protections for
    Native children in State child welfare and judicial systems but
    recognizes the sovereign right of tribes to care for their children.
    The crippling of Native economies before the Self-Determination Era
    left tribal citizens overwhelmingly impoverished, facing high
    unemployment compared to non-Native people, and with few economic
    opportunities. The barriers to employment vary region-to-region in
    Indian Country, but include geographic remoteness, a weak private
    sector, poor basic infrastructure, and even a lack of basic law
    enforcement infrastructure. This, coupled with the recent economic down
    turn, makes the Social Service program an essential yet underfunded
    part of anti-poverty programming on reservations nationwide. For these
    reasons, NCAI supports the increase BIA Social Services.
        Education increases include: $500,000 for Johnson O'Malley
    education assistance grants to support a new student count in 2015 and
    provides funding for the projected increase in the number of students
    eligible for grants; $1 million to support the ongoing evaluation of
    the BIE school system. NCAI also recommends $263.4 million for School
    Construction and Repair, $73 million For Tribal Grant Support Costs;
    $431 million for Indian School Equalization Program Formula Funds; $73
    million for Indian student transportation; and $42 million for Johnson
    O'Malley funding (justification is included in the fiscal year 2015
    Indian Country Budget).
        Public Safety.--Indian Country has long struggled with high crime
    victimization rates. Violent crimes impose economic costs on the
    victims and their families, in the form of medical and other expenses
    and the loss of earnings. Areas with high crime also experience reduced
    investment. Safe communities are necessary for economic development.
    Moreover, the Indian Law and Order Commission found that tribal nations
    throughout our country would benefit enormously if locally based and
    accountable law enforcement officers were staffed at levels comparable
    to similarly situated communities off-reservation. In 2010, DOI
    established a High Priority Performance Goal (HPPG) initiative to
    reduce violent crime by at least 5 percent over 24 months on four
    reservations that were experiencing high rates of violent crime. In
    fiscal year 2010, all four locations received an increase in base
    funding to support additional sworn staff. The additional resources
    assisted in closing the staffing gap and bringing each location up to
    national sworn staffing levels as listed under the U.S. Department of
    Justice Uniform Crime Report staffing averages. The effort resulted in
    a 35 percent decrease in violent crime across the four sites. The
    Indian Law and Order Commission report states, ``[d]espite the current
    budget reality, the results of the HPPG Initiative should not be
    forgotten: parity in law enforcement services prevents crime and
    reduces violent crime rates.'' \2\ NCAI also recommends an increase for
    BIA tribal courts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Indian Law & Order Commission. (November 2013). A roadmap for
    making Native America safer: Report to the President & Congress of the
    United States, Executive Summary, p. xxx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        BIA Overall.--NCAI appreciates recent support for some tribal
    programs over the last few years, especially for the Indian Health
    Service, contract support costs, and law enforcement. In the fiscal
    year 2015 President's budget, DOI's current appropriations would
    increase 2.6 percent, without BIA. For BIA to at least match the 2.6
    percent increase over fiscal year 2014 for DOI's current appropriation
    level would require an additional $69.2 million. About 91 percent of
    the funding proposed that that would benefit Indian tribes in DOI is
    through BIA and Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians
    (OST) and 9 percent of funds to tribes (excluding fire) are in other
    bureaus.

                             [Dollars in thousands]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Percent of
                  Agency                2015 Request    Tribes      Agency
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    US Geological Survey (USGS).......    $1,073,268      $7,600         0.7
    Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)...     1,476,202      10,700         0.7
    National Park Service (NPS).......     2,614,599      13,500         0.5
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM)...     1,113,542      16,900         1.5
    Dept. Wide Programs...............       876,053      35,000         4.0
    Bureau of Reclamation (BOR).......     1,042,995     186,500        17.9
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The other Interior agencies certainly provide assistance to Indian
    tribes. The President's budget includes funds for tribes such other DOI
    budgets: 0.7 percent of the USGS budget, 0.7 percent of the USFWS
    budget, 0.5 percent of the NPS budget, and 18 percent of the BOR
    budget.\3\ NCAI appreciates that, for instance, USGS is increasingly
    engaging with tribes to develop climate adaptation programs and working
    to meet tribes' needs for scientific and planning information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Analysis of Appendix A of the Fiscal Year 2015 Interior Budget
    in Brief, retrieved at http://www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2015/
    highlights/upload/A001.pdf and March 26 Testimony of Asst. Sec.
    Washburn before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, retrieved at
    http://www.indian.senate.gov/sites/default/files/upload/files/
    032614%20Kevin%20Washburn%20FINAL.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The USFWS also is improving its work with tribes, such as with the
    North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative (NPLCC). Increased
    tribal engagement is good, to the extent that non-BIA bureaus are
    assisting tribes, providing resources and upholding the Federal trust
    responsibility.
        But BIA provides the primary resources for carrying out the core
    governmental services to about 2 million American Indians and Alaska
    Natives. Funding for tribal capacity building is critical. Individual
    projects, such as the NPLCC, do not provide the long-term capability
    that tribes need to be able to address climate issues. The $9.947
    million in the BIA's budget for Cooperative Landscape Conservation does
    not go far for 566 federally recognized tribes. Even as other agencies
    work to improve meeting their obligations to tribes, NCAI urges
    Congress to ensure that the BIA budget can provide the resources that
    modern and sophisticated tribal governments require.
                             indian health services
        NCAI requests that for fiscal year 2015, Congress truly restore the
    sequestration cuts remaining from fy 2013, and adjust for inflation and
    population growth. Though discretionary spending is not facing
    sequestration in fiscal year 2015, NCAI urges this subcommittee to
    continue to advocate for a permanent, full exemption from
    sequestration, as well as rescissions, for Tribal programs for fiscal
    year 2016 and beyond. NCAI supports the recommendations of the Tribal
    Budget Formulation Workgroup for fiscal year 2015 as well as the
    National Indian Health Board's testimony.
                     environmental protection agency (epa)
        Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP) Grants.--GAP would receive
    a $31 million increase in base funding in the President's budget, which
    would increase the average size of grants made to eligible tribes while
    providing tribes with a stronger foundation to build tribal capacity;
    and further the EPA's partnership and collaboration with tribes to
    address a wider set of program responsibilities and challenges. As the
    largest single source of the EPA's funding to tribes, the Tribal GAP
    grants assist tribes to establish the capacity to implement programs to
    address environmental and public health issues in Indian Country. NCAI
    supports this proposed increase.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns on programs
    that fulfill treaty and trust obligations in the Interior, Environment,
    and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. We look forward to working
    with this subcommittee on a bipartisan basis once again this year.
                                     ______

      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) nonprofit organization. NICWA has
    over 30 years of experience providing leadership in the development of
    public policy that supports tribal self-determination in child welfare
    and children's mental health systems. We urge Congress, as they make
    budgetary decisions for fiscal year 2015, to not forget the unique
    interest of AI/AN children and families. This testimony will provide
    recommendations for the following programs administered by the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior: Indian Child
    Protection and Family Violence Prevention ($43 million), Social
    Services ($40.8 million), Welfare Assistance ($80 million), and Indian
    Child Welfare Act Program (Tribal Priority Allocation--$15.6 million;
    Self-Governance--$16.5 million; Off-Reservation Program--$5 million).
        Tribes have an important relationship with their children and
    families; they are experts in the needs of AI/AN children, best-suited
    to effectively serve those needs, and most able to improve these
    children's child welfare outcomes (NICWA & Pew Charitable Trust, 2007).
    In addition, statistics show that AI/AN children face elevated rates of
    child abuse and neglect (Department of Health and Human Services,
    2012). The key to successful tribal child welfare is a budget that
    avoids unnecessary restraint on tribal decisionmaking and accounts for
    the elevated need in tribal communities.
                        priority program recommendation
        Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
    recommendation.--Appropriate $43 million for the three discretionary
    grant programs under this law: (1) $10 million for the Indian Child
    Abuse Treatment Grant Program; (2) $30 million for the Indian Child
    Protection and Family Violence Prevention Grant Program; and (3) $3
    million for the Indian Child Resource and Family Service Centers so
    that tribes will finally get this vital funding.
        The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
    (ICPFVP; Public Law 101-630), was enacted to fill gaps in tribal child
    welfare services--specifically child protection and child abuse
    treatment--and to encourage coordination between child abuse and
    domestic violence programs.
        AI/AN women are more likely than any other racial group to
    experience intimate partner violence (IPV); 39 percent of AI/AN women
    report having experienced IPV at some point in their lives (Black and
    Breiding, 2008). Studies show that in 49 percent-70 percent of cases,
    men who abuse their partners also abuse their children (White Eagle,
    Clairmont, and Hunter, 2011). The ICPFVP programs are the only funds
    specifically authorized for tribes to address these issues. The three
    programs authorized under this line item provide funding for child
    abuse treatment and prevention; investigation of child abuse reports;
    family violence treatment services; and the establishment of BIA Indian
    child resource and family service centers to assist tribes with the
    investigation, prevention, and treatment of victims of child abuse and
    domestic violence. In spite of the great need, and these programs'
    authorization in 1991, only the BIA Indian child resource and family
    centers have ever received funding and that was only in one fiscal
    year.
        This year the President introduced an important Indian Country
    budget initiative: the Tiwahe (Family) Initiative. This initiative aims
    to empower tribal communities in order to strengthen AI/AN families by
    ``directing additional resources to support culturally appropriate
    social services and a more holistic approach toward family stability''
    (U.S. DOI Budget Justifications and Performance Information Indian
    Affairs fiscal year 2015 (``Greenbook''), 2014, p. IA-ES-2). This
    initiative will provide additional funding to the BIA Social Service
    Program, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) program, and to BIA job
    training and job placement programs. Omitting the funding for ICPFVPA
    programs leaves a gap in the President's initiative. For this reason,
    and as a part of this Tiwahe Initiative, the programs under this grant
    should be fully appropriated.
                         other program recommendations
        Social Services recommendation.--Increase funding by $5 million as
    recommended by the President's proposed Tiwahe Initiative for a total
    appropriation of $40.8 million so that child protective services can be
    fortified.
        The BIA Social Services line item funds contracted/compacted tribal
    social workers who help families get assistance and protect children
    and elders, BIA social work staff at regional and agency offices,
    support programs for AI/AN individuals, and training and technical
    assistance to tribal social service programs.
        This line item is, therefore, an essential part of tribal child
    welfare systems. The Social Service line item helps AI/AN families meet
    their basic needs which prevents involvement with the child welfare
    system. It provides the only BIA funding available for child protective
    services in Indian Country (because the ICPFVPA remains unfunded).
        The President has proposed a $5 million increase in Social Service
    funding in his fiscal year 2015 budget as part of the Tiwahe (Family)
    Initiative. These funds are to be used ``to add much needed additional
    social workers for both tribal and [BIA] operated programs''
    (Greenbook, 2014, p. IA-HS-2). These social workers are to be dedicated
    to child protection, and it is the hope of the President that this
    increase in capacity will allow tribal child welfare systems to ``focus
    on long-term strategies to address the impact of family violence on the
    break-up of the families'' and ``to provide more prevention,
    intervention, and outreach activities'' (Greenbook, 2014, p. IA-HS-2).
    We commend the President for the Tiwahe Initiative and this proposed
    increase in funding for tribal social services and ask that Congress
    fund Social Services at $40.8 million as recommended by the President.
        Welfare Assistance recommendation.--Increase current funding levels
    to $80 million to provide a safety net for Native families and assist
    grandfamilies and other kinship caregivers in tribal communities.
        The Welfare Assistance line item provides five important forms of
    funding to AI/AN families: General Assistance, Child Assistance, Non-
    Medical Institutional or Custodial Care of Adults, Burial Assistance,
    and Emergency Assistance. General Assistance, Emergency Assistance, and
    Child Assistance are particularly important to tribal child welfare
    programs.
        General Assistance provides financial assistance for essential
    needs such as food, clothing, shelter, and utilities while individuals
    who are ineligible for all other financial assistance programs work
    towards independence as outlined in a self-sufficiency plan. AI/AN
    children are more likely to live in households that are below the
    poverty line. Thirty-four percent of AI/AN children live in households
    with incomes below the poverty line as compared to 20.7 percent of
    children nationwide (Maternal and Child Health Bureau, 2012). In
    addition, nearly 19 percent of the AI/AN labor force is unemployed on
    reservations (2006-2010 American Community Survey)--twice the rate for
    the total population. These funds are essential to the basic well-being
    of the families who receive them and also an important tool for child
    welfare agencies working to keep families together. These funds, like
    Emergency Assistance, also funded under this line item, often provide
    the financial assistance necessary to prevent neglect and the removal
    of a child.
        Child Assistance provides payments on behalf of children who are
    placed outside their homes in foster, adoptive, or guardianship care.
    Because tribal governments have a responsibility to support the
    placement of AI/AN children that live on tribal lands under their
    jurisdiction who cannot remain safely at home, these funds are
    critical. Currently only three tribes have access to title IV-E, the
    funding stream States use to support out-of-home placements. Other
    tribes rely on Child Assistance funds for this purpose. Without these
    funds, tribes would have to place children in unsubsidized substitute
    care homes. This would put an undue burden on tribal foster families
    and make foster care recruitment in AI/AN communities all the more
    difficult.
        The current funding level for these important services just begins
    to meet the need in tribal communities. For this reason, the funds
    should be increased by $5 million. This amount will provide necessary
    support to AI/AN families at risk of being torn apart, to children in
    relative placements, and to AI/AN individuals and families who need a
    hand up.
        ICWA Funding recommendation.--Increase the ICWA On or Near
    Reservation Program appropriations by $5 million and the Self-
    Governance and Consolidated Tribal Government ICWA On or Near
    Reservation appropriations by $5 million, for a total increase of $10
    million to help tribes meet the needs of their communities. Appropriate
    an additional $5 million for the authorized, but unfunded, Off-
    Reservation ICWA Program to ensure ICWA protects all children.
        At the time that ICWA was passed, Congress estimated that between
    $26 million and $62 million was required to fully fund tribal child
    welfare programs on or near reservations during the first years of the
    grant program (U.S. Senate Report 95-597). ICWA funding is used for
    family reunification and rehabilitation, case management, foster care
    recruitment and retention, and adoption services. As the President has
    recognized in his Tiwahe (Family) Initiative, increased ICWA funding is
    essential for strong AI/AN families and communities. This funding is
    designed to ``prevent the breakup of Indian families or reunite them if
    break-up occurs'' (Greenbook, 2014 p. IA-HS-3). This funding is also
    used to ``expand the capabilities of tribes to intervene in involuntary
    court proceedings and ensure the children are not separated from their
    cultural base'' (Greenbook, IA-HS-3). Despite its importance to so many
    facets of tribal child welfare, it remains underfunded, even as tribes
    remain ineligible for other important child welfare funding like CAPTA
    State Grants, and Title XX Social Service Block Grants to which States
    have access.
        Specifically, as part of the Tiwahe Initiative, the President
    recommends a $5 million increase to ICWA on-reservation funding to be
    shared between Tribal Priority Allocation and Self-Governance/638/
    Consolidated Tribal Government Programs. This would amount to an
    approximate increase of $2.5 million to each of these ICWA on-
    reservation programs. We commend the President for this initiative and
    for his recognition of the important of ICWA funding to tribal
    communities and families. Spreading the $5 million increase between
    both Tribal Priority Allocation tribes and Self-Governance/638/
    Consolidated Tribal Government Programs, however, will prevent a
    significant increase in actual ICWA funding for all tribes. ICWA is
    such a foundation to the Tiwahe Initiative that we recommend a $5
    million increase to each of the ICWA on-reservation funding programs.
    This would mean a $5 million increase to the Tribal Priority Allocation
    as well as a $5 million increase to Self-Governance/638/Consolidated
    Tribal Government Programs for ICWA purposes.
        The protections of ICWA apply to AI/AN children on-reservation and
    children who live in urban areas. For this reason, ICWA authorizes
    child welfare funding for urban ICWA programs. From 1979-1996, funding
    was allocated for ICWA grants to urban organizations serving AI/AN
    peoples. This off-reservation ICWA program has not since been funded
    since, despite the fact that, according to the 2010 Census, 67 percent
    of AI/AN people lived off-reservation. Urban programs provide important
    ICWA services including recruitment of AI/AN foster 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. As a result of the loss of funding, the majority of
    these programs have disintegrated. It is for this reason that to truly
    fulfill the Tiwahe Initiative, funding for off-reservation ICWA
    programs must be reinstated and appropriated at $5 million to ensure
    that all AI/AN children are protected by the ICWA.

                                                INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Fiscal year
                                          Fiscal year    Fiscal year   Fiscal year        2015         Fiscal year
                                              2012     2013 * enacted      2014       President's          2015
                                            enacted                      enacted         Budget        recommended
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On-Reservation: Tribal Priority       $10,850,000     $10,628,000  $10,710,000     $13,128,000      $15,628,000
     Allocation.........................
    On-Reservation: Self-Gov/638/Consol.   11,300,000      11,480,000   number not     $13,980,000       16,480,000
     Tribal Gov't Program...............                                 available
    Off-Reservation.....................            0               0            0                0        5,000,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Reflects sequestration effects.

                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Indian Education Association
        The National Indian Education Association (NIEA) was incorporated
    in 1970 and is the most representative Native education organization in
    the United States. NIEA's mission is to advance comprehensive and equal
    educational opportunities for American Indian, Alaska Native, and
    Native Hawaiian students. NIEA supports tribal sovereignty over
    education as well as strengthening traditional Native cultures and
    values that enable Native learners to become contributing members of
    their communities. As the most inclusive Native education organization,
    NIEA membership consists of tribal leaders, educators, students,
    researchers, and education stakeholders from all 50 States. From
    communities in Hawaii, to tribal reservations across the continental
    U.S., to villages in Alaska and urban communities in major cities, NIEA
    has the most reach of any Native education organization in the country.
        Tribes and Native communities have a tremendous stake in an
    improved education system, because an improved system equates to better
    services for Native people and students. As tribes work to increase
    their footprint in education, there must be support for that increased
    participation. Established through treaties, Federal law, and U.S.
    Supreme Court decisions, this relationship includes a fiduciary
    obligation to provide parity in access and equal resources to all
    American Indian and Alaska Native students, regardless of where they
    attend school. National fiscal and policy concerns should not be
    addressed by decreasing funds and investment to Native students or the
    programs that serve them. Rather, Native education, including those
    programs and services under the Department of the Interior (DOI), is
    one of the most effective and efficient investments the Federal
    Government can make.
        As tribes and Native communities work with Congress for parity in
    access to increase their role and responsibility in administering
    education, Federal support for tribal governments and Native education
    institutions has continued to shrink as a percentage of the Federal
    budget. Historical funding trends illustrate that the Federal
    Government is abandoning its trust responsibility by decreasing Federal
    funds to Native-serving programs by more than half in the last 30
    years. Sequestration only exacerbated those shortfalls.
                         the state of native education
        Partly as a result of insufficient access to resources, Native
    education is in a state of emergency. Native students lag far behind
    their peers on every educational indicator, from academic achievement
    to high school and college graduation rates. Just over 50 percent of
    Native students are graduating high school, compared to nearly 80
    percent for the majority population nationally. For students attending
    Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools, rates are even lower.
    According to the latest results from the National Assessment of
    Educational Progress (NAEP), the BIE's tribally controlled schools
    (approximately 120 facilities) are among the worst performing schools
    in the Nation due to an array of issues often caused by inadequate
    access for tribal involvement as well as insufficient resources. Due to
    the inability of elementary and secondary schools to adequately prepare
    our children, only 40 percent of Native college enrollees in 2004
    actually graduated college with a bachelor's degree by 2010. For Native
    students to succeed in post-secondary education and careers, they must
    have a strong education foundation, whether they attend public,
    tribally-controlled, or direct service BIE schools.
                       bureau of indian education reform
        For too many years, DOI made other programs priorities while Native
    education programs and the BIE were afterthoughts. In addition to the
    disparaging September 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    Report on the BIE school system, the work of this subcommittee and
    education partners has built momentum around much-needed BIE reform.
    NIEA is enthusiastic about the renewed collaboration among Secretaries
    Sally Jewell and Arne Duncan in the Departments of the Interior and
    Education (ED) and for their support to create the American Indian
    Education Study Group (Study Group). We are also excited to strengthen
    our work with BIE Director Dr. Charles ``Monty'' Roessel to ensure BIE
    moves in the right direction. We are already happy to see the hiring of
    a coordinator within the Bureau to start work on the 2014 Johnson
    O'Malley (JOM) student count, which was last officially updated in
    1995.
        However, much work lies ahead. The Study Group is currently behind
    schedule in producing their report, so it is important to maintain
    pressure for results. Further, as the Study Group works with tribal
    communities this spring and summer to release a report, NIEA hopes this
    subcommittee will analyze our recommendations and take concrete steps
    to support the reforms required for increasing the capacity of tribes
    to govern their education systems. These include (1) providing the BIE
    the ability to manage its budget; (2) strengthening tribal capacity to
    administer education services; and (3) providing budgetary support for
    programs, such as tribal grant support costs and school construction,
    so the BIE can provide safe environments for our students as well as
    sufficiently support tribes as they contract education services.
                        fiscal year 2015 recommendations
    BIE Budget Authority
        For too long, bureaucratic issues among the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA) and the BIE have decreased the ability of the BIE to meet
    the educational needs of our youth. Congress and Federal agencies
    should make funding for BIE a priority to increase available resources
    for addressing the needed systemic changes and issues highlighted in
    the September 2013 GAO Report. DOI should transfer budget authority
    from the BIA to the BIE to increase efficiency and effectiveness, as
    BIE officials better understand needed funding within their programs.
        As a result of BIA authority over the BIE budget, the BIE is often
    low in priority as compared to other programs. As a result of internal
    BIA fiscal year 2014 Operating Plan reallocations, the BIA reduced JOM
    Assistance Grants by $170,000 as well as cut BIE higher education
    scholarships. NIEA is fully supportive of the hard work tribes and
    Native communities put forth to achieve full funding for contract
    support costs in fiscal year 2014. However, such achievements should
    not come by forfeiting funds from critical education programs and
    services.
        Furthermore, while the reduced lines were under tribal priority
    allocations, such reductions were not authorized by tribal leaders but
    were a result of internal redistributions. While the reductions are
    small as compared to the overall increase in the BIA budgets,
    rescissions without appropriate consultation are unacceptable.
    Providing the BIE the ability to develop its own budget would ensure
    the BIA cannot reallocate funds from the BIE as it would be a separate
    Bureau with its own budget authority.
    Strengthen Tribal Capacity --$5 million
        Tribes should be provided more opportunity to collaborate and
    participate in their children's education systems. Since the late 20th
    Century, Congress has worked to strengthen tribal capacity to directly
    serve their citizens. The BIE should become a capacity builder to help
    tribes administer education services. While an authorization under the
    U.S. Department of Education for tribal capacity building in public
    schools on reservations has been funded since fiscal year 2012, the
    program only addresses one aspect of existing need.
        The State-Tribal Education Partnership Program (STEP) in ED is a
    solid start for increasing collaboration among States and tribes for
    increasing the tribal role in a Native student's education. However,
    additional funding of $5 million within both DOI and ED totaling $10
    million is needed to ensure more tribes can participate in providing
    education services via their tribal education agencies in local
    tribally-controlled grant schools. Because tribes and their education
    agencies understand their students' cultural and academic needs best,
    this local authority would allow tribes to efficiently and effectively
    reverse the negative academic outcomes currently pertaining to Native
    students.
    Capacity and Collaboration--$5 million
        As the BIE is increasingly able to support tribes and their
    education agencies, BIE reform would be strengthened by providing funds
    for a competitive grant pilot that incentivizes capacity building in
    tribally-controlled grant schools. This grant program would be modeled
    on best practices from existing competitive grants in use within the
    Department of Education. For $5 million, the BIE could participate in a
    pilot to help spur urgent and abrupt systemic reform that will
    substantially improve student success, close achievement gaps, improve
    high school graduation rates, and prepare students for success in
    college and careers.
        The three-year competitive incentive-based grant, similar to
    existing Race to the Top initiatives for which BIE continues to be
    excluded, would provide resources for tribes to accelerate their local
    reforms and align education services to tribal education priorities
    that include language and culture as well as meet challenging academic
    standards. Further, performance metrics for the grant would include
    student attendance rates, graduation rates, college enrollment rates,
    measures on educator accountability, and performance on standardized
    assessments. In order to catalyze reform efforts and create a set of
    high-performing, tribally-controlled grant schools, the BIE would also
    provide on-going technical assistance to help build the capacity of
    those schools that applied for, but did not receive, a grant.
    Construction Funding--$263.4 million
        Similar to previous years, NIEA is requesting increased funding for
    BIE school construction and repair with an allocation to be set at
    $263.4 million. That level ensures funds for new school construction,
    facilities improvement and repair, and replacement school construction.
    NIEA was excited to see new funding appropriated by Congress in fiscal
    year 2014 and 2015 to begin work on the first phase of the Beatrice
    Rafferty School located in Maine. However, it is time bring all vested
    stakeholders to the table to work on a plan for providing enough
    resources to actually replace dilapidated BIE schools.
        DOI Secretary Sally Jewell recently stated on March 25, 2014 before
    the House of Representatives' Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies that, ``[DOI] is focusing more on the
    classrooms, than the buildings.'' This limited concentration is
    unacceptable. As the first DOI budget under her leadership, the
    administration's budget request for replacement construction continues
    to be inadequate. The administration must support efforts to
    drastically increase replacement funds and address the long-outdated
    list of more than 60 BIE school buildings in disrepair and
    unsatisfactory conditions. The Federal Government understands the need
    to bring all DOD schools to a good or fair rating by 2018, yet the BIE
    school system is ignored. While focusing on the classroom is to be
    applauded, no child can be expected to successfully learn while the
    structure around them is potentially dangerous.
    Tribal Grant Support Costs--$73 million
        NIEA was happy to see IHS and BIA contract support costs fully
    funded under self-determination and self-governance this year. However,
    Public Law 100-297 grant or Public Law 93-638 self-determination
    contracted BIE schools were exempt from full funding, which will result
    in budget shortfalls. Full funding for tribal grant support costs in
    fiscal year 2015 and subsequent years is critical as these dollars help
    tribes expand self-governance and tribal authority over education
    programs by providing funds for administrative costs, such as
    accounting, payroll, and other legal requirements. The BIA currently
    funds only 65 percent of support costs in the 125 tribally controlled
    schools and residential facilities under the BIE purview. This forces
    schools to divert critical education funding in order to cover
    shortfalls in operational costs, which make it unrealistic to improve
    educational outcomes and bridge the achievement gap among Native and
    non-Native students.
                                   conclusion
        NIEA appreciates the opportunity to submit written testimony into
    the record and we look forward to increasing the success of the BIE and
    tribes as they work together to educate Native students. Thank you
    again and if you have any questions, please contact Ahniwake Rose, NIEA
    Executive Director, at arose@niea.org.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources
        Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: I am Brian Haggard,
    Director of the Arkansas Water Resources Center at the University of
    Arkansas. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
    National Institutes for Water Resources (NIWR), in support of the Water
    Resources Research Act program. The program is funded as part of the
    U.S. Geological Survey's budget. I specifically want to thank you for
    the subcommittee's continuing strong support for the Water Resources
    Research Act.
        This year is the 50th anniversary of the Act. In 1959, a Senate
    select committee was formed to investigate the adequacy of the Nation's
    water resources. As a result of its findings, a bill was introduced to
    create a national water resources research program designed to expand
    and provide more effective coordination of the Nation's water research.
    The bill authorized the establishment of water resources research
    institutes at land grant colleges in each State. On July 12, 1964, when
    President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill into law he said,

            ``The Water Resources Research Act of 1964, which I have
            approved today, fills a vital need...it will create local
            centers of water research. It will enlist the intellectual
            power of universities and research institutes in a nationwide
            effort to conserve and utilize our water resources for the
            common benefit.''

        The Act authorized the establishment of Water Resources Research
    Institutes in each of the 50 States and Puerto Rico. Later, Institutes
    were authorized in Washington DC, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the
    Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern
    Mariana Islands and American Samoa. The Institutes were created to
    fulfill 3 main objectives:
      --to develop through research new technology and more efficient
            methods for resolving local, State and national water resources
            problems;
      --to train water scientists and engineers through on-the-job
            participation in research; and
      --to facilitate water research coordination and the application of
            research results by means of information dissemination and
            technology transfer.
        Today the Water Resources Research Institutes, in partnership with
    the U.S. Geological Survey, continue to fulfill the three roles
    assigned by Congress in 1964 They have funded cutting-edge water
    research, have conducted innovative information and technology transfer
    programs, and have provided training to over 25,000 students over their
    50-year history.
        The Water Resources Research Act program is a State-based network
    of institutes dedicated to solving problems of water quantity (supply)
    and quality in partnership with universities, local governments and the
    general public and 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 each State invests in
    water research and training.
        The Water Resources Research Act established two grant components
    of the USGS Water Resources Research Institutes program, where Federal
    funds cannot be used to pay indirect costs at the universities. The
    first component is the base grant program which is divided up equally
    among the institutes. The Act requires that each Federal dollar must be
    matched by two non-Federal dollars, and 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. The National Institutes for Water Resources
    requests the subcommittee to provide continued funding for the base
    grant program, which provides grants focused on water supply and
    quality, technology transfer, professional education, and outreach to
    faculty at universities within each State. The base program provides
    seed grants, which are used to develop future research proposals and
    secure additional external funds.
        The second grant component is a national competitive grants
    program, supporting research on water resources problems that are
    regional or national in nature. In 2012 this program received 46
    applications, which underwent rigorous peer review from a national
    panel. The national review panel selected a total of six projects from
    Alabama, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and West Virginia,
    addressing water supply and quality issues facing our Nation.
        The Water Resources Research Act is what holds all of this
    together. The Institutes specialize in identifying problems within
    their States, developing solutions to those problems, and engaging with
    the public to implement those solutions. One of the Institute program's
    greatest strengths is that the research funded by each Institute is
    tailored to that State's needs, based on priorities set by consultation
    with an advisory panel. These funded projects are State focused but
    also address water issues relevant to our Nation. The following are
    several examples of research conducted and projects managed by
    Institutes across the country.
        My Institute, the Arkansas Water Resources Center, has focused on
    how water quality is changing over time, particularly in two watersheds
    where the poultry industry has been sued over elevated nutrients and
    aesthetic conditions--the Illinois River Watershed and Eucha-Spavinaw
    Basin. We used data collected through our monitoring program, as well
    as by the U.S. Geological Survey, to show how nutrient concentrations
    and loads in these critical watersheds have changed since the
    implementation of nutrient management practices in municipal wastewater
    treatment facilities and on the land. Our analysis clearly showed
    nutrients have decreased over time, moving closer to our water quality
    goals. The institutional stability of my center and its base funding
    made it possible to manage long-term databases and produce results.
        The Rhode Island Water Resources Center has supported cutting-edge
    research on industrial pretreatment of wastewater before it discharge
    to municipal facilities. This research project produced a solution to
    the problem, developing a nano-technology based system capable of
    removing pollutants from industrial wastewater. The system uses
    grapheme oxide and carbon nanotubes which are capable of adsorbing high
    amounts of pollutants, and this polymer system is reusable. The
    research was applied in nature, solving a real-world problem in a
    sustainable way.
        The Alabama Water Resources Research Institute hosted the 2013
    annual water conference, focusing on the important role of Alabama's
    water resources in economic development. Over 300 participants attended
    this event, including Governor Bentley as the keynote speaker. This
    institute specializes in outreach activities, which has also included
    the Tallapoosa Basin Conference, the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
    (ACF) Stakeholders Conference, municipal and legislative assistance in
    water resources planning, the Auburn University campus stormwater
    management plan, and co-sponsoring water policy forums throughout the
    State.
        The Alaska Water and Environmental Research Center at the
    University of Alaska-Fairbank has been collecting and analyzing
    critical hydrologic data needed for planning a transportation corridor
    to the Ambler Mining District and the Umiat region north of Brooks
    Range. The river flow and ice measurements are essential information in
    the design bridges and environmental impact statements. This center has
    established itself as an entity capable of collecting and evaluating
    hydrologic data for projects in Alaska's most remote and challenging
    settings.
        The California Institute for Water Resources has sponsored research
    on irrigation efficiency, which is critical component of water
    conservation strategies as our climate continues to change. The
    researchers supported by the institute are collecting data on
    transpiration, local weather conditions, and soil water retention and
    evaporation to identify trends that can be used to adjust irrigation
    methods for specific crop needs; these researchers are also analyzing
    nearly 40 years of irrigation survey data to understand changes in
    irrigation methods across the State and over time. This research
    quantifies the amount of water used, on which crops it was used, and
    where those crops were located--the ultimate goal is to improve water
    conversation and sustain crop yields.
        The Maryland Water Resources Research Center has supported research
    that will ultimately benefit the Maryland's two most important economic
    resources, Agriculture and the Chesapeake Bay. With increasing food
    markets and interest in biofuels, agriculture production is expanding
    and changing along with environmental impacts such as nitrogen,
    phosphorus and sediment input into the bay. This research projects
    developed low-cost anaerobic digesters that treat dairy manure while
    producing methane as a source of renewable energy--transforming animal
    waste into an environmental and economic benefit for the Chesapeake Bay
    region.
        The Montana Water Center at Montana State University has funded
    research projects on the health of wetland ecosystems, and how
    fluctuations in the amount of evapotranspiration and groundwater
    available influence this important aquatic resource. Groundwater and
    evapotranspiration are two unknowns in any water budget and are often
    ignored in regional groundwater flow models. This research has used the
    Gartside Reservoir prairie fen to model groundwater availability and
    evapotranspiration and developed methods for defining aquifer
    conditions affecting evapotranspiration.
        The New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute played a
    leadership role in developing the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer
    Assessment Program, which allows the Interior Department and the U.S.
    Geological Survey to cooperate with the Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas
    Water Resources research Institutes, State water agencies, and other
    relevant entities to characterize, map and model hydrogeology of
    community groundwater supplies. This program provides essential
    information and a scientific foundation for State and local officials
    to address pressing water resources challenges in this border region,
    such as declining water levels, deteriorating water quality, and
    increasing demand.
        The Oregon Institute for Water and Watersheds has focused on the
    emerging problem of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). These blooms are
    caused by blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) that naturally occur in
    surface water, but given the right environmental conditions and
    nutrient supply can multiply quickly into problematic blooms. As these
    algal blooms die off, toxins are released into waters posing an
    environmental and human health concern. Researchers at Oregon State
    University were funded by this institute to fill information gaps,
    modeling the formation of these blooms and increasing our understanding
    of environmental factors influencing the occurrence of these blooms in
    drinking water supply reservoirs.
        Agricultural subsurface drainage has increased dramatically in
    South Dakota during the last several years. The South Dakota Water
    Resources Institute is using satellite-based remote sensing technology
    to compare, side-by-side, crop water use from fields with and without
    tile drainage. Understanding this difference in water use helps
    quantify crop yield responses to drainage, economic return on
    investment and impacts on the hydrology within each field. The
    information is being used by agricultural producers and natural
    resources managers from local, State and Federal agencies alike to help
    implement best management practices that maintain and improve
    agricultural production while minimizing negative environmental
    impacts.
        For five decades the Water Resources Research Institutes have
    provided significant research results and impacts to our Nation, and
    proved successful at bringing new water professionals into the work
    force. NIWR recommends the subcommittee provide $8,800,000 to the USGS
    for the Water Resources Research Institute Program for fiscal year
    2015. 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 $1.2 billion
    requested for the USGS in fiscal year 2015, a level that will support
    critical 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 and the
    National Institutes for Water Resources, for the opportunity to testify
    and for the subcommittee's strong support of the Water Resources
    Research Act program. It is greatly appreciated.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on
    behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). Since
    1919, NPCA has been the leading independent voice in support of
    enhancing, protecting and promoting America's National Park System for
    people from all walks of life to learn from and enjoy--now and into the
    future. On behalf of our 800,000 members and supporters from every
    State in the Union, I appreciate the opportunity to provide our views
    regarding the Park Service budget for the upcoming fiscal year. NPCA
    requests for fiscal year 2015 appropriated funding for the National
    Park Service of $2,623,646,000, which is equal to the President's
    appropriated request but rejecting his request to reduce National
    Heritage Area Funding by $9,087,000. This includes NPCA's priorities
    this year of meeting--at a minimum--the President's request for a $47
    million increase in park operations, and $10 million in appropriated
    funds for the Centennial Challenge.
        We fully appreciate the tremendous challenge you face in setting
    reasonable, responsible spending priorities for the varied Federal
    agencies and programs under your subcommittee's jurisdiction when the
    goal of substantially reducing the level of Federal spending has driven
    so much of the political discourse and agenda. We share the hope that
    the budget and appropriations cycle now underway for fiscal year 2015
    might signal a return to a more orderly and reasonable process,
    particularly with the landmark centennial of the National Park System
    fast approaching.
        Providing adequate funding is more than simply another expenditure;
    it is an investment in our Nation's future with tangible returns that
    are particularly significant now as we continue to recover from a long
    economic downturn. The Government shutdown demonstrated the economic
    importance of national parks to gateway communities. According to the
    Interior Department, these communities lost $414 million in visitor
    spending alone during the 16-day shutdown. Investments in the Park
    Service budget support robust economic activity:
      --Every dollar invested in the National Park Service yields ten
            dollars in economic activity;
      --National parks support nearly $27 billion in economic activity
            annually and nearly a quarter million private sector jobs; and
      --Of the 25 most popular travel destinations in the United States,
            eight are units of the National Park System.
        The budget situation for the National Park Service for the past
    several years has been like a roller coaster ride, headed mostly down.
    Over recent months and years, the Park Service and the national
    treasures entrusted to their care have been damaged by compounded
    budget cuts. So has the experience and enjoyment of the people who
    visit them. The October 2013 16-day Government shutdown came on top of
    an ongoing pattern of declining budgets followed by the damaging and
    indiscriminate across-the-board cuts mandated by the sequester. The
    budget to operate the national parks has been cut by nearly 8 percent
    in today's dollars compared to 4 years ago. That is on top of many
    years of chronic underfunding for park operations that have resulted in
    operations shortfalls ranging from estimates of from $500 million to as
    much as $800 million annually. Over the past decade, the National Park
    Service construction budget has been cut by over $272 million, or 66
    percent in today's dollars. This has compounded the years of
    underfunding, resulting in today's nearly $12 billion backlog. That
    underfunding is due to actions and inactions over many congresses, and
    by both political parties.
        The maintenance backlog is attributable to chronic funding
    deficiencies in several categories, including operations,
    transportation and construction. These deficiencies have forced park
    managers to make choices between what needs to be done and what
    absolutely must be done immediately to keep facilities up and running
    and visitors safe. The longer needed repairs and maintenance to
    facilities are put off, the more expensive and difficult they become.
        The result of this long-term budget roller coaster, particularly
    during the sequester but not limited to it, has been:
      --parks and park facilities opening later and closing earlier or more
            frequently;
      --fewer park rangers and other staff protecting and maintaining
            parks;
      --visitor centers operating with fewer rangers or closing altogether
            for lack of staff;
      --compromised science and resource protection and decreased cyclical
            maintenance;
      --fewer backcountry patrols to ensure visitor safety and prevent
            poaching and looting; and
      --other impacts that compromise resources and public enjoyment and
            safety.
        To be sure, park managers have done the best they can to weather
    the many rounds of budget reductions. There has been some level of
    savings through employee attrition, but superintendents will tell you
    that while operating a park with insufficient staff can be managed in
    the short term, it simply can't be sustained over the long run. At some
    point the consequences become evident, compromising the parks' ability
    to protect resources from damages, keep visitors safe and provide
    adequate visitor services. Director Jarvis recently testified before
    this subcommittee that the proposed fiscal year 2015 investment in park
    operations would return some seasonal rangers to our parks, but pointed
    out that under the proposal only half of those lost seasonal rangers
    would return. Clearly, more work is needed to bring our national parks
    and the men and women who steward them back to where they once were.
        The real question for fiscal year 2015 is whether progress will
    occur in getting the National Park System in the shape it should to
    begin its next century in a manner consistent with the pride Americans
    feel for our heritage and our national treasures. fiscal year 2015 is
    an opportunity for Congress to help answer that question, since it is a
    critical year to begin preparing for 2016. In light of that, the
    administration has proposed a multi-year centennial initiative that
    builds on the one proposed by the Bush administration. Recognizing the
    magnitude of the challenge posed by the backlog, the administration
    proposes that legislation be enacted to begin reducing the backlog on a
    mandatory basis. They also propose to renew the Centennial Challenge--a
    program familiar to this subcommittee from the Bush/Kempthorne era--in
    an amount identical to that proposed by the Bush administration. This
    subcommittee can play a significant role in promoting such an
    initiative and in educating others about why it is necessary, and we
    stand ready to help in that effort. A Centennial Initiative that
    attacks the backlog would produce needed construction jobs while
    restoring America's treasures. And the Centennial Challenge can help
    the national parks capitalize on the attention the centennial will
    bring to attract donations from private and other non-Federal sources.
    The fact that Presidents Bush and Obama both have supported renewing
    our parks in connection with the centennial provides further evidence
    of the nonpartisan appeal of the parks, and we hope that Congress will
    seize upon its role in formulating a legacy that will last for the next
    century.
        As a down-payment on enactment of Centennial Challenge legislation,
    we ask that the subcommittee appropriate at least as much as the
    administration request--$10 million--if not more. This subcommittee has
    noted the importance of matching funds and has drafted report language
    to that effect. The Centennial Challenge program would leverage
    important dollars to support signature projects at parks throughout the
    country. It's a wise investment.
        As for park operations, we have consistently noted to this
    subcommittee NPCA's view that this account should be prioritized. The
    proposed operations increase would provide funding to enhance the
    visitor experience, better connect young people with their natural and
    cultural heritage, and put more rangers to work addressing overdue
    maintenance needs. We recognize as Director Jarvis did that the
    proposed increase is insufficient to return ranger levels to where they
    should be, but it is a welcome step in the right direction. There is a
    direct connection between those popular rangers, the enjoyment of
    visitors, and correspondingly the economies of surrounding communities
    that depend on those visitors having a safe and inspiring experience.
        We also support the administration's request of $192.2 million for
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), a critical tool for
    protecting our national parks. Since it was first enacted, with a
    dedicated stream of revenue in place from offshore oil and gas leasing
    in Federal waters, the LWCF has realized its full $900 million
    envisioned level only once in 49 years. Park Service LWCF funding has
    declined from $126 million in fiscal year 2010 to less than $100
    million in fiscal year 2014, a decline of more than 20 percent. We
    believe in the healthy, rewarding recreational opportunities that LWCF
    was intended to provide. The completion of existing national park units
    by purchasing inholdings from willing sellers will often make park
    administration and resource management more efficient and cost
    effective, thereby freeing up money for to other needs.
        We also respect the constraints that both the PILT program and
    wildfire suppression needs have caused for this subcommittee's
    allocation, and hope they can be dealt with so that there are more
    dollars available to appropriate to our national parks and other
    pressing needs. We're pleased to be a supporter--among so many other
    diverse stakeholders--of the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act. We are
    urging Congress to move this important legislation forward.
        We respect the importance of enhancing this subcommittee's 302(b)
    allocation so as chair of the Green Group appropriations team, I have
    spearheaded community efforts to emphasize this need.
        Finally, we urge an extension of the Federal Lands Recreation
    Enhancement Act, which was extended last year through the end of fiscal
    year 2015 in the bill that reopened the Federal Government.
    Unfortunately, with the likelihood of authorizing legislation passing
    both houses this year in question, we ask that you another 1 year
    extension be included in this year's conference bill, to ensure that
    the National Park Service retains annual fee authority at the end of
    this calendar year.
        Mr. Chairman, it seems as if there is always a good deal of talk on
    Capitol Hill about what the American people want and what the American
    people expect and deserve, and so on. Recent events have made the views
    of the American people about their national parks as clear as ever.
    Their love affair with the national parks spans time, region, economic
    status and political persuasion. During the Government shutdown, we
    heard from the American people how much they love the parks and want
    them open and well-staffed. Polling we have previously shared with this
    committee conducted by Hart Research Associates and North Star Opinion
    Research indicated that 9 out of 10 likely voters agree that funding
    for our national parks should be held stable or increased. A bipartisan
    majority of Americans (73 percent) believe it is important that the
    parks are fully restored and ready for the national park centennial in
    2016.
        As that milestone 100th anniversary approaches, the national parks
    will be more and more at the forefront of people's minds, and more and
    more Americans will be drawn to visit a national park or park unit, as
    will many others from around the world. Will Americans be proud of what
    they find? Will pride in our heritage and shared experience be evident
    when they visit? If the parks they visit are not in a condition worthy
    of their legacy, who will they blame?
        Overall, the budget for the National Park Service constitutes less
    that 1/15th of one 1 percent of the entire Federal budget, and our
    research shows that the average American household pays roughly as much
    in taxes for their national parks as it would cost them to buy a large
    coffee at Starbucks. Surely we can find a way to meet this important
    Federal responsibility to restore our parks during the lead-up to the
    parks 100th anniversary. Now more than ever, taking care of the
    national parks should be a priority. We thank this subcommittee for its
    leadership and are eager to work with you to ensure our national parks
    are protected this year, and for generations to come.
                                     ______

       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 (FY) 2015
    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 2015 LWCF
            appropriations to the State Assistance Program;
      --Continuing the innovative, pilot ``Competitive Grant Program''
            began in fiscal year 2014;
      --Allocating up to $25 million in funding for UPARR out of total
            fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriations; and
      --Ensuring that any amount allocated to either the pilot
            ``Competitive'' grant or UPARR program is not done at the
            expense of the existing core formula grants distributed to the
            States for public recreation.
               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 40,000 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. Everything we support and do
    is focused through our three pillars: Conservation; Health & Wellness
    and Social Equity.
        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. Over $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 little more than 10 percent of total LWCF funding
    going to the State Assistance Program since 1998. More recently, in
    fiscal year 2012, you provided approximately $322 million for the LWCF,
    with $45 million, or 13 percent, allocated to the State Assistance
    program. Further, in fiscal year 2013, when final discretionary
    spending was subject to ``sequestration,'' you provided $305 million
    overall to the LWCF and $39.9 million to the State Assistance Program--
    also 13 percent.\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 in fiscal year 2014--pre-
    sequestration levels of $45 million, as well as the innovative $3
    million ``competitive grant'' program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Amounts reflect amounts provided through appropriations and do
    not reflect sequestration reduction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 2015.
      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 over
    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 over 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 nearly $4 billion in Federal support has
    leveraged over $4 billion additional dollars 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 every county across
    America.
        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 the 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 since 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 (NPS) 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.
        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 2015 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.
       maintaining the pilot ``competitive grant'' program to the state
                               assistance program
        The final fiscal year 2014 Interior Appropriations package included
    an ``additional'' $3 million of funding for a pilot ``Competitive Grant
    Program'' managed under the State Assistance Program. NRPA is pleased
    that NPS has sought our input as part of their efforts to craft this
    pilot initiative and is very optimistic that the first year of the
    program will prove a successful means of highlighting the innovative
    projects and partnerships the State Assistance Program provides across
    America. We support the continuation of this pilot initiative, provided
    the funds allocated are not done at the expense of the existing core
    formula grants distributed to the States for public recreation.
        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; continue the innovative ``Competitive
    Grant'' pilot program established in 2014, 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 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 2015 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 Outer 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, nomination of properties to the
    National Register of Historic Places, public education, and project
    review for undertakings under the National Historic Preservation Act
    and for the Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC). The HTC
    is the most significant Federal investment in historic preservation. It
    has catalyzed the rehabilitation of more than 39,600 buildings
    throughout the Nation. Since its creation more than 30 years ago, the
    HTC has created 2.4 million jobs and leveraged nearly $109 billion in
    private investment.
        The National Trust recommends at least $50 million for the SHPOs
    and at least $11 million for the THPOs. Such a modest increase in
    funding would recognize the continuing demand upon these agencies for
    preservation services, and addresses an increase in participation among
    THPOs from 131 tribes in fiscal year 2012 to potentially 156 tribes in
    fiscal year 2015.
        We thank the subcommittee for including $500,000 in the fiscal year
    2014 Omnibus bill to launch an important new program of competitive
    grants for the survey and nomination of properties associated with
    communities currently underrepresented in the National Register of
    Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks. Recent studies have
    documented that less than 8 percent of such listings identify
    culturally diverse properties. We urge the subcommittee to provide up
    to $5 million to expand this important new program that promises to
    identify and protect the places that tell the stories of all Americans.
        We also want to call attention to the importance of the
    administration's request for $6 million to provide grants to SHPOs and
    THPOs to digitize legacy survey data into an online National Inventory.
    This investment would improve access to historic property records and
    help expedite Federal permitting of important infrastructure projects.
    We encourage the subcommittee to support this program included in the
    President's Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative.
    national park service: operation of the national park system, cultural
                             resources stewardship
        The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for 401 units of the
    National Park System ranging from the battlefields where our ancestors
    fought and died to places that stir the soul like the Statue of Liberty
    and Ellis Island, the gateway for millions of new Americans. Three-
    quarters of our parks were created to protect our most important
    historic and cultural resources. Over the past two decades, more than
    35 new parks have been added to our system of national parks. Many of
    these new parks preserve historic places and themes that are
    underrepresented within the National Park System.
        We support the President's budget proposal of $47 million above the
    fiscal year 2014 enacted level for National Park Service Operations. Of
    that increase, $30 million is for the Administration's Centennial
    Initiative which includes $16 million for repair and rehabilitation
    projects, $8 million for a new program to hire youth and veterans at
    parks, $4 million to engage youth in service and conservation projects
    and $2 million to support expanded volunteer opportunities at parks.
    The increase would fund the staff, rangers and interpretation vital to
    the public who visit and enjoy our ever-growing National Park System
    including new units like Fort Monroe National Monument (VA), Harriet
    Tubman Underground Railroad National Monument (MD) and Cesar E. Chavez
    National Monument (CA).
        Construction.--Of the nearly $12.311 billion in deferred
    maintenance needed for the NPS, $4.5 billion is for the maintenance
    backlog on 27,000 properties in National Park units listed on the
    National Register of Historic Places. According to a report issued in
    2008 by the National Academy of Public Administration, 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. The National Park Service
    Construction account has been significantly reduced over the last few
    years. We support the President's fiscal year 2015 request of $138
    million, a slight increase over fiscal year 2014. We also support the
    President's request that this fund be used for the repair and
    stabilization of important historic structures as opposed to new
    construction.
        We are also supportive of the President's proposed mandatory
    appropriation of $200 million for the Second Century Infrastructure
    Investment and $100 million for the Centennial Challenge. These
    proposals would provide funds for the maintenance and rehabilitation of
    significant cultural and historic resources within our national parks.
        One promising new opportunity that will help the NPS and other
    Federal agencies with historic preservation responsibilities address
    the maintenance backlog of historic buildings is through a cooperative
    agreement between NPS, the other Federal land agencies, and several
    NGOs, including the Student Conservation Association and The Corps
    Network. Through this agreement, 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. While learning these hands-on skills,
    participants will also perform cost-effective preservation work to
    support historic resources.
                          engaging the next generation
        The National Trust supports the administration's fiscal year 2015
    request of $50.6 million for the Department's youth programs, a
    significant increase of $13.6 million in programs over 2014 enacted
    funding levels. Of these funds, $8 million is proposed to expand
    opportunities for youth education and employment across NPS parks and
    programs. As part of our commitment to advancing the goals of the 21st
    Century Conservation Service Corps, and interest in helping the Federal
    Government reduce the maintenance backlog of historic properties, the
    National Trust recently launched the HOPE (Hands-On Preservation
    Experience) Crew initiative where we will train youth in preservation
    skills while helping protect historic sites within NPS units. The first
    HOPE Crew project, in the Shenandoah National Park in collaboration
    with concessionaire Delaware North Companies, is rehabilitating the
    historic Skyland Stable in the Skyline Drive National Historic Landmark
    District. The National Trust hopes to launch 100 HOPE Crew projects by
    the NPS Centennial in 2016. Volunteer projects like this can reduce the
    maintenance backlog while also providing job skills and education for
    young people.
      national park service: leasing historic structures in national parks
        We appreciate the Committee's inclusion of report language in the
    fiscal year 2014 Conference Report applaud the efforts of NPS and
    private partners to successfully implement such leases and encouraging
    the broader use of this authority to mitigate the maintenance backlog
    of historic structures. Continued encouragement and oversight of the
    Service's actions to implement policy changes that would facilitate
    more leasing could catalyze even broader use of this important
    authority and increase the amount of non-Federal funding to abate the
    maintenance backlog.
                 national park service: national heritage areas
        We recommend funding for National Heritage Areas (NHAs) at the
    fiscal year 2014 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. National Park
    Service Director Jon Jarvis has described National Heritage Areas as
    ``places where small investments pay huge dividends.'' We agree.
        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. A recent report documents 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 NHA's 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.
        As the Nation's newest system of protected lands, the National
    Conservation Lands encompass some of our country's most significant
    historic and cultural resources, yet the BLM's ability to steward these
    resources is undermined by insufficient funding. The National
    Conservation Lands are just one-tenth of BLM managed lands but they
    host one-third of all BLM's visitors. Without sufficient funding, the
    BLM struggles to complete essential resource protection, such as
    signing trails, inventorying and protecting cultural sites from looting
    and vandalism.
        We support the administration's fiscal year 2015 request of $66.534
    million, a $2 million increase over fiscal year 2014 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 damage fragile cultural sites
    and undertake needed ecosystem and species restoration projects.
            bureau of land management: cultural resources management
        The BLM oversees the largest, most diverse and scientifically
    important collection of historic and cultural resources on our Nation's
    public lands, including 10 million artifacts, 358,000 documented
    cultural sites, 421 maintained historic structures and 87 properties
    listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The program
    provides for the review of 13,000 land use proposals each year,
    compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
    Act and government-to-government consultation with Indian Tribes and
    Alaska Native governments. In the last decade, this program has lost 19
    percent of its FTEs due to the stagnant budget, yet it is challenged
    with even greater processing reviews for increased energy use,
    transmission lines and public recreation. If the funding for this
    program had kept pace with inflation since fiscal year 2003 it would
    receive funding of $19.1 million instead of the fiscal year 2014
    enacted $15.1 million. We support the administration's fiscal year 2015
    request of $16 million, a modest increase of $.87 million over fiscal
    year 2014 enacted levels of $15.1 million. The increase provides for
    $.13 million for fixed costs and $.74 million to support efforts to
    fulfill BLM's statutory requirements for the inventory and protection
    of cultural resources. The increase would support 40 on-the-ground
    surveys, site protection and stabilization projects, and regional
    cultural resource inventory overviews that are necessary for planning
    large scale infrastructure projects across broad landscapes
                    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 Gettysburg National Military Park, Martin Luther
    King Jr. National Historic Site, Canyons of the Ancients National
    Monument, and Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. Culturally
    significant projects in the fiscal year 2015 request include Ala
    Kahakai NHT (Hawaii), Rappahannock River NWR (Virginia), Agua Fria
    National Monument (Arizona) and several other national trails project.
    We strongly support the administration's request for Civil War land
    acquisition projects and American Battlefield Protection Program
    Grants.
                   advisory council on historic preservation
        The National Trust supports the administration's funding request of
    $6.204 million for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
    (ACHP). 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 2015 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 four million members and supporters, we thank you for
    the opportunity to provide fiscal year 2015 funding recommendations for
    the Department of the Interior and other agencies under the
    jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
        We understand the difficult budget choices facing Congress and the
    Nation as we move forward under the constraints of the Budget Control
    Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), and applaud Congress for replacing
    part of sequestration in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014.
    Disproportionate cuts to conservation programs are not consonant with
    the priorities of most Americans. These programs protect cherished
    lands and waters and conserve the natural resources that are vital to
    our Nation's continued economic vitality. Recent studies estimate that
    outdoor recreation and conservation 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 is concerned about proposed funding reductions to many of the
    Federal Government's programs that protect and conserve 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 2015 appropriations bill, and to pass a bill free of
    such riders.
        National Wildlife Federation is overall supportive of the
    President's fiscal year 2015 budget request, which we view as balancing
    fiscal responsibility with continued investments in essential
    conservation and environmental programs. Following, we offer
    recommendations for specific budget items and programs.
                       i. 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 effort
    by maintaining funding at the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $58.695
    million.
    Cooperative Landscape Conservation
        The Fish and Wildlife Service's Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
    represent an important tool for leveraging Federal, State, and private
    resources to achieve effective conservation outcomes and safeguard fish
    and wildlife resources from climate change. We urge Congress to address
    the real threats of climate change to fish and wildlife and support the
    President's request of $17.7 million for this program.
    National Wildlife Refuge System
        The National Wildlife Refuge System is home to thousands of species
    of wildlife. With over 560 refuges, this system provides outdoor
    recreational and tourism opportunities for the 46.5 million Americans
    who visit refuges annually. And for every $1 invested by Congress,
    refuges generate over $4 in economic benefits to local communities.
    NWF, along with the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE),
    endorses the President's fiscal year 2015 funding request of $476.4
    million for Operations and Maintenance for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System.
                           ii. u.s. geological survey
    Climate and Land Use Change
        The USGS Climate and Land Use Change program provides research that
    allows other land management agencies to make science-based decisions
    important to resiliency and adaptation regarding climate change. We
    support the President's requested funding level of $149.1 million for
    Climate and Land Use, and of $35.5 million for the DOI Climate Science
    Centers.
    Ecosystems
        The USGS Ecosystems program provides research that allows other
    land management agencies to make science-based decisions important to
    the conservation of our Nation's wildlife and the habitats they depend
    upon. We support the President's budget request of $162 million for
    this program.
                         iii. bureau of indian affairs
    Trust Natural Resources Program
        The BIA Trust Natural Resources (TNR) Program represents the
    largest amount of Federal funding for tribal natural resource
    management. Over the last 12 fiscal years, funding for BIA has
    unacceptably lagged behind funding for other Interior agencies. Funding
    these programs should be a top priority of Congress for fiscal year
    2015. In addition, we fully support the fiscal year 2014 enacted level
    of $184.295 million for TNR. We are particularly supportive of the
    $9.948 million requested funding for tribal participation in the
    Cooperative Landscape Conservation program to support tribal engagement
    in climate adaptation.
                         iv. bureau of land management
    National Landscape Conservation System
        The National Landscape Conservation System comprises some 27
    million acres of congressionally and presidentially designated lands
    and waters, including National Monuments, National Conservation Areas,
    Wilderness, National Scenic and Historic Trails, and Wild and Scenic
    Rivers. These lands are some of the best places to experience the rich
    history and scenic beauty of the American West. We ask Congress to
    support the President's fiscal year 2015 request of $66.5 million for
    the National Conservation Lands in order to prevent critical damage to
    the resources found in these areas, ensure proper management, and
    provide for a quality visitor experience.
    Master Leasing Plan
        The Master Leasing Plan concept is a cornerstone of onshore oil and
    gas program reforms announced by the Department of the Interior in 2010
    and represent a positive step in restoring recognition of the fish and
    wildlife values on public lands. National Wildlife Federation, as part
    of the Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development coalition, strongly
    supports the administration's requested increase of $4.6 million to
    strengthen the oil and gas leasing program within the Oil and Gas
    Management budget, $1 million of which enables the agency to perform
    regional planning for leasing and development through the Master
    Leasing Plan concept.
                       v. powering our future initiative
        The Powering our Future 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. It facilitates
    efficient 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 $94.8 million for fiscal
    year 2015, an increase of $3 million from fiscal year 2014 enacted. In
    addition, NWF supports legislative proposals, such as the Public Lands
    Renewable Energy Development Act, that would both incentivize and add
    certainty for renewable energy on public lands while paying back the
    land by providing resources for fish, wildlife, recreational
    opportunities, local communities, and States.
                            vi. u.s. forest service
    Forest Fire Disaster Funding
        In recent years, the U.S. Forest Service has been forced to
    dedicate a significant amount of funds in order to pay for wildfire
    suppression. NWF supports the President's efforts to address this
    problem by including wildfire emergency funding processes in his fiscal
    year 2015 budget that are similar to those of other natural disasters.
    Currently, Federal land management agencies must shift money away from
    vital agency programs in order to fund wildfire suppression costs. This
    practice negatively impacts land management programs including those
    that decrease long-term wildfire risk and costs and the associated loss
    to wildlife, habitat and recreation. We support legislative efforts to
    rectify this practice.
    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, storm water management, and air quality, while also
    providing cooling benefits in urban areas. We support maintaining the
    fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $28.04 million.
    Forest Service Research and Development
        The President's requested Research and Development budget for
    fiscal year 2015 is $18 million lower than the fiscal year 2014 enacted
    level. A reduction of this magnitude would thwart the Forest Service's
    ability to effectively work on wildlife conservation and habitat risk
    assessment. We support maintaining the fiscal year 2014 enacted level
    of $293 million.
                     vii. land and water conservation fund
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a tool for the
    Federal Government to acquire both State and Federal land that is
    important to maintaining wildlife habitat as well as open space.
    National Wildlife Federation strongly endorses the President's fiscal
    year 2015 budget request of full funding for LWCF at $900 million, with
    $550 million in mandatory funding and $350 million in discretionary
    funding. We support all 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. Likewise, NWF supports
    the President's request that $15 million goes to improving access to
    public lands for sportsmen and outdoor recreationists
                      ix. environmental protection agency
    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 ecosystem restoration plans. As such, we
    strongly support the President's requested increase in funding for the
    Chesapeake Bay Program Office ($73.1 million requested, an increase of
    $3 million from fiscal year 2014 enacted) and urge the subcommittee to
    maintain funding for other regional efforts, including but not limited
    to the Long Island Sound Program and Puget Sound Programs. We are
    concerned about the significant proposed funding decrease for the Great
    Lakes Restoration Initiative, and support maintaining the fiscal year
    2014 enacted level of $300 million.
    EPA National Estuary Program
        The National Estuary Program (NEP) works to restore and protect
    nationally significant estuaries. 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 2015 request for $26.7 million.
    Clean Water State Revolving Fund
        Since the 1970's, CWSRF projects have helped improve the quality of
    wastewater treatment in communities throughout the country. Yet the job
    is far from complete and the Nation faces trillions of dollars in
    funding needs to repair aging wastewater treatment systems and keep our
    rivers and streams pollution free. 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 $430.9 million proposed cut
    to this program, and urges funding at the fiscal year 2014 level of
    $1.44887 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 $164.9 million requested
    by the President to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $159.2
    million.
    Climate & Air Pollution Reduction Programs
        NWF supports EPA's priority goal of improving the country's air
    quality and taking action on climate change. We support the requested
    $234.7 million for addressing climate change, an increase of $45.2
    million over fiscal year 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 (NEEA) 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 urge you to sustain funding for the National
    Environmental Education Act (NEEA) programs at the Environmental
    Protection Agency at the recent level of $9.7M.
                                 x. everglades
        America's Everglades are one of the most unique ecosystems in the
    world. 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 four dollar return. Beginning in the 1980s, Congress
    made a commitment to restoring the Everglades by enacting the
    Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. This subcommittee has made
    substantial progress in furthering that promise in recent years--
    funding construction of a 1-mile bridge along the Tamiami Trail and
    authorizing the next phase of bridging. We urge Congress to continue
    this investment and strongly support the President's budget request for
    $62.4 million for the Everglades Comprehensive Environmental
    Restoration Plan.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Refuge Association
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee: On behalf of the National Wildlife Refuge Association
    (NWRA) and its membership of current and former U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) professionals, Refuge Friends organizations and concerned
    citizens, thank you for your support for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System (NWRS), particularly for the funding increase for fiscal year
    2014. NWRA appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal
    year 2015 Interior Appropriations bill and respectfully requests the
    following:
      --$476.4 million for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of
            the NWRS, including $5 million for the Pacific Marine
            Monuments;
      --$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with
            $178.3 million allocated for the FWS, including $1 million for
            Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge System (NWR) (Maryland); $1
            million for John Chafee NWR (Rhode Island); $10 million for
            Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area (Florida); $6.5
            million for Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge
            (NFWR) (Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts); $5
            million for Cache River NWR (Arizona); $3 million for Flint
            Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas); and $2 million for
            Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah).
      --$75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
      --$13 million for the FWS Coastal Program;
      --$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
            (under the Department of the Interior (DOI));
      --$20 million for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund;
      --$16 million for the FWS construction account;
      --$58.7 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
      --$35 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
      --$4 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund;
      --$9.1 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund and
            $13.5 million for Wildlife Without Borders;
      --$7.022 million for the FWS account in the National Fish and
            Wildlife Foundation (NFWF).
        We understand our Nation's challenging fiscal climate, but cutting
    funding to programs that are economic drivers and job creators in local
    communities would only exacerbate the already difficult situation. For
    example, the NWRS averages almost $5 in economic return for every $1
    appropriated and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program returns
    nearly $16 for every $1 spent on projects. But budgets have not kept
    pace with rising costs, and the gap between the funding needed to
    maintain these programs and the funding appropriated has widened
    dramatically. To begin bridging that gap, NWRA urges Congress to fund
    these critical programs that leverage Federal dollars and serve as
    economic drivers.
           national wildlife refuge system--operations & maintenance
        NWRA chairs the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE),
    a diverse coalition of 23 sporting, conservation, and scientific
    organizations representing more than 16 million Americans that supports
    increased funding for the Refuge System. CARE estimates the NWRS needs
    at least $900 million annually to manage its 150 million acres, yet it
    is currently funded at roughly half that amount--at only $3.15 per
    acre. The Refuge System cannot fulfill its obligation to the American
    public, our wildlife, and 46.5 million annual visitors without
    increases in maintenance and operation funds.
        Budget cuts over the past 4 years have had a dramatic impact on the
    Refuge System, resulting in significant declines in habitat
    preservation and management, hunting, fishing, volunteerism and
    scientific research. Between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013, the
    Refuge System faced widespread declines in measured performance: the
    acres of forest and shrubland improved declined by 51 percent; wetland
    acres restored declined by 77 percent; and riparian miles restored
    declined by 19 percent. Meanwhile, the control of invasive animal
    populations decreased by 46 percent and acres treated for invasive
    plants decreased by 37 percent resulting in a 60 percent drop in
    acreage where invasive plant control was achieved. At the Wichita
    Mountains NWR in Oklahoma, two biotech positions remain vacant,
    including a seasonal position to fight invasive species, compromising
    years of gains made against invasive species on refuge grasslands and
    leaving private lands vulnerable to the spread of invasives.
        NWRA believes it is very important for the FWS to partner with
    State agencies, through the State Wildlife Grant Program, and with
    private landowners to keep wildlife from becoming endangered. However,
    funding cuts threaten that very work. For instance, at the Imperial NWR
    in Arizona, grant funding opportunities are being bypassed due to lack
    of staff to develop proposals and oversee projects. The wildlife
    biologist vacancy at Imperial and vacancies at other refuges along the
    Colorado River prevented the refuge from applying for a Cooperative
    Recovery grant to restore 830 acres of marsh habitat, primarily for the
    endangered Yuma clapper rail. The refuges were unable to commit to the
    planning, execution, monitoring, and reporting requirements of this
    grant.
        Along the Texas coast, the Aransas NWR is home to the highly
    endangered whooping crane, yet every aspect of the refuge's work is
    impacted by budget cuts. Prescribed burning--a vital management tool to
    provide food for the cranes and treat invasive species--is down by 65
    percent this year. Unable to maintain facilities to ensure public
    safety and accessibility, the refuge has also curtailed visitor access,
    closing 12 of the 17 public facilities, including a fishing pier,
    boardwalks and photo blinds. And to top it off, the loss of visitor
    services staff has resulted in a decrease in volunteer support: last
    year volunteers donated 24,000 hours and occupied eight RV sites on the
    refuge but now only two RV sites are occupied.
        During these years of challenging budgets, the Refuge System's
    potential to drive local economies and create jobs is of paramount
    importance. Banking On Nature, a report issued by the FWS in October
    2013, shows that even during the worst recession since the Great
    Depression, the overall return on investment increased substantially
    for the Refuge System. From 2006-2011 the Refuge System saw sales and
    economic output increase 20 percent to $2.4 billion, visitation
    increase 30 percent to 46.5 million, average return on investment
    increase 22 percent to $4.87 for every $1 appropriated, and supported
    jobs increase 23 percent to 35,000. At the Ridgefield NWR in
    Washington, over $6 is returned to the local economy for every $1
    appropriated and at the Wichita Mountains NWR in Oklahoma, the refuge
    returns a whopping $44 for every $1 appropriated.
                                strategic growth
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is an essential tool
    for protecting the integrity of the Refuge System and is the primary
    funding source for land and conservation easement acquisition by
    Federal land agencies.
        Increasingly, LWCF is being used to conserve working lands through
    the acquisition of easements that secure conservation protection while
    leaving the land in private ownership and on the tax rolls.
    Conservation easements are powerful tools that foster public-private
    partnerships with ranchers, farmers and foresters to conserve wildlife,
    habitat and a uniquely American way of life. Innovative landscape-scale
    initiatives using easements as a primary conservation tool have broad
    community and State support in New England's Connecticut River
    Watershed, the Flint Hills of Kansas, the Everglades Headwaters,
    Montana's Crown of the Continent, and the Dakota Grasslands. These
    iconic landscapes remain privately managed, generating tax income for
    local communities, securing our Nation's food, and balancing resource
    use and resource protection for wildlife.
        In many cases, however, land acquisition is required to conserve
    intact and functional natural habitat. The Refuge System is responsible
    for safeguarding population levels of a range of species, including
    many species that require very specific habitat conditions, such as
    nesting grounds for sea turtle and isolated springs for endemic desert
    fish. Others require multiple habitat types during their life cycle. By
    acquiring critical habitat areas and linking conserved lands, the
    Refuge System enhances the overall integrity of the system and
    strengthens our network of habitat to give wildlife space and time to
    respond to changes, whether from climate or changing land use patterns.
        The Refuge Association calls on Congress to fund LWCF at $900
    million per year, with $178.3 million provided in fiscal year 2015 to
    the FWS for conservation easements and refuge in-holdings, including
    the following projects and those advocated by refuge Friends:
      --Blackwater NWR (Maryland)--$1 million;
      --John H. Chafee NWR (Rhode Island)--$1 million;
      --Everglades Headwaters NWR & Conservation Area (Florida)--$10
            million;
      --Cache River NWR (Arizona)--$5 million;
      --Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
            Connecticut)--$6.5 million;
      --Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas)--$3 million;
      --Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah)--$2
            million.
                                  partnerships
        With 75 percent of all fish and wildlife species dependent upon
    private lands for their survival, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    program (Partners Program) is one of the most powerful tools for
    protecting wildlife where it lives. By building effective partnerships
    between public agencies and private landowners to conserve America's
    expansive working landscapes, the Partners Program has implemented
    nearly 29,000 restoration projects in the past 25 years, restoring over
    one million acres of wetlands, three million acres of uplands, and
    11,000 miles of streams. The program has been instrumental in the
    success of such iconic landscape conservation projects as the Rocky
    Mountain Front and Blackfoot Challenge in Montana and the Flint Hills
    in Kansas, and is playing a key role in conserving greater sage-grouse
    habitat in the intermountain west.
        The Partners program consistently leverages Federal dollars for
    conservation, generating nearly $16 in economic return for every $1
    appropriated for projects. The Refuge Association and the landowner-led
    Partners for Conservation request $75 million for fiscal year 2015.
    Such a funding level would result in an additional $400 million worth
    of conservation across the Nation.
            commitment to refuge communities--refuge revenue sharing
        The Refuge System uses net income derived from permits and timber
    harvests to make payments to local communities to offset property tax
    revenue lost when the federally-acquired lands are removed from local
    tax rolls, and relies on congressional appropriations to the Refuge
    Revenue Sharing program to compensate for the shortfall between
    revenues and tax replacement obligations. Unfortunately, declining
    revenues and lack of appropriations have resulted in the Service paying
    less than 50 percent of its tax-offset obligations since 2001. The
    negative impact on local communities is felt even more starkly in
    difficult economic times and severely strains relations between the
    Federal units and their local community, threatening the goodwill and
    partnerships that are keystones of successful conservation. NWRA
    requests $20 million for the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program, which, in
    recognition of the President's proposal to zero out funding, is still
    less than 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.
                        leveraging american volunteerism
        Refuges are vital places for the American people to actively
    connect with nature. Refuge volunteers contributed their time and
    expertise, totaling 1.4 million hours last year--the equivalent of 702
    full time staff--a 20 percent boost to the Refuge System workforce of
    3,400 employees. But this level of volunteer service is only possible
    when the System is adequately staffed to provide the necessary
    volunteer training and oversight, and smaller budgets mean cuts to
    volunteer opportunities. From fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2013, the
    System experienced an 8.7 percent reduction in the number of
    volunteers, at a time when the System needs their help the most to
    greet visitors, staff refuge nature stores, maintain Refuge grounds,
    provide interpretation and much more.
        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 Native Hawaiian Education Council
        Aloha Chairman Reed and members of the Senate Committee on
    Appropriations, Interior and Environment subcommittee, Mahalo, thank
    you, for allowing us an opportunity to submit this request for
    appropriations.
        We are seeking continued funding at pre-sequestration levels for
    the Native Hawaiian Education Program (NHEP) that targets the Native
    Hawaiian student population. The NHEP is an important part of
    fulfilling the trust relationship between the United States and Native
    Hawaiians, and it helps to improve the educational status of Native
    Hawaiians. It is an important element in the Native community's effort
    to control its education programs and policies and to achieve
    educational parity. NHEP aims to close the education achievement gap
    between Native Hawaiians and the general population, and also functions
    to fulfill the trust relationship between the United States and Native
    Hawaiians, the indigenous people of a once sovereign nation. During the
    time of their own sovereignty in the kingdom of Hawai`i, Native
    Hawaiians had a higher rate of literacy than citizens of the United
    States. The educational achievement gap has occurred during the
    intervening years since the loss of Native Hawaiian sovereignty, so
    that today Native Hawaiians are among the most disadvantaged groups in
    the State.
                                 the nhep works
        NHEP has been effective over the years in meeting the goals of the
    program. For example, NHEA has been instrumental in preserving and
    protecting the Native Hawaiian language through funding projects that
    are designed to address the use of the Native Hawaiian language in
    instruction, one of the priorities named in the NHEA. The number of
    speakers nearly doubled in 18 years from 8,872 speakers in 1990 to
    16,864 in 2008. (Source: Office of Hawaiian Affairs Data Book 2011
    Tables 4.19 and 4.44)
        The NHEP has funded programs that incorporate culture and
    indigenous teaching practices in the classroom that lead to better
    outcomes for Native Hawaiian students. An example is the improvement in
    the graduation rates for Native Hawaiians and math and reading scores.
    Graduation rates for Native Hawaiians between 2002 and 2010 rose from
    70 percent to 72.2 percent. (Sources: Kamehameha Schools' Native
    Hawaiian Education Assessment Update 2009, Fig. 9 and Hawaii Department
    of Education (HI DOE) 2005-06 to 2009-10)
        Similarly, math and reading scores have risen for Native Hawaiians.
    The percent of Native Hawaiians scoring ``Proficient or Above'' from
    2007 to 2012 rose from 27 percent to 49 percent in math and from 41
    percent to 62 percent in reading. (Source: HI DOE Longitudinal Data
    System)
        School attendance rates in schools with student populations that
    are over 50 percent Native Hawaiian have increased from 90.1 percent in
    the 2000-01 school year to 91.3 percent in the 2011-12 school year.
    (Source: Kamehameha Schools' draft Ka Huaka`i update, p. 58)
                             the need still exists
        In spite of the gains that Native Hawaiians have made
    educationally, the need for innovative programs to assist Native
    Hawaiians to improve their academic performance still exists, since
    Native Hawaiians have not yet attained parity with the rest of the
    students in the State.
        Timely high school graduation rates for students in the State rose
    from 77 percent to 79.6 percent in the same time period that it rose
    from 70 percent to 72.2 percent for Native Hawaiians. (Sources:
    Kamehameha Schools' Native Hawaiian Education Assessment Update 2009,
    Fig. 9 and HI DOE 2005-06 to 2009-10)
        Native Hawaiians still lag behind the rest of the State in academic
    performance; however the gap between the Native Hawaiians and others is
    decreasing. From 2007 to 2012 the increase in the percentage of Native
    Hawaiians scoring ``Proficient or Above'' in math rose 22 percentage
    points, while the increase for the State during the same time period
    was 21 percentage points. The increase for Native Hawaiians in reading
    was even more dramatic during that time period, increasing 21
    percentage points compared to the State increase of only 11 percentage
    points. Unfortunately those gains were not enough to bring Native
    Hawaiians to parity. In 2012 Native Hawaiians were still 10 points
    behind the State in the percentage scoring ``Proficient or Above'' in
    math and 9 points behind in the percentage scoring ``Proficient or
    Above'' in reading.

                       PERCENT SCORING PROFICIENT OR ABOVE
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2007          2012         Change
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Math:
        Native Hawaiians...........           27%           49%           22
        State totals...............           38%           59%           21
                                    ----------------------------------------
          Difference...............          -11           -10

    Reading:
        Native Hawaiians...........           41%           62%           21
        State totals...............           60%           71%           11
                                    ----------------------------------------
          Difference...............          -19            -9
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Hawaii DOE Longitudinal Data System.

        In the area of Native Hawaiian language immersion, although the
    gains have been tremendous, the nearly 17,000 speakers in 2008 only
    represent 6 percent of the approximately 290,000 Native Hawaiians in
    Hawai`i (2010 U.S. Census).
                             appropriations request
        The pre-sequestration appropriations level for the NHEP was $34
    million. Sequestration reduced the amount by $2 million to $32 million,
    which is the amount entered into the President's budget. For such a
    small program as the NHEP, the $2 million reduction makes a significant
    negative impact on the program. We would like to continue to make gains
    in the educational achievement of Native Hawaiians, and request the
    pre-sequestration level of $34 million so that we don't lose the
    momentum of improvement.
        NHEP funds programs to help improve the educational attainment of
    Native Hawaiians in ways that are linguistically and culturally aligned
    to the needs of our native students and communities in Hawai`i.
    Improving education, particularly for the most depressed groups,
    eventually leads to cost savings over time through decreased
    incarceration, poor health, and public assistance. (Barnett, W. S., and
    Ackerman, D. J. 2006. Costs, benefits, and the long-term effects of
    early care and education programs: Cautions and recommendations for
    community developers. Journal of the Community Development Society,
    37(2), 86-100.) Academic achievement is also correlated with positive
    economic outcomes. (Belfield, C. 2008, June. The economic investments
    of early education in Hawaii. Issue Brief. Flushing, NY: Queen's
    College, City University of New York.)
        Please help us sustain the NHEP to its pre-sequestration level in
    order to continue the educational gains that have taken this program
    years to accomplish.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Native Village of Barrow
        The Native Village of Barrow makes the following recommendations
    with regard to the fiscal year 2015 Bureau of Indian Affairs budget:
      --Fully fund Bureau of Indian Affairs contract support costs (CSC) at
            $251 million as requested by the administration and place CSC
            funding on a mandatory, rather than a discretionary, basis.
      --Support the administration's request for a $5 million increase for
            social services (total of $40.8 million) and for a $5 million
            increase for the Indian Child Welfare Act (for a total of $15.4
            million)--called the Tiwahe Initiative.
      --Support increased funding for tribal courts.
      --Support increased flexibility for the Housing Improvement Program
            and oppose the administration's proposed funding cut.
      --Increase the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) resources for
            Information Technology for tribes.
        About the Native Village of Barrow.--The Native Village of Barrow,
    the longest standing local government in Barrow, is a federally
    recognized tribe incorporated in 1940 under the Indian Reorganization
    Act of 1934 as amended for Alaska Natives in 1936 by the United States
    Congress. We work to meet a variety of tribal members needs including
    adult basic, secondary, and higher education; realty; wildlife;
    housing; Indian reservation roads; social services and child
    protection; environmental protection; and economic development. We
    provide these services through a Self-Governance funding agreement with
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs, various grants, and pull-tab gaming.
        The Village of Barrow is situated within the North Slope Borough at
    the northern most tip of Alaska, 340 miles north of the Arctic Circle
    and only a few miles southwest of Point Barrow where the Beaufort and
    Chuckchi Seas join. We have a polar climate, dry and cold, with
    temperatures below freezing from early October through late May. The
    sun stays below the horizon from November 18 or 19 through January 22
    or 23, and on the winter solstice there is twilight for only 3 hours.
        Contract Support Costs.--We thank Congress, and particularly the
    Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee, for your
    leadership in making it clear to the BIA and the Indian Health Service
    (IHS) that fully funding contract support costs (CSC) is a legal duty
    and for providing what we estimate is full funding for fiscal year
    2014. Congress has asked tribes and tribal organizations, the BIA, IHS,
    the Office of Management and Budget and the relevant congressional
    committees to work together to come up with a long term solution to
    meet the legal requirements for contract support costs and to also
    streamline the CSC determination process. We join with others in Indian
    Country in feeling that the next logical step is for Congress to put
    CSC funding on a mandatory, rather than a discretionary, basis.
        Social Services and Tribal Courts Funding.--The Native Village of
    Barrow's court has jurisdiction over an array of child welfare and
    juvenile wellness matters. Our social services office services to a
    population of 3,400 with only a handful of staff. We support the
    administration's request of an increase of $5 million in the BIA budget
    for more social workers and for an additional $5 million for tribal
    Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) programs. Together the BIA has termed
    this the Tiwahe (the Lakota work for family) Initiative. While these
    funds do not represent direct funding for tribal courts, the work of
    social workers and improved implementation of the ICWA would have
    positive implications for the work of our and other tribal courts.
        Of the children in Alaska, 17.3 percent are American Indian/Alaska
    Native, but they constitute 51.1 percent of children in foster care in
    the State (Summer A., Woods S., and Donovan, J (2013). Technical
    assistance bulletin: disproportionality rates for children of color in
    foster care. Reno, Nevada: National Council of Juvenile and Family
    Court Judges.) The Native Village of Barrow Social Services Department
    has partnerships with a number of entities including Barrow Tribal
    Court, Arctic Women in Crisis, and the State of Alaska, among others
    and we need to continue building these collaborative efforts. We have
    Memorandum of Understanding with the State regarding the Indian Child
    Welfare Act.
        For tribal courts specifically, the administration proposes level
    funding in the BIA budget ($23.3 million). Given the impact of the
    Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA)
    and the recommendations of the TLOA Commission, a significant increase
    over $23 million is certainly in order. In addition there may well be
    an amendment enacted to the VAWA that will authorize extended domestic
    violence jurisdiction to tribes in Alaska for which we will definitely
    need additional resources.
        Housing Improvement Program (HIP).--The administration proposes
    only $8 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs' HIP program, about
    the same as the fiscal year 2014 enacted level but 36 percent below the
    fiscal year 2013 pre-sequestration level of $12.5 million. The Native
    Village of Barrow does not receive HIP funds, finding the requirements
    for things including surveys prohibitively expensive when one compares
    it to the small HIP grants. The BIA states in its fiscal year 2015
    Budget Justification that they want to ``recommend a redesign of the
    Program'' in 2014 and point especially to the inclusion in the program
    of young families, of tribes expanding eligibility criteria, and re-
    establishing a down payment assistance category (pp IA-HS-8-9). This is
    quite ambitious for a program that the administration last year tried
    to zero out, but we encourage that in redesigning the program that the
    cost of compliance with eligibility criteria not outstrip the funding
    it might provide.
        Information Technology.--It is almost impossible to identify in the
    BIA budget what is available for tribes in the area of information
    technology, but it is something for which we need additional
    assistance. Under Tribal Government Oversight $8.2 million is requested
    which, among other things, provides technical assistance to nearly
    3,200 self-determination contracts (pp. IA-TG-6-7). There is also
    funding in the BIA budget request for $546,000 for Interior Department
    Information Technology Transformation through the Department's Working
    Capital Fund ((IA-ES-13), but we are not aware that these are funds
    that directly assist tribes. We ask that the Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee inquire the sources and amounts of funds for information
    technology assistance to tribes.
        Thank you for your consideration of our requests.
                                     ______

                  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 2015 appropriations. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is an
    international, non-profit conservation organization working around the
    world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and
    people. Our mission is to conserve the lands and waters upon which all
    life depends.
        As we enter the fiscal year 2015 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 2014 funding levels for
    Department of Interior and U.S. Forest Service conservation programs.
    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 or funding for the States, reflect
    specific program needs. Of particular note, we wish to work with this
    subcommittee and the authorizing committees on identifying permanent
    funding solutions for wildfire funding, the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund and the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. The Conservancy is
    concerned about the increasing impacts of wildfire suppression funding
    on Interior funding levels and urge the subcommittee to adopt the
    bipartisan and widely supported Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (S. 1875;
    H.R. 3992). This process of funding suppression for the Department of
    the Interior and the USDA Forest Service will create budgetary
    stability and accountability while liberating critically needed
    appropriations funds within the Interior allocation.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--The fiscal year 2015
    President's budget proposes 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 $350 million for LWCF
    activities through ``current authority'' or discretionary
    appropriations and then an additional $550 million in ``permanent
    authority'' for LWCF funding. The budget then proposes to reach the
    $900 million funding level in fiscal year 2015 through this blend of
    current and permanent funding. The Conservancy supports this phased
    shift to mandatory funding for the LWCF Program. However, consistent
    with last year and as noted above, we believe the administration must
    work closely with the relevant appropriations and authorizing
    committees to move this proposal forward. Additionally, the Conservancy
    supports the ongoing emphasis in the budget on both ``core'' projects
    and ``collaborative'' LWCF projects. Projects in the Longleaf Pine
    region will benefit greatly from this collaborative emphasis, along
    with projects in the California Southwest Desert, Upper Rio Grande, the
    High Divide and National Trails. Our ``core'' and ``collaborative''
    priorities this year include the Nez Pearce National Historic Trail/
    Henrys Lake ACEC (Idaho), Francis Marion National Forest (South
    Carolina), Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire/Vermont/Connecticut/
    Massachusetts), and the working ranches of Florida's Everglades
    Headwaters NWR & Conservation Area, North Dakota and South Dakota's
    Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area, Montana's Rocky Mountain Front
    Conservation Area and Kansas's Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area.
        Forest Legacy.--We support a minimum of $53 million for the Forest
    Legacy Program in current discretionary funding and the $47 million in
    permanent funding (with our aforementioned caveats) with a focus on 4
    projects--Hall Mountain (Idaho), Carter Mountain (Tennessee), Clear
    Creek Conservation Project (Montana) and Lake Alexander (Minnesota).
        Endangered Species.--The Conservancy supports a funding level of at
    least $50 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
    Fund (CESCF), and also requests the subcommittee give consideration to
    the additional fiscal year 2015 President's budget request of $50
    million in permanent funding per our earlier request for negotiations
    to occur between the 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 2015 budget request of $5.05 million for
    USBR and $1.39 million for FWS 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.
        Wildlife Planning.--The Conservancy supports the Western Governors'
    Association's (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. As an example of strong State-led data systems, WGA has
    partnered in recent years with State wildlife agencies and the Federal
    Government to develop statewide GIS mapping tools to identify crucial
    wildlife habitat and migratory corridors. These geospatial mapping
    tools, which provide access to credible, broad-scale scientific data--
    compiled and analyzed by the States--are designed to reduce conflicts
    and surprises while ensuring wildlife values are better incorporated
    into land use planning, particularly for large-scale linear projects.
    WGA launched its West-wide GIS mapping tool called CHAT (Crucial
    Habitat Assessment Tool) in December 2013. CHAT is a non-regulatory
    decision-support system that knits together State wildlife data and
    analysis on a regional landscape level using a common framework. 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 2015 Budget request of $138.9 million for the FWS' Fisheries and
    Aquatic Resource Conservation program, including $4.4 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 requests the fiscal year
    2014 funding level--$58.695 million--for this 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 are concerned about the
    impact of the fiscal year 2015 proposed cut on State fish and wildlife
    agencies nationally and request these funds be restored to the fiscal
    year 2014 level.
        Wildlife Conservation Programs.--The variety of wildlife
    conservation programs conducted by FWS continue a long and successful
    tradition of supporting collaborative conservation in the United States
    and internationally. We urge the subcommittee to fund the President's
    request for such established and successful programs as the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Fund (NAWCA), Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Fund (NMBCA), and the FWS Coastal Program. We support the
    President's request for the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures and the FWS
    Migratory Bird Management Program. For the latter, we are particularly
    supportive of FWS' efforts at developing updated eagle permitting
    regulations which will both support the development of renewable energy
    in our country and contribute to sustainable and growing populations of
    these iconic North American species. We support the President's fiscal
    year 2015 request for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and
    the requested increase in funding for Cooperative Landscape
    Conservation ($17.7 million) and Adaptive Science ($15.1 m). The latter
    will help support the Department of the Interior's (DOI) overall
    commitment to Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and will contribute
    to collaborative problem solving for some of our Nation's most
    challenging issues. We also request strong funding this year for the
    National Fish Habitat Initiative.
        International Programs.--The international conservation programs
    appropriated annually within the Department of Interior are relatively
    small but are effective and widely respected. They encompass the U.S.
    Fish & 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). We urge that these
    programs receive in fiscal year 2015, at a minimum, level funding with
    fiscal year 2014.
        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 and to help
    ensure resilient land and seascapes.
        National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Conservancy supports the
    Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement Coalition's request,
    consistent with the President's fiscal year 2015 Budget, of $476.4
    million for the Refuge System's Operations and Maintenance accounts.
    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 & DOI Wildland Fire Management.--The President's fiscal year
    2015 budget proposes language similar to the Wildfire Disaster Funding
    Act (WDFA--S. 1875; H.R. 3992) which would fund a portion of the USDA
    Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) wildfire
    suppression costs through a budget cap adjustment under the Balanced
    Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. The
    enactment of WDFA would not only significantly reduce the need for the
    USFS and DOI to transfer but also provide the subcommittee with added
    flexibility to allocate funding for activities that reduce fire risk
    and long-term suppression costs. The Conservancy supports adopting this
    language and funding suppression in fiscal year 2015 accordingly. The
    Conservancy appreciates Congress' emphasis on proactive hazardous fuels
    reduction and community preparedness along with a commitment to safe
    and cost-effective wildfire response strategies. In light of this
    approach and with the enactment of WDFA, the Conservancy recommends
    investing in Hazardous Fuels at levels of $479 million and $178 million
    for USFS and DOI, respectively, and repeating the subcommittee's fiscal
    year 2012 instructions for allocating funds to priority landscapes in
    both the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and wildland settings. We also
    recommend the USFS State Fire Assistance program be funded at $86
    million.
        USFS Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration.--The Conservancy
    recommends increasing funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program to $60 million for the existing 23 and new
    projects. This important program works 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. The Conservancy also recommends supporting the
    Landscape Scale Restoration proposal funded at $24 million.
        Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR).--The Conservancy appreciates
    the subcommittee support of the Integrated Resource Restoration pilot
    and continue to follow its implementation with the outcome expectation
    of increased restoration. The Conservancy believes it is premature to
    nationalize the IRR pilot, but supports continuation of the pilot for a
    fourth year.
        USFS Forest Health & Research.--The Forest Health program is a
    critical resource supporting efforts to prevent, contain, and eradicate
    dangerous pests and pathogens affecting trees and forests. Further,
    this program leads Federal efforts to counter forest pests which have
    become widespread, including gypsy moth, hemlock woolly adelgid, white
    pine blister rust, thousand cankers disease, oak wilt, and many others.
    The Conservancy recommends funding the Federal and cooperative Forest
    Health programs at a combined level of $111 million. The Forest and
    Rangeland Research program provides the scientific basis for policies
    that improve the health and quality of urban and rural communities, by
    providing protection from fire, detecting and managing forest pests and
    the pathways, improving water and air quality, among many other
    benefits. For Forest & Rangeland Research, the Conservancy requests the
    fiscal year 2012 level of $304 million.
        Sage Grouse Conservation.--The Conservancy supports the President's
    fiscal year 2015 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 and a well-aligned
    comprehensive effort is needed across public and private lands to
    reverse its decline.
        BLM Landscape Approaches to Land Management and Renewable Energy
    Development.--The Conservancy supports the administration's recommended
    fiscal year 2015 funding for BLM's initiatives to implement landscape
    approaches to land management which include Rapid Ecoregional
    Assessments, Resource Management Planning and the Planning 2.0
    initiative, Regional Mitigation Planning, coordination with LCCs, and
    the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Strategy. Many BLM
    programs contribute to these cross-cutting initiatives including:
    National Landscape Conservation System--($34 million request, $2.1
    million increase over fiscal year 2014); Resource Management Planning
    program ($42 million request, $5 million increase over fiscal year
    2014); Wildlife and Fisheries management (65.2 million request); and
    Threatened & Endangered species management ($21.6 million request).
    Additionally, the Conservancy supports continued funding for BLM's
    renewable energy development program at $29.1 million which includes
    implementation of the Western Solar Energy Program. Collectively, these
    efforts will help BLM manage its lands efficiently and effectively for
    energy development, species and habitat conservation, recreation, and
    other uses to maximize the public benefit from these lands.
        Environmental Protection Agency.--EPA's ``geographic'' programs
    including the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound
    and Mississippi River programs make a significant contribution to
    protecting habitat and water quality in the large landscapes where they
    work. The Conservancy urges the subcommittee to continue funding for
    these programs at the fiscal year 2014 enacted level at a minimum.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
    recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the Navajo Nation
                                                         April 1, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
    support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
    consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
    subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                Stanley M. Pollack, Assistant Attorney General,
                Water Rights Unit, Navajo Nation Department of Justice.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the New England Forest Policy Group
        Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, we are
    grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony today on behalf of the
    New England Forest Policy Group and the 85 conservation, forestry, and
    recreation interests listed below.
        We respectfully request an increase in overall funding for the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund to the Authorized level of $900 million,
    including $100 million for the Forest Legacy Program, $574.883 million
    for the Federal LWCF, $100.117 million for the State Grants Program,
    and $25 million for the Urban Park and Recreation Fund in the fiscal
    year 2015 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. We also
    respectfully request a minimum of $5 million for the Community Forest
    and Open Space Conservation Program, $34.145 million for the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act, $58.7 million for the State and
    Tribal Wildlife Grants Program, $10 million for the Recreational Trails
    Conservation Assistance Program, $31 million for Urban & Community
    Forestry, $48 million for the Cooperative Forest Health Program, $29
    million for Forest Stewardship, and $15 million for Woody Biomass
    Utilization Grants.
        These levels are based upon the administration's proposed fiscal
    year 2015 budget or level funding from fiscal year 2014, whichever
    amount is larger. In a few select cases they reflect the priority needs
    of New England to grow an underfunded program--most notably the
    Community Forest Program--to a level that will begin supporting the
    demonstrated need. The suite of conservation and forestry programs in
    this testimony has proven to provide great benefits to the communities
    of New England that depend upon our region's forests and to the Nation
    as a whole. Anything less than the requested funding will impact the
    effectiveness of the programs, particularly given that many of these
    programs have already experienced notable funding declines over the
    past 5 years.
        The New England Forest Policy Group is an informal collaborative of
    diverse forestry, recreation, and conservation organizations and
    businesses united by our efforts to conserve and utilize the forested
    landscapes that characterize our region. New England's forests are the
    backbone of our forest products and recreation economies, and provide
    other services of incalculable value including water and biodiversity
    protection, climate mitigation, and flood resilience. As the most
    forested region in the country, New England's economy is strongly
    dependent on the health and integrity of its forests. Communities
    across the region depend on our wooded landscapes for their health and
    well being, as do the 60 million people within a days drive. New
    England's forests are 85 percent privately owned, mostly in relatively
    small parcels, and landowners are facing profound challenges from
    rising land prices, escalating development pressures, and other threats
    that have the potential to significantly diminish this irreplaceable
    landscape.
        We strongly believe that programs vital to our region's future must
    be sustained, including forest conservation and stewardship,
    recreational planning, and utilization of our forests in new and
    innovative ways. New England has compelling need for the programs in
    front of your subcommittee.
        As the subcommittee crafts its Interior & Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill, there are several key points we respectfully
    request you to consider:

        1. Overall Funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
    at $900 million.--Funding at the recommended $900 million is critical
    for the conservation of the natural legacy of New England and the
    country. All six New England States will receive funding for critically
    important LWCF projects if the requested level of $900 million is
    provided in fiscal year 2015. If this amount is not supported, many
    opportunities will be lost.

        2. New England Needs for Federal Land Acquisition under LWCF.--In
    fiscal year 2015, less than half of New England's proposed projects are
    found in the highest priority ``Discretionary'' sections, which means
    that more than half of New England's fiscal year 2015 LWCF projects are
    not likely to receive funding unless close to full funding is
    appropriated.

              a. National Park Service LWCF Acquisitions--Collaborative
            Landscape Planning for National Trails at $25 million total
            ($11.2 million Discretionary & $13.8 million Mandatory),
            including $3.76 million for the Appalachian National Scenic
            Trail in New Hampshire & Vermont and $0.25 million for the New
            England National Scenic Trail in Massachusetts.--The proposed
            fiscal year 2015 LWCF funds are necessary for conserving and
            expanding two iconic trail corridors in New England--the
            Appalachian National Scenic Trail and the New England National
            Scenic Trail. New England's outdoor recreation economy is worth
            approximately $43 billion/year and supports more than 330,000
            jobs, according to the Outdoor Industry Association. In
            addition, our region's trails provide healthy recreation for
            the people who live here and necessary urban respite for more
            than 60 million people overall.

              b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LWCF Acquisitions--The
            Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge at $5 Million
            ($2 million Discretionary & $3 million Mandatory).--Securing
            protection of these ecologically rich watersheds and habitat
            corridors is a top regional priority. The Conte refuge
            encompasses the Connecticut River watershed--a critical four-
            State habitat corridor and a treasure trove of ecological
            diversity, recreation, and economic opportunity.

              c. National Park Service LWCF Acquisitions--Acadia National
            Park at $0.76 million (Mandatory).--This project will secure an
            inholding that provides high priority access and protection to
            the paddling gem, Round Pond, on the west side of Mount Desert
            Island.

        3. US Forest Service Programs of Special Importance to New
    England--USFS Forest Legacy and USFS Community Forest Program.--These
    two programs in the Interior Appropriations bill are particularly
    important to New England given our region's high percentage of private
    forestland ownership and the intense development pressures on these
    lands.

              a. USFS Forest Legacy needs full $100 million Appropriation
            to meet New England's needs.--Forest Legacy has protected more
            than 1 million acres of forestland in New England since its
            establishment in the 1990 Farm Bill--a remarkable and vital
            accomplishment. Originally created to help address needs in New
            England and New York, this highly successful program has
            expanded to 53 States and territories without expanding the
            available funding. $100 million would provide a solid start
            toward rebalancing available funds to the number of States now
            in the program and the rising number of applications and
            pressing conservation need.

              New England has an outstanding group of Forest Legacy
            Projects in the Proposed fiscal year 2015 budget, including 2
            of the top 10 projects nationally and 4 of the top 20 projects
            in the national rankings. However, the Program must receive the
            full $100 million requested to ensure that all of New England's
            projects are retained. New England's full fiscal year 2015
            interests include:

        --$4.56 million in ``Discretionary'' Forest Legacy funding for
                Dowsville Headwaters in Vermont; Gulf Hagas Whitecap in
                Maine; and partial funding for Whip-Poor-Will Woods in
                Connecticut.
        --$11.955 million in less secure ``Mandatory'' Forest Legacy
                funding for Whip-Poor-Will Woods in Connecticut (project
                funding is divided between Mandatory and Discretionary
                lists); Groton Forest Legacy Initiative in Vermont; Big Six
                Forest in Maine; Connecticut to Quabbin Reservoir in
                Massachusetts; Windham Region Working Forest in Vermont;
                and Oliverian Valley in New Hampshire.

              b. USFS Community Forest Program needs a minimum of $5
            million.--The Community Forest Program is a 50-50 matching
            grant program to help local governments, tribes, and non-profit
            organizations expand the region's proud tradition of locally
            owned and managed lands, such as town forests. The program has
            drawn strong interest nationally--in its first grant round in
            fiscal year 2012, the program drew 49 applications from across
            the country seeking $14.53 million. This was far beyond the
            available funding of $3.5 million, which included funding
            pooled from fiscal year 2010, 2011, and 2012 appropriations.
            Funding the Community Forest Program at the $5 million level
            will much better match demand. Although this program is
            somewhat small on a national budgetary scale, it is critical to
            New England's community character and economic vitality.

        4. North American Wetland Conservation Act (NAWCA) needs
    administration's full request of $34.145 million.--The U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service's premier wetland conservation program for habitat
    protection and restoration, NAWCA, is vitally important for our region.
    New England's remarkable marshes and coastal and estuarine habitats
    support the region's commercial and sport fisheries and myriad wildlife
    species. These lands are also important to protecting coastal
    communities--a priority with the memory of events like Hurricane Irene
    and Superstorm Sandy still fresh. This funding is vital to support New
    England projects that conserve critically important wetland areas and
    improve flood resiliency.

        5. State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (SWG) at $58.7
    million.--This important U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program
    provides Federal grant funds for developing and implementing programs
    that benefit wildlife and their habitats, including species not hunted
    or fished, and provides core funding for research, habitat restoration,
    and monitoring under the State Wildlife Action Plans. $58.7 million
    will keep funding level and ensure that States are not forced to make
    deep cuts into this critical work. Keeping species off the Endangered
    Species list helps landowners and is critical to the work of State Fish
    & Wildlife Agencies and to the 36 species on the eastern list.

        6. Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) at $10
    million.--RTCA partners to protect 700 miles of rivers, create 1,300
    miles of trails, and conserve over 60,500 acres of open space annually.
    RTCA allows the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) to support private
    conservation organizations as well as local and State governments,
    usually in coalition, to foster important recreation, river protection,
    and land conservation efforts without the permanently adding lands and
    trails to Federal ownership.

        7. Cooperative Forestry Program (including Urban & Community
    Forestry at $31 million, Cooperative Forest Health at $48 million,
    Forest Stewardship at $29 million).--These programs fund landowner
    services provided by State Foresters and Cooperative Extension
    Foresters. The proposed funding levels reflect the critical needs for
    the Nation's private forestlands as recommended by the National
    Association of State Foresters. Levels lower than these will result in
    curtailing of vital services that help family forest landowners
    sustainably manage and protest their land--of real concern in a New
    England landscape that is predominantly in private family ownership.
    The programs provide key educational services to landowners and
    communities, and help ensure that our forested landscape remains
    healthy, resilient, and economically viable.

        8. Woody Biomass Utilization Grants Program at $15 million.--This
    program (which now includes the Community Wood Energy Program) will
    help communities use their wood resources for renewable energy. It
    funds grants to develop community wood-to-energy plans and acquire or
    upgrade wood-based energy systems. This program is ripe to benefit our
    forest-based communities.

        9. Urban Park and Recreation Fund (UPARR) at $25 million (funded by
    LWCF's Mandatory Section).--UPARR provides matching grants and
    technical assistance to urban communities. It helps provide Federal
    assistance for rehabilitation of critically needed recreation
    facilities and recreation planning. This program is essential to
    support healthy living and vibrant urban communities.

        In closing, we thank the subcommittee for your continuing
    leadership on Federal land conservation matters and for the opportunity
    to provide this testimony. Signatory organizations represented by this
    testimony:

    Ammonoosuc Conservation Trust (New Hampshire)
    American Rivers
    Androscoggin River Watershed Council
    Appalachian Mountain Club
    Aspetuck Land Trust (Connecticut)
    Audubon Connecticut
    Audubon Society of Rhode Island
    Audubon Vermont
    Back Forty Forestry, LLC
    Bear-Paw Regional Greenways (New Hampshire)
    Brookfield Open Space Legacy (Connecticut)
    Cold Hollow to Canada (Vermont)
    Columbia Land Conservancy (New York)
    Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Save the Sound
    Connecticut Land Conservation Council
    Connecticut River Watershed Council
    Connecticut Forest & Park Association
    Connecticut Ornithological Association
    Conservation Collaboratives, LLC
    The Conservation Fund
    Conservation Law Foundation
    Damariscotta River Association (Maine)
    East Quabbin Land Trust (Massachusetts)
    Essex County Greenbelt Association (Massachusetts)
    Fairfield County Regional Conservation Partnership (Connecticut)
    Forest*Care (Vermont)
    Forest Society of Maine
    Forestland Group, LLC
    Franklin Land Trust (Massachusetts)
    Friends of the Rachel Carson NWR (Maine)
    Friends of the Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont,
    Massachusetts, Connecticut)
    Friends of Pondicherry (New Hampshire)
    Greater Lovell Land Trust (Maine)
    Green Mountain Club (Vermont)
    Highstead
    Housatonic Valley Association (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York)
    Kennebec Estuary Land Trust (Maine)
    Litchfield Hills Greenprint Collaborative (Connecticut)
    Lower Connecticut River Valley Council of Governments (Connecticut)
    Lyme Timber Company
    Mahoosuc Land Trust (ME)
    Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust
    Maine Coast Heritage Trust
    Mass Audubon
    Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition
    Massachusetts Woodlands Institute
    Meadowsend Timberlands, Ltd (New Hampshire)
    Mill River Greenway Initiative (Massachusetts)
    Monson Conservation Commission (Massachusetts)
    Mount Grace Land Conservation Trust (Massachusetts)
    Mt. Agamenticus to the Sea Conservation Initiative (ME)
    Natural Resources Council of Maine
    The Nature Conservancy
    New England FLOW
    New England Forestry Foundation
    New England Mountain Bike Association
    New England Wild Flower Society
    New Hampshire Audubon
    New York Biomass Energy Alliance
    North Woods Resource Group, Inc. (Vermont)
    Northern Forest Center
    Northern Forest Canoe Trail
    Northern Rhode Island Conservation District
    Northland Forest Products, Inc.
    Rangely Lakes Heritage Trust (Maine)
    Open Space Institute
    Quabbin to Cardigan Partnership (Q2C)
    Redding Conservation Commission (Connecticut)
    Rensselaer Plateau Alliance (New York)
    RI Woodland Partnership
    Ridegefield Conservation Commission (Connecticut)
    Sheepscot Wellspring Land Alliance (Maine)
    Shelburne Trails Club (New Hampshire)
    Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests
    Sudbury Valley Trustees (Massachusetts)
    Trust for Public Land
    Trustees of Reservations (Massachusetts)
    Vermont Land Trust
    Vermont Renewable Fuels
    Vermont River Conservancy
    Vermont Woodlands Association
    Whipstock Hill Preservation Society (Vermont)
    Wildlands Trust (Massachusetts)
    Wonalancet Preservation Association (New Hampshire)

                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribe
        Honorable Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
    the opportunity to provide testimony from the Nez Perce Tribe to this
    subcommittee as it evaluates and prioritizes the spending of the United
    States regarding the Indian Health Service (IHS), the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Forest
    Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service in relation to the needs of
    tribal nations for fiscal year 2015.
        As with any government, the Nez Perce Tribe does a wide array of
    work and provides a multitude of services to the tribal membership as
    well as the community at large. The Nez Perce Tribe has a health clinic
    with a satellite office, a tribal police force, a social services
    department, a comprehensive natural resource program that does work in
    forestry, wildlife management, land services and land management,
    habitat restoration, air quality and smoke management, water quality
    and sewer service, and one of the largest fisheries departments of any
    tribe in the Nation working on recovery of listed species under the
    Endangered Species Act. The Nez Perce Tribe conducts its extensive
    governmental functions and obligations through a comprehensive
    administrative framework, which is necessary for a sovereign nation
    that oversees and protects the treaty rights of the Nez Perce People in
    addition to providing the day to day governmental services to its
    members and the surrounding communities. The Nez Perce Tribe has long
    been a proponent of self determination for tribes and believes its
    primary obligation is to protect the treaty-reserved rights of the Nez
    Perce Tribe and its members. All of the work of the tribe is guided by
    this principle. As a result, the tribe works extensively with many
    Federal agencies and proper funding for those agencies and their work
    with, for and through tribes is of vital importance. This work cannot
    be accomplished unless the United States continues to affirm and follow
    through on its trust responsibility and properly fund programs.
                             indian health services
        The Nez Perce Tribe currently operates a healthcare clinic on the
    Nez Perce Reservation, Nimiipuu Health. The main clinic facility is
    located in Lapwai, Idaho and a satellite facility of the main clinic is
    located 65 miles away in Kamiah, Idaho. Nimiipuu Health provided
    service to 3,820 patients last year. These 3,820 patients represented
    47,673 visits which does not include pharmacy and laboratory visits but
    only medical provider visits. Our expenditure total for fiscal year
    2013 was $13,489,355. Our Purchased/Referred Care costs for outpatient
    services for fiscal year 2013 was $4,320,830.
        Although the Nez Perce Tribe supports the proposed $200 million
    increase in funding over the fiscal year 2014 levels proposed by the
    President, it is important to note that this increase still lags far
    behind where funding should be to offset the growth in the programs and
    medical inflation and in reality funding should be higher. Also, the
    $50 million dollar increase in funding proposed for purchased and
    referred care is vital, but it too falls well short of the true need in
    Indian Country as is illustrated by the spending needs of just the Nez
    Perce clinic. Finally, the tribe fully supports the $617 million that
    has been proposed by the President to be allocated for Contract Support
    Costs. Requesting full funding of these obligations is an important and
    is appreciated.
                            bureau of indian affairs
        The tribe supports the funding levels for contract support costs
    proposed in the President's budget of $251 million dollars as well as
    the increased funding overall for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The
    tribe also supports the Presidential budget request to include a
    Carcieri fix to address legal issues that have arisen related to the
    transfer of land into trust. This Supreme Court decision has led to
    dozens of court challenges that now brings into question the status of
    trust land of all tribal governments, regardless of when they were
    federally recognized. This uncertainty will only stifle and impede
    economic development in Indian Country. A legislative amendment to
    restore the sovereign status of these lands to the state they were
    prior to this court decision is needed now.
        The tribe supports the $12 million dollar commitment in the
    President's budget to address child and family welfare in Indian
    Country and job training issues. This Tiwahe initiative is important as
    it recognizes the significant gap in culturally sensitive social
    service programs and the high unemployment due to lack of adequate job
    training that plagues reservation communities. Continued study and
    development of solutions to these issues is important to help address
    the systemic problems faced in this area.
        In relation to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Public Safety and
    Justice budget, the tribe advocates for at least the $351.9 million
    dollars in funding proposed in the President's budget. The Nez Perce
    Reservation covers 1200 square miles and covers five counties and has a
    mixture of tribal and non-tribal residents. The tribe provides a full
    service law and justice program, beginning with a fully trained and
    staffed police force, tribal court, prosecutor and related
    administrative functions. Currently, the Nez Perce Tribe contributes
    over $718,000 per year to cover the shortfall in BIA funding for the
    tribe's law enforcement, $195,000 for judicial services, $339,000 for
    prosecutorial services, $92,000 for public defender services and
    $300,000 for prisoner boarding. This funding comes from tribal taxes on
    things such as tobacco levied by the tribe and tribal gaming revenues.
    The funding for these programs needs to be increased to account for the
    shortfalls in funding the tribe has to absorb to continue the operation
    of these vital services on the reservation.
        In relation to education, the tribe requests $42 million for
    Johnson O'Malley Funding, $5 million for tribal education departments
    and $88.2 million for tribal colleges such as the Northwest Indian
    College that operates a satellite campus on the Nez Perce Reservation.
    It should also be noted that scholarship funding provided by the BIA
    has remained static for the past decade while the cost of attending
    college has risen faster than can be accounted for by simple inflation.
    The tribe is currently working to set up an educational endowment to
    supplement the BIA education funds but the BIA funds need to be
    increased.
        The tribe also relies on the BIA for funding for its work related
    to endangered species and protection of the tribe's treaty resources
    including Chinook and steelhead salmon. The funding has also been used
    to supplement the research efforts of the tribe relative to other
    sensitive species. The BIA Endangered Species Program should be
    restored at $3 million dollars as it provides tribes with the technical
    and financial assistance to protect endangered species on trust lands
    but funding of this program has declined significantly over the last 8
    years. Also, the BIA Natural Resource Tribal Priority Allocations
    should be increased to $10 million as this funding has remained flat
    for years at just under $5 million. This expenditure will help increase
    tribal land and management capabilities.
        In addition, the funding provided under the BIA Rights Protection
    fund is critical as it supports the exercise of off-reservation hunting
    and fishing for tribes like the Nez Perce and it should be funded at
    $49.5 million dollars. The BIA single-line dollars do provide the
    foundation for core program administration and treaty rights protection
    activities, such as harvest monitoring and conservation enforcement.
    And of course, these efforts are central to the tribe's fisheries
    management responsibilities as established in the treaties and further
    delineated in litigation regarding implementation of hunting and
    fishing treaty rights. It is important to understand that this funding
    is not for equipment but is used for job creation and this funding has
    stayed static.
        The Nez Perce Tribe utilizes the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund
    and it should be funded at $110 million dollars. The Nez Perce funding
    received under this budget is used to rear 300,000 local stock coho
    smolts at Dworshak and Kooskia hatcheries in the Clearwater River
    Basin. We also truck an additional 550,000 coho smolts from a lower
    Columbia River hatchery (Eagle Creek Hatchery) up to the Clearwater for
    release. Based on passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag information,
    15,000 coho adults from our Clearwater releases crossed Bonneville Dam
    in 2011 where they provided a fishery for tribal and non-tribal
    fisheries on the Columbia River. Over 5,000 swam on to cross Lower
    Granite Dam where they continued to provide a fishery, provide
    broodstock for the hatchery program and spawners in the wild. Continued
    appropriations for this fund will allow this successful work to
    continue.
        The tribe also supports funding for the BIA Wildlife and Parks
    Tribal Priority Allocations of $3 million dollars and $6 million
    dollars as these funds allow for important work to be done on fish
    recovery through hatchery operation and maintenance. As stated earlier,
    the tribe has invested a large amount of its personnel and resources in
    the restoration and recovery of this important resource through its
    fisheries programs. The State of Idaho directly benefits from this work
    as well through its sports fisheries. These programs have been
    successful but more work needs to be done. The Tribal Management and
    Development Program also needs increased funding. The tribe recommends
    $20 Million for base and programmatic funding. This program is critical
    for fish and wildlife management of the tribe.
         fish and wildlife service, forest service cultural protection
        The tribe relies heavily on funding sources within the Fish and
    Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. First, the Tribal Wildlife
    Grants program administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a
    cost effective expenditure for the Government. This small pot of money
    has resulted in huge returns from the tribe's perspective. Since 2005,
    we have received four such grants that have allowed us to work on such
    diverse issues as gray wolf monitoring, bighorn sheep research, and
    rare plant conservation. Continued funding for the Tribal Wildlife
    Grant program will allow recipient tribes to build capacity and
    maintain involvement in key conservation issues. It should be noted
    that this competitive grant does not simply dole out funds for projects
    but awards grants based on the quality of the proposal. As mentioned
    above, the tribe has received four grants under this program totaling
    $800,000 based on the quality of our research work. Funding for these
    grants was reduced in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013. The tribe
    strongly urges this committee to increase this funding to $8 million as
    it provides a large return in work for a small investment. It is also
    one of the few sources of funds tribes can tap into for wildlife
    research.
        The tribe also supports increased funding for the work of the
    Forest Service in the protection of treaty reserved resources of
    tribes. There should be $31.2 million dollars allocated for BIA Tribal
    Forestry Priority Allocations and $23.3 million for BIA forestry
    projects. The Nez Perce Reservation and its usual and accustomed areas
    are rich in natural resources and encompass eleven different national
    forests. The tribe works closely with each forest administration to
    properly manage its resources on behalf of the Tribe. These range from
    protecting and properly managing the products of the forest to managing
    the vast wildlife in each one such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep and
    wolves. Increased funding is necessary so that the Forest Service can
    meet these trust obligations and continue to work with tribes such as
    the Nez Perce on a government-to-government basis. Finally, there
    should be $15 million dollars allocated for the Tribal Historic
    Preservation Office Program and $4 million dollars for repatriation to
    help ensure tribal remains and cultural properties are protected to the
    greatest extent possible.
                        environmental protection agency
        The Nez Perce Tribe currently implements, on behalf of the
    Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Air Rules for Reservations
    program (FARR) and receives funding from the State and Tribal
    Assistance Grants Program and Tribal General Assistance Grants. The $31
    million dollar increase in the President's budget for these grants is
    important and is supported by the tribe. The FARR program monitors air
    quality and regulates field burning throughout the Nez Perce
    Reservation. The tribe is located in Region 10 of the EPA and this
    increase in funding is needed for tribes to meet their air quality
    needs and operate programs under the delegation of the EPA.
        In addition to the air quality program, the Nez Perce Tribe is
    working with other Idaho tribes on studying of fish consumption rates
    which is important in protecting the health of tribal members. Funding
    for this work is important. The tribe is also currently in facilitated
    discussions with the State of Idaho that are being funded through
    grants from the EPA. The facilitated discussions involve the tribe
    adopting water quality standards to improve the water quality on the
    Nez Perce Reservation. The tribe also relies heavily on contract
    support dollars for our water resource programs such as storage tank
    remediation and watershed restoration.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the
    subcommittee. As you can see, the Nez Perce Tribe does a tremendous
    amount of work in a variety of areas. It is important that the United
    States continue to fund this work and uphold and honor its trust
    obligations to tribes.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Northern Water--The Northern Colorado Water
                              Conservancy District
                                                         April 8, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
    support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
    consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
    subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                             Eric W. Wilkinson,
                                                       General Manager.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide testimony on the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    and the Environmental Protection Agency fiscal year 2015
    appropriations. My name is Lorraine Loomis and I am the Vice-Chair 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). I am providing written testimony
    for the record in support of funding to meet the many natural resources
    management responsibilities required of the tribes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ United States v. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed
    Western Washington Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              summary of fiscal year 2015 appropriations requests
    Bureau of Indian Affairs:
      --Provide $17.146 million for Western Washington Fisheries
            Management;
      --Provide $3.082 million for Washington State Timber-Fish-Wildlife;
      --Provide $4.844 million for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty;
      --Provide $2.4 million for Salmon Marking;
      --Provide $6.582 million for Fish Hatchery Maintenance;
      --Provide $3.35 million for Fish Hatchery Operations;
      --Provide $246.0 million for Contract Support;
      --Provide $9.948 million for Cooperative Landscape Conservation; and
      --Provide $725,000 for Watershed Restoration.

    Environmental Protection Agency:
      --Provide $96.4 million for General Assistance Program; and
      --Provide $50.0 million for Puget Sound.

        In February 2014 the treaty Indian tribes in western Washington
    celebrated the 40th anniversary of U.S. v. Washington (Boldt decision).
    The decision reaffirmed tribal treaty-reserved rights to half of the
    harvestable salmon returning to the State and was later expanded to
    include shellfish and some marine fish species. This landmark ruling is
    one of the greatest civil rights decisions in the history of the United
    States. Moreover, the ruling established the tribes as co-managers and
    brought responsible salmon management to Washington by requiring that
    salmon be managed river-by-river and that harvest limits be clearly
    defined.
        Today, however, we find that the resource has diminished to the
    point that the tribes are catching fewer fish with a 50 percent share
    then they were at the time of the Boldt decision when they were
    catching less than 5 percent of the harvest. The treaty-reserved rights
    are at grave risk today as the resources they are dependent on are
    disappearing. Wild salmon and their habitat continue to decline despite
    massive reductions in harvest and a significant investment in habitat
    restoration. For this reason the western Washington treaty tribes
    brought to the Federal Government our Treaty Rights at Risk (TRAR)
    initiative asking that the Federal Government meet their obligations to
    the tribes and their treaties by taking charge of salmon recovery. We
    requested that the Federal Government implement their fiduciary duties
    by better protecting the tribes' treaty-reserved resources. The Federal
    Government has a non-discretionary obligation to provide adequate
    funding to the tribes to allow them to protect and preserve these
    treaty rights. Salmon are critical to the tribal cultures, traditions
    and their economies and by fulfilling these Federal obligations by
    addressing our TRAR--we will recover the salmon populations.
        We are generally pleased with the President's fiscal year 2015
    budget request, which includes and builds on many of the subcommittee's
    actions from the past few years. It continues funding for science and
    technology, including research and analysis for sustainable management
    of our natural resources and climate adaptation. On behalf of our 20
    member tribes, I ask you to consider our requests for the BIA and the
    EPA that are further described below.
                           justification of requests
    Bureau of Indian Affairs
                Rights Protection Implementation Subactivity
        Tribes in the Great Lakes and Pacific Northwest with similar
    treaty-reserved rights have collectively identified that no less than
    $49.5 million for Rights Protection Implementation (RPI) is necessary
    for essential tribal treaty rights management. We continue to support
    the President's emphasis to fund science and technology activities
    related to climate issues. This will provide our tribes the capability
    to identify, respond and adapt to the impacts of our changing climate.
    It will also support scientific research, monitoring and analysis that
    are essential to the management of natural resources. It is important
    that tribes be provided the maximum flexibility to develop specific
    science-based activities to meet their particular needs. We support a
    proportionate allocation of these funds that is consistent with and
    proposed in the fiscal year 2014 budget. A summary of the four accounts
    of interest to us within RPI are further identified below.
        Provide $17.146 million for BIA Western Washington Fisheries
    Management.--We respectfully request $17.146 million, an increase of
    $8.854 million over the President's request of $8.562 million. The
    increase in fiscal year 2014 restored funding back to the fiscal year
    2010 level and was very much appreciated. However, we once again ask
    Congress to address the remaining identified needs of the NWIFC and our
    member tribes. 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.--We respectfully request $3.082 million, an increase of
    $337,000 over the President's request of $2.745 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 for tribal TFW
    programs to fully participate in the TFW process.
        Provide $4.844 million for BIA U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty.--
    We respectfully request $4.844 million, an increase of $549,000 over
    the President's request of $4.295 million. 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 activities.
    This will provide sufficient funding to ensure that the tribes can
    continue to participate effectively in the bi-lateral PST process.
        Provide $2.4 million for BIA Salmon Marking.--We respectfully
    request $2.4 million, an increase of $1.328 million over the
    President's request of $1.072 million. Funding for this program was
    mandated in 2003 by Congress that required all salmon released from
    federally funded hatcheries be marked so they could be identified for
    conservation purposes. 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. This amount is
    required to fully implement more extensive selective fisheries targeted
    at these marked fish.
                Fish, Wildlife and Parks Subactivity
        Provide $6.582 million for BIA Fish Hatchery Maintenance.--We
    support the President's request of $6.582 million. 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. 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 $3.35 million for BIA Fish Hatchery Operations.--We
    respectfully request $3.35 million, an increase of $1.575 million over
    the President's request of $1.775 million. This increase reflects the
    needs of the western Washington treaty tribes. 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.
    Hatcheries are a necessary part of fisheries management because of the
    lack of wild salmon production due to habitat degradation. They
    continue to play a vital role in supporting tribal fisheries and are
    now essential for maintaining the treaty right to harvest fish. Without
    hatcheries tribes would have very few fisheries and their treaty rights
    would be rendered meaningless.
                Other Subactivities and Accounts
        Provide $246.0 million for BIA Contract Support.--We support the
    President's request of $246.0 million. 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. These funds are critical as they directly support
    our governmental functions, which allow us to fully exercise our right
    to self-govern. The amount requested is expected to fully fund the
    estimated need in fiscal year 2015.
        Provide $9.948 million for BIA Cooperative Landscape
    Conservation.--We support the President's request of $9.948 million.
    Funding for this program will help provide the tribal capacity needed
    to participate and provide scientific input on climate change issues.
    This will also 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.--We respectfully
    request $725,000, an increase of about $475,000 over the fiscal year
    2014 operating plan. Funding for this program is contained in the
    Forestry Subactivity--Forestry Projects--Watershed Restoration account
    and supports our Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment
    Program. This allows us to continue to provide environmental data
    management, analysis, and reporting support. It also supports the on-
    going efforts to develop information sharing and exchange tools and
    would continue to support our tribes' ability to adequately participate
    in watershed resource assessments and salmon recovery work.
    Environmental Protection Agency
        Provide $96.4 million for EPA General Assistance Program.--We
    support the President's request of $96.4 million. This funding has
    built essential tribal capacities and remains critical to the tribes'
    ability to sustain their important water quality programs. 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 $50.0 million for EPA Puget Sound.--We respectfully request
    $50.0 million, an increase of $25.0 million over the President's
    request of $25.0 million. The Puget Sound Geographic Program provides
    essential funding that will help protect, restore and enhance Puget
    Sound, an estuary of national significance. Funding for this program
    will allow the tribes to participate in the necessary scientific work,
    implementation measures, and policy discussions on issues that affect
    our treaty rights. It allows the tribes to participate in implementing
    the Puget Sound Action Agenda and to also implement a wide range of
    projects aimed at improving the health of Puget Sound by 2020.
                                   conclusion
        We are sensitive to the budget challenges that Congress faces. We
    respectfully urge you to continue to support our efforts to protect and
    restore our great natural heritage that in turn will provide for
    thriving communities and economies. Thank you.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Norton Sound Health Corporation
        The requests of the Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC) for the
    fiscal year 2015 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows:
      --Appropriate an additional $372,371 to staff and operate the newly
            opened Norton Sound Regional Hospital; the IHS is not provided
            the full agreed-upon amount.
      --Direct the IHS 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 $8.5 million to VBC
            leases.
      --Increase funding for injury prevention programs.
      --Shield the IHS from sequestration in fiscal year 2016 and beyond.
      --Place contract support costs on a mandatory funding basis.
      --Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis.
      --Support utilizing Medicare-like rates in the Purchased/Referred
            Care Program.
        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. However, the IHS is providing us nearly
    $400,000 less for our staffing package in fiscal year 2014 than was
    agreed to.
        The replacement facility is almost three times the size of the
    former 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.
        Now that the new facility is open, IHS has only to finish funding
    the expanded staffing needs for operation of the replacement hospital.
    The IHS has notified us that our fiscal year 2014 staffing package
    funding will be $8,410,000. This is not the entire amount agreed to.
    The IHS is not providing the entire amount of funding for the 351 full
    time equivalents (FTEs) in the signed, validated Resource Requirements
    Methodology (RRM). Rather, the funding provided is for 348 FTEs, a
    difference of 3 FTEs or $372,371 annually. That is a significant amount
    of funding over time--$3.7 million in 10 years plus contract support
    costs.
        Our new hospital is located in a medically underserved area and has
    one of the highest Health Professions Shortage Area 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. 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 agreed to by the IHS.
        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 under-funded 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 indicated in our joint testimony with other Alaska healthcare
    providers to Congress in 2012, 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 2015, we urge that an additional $8.5 million
    be appropriated to more 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 Sec. 804 of the Indian
    Health Care Improvement Act.
        Injury Prevention.--Injury prevention efforts are particularly
    important to the Norton Sound region; our extreme climate and the
    dangers of the Bering Sea result in an exceptionally high number of
    injuries, many of them severe. The National Center for Health
    Statistics reports that unintentional injury is the third leading cause
    of death among American Indians and Alaska Natives, preceded by heart
    disease and cancer. The goal of the NSHC injury prevention program is
    to reduce unintentional injuries throughout the region. The success of
    the program truly depends on the partnerships formed to share resources
    and extent our reach. We work to provide safety education and resources
    in the areas of transportation (bike helmet safety, pedestrian safety,
    all-terrain vehicle (ATV) safety, etc.) and home environmental safety
    (promote the use of smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, gun locks,
    elder fall prevention, etc.).
        A positive development was the move in September 2013 of our Injury
    Prevention Program and Safety shop to our new hospital which has
    resulted in an increased sale and use of safety items--for instance, we
    sold at the Safety Shop three times as many ice cleats this year as the
    previous year. Within the last 6 months, the Safety Shop also sold 4
    float coats, 6 snowmobile float coats, 4 snowmobile float bibs, 11 ATV
    helmets, 6 S.O.S. Survival kits and 22 visibility products. The Coast
    Guard donated 300 float coats to the region (the ``Wear It Alaska''
    initiative) which has saved lives.
        There is not an injury prevention line item in the IHS budget,
    although the IHS makes multi-year injury prevention grants to a limited
    number of tribes. We are in year 4 of a 5-year injury prevention grant;
    we took a 5 percent sequestration on our $80,000 grant and are not
    guaranteed fifth year funding. We request that Congress increase
    funding for IHS programs that incorporate injury prevention and direct
    the agency to increase its injury prevention resources for tribes and
    tribal organizations.
        Protect the IHS 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
    funding 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 were 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 were able to
    provide to our patients, resulting in real consequences for individuals
    who have to forego needed care. We are grateful that Congress enacted
    legislation that has averted a sequestration in fiscal year 2014 and
    likely will do the same for fiscal year 2015. But beginning fiscal year
    2016 the possibility of a sequestration will hang over IHS
    appropriations again.
        We fail to understand why the responsibility for healthcare for
    Alaska Native and American Indian people 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. 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 Balanced Budget and Emergency
    Deficit Control Act to fully exempt the IHS from any future
    sequestration, just as the VA and other health programs are exempt.
        Contract Support Costs.--We thank Congress, and particularly the
    Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee, for making it
    clear to the IHS and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that fully
    funding contract support costs (CSC) is a legal duty and for providing
    what we expect is full funding for fiscal year 2014. The fiscal year
    2015 IHS request of $617 million for CSC is also a reasonable estimate
    of what will be full funding. The next logical step is for Congress to
    fund the CSC funding for the IHS and the BIA funding on a mandatory,
    rather than a discretionary, basis.
        IHS on an Advance Appropriations Basis.--We support legislation
    that would place the IHS budget on an advance appropriations basis. The
    goal is for the IHS and tribal healthcare providers to have adequate
    advance notice of the amount of Federal appropriations to expect and
    thus not be subjected to the uncertainties of late funding and short-
    term continuing resolutions. Congress provides advance appropriations
    for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is
    for parity in the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Legislation to
    authorize IHS advance appropriations has been introduced--H.R. 3229 by
    Representative Young and S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski and Begich.
        Medicare-like Rates.--The administration proposed in its budget
    justification that tribes the IHS, and urban Indian organizations
    utilizing the Purchased/Referred Care program be charged Medicare-like
    rates for non-hospital services, thus stretching the funding for that
    program. A Government Accountability Office report in 2013 concluded
    that IHS and tribal facilities would save millions of dollars and be
    able to increase care if the Medicare-like rate cap was imposed on non-
    hospital providers and supplies through the Purchase/Referred Care
    program. This revenue-neutral proposal would require legislation and
    would make a very positive difference in the amount of healthcare
    services that could be provided. We appreciate the $18 million proposed
    increase in Purchased/Referred Care budget, but that is but a small
    slice of how much that program needs to be increased.
        Thank you for your consideration of our request that adequate
    fiscal year 2015 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 subcommittee's consideration of our
    other requests.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of OPERA America  The National Opera Center
        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 on Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations to
    designate a total of $155 million to the National Endowment for the
    Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2015. 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. OPERA America's membership includes 129
    professional company members representing 41 States. Over half of these
    companies were established after 1970 and over 40 percent were
    established since 1980, indicating the growth of opera throughout North
    America over the last 40 years.
        In the 2011-2012 season, OPERA America members were involved with
    45 world premieres. Since 1900, 880 new operatic works have been
    produced by professional opera companies in North America. Of that, 414
    new operatic works have been produced since 2000. The growth in number
    and quality of American opera corresponds directly to the investment of
    the NEA's earlier investment 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 over $20 million since 2010, the NEA awarded more than 2,100 grants
    in 2013, totaling more than $112 million in appropriated funds, and
    reaching more than 38 million people who attended live arts events
    through NEA-supported programs. 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. In 2013, the American creative sector was measured by the
    Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA and the NEA
    developed an ``Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account'' which
    calculated the arts and culture sector's contributions to the gross
    domestic product (GDP) at 3.2 percent (or $504 billion) of current-
    dollar GDP in 2011. Additionally, the nonprofit arts industry generates
    $135.2 billion annually in economic activity, supporting 4.13 million
    full-time equivalent jobs in the arts and related industries.
        On average each NEA grant leverages at least $9 from other State,
    local, and private sources, generating roughly $600 million in matching
    support. 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 cutbacks in the recent years, the NEA
    continues to be a beacon for arts organizations across the country.
        The return on investments 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 opera organizations through its core
    programs: Art Works; Challenge America Fast Track Grants; and Federal/
    State Partnerships. In fiscal year 2013, the NEA awarded 84 grants to
    the opera field through grants for arts projects categories, totaling
    $2,837,000.
        The following are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on
    opera programs from the NEA's 2013 Art Works Program:
              anchorage opera company--$12,500; anchorage, alaska
        To support ``Soldier Songs,'' a chamber opera by composer David T.
    Little. The work explores the plight of soldiers who face the challenge
    of reintegrating into ``normal'' life after having returned home from
    war. Told from the point of view of a single character during various
    stages of life, the work seeks to blur the tradition of linear
    narrative in opera. Accompanying the production will be several
    educational activities, including evening dress rehearsals, and teacher
    study guides that link the opera to the subjects of math, science,
    reading, and language arts. Pre-performance lecture-demonstrations will
    provide admission-free adult lectures by the creative team.
           lyric opera of kansas city--$20,000; kansas city, missouri
        To support STAGES summer opera camp for youth. The program will
    feature training in design and technical aspects of performing arts
    production and will provide students with a significant hands-on
    experience to help prepare them for potential careers in the performing
    arts.
           nashville opera association--$12,500; nashville, tennessee
        To support an audio recording of a revised edition of ``Romulus
    Hunt,'' a one-act opera by composer Carly Simon. Originally
    commissioned in 1993 by the Metropolitan Opera and the Kennedy Center,
    the semi-autobiographical dramatic work deals with operatic thems of
    love and betrayal as presented through the tribulations of a loving
    family fractured by divorce. Performances will occur at the Noah Liff
    Opera Center and recording will occur at Ocean Way Studios.
              opera parallele--$15,000; san francisco, california
        To support the American premier of ``Anya 17,'' a recently
    commissioned opera by composer Adam Gorb and librettist Ben Kaye. The
    opera portrays human trafficking as experienced by the central
    character, Anya. The plot unfolds through a series of short, fast-paced
    flashbacks that detail how Anya is deceived into traveling abroad and
    sold as a prostitute.
            opera theatre of st. louis--$90,000; st. louis, missouri
        To support the commission, development, and premier of ``Shalimar
    the Clown'' by composer Jack Perla and librettist/playwright Rajiv
    Joseph. Based on the novel by Salman Rushdie, the story takes place in
    the disputed region of Kashmir and focuses on the love story of a young
    Hindu woman, Boonyi, a dancer, and a Muslim man, Shalimar, an acrobat.
    The story is one of love, revenge, cultural clashes, and war.
        More than half of OPERA America's member companies were established
    after 1970 (corresponding to the establishment of the NEA) and over 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. 369
    new operatic works have been produced in North America since 2000.
        Over 6.5 million people attended a live performance at one OPERA
    America's member companies during the 2011-2012 season, including
    educational and outreach programs and festivals. During this same
    season, member opera companies presented 3,133 mainstage, festival,
    educational, and other productions--almost 3 times and many productions
    as the previous season. The collective expenses of member opera
    companies totaled $1.16 billion--almost double last year's expenses.
    Total government support, including city, county, State, and Federal,
    amounted to $37.5 million, representing approximately 3.8 percent of
    total operating income.
        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 since 2010, leaving its programs
    seriously underfunded. We urge you to continue toward restoration and
    increase the NEA funding allocation to $155 million for fiscal year
    2015.
        On behalf of OPERA America, thank you for considering this request.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
    fiscal year 2015 budget for the u.s. environmental protection agency's
                 clean water state revolving fund loan program
        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 2015. The CWSRF is an effective loan
    program that addresses critical water infrastructure needs while
    benefitting the environment, local communities, and the economy. OWRC
    is also concerned about various efforts by EPA to increase regulatory
    authority over water resources planning and urges the Senate to take
    action and prevent further jurisdictional overreach. EPA's actions to
    increase its jurisdiction are counterproductive to collaborative
    planning and detract from the positive solutions achieved through the
    CWSRF program.
        OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support the
    protection of water rights and promote the wise stewardship of water
    resources statewide. OWRC members are local governmental entities,
    which include irrigation districts, water control districts, drainage
    districts, water improvement districts, and other agricultural water
    suppliers that deliver water to roughly one-third of all irrigated land
    in Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management
    systems, including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and
    hydropower production.
                        fiscal year 2015 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 benefitting the
    environment, and is an efficient return on taxpayer investment. Oregon
    is facing record levels of unemployment and the CWSRF funded projects
    provide much needed construction and professional services jobs.
    Moreover, as a loan program, it is a wise investment that allows local
    communities to leverage their limited resources and address critical
    infrastructure needs that would otherwise be unmet.
        Nationally, there are large and growing critical water
    infrastructure needs. In EPA's most recent needs surveys, The Clean
    Watersheds Needs Survey 2008: Report to Congress and Drinking Water
    Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Fourth Report to Congress,
    the estimated 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 CWSRF, should not be declining but
    remaining strong in order to meet these critical needs.
        In 2012 appropriations for the CWSRF program was approximately
    $2.384 billion and declined to $1.448 billion in fiscal year 2014. The
    President's fiscal year 2015 budget proposes only $1.018 billion for
    the CWRSF program; a $430 million reduction from fiscal year 2014
    enacted levels. We are concerned as we see this negative downward trend
    continuing.
        OWRC is supportive of the President's Climate Action Plan and
    related efforts to support actions that help address, mitigate, and
    adapt to severe weather events, like drought, that are related to
    climate change. We are, however; concerned about where the $2 million
    would come from and do not want any ``realigning'' to result in reduced
    funding for other important water infrastructure programs like CWSRF.
    There has not been an increase in funding for CWSRF since 2009;
    meanwhile, both infrastructure needs and the costs to address those
    needs continue to grow each year. Continued funding reductions has led
    to delaying repairs or upgrades which in turn increase the potential
    for catastrophic failure and is counterproductive to the
    administration's desire to encourage asset management and sustainable
    water infrastructure. To the extent practicable, funding for climate
    change should be incorporated into existing programs with proven
    successes like the CWSRF.
        We also continue to be highly supportive of the administration's
    desire to expand ``green infrastructure'' and are appreciative of the
    20 percent green infrastructure target for fiscal year 2015. 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, which is
    discussed in greater detail below. However, continually reducing the
    amount of funds available for these worthwhile projects is
    counterproductive to the administration's desire and has created
    increased uncertainty for potential borrowers about whether adequate
    funding will be available in future years. CWSRF is often an integral
    part of an overall package of State, Federal and local funding that
    necessitates a stronger level of assurance that loan funds will be
    available for planned water infrastructure projects. Reductions in the
    CWSRF could lead to loss of grant funding and delay or derail
    beneficial projects that irrigation districts have been developing for
    years.
        Additionally, OWRC is pleased to see that EPA will continue
    ``strategic partnerships'' with the USDA's Natural Resources
    Conservation Services (NRCS) and other Federal agencies to improve
    water quality and address nonpoint source pollution. Oregon had four
    priority watersheds eligible for funding through the National Water
    Quality Initiative in 2013 and anticipates that additional watersheds
    will be included in the future. As Oregon is a delegated State, OWRC
    also feels strongly that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
    (DEQ) is best situated to develop and implement activities to improve
    these and other impaired waterways in the State. DEQ and its
    administration of the CWSRF has been an extremely valuable tool in
    Oregon for improving water quality and efficiently addressing
    infrastructure challenges that are otherwise cost-prohibitive.
                         cwsrf local success and needs
        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 need
    to pipe currently open canals, thereby improving water quality by
    eliminating run-off into the canals and increasing water availability
    for fish and irrigators by reducing water loss from the delivery
    system. Four irrigation districts received over $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. Those districts' applications had been on DEQ's list of
    eligible projects for many years and would probably still be on that
    list had the ARRA funding not been made available. We provide that
    comment not to complain, but to emphasize the need for additional
    funding for this program.
        What is being proposed for fiscal year 2015 is far short of what is
    needed to address critical water infrastructure needs in Oregon and
    across the Nation. This will lead to fewer water infrastructure
    projects, and therefore a reduction in improvements to water quality.
    The DEQ's most recent ``Proposed Intended Use Plan Update #1--State
    fiscal year 2014,'' lists 18 projects in need of a total of $45,265,547
    in Oregon alone. The Federal capitalization grant funding that has been
    historically available to DEQ has not yet been awarded for fiscal year
    2014; however, based on previous years it is doubtful that the fiscal
    year 2014 funding will be adequate to address and complete these much
    needed projects. Unfortunately, due to recent cutbacks and lack of
    availability of funds, no irrigation districts submitted applications
    for funding in 2014, but we are hopeful that with an increase in money
    available, more of our member districts will apply 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.
             the importance and success of local watershed planning
        Oregon's success in watershed planning illustrates that planning
    efforts work best when diverse interests develop and implement plans at
    the local watershed level with support from State government. Oregon
    has recently revised their CWSRF rules; thus making conservation easier
    and its benefits to be better achieved in the State. That is why OWRC
    is very concerned about EPA's recent efforts to revise Clean Water Act
    Guidance without appropriate public process or legislative oversight.
    The proposed changes would greatly broaden EPA authority and
    illustrates an apparent desire to dictate watershed planning methods
    for the Nation using a top-down regulatory approach from a desk in
    Washington DC. This regulatory overreach will lead to uncertainty for
    landowners and water users, increased litigation and destroy
    collaborative efforts (including CWSRF projects) already underway in
    Oregon and across the Nation.
        As the national model for watershed planning, Oregon does not need
    a new Federal agency or Executive Branch office to oversee conservation
    and restoration efforts. 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 over
    60 individual watershed councils in Oregon that are already deeply
    engaged in watershed planning and restoration activities. Watershed
    planning in Oregon formally began in 1995 with the development of the
    Oregon Plan for Salmon Recovery and Watershed Enhancement, a statewide
    strategy developed in response to the Federal listing of several fish
    species. This strategy led to the creation of the Oregon Watershed
    Enhancement Board (OWEB), a State agency and policy oversight board
    that funds and promotes voluntary and collaborative efforts that ``help
    create and maintain healthy watersheds and natural habitats that
    support thriving communities and strong economies'' in 1999.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, we applaud the CWSRF program for allowing Oregon's
    DEQ to make targeted loans that address Clean Water Act issues and
    improve water quality but also help incentivize innovative water
    management solutions that benefit local communities, agricultural
    economies, and the environment. This voluntary approach creates and
    promotes cooperation and collaborative solutions to complex water
    resources challenges. Conversely, regulatory overreach destroys
    cooperation, creates mistrust and has a very negative effect on jobs
    and local economies. 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 2015.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Outdoor Industry Association
                                                          May 22, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment,
            and Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment,
            and Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman and Ranking Member: On behalf of the Outdoor Industry
    Association, and our more than 1,300 member companies, I write to urge
    you to support adequate and sustainable funding for the recreation and
    preservation programs of the Department of the Interior, the U.S.
    Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency. This year we
    celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    and the Wilderness Act and are approaching the National Park Service
    Centennial in 2016. Now, more than ever, is the time to prepare our
    public lands and waters for the next century by investing in these very
    places that provide clean air and water, American jobs, attract
    international tourists, unite communities and make America a healthier,
    more prosperous place to raise a family and start a business.
        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. Diverse,
    accessible, and affordable places for every American to get outdoors
    and enjoy healthy lifestyles are 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 spawns $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 spaces have an impressive
    and sustainable return for local economies, especially those in rural
    areas. For every $1 spent on the national parks, local communities see
    a $10 return. We saw the reverse of this investment during last year's
    Government shutdown, when gateway communities lost upwards of $76
    million each day as nearby public lands were closed.
        More than ever Americans are prioritizing the outdoors, with half
    of our population, 140 million people, recreating outside each year.
    Americans spend more on outdoor recreation than on pharmaceuticals,
    gasoline and motor vehicles and in 2013 outdoor product sales were up
    10.3 percent. In fact, outdoor product sales grew more than 7 percent
    in both 2011 and 2012 while other industries were suffering from the
    recession. We need Congress to support the growing outdoor economy and
    the people and communities who rely on it.
        In real terms, Federal spending on natural resources and recreation
    programs has declined over the last 20 years. This program area
    comprised less than 1 percent of the total Federal budget for fiscal
    year 2013. 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 2015 Federal appropriations. These
    programs need to be recognized as shining examples of economic growth
    engines and the type of sound investment that the Federal Government
    should pursue.
        To do this we ask Congress to fulfill the promise and obligation of
    the LWCF fund and 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. We urge Congress to prepare
    the National Parks System for its second century by funding backlogged
    maintenance and considering opportunities for public/private
    partnerships, and to fund any amount above 70 percent of the
    anticipated cost of wildfire suppression from an emergency fund outside
    of the land management agencies' budgets.
        Please provide adequate funding for the our Nation's public lands
    and waters as outlined below:

      --Department of the Interior--$11.9 billion
      --National Park Service Centennial
        --$40 million increase--fiscal year 2015 appropriations
        --$400 million in permanent funding each year for the next 3 years,
          -- $100 million--Centennial Challenge
          -- $200 million--National Park Service facilities improvements
          -- $100 million--Centennial Land Management Investment Fund
      --Land and Water Conservation Fund (Total)--$900 million
      --Agriculture--National Forest System (USFS)--$5.4 billion
      --EPA--Protecting America's Waters--$3.4 billion

        Investments in green spaces and outdoor recreation infrastructure
    create healthy and productive communities that offer lasting, good jobs
    and draw businesses and entrepreneurs. 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 parks,
    trails, and other places to play has significant economic and health
    benefits.
        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 & small, urban & 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.
                Respectfully,
                                                   Kirk Bailey,
                                    Vice President--Government Affairs.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Outdoors Alliance for Kids
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee: We, the undersigned members of the Outdoors Alliance for
    Kids (OAK), thank you for your past support of programs to connect
    children and youth with the outdoors, and we urge you to sustain
    funding for fiscal year 2015 programs at the U.S. Department of the
    Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Forest Service that
    increase engagement in the outdoors through outdoor education,
    community health and wellness, and environmental stewardship programs
    that engage children, youth and young veterans in the outdoors. We also
    urge you to maintain sufficient funding for agencies to adequately
    manage our public lands and waters.
        OAK is a national strategic partnership of businesses and
    organizations representing more than 30 million individuals from
    diverse sectors of the economy with the common interest in expanding
    the number and quality of opportunities for children, youth, and
    families to connect with the outdoors. OAK supports public policies and
    investments that expand outdoor education opportunities, promote
    community health and wellness, and engage more youth in environmental
    stewardship. A list of OAK's organizational members can be found here.
        We understand that we are in difficult fiscal times, but balancing
    the budget at the expense of programs and initiatives that ensure
    children and youth have opportunities to learn, get physically active,
    and increase their volunteerism in the outdoors will be a detriment to
    our great Nation. Environmental education provides critical tools for a
    21st century workforce by giving students the skills to understand
    complex environmental systems and issues, and prepares students to
    compete globally and address environmental challenges and opportunities
    that impact our economy, health, and national security. Community
    health and wellness are critical investments for the local economy as
    well. The prevention of chronic diseases can save lives, as well as
    promote the physical and mental wellbeing of all Americans.
    Environmental stewardship can provide opportunities for young people to
    not only spend more time outdoors, but also to obtain basic job skills
    as the youth unemployment rates skyrocket. In addition to contributing
    to our Nation's robust outdoor recreation economy, youth volunteer and
    work programs help address a backlog of maintenance needs piling up on
    our public lands, address record youth unemployment, and prepare a
    diverse group of youth to be the next generation of natural resource
    employees.
        These areas are vital to the success of the U.S. in the global
    economy, and to our ability to create a 21st century workforce that is
    healthy, skilled, and prepared to be the next generation of leaders.
    The outdoor industry alone provides 6.1 million jobs and $646 billion
    in direct consumer spending each year. Outdoor recreation, such as that
    enjoyed in national, State, and local parks, provides millions of
    America's children, youth, and families with an opportunity to hike,
    bike, swim, paddle or simply commune with nature. The outdoor
    recreation economy generates $39.9 billion in Federal revenue and
    another $39.7 billion in State and local revenue annually.
        OAK supports funding and initiatives to increase outdoor education,
    promote community health and wellness and provide young people with
    jobs, training, and service and volunteer opportunities that connect
    them to the outdoors and recreation. We urge the subcommittee to
    restore funding to allow land management agencies to adequately manage
    our public lands and waters and to provide robust funding for the
    following programs that get youth outdoors:

      --Department of the Interior.--OAK supports the Department of the
            Interior's goal of providing 40,000 work and training
            opportunities over fiscal years 2014 and 2015. To this end, we
            urge you to support the administration's budget request of
            $50.6 million for youth programs in the Bureau of Land
            Management, U.S. Geological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Service,
            National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Bureau
            of Reclamation. A key component of the Department's efforts
            will be partnering with youth organizations through the 21st
            Century Conservation Service Corps (21CSC). The opportunities
            provided by 21CSC will encourage youth to assume responsibility
            for the stewardship and preservation of America's great
            outdoors, teach them basic job skills at a time when youth
            unemployment is near record levels and young people are missing
            out on critical early job experiences, and improve public
            health by helping young people develop and maintain active
            lifestyles. In addition, we urge you to fund the National Park
            Service Centennial Challenge, to support thousands of veterans,
            youth, and others to work to upgrade the National Park System
            for its 100th anniversary in 2016.
          We also urge you to sustain funding for the operational accounts
            of the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau
            of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest
            Service, all of which could fund partnerships with Conservation
            Corps.

      --Environmental Protection Agency.--OAK urges the subcommittee to
            sustain funding for the National Environmental Education Act
            (NEEA) programs at the Environmental Protection Agency at the
            recent level of $9.7 million. This program implements highly
            successful, nationwide environmental education programs. These
            programs support life-long environmental education and
            stewardship through several highly-leveraged, but under-
            resourced programs, including the National Environmental
            Education Training Program to provide professional development
            for teachers, the National Environmental Education Foundation
            to leverage public/private partnerships, and an environmental
            education grant program to support local environmental
            education providers.

        We thank you in advance for your support for these critical
    programs and look forward to working with you and your staff in the
    coming year.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request.
        This testimony is submitted on behalf of the following 39 members
    of the Outdoors Alliance for Kids:

    Alliance for Childhood
    American Canoe Association
    American Hiking Society
    American Society of Landscape Architects
    American Youthworks
    Appalachian Mountain Club
    Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education
    Children & Nature Network
    Choose Outdoors
    Conservation Legacy
    GirlTrek
    Hudson River Sloop Clearwater
    International Mountain Bicycling Association
    IslandWood
    Izaak Walton League of America
    Kids4Trees
    National Interscholastic Cycling Association
    National Military Family Association
    National Outdoor Leadership School
    National Park Trust
    National Parks Conservation Association
    National Recreation and Park Association
    National Wildlife Federation
    NatureBridge
    North American Association for Environmental Education
    O'Neill Sea Odyssey
    Outdoor Afro
    Outdoor Outreach
    Outdoors Empowered Network
    Public Lands Service Coalition
    Sierra Club
    The Corps Network
    The Outdoor Foundation
    The Wilderness Society
    Trout Unlimited
    Trust for Public Land
    Wilderness Inquiry
    Winter Wildlands Alliance
    YMCA of the USA

                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Pacific Salmon Commission
        Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the subcommittee, I am McCoy
    Oatman the Alternate Tribal Commissioner for U.S. Section of 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. The tribal participation in the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty process is funded in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) budget.

              In order meet the increased obligations under the 2009-2018
            Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement the 25 affected tribes
            identified costs at $4,800,000 for tribal research projects and
            participation in the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty process,
            an increase of $520,000 over fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
            The funding for tribal participation in the U.S./Canada Salmon
            Treaty is a line item in the BIA's budget under the Rights
            Protection Implementation, Wildlife and Parks, Other Recurring
            Programs Area.

        Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs, the U.S. Section
    identified needs as follows:

              USFWS participation in the treaty process is identified at a
            base level of $417,000. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries
            Commission's Regional Mark Center receives support from the
            USFWS to provide data services to the PSC process. Those costs
            are identified at $315,000. This funding level represents an
            increase of $75,000 over fiscal year 2012 enacted levels 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 supports
    critically important on-going work. The funding for Pacific States
    Marine Fisheries Commission's Regional Mark Center is utilized to meet
    Treaty requirements concerning data exchange with Canada. These program
    recommendations are integrated with those of the State and Federal
    agencies to avoid duplication of effort and provide for the most
    efficient expenditure of scarce funds.
        A copy of the integrated U.S. Section Budget Justification will be
    made available to the subcommittee. The budget summary justifies the
    support needed to carry out necessary functions in implementing the
    treaty. Funding to support activities under the Pacific Salmon
    Commission comes from the Departments of Interior, State, and Commerce.
    Adequate funding from all three Departments is necessary for the U.S.
    to meet its treaty obligations. All of the funds are needed for
    critical data collection and research activities directly related to
    the implementation and are used in cooperative programs involving
    Federal, State, and tribal fishery agencies and the Department of
    Fisheries in Canada. The 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 support 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 supported to
    achieve a comprehensive U.S. effort to implement the Treaty.
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service activities are necessary so the
    U.S. can maintain the critical database to implement the treaty. The
    work of the Regional Mark Processing Center includes maintaining and
    updating a coastwide computerized information management system for
    salmon harvest and catch effort data as required by the treaty. This
    work 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.
        Mr. Chairman, the United States and Canada established the Pacific
    Salmon Commission, under the Pacific Salmon Treaty of 1985, to conserve
    salmon stocks, provide for optimum production of salmon, and to control
    salmon interceptions. After more than 20 years, the work of the Pacific
    Salmon Commission continues to be essential for the wise management of
    salmon in the Northwest, British Columbia, and Alaska. For example,
    upriver Bright fall Chinook salmon from the Hanford Reach of the
    Columbia River are caught in large numbers in Alaskan and Canadian
    waters. Tribal and non-tribal fishermen harvest sockeye salmon from
    Canada's Fraser River in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in Puget Sound.
    Canadian trollers off of the west coast of Vancouver Island catch
    Washington coastal Coho salmon 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 U.S. 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 U.S. and Canada completed a revised Fraser River sockeye and
    pink chapter in 2013.
        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 towards the true intent of the
    treaty: mutually beneficial enhancement of the shared resource.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my written testimony submitted for
    consideration by your subcommittee. I want to thank the 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 to answer any
    questions you or subcommittee members may have regarding the U.S.
    Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission budget.
                                     ______

      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 20
    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 2015 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, $240,000 for the Appalachian Trail, and $200,000 for
            the Pacific Crest Trail.
      --USDA Forest Service.--$7.896 million to administer 6 trails and
            $1.2 million to manage parts of 16 trails administered by the
            National Park Service (NPS) or the Bureau of Land Management
            (BLM). $1 million for Iditarod Trail construction.
      --Bureau of Land Management.--$1.53 million to administer three
            trails and for coordination of the National Trails program and
            $7.14 million to portions of 13 trails administered by the Park
            Service or the Forest Service and 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 ($1,500,000) for national scenic and historic trails
            or create a separate $1.5 million National Trails System
            Challenge Cost Share Program.
      --We ask that you add $500,000 to the Bureau of Land Management's
            Challenge Cost Share Program and allocate it for the national
            scenic and historic trails it administers or manages.
        We ask that you appropriate $57,695,000 from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund for the acquisition of 53 tracts along seven national
    scenic and eight national historic trails described in the National
    Trails System Collaborative Landscape Planning proposal and allocate
    this funding to the:
      --Bureau of Land Management: $15,246,000 million;
      --U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $7,829,000 million;
      --U.S. Forest Service: $15,271,000 million; and
      --National Park Service: $25,002,600 million.
                             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 geographic information system (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 $380,000 for the Ice
    Age Trail, $240,000 for the Appalachian Trail, and $200,000 for the
    Pacific Crest Trail for trail construction projects.
        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 2015 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 this approach, 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 $7.896 million as a separate budgetary
    item specifically for the Arizona, Continental Divide, Florida, Pacific
    Crest, and Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce
    National Historic Trail within the over-all appropriation for Capital
    Improvements and Maintenance for Trails. Recognizing the on-the-ground
    management responsibility the Forest Service has for 1024 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 $7.896 million includes $1.5 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 $7.896 million request also includes $2 million for the
    Pacific Crest Trail, $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
    request that you appropriate $68.809 million in base funding for the
    System. 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 4,645 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 $5 million for the Bureau's Challenge Cost
    Share (CCS) 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 2014 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 national monuments, wilderness,
    and conservation areas--within a new activity account for the National
    Landscape Conservation System in fiscal year 2015. 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 strongly supports the President's Budget proposal
    to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund at the authorized
    $900 million, with $350 million from discretionary sources and $550
    million in mandatory funds for the component programs funded under
    LWCF. Within this amount we request that you appropriate $57,695,000
    for the National Trails System Collaborative Landscape Planning
    proposal to acquire 53 tracts along 15 national scenic and historic
    trails detailed here:

     Bureau of Land Management: $15,246,000 million--7 tracts--15,859 acres

        Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (Montana).--$11,704,000 for
    trail, landscape, habitat and recreation protection along the Upper
    Missouri River frontage, including key campsites from Lewis and Clark's
    historic expedition and breathtaking views along Missouri River.
        Nez Perce National Historic Trail (Idaho).--$3,000,000 for trail
    and resource conservation at one of the last remaining working ranches
    at Henry's Lake.
        Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (Oregon, California).--$542,000
    for trail and resource protection within the Cascade Siskiyou National
    Monument.

     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $7,829,000 million--14 tracts--4,634
                                     acres

        Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (Virginia).--
    $2,000,000 to protect the trail's historical resources in an area that
    would encourage public recreation and interpretation.
        Iditarod National Historic Trail (Alaska).--$90,000 for protection
    of 120 acres within the Innoko Wilderness Area in the Innoko National
    Wildlife Refuge and 1.6 miles of the Iditarod Trail.
        Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (Washington).--$270,000 to
    allow 13 listed salmon and steelhead stocks to reverse their downward
    population trend in the Columbia watershed.
        Trail of Tears National Historic Trail (Tennessee).--$2,969,000 for
    seven tracts along the Mississippi river that will protect migration
    corridors within the Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife
    Refuges.
        California National Historic Trail (Idaho).--$2,500,000 to protect
    the largest breeding concentration of Sandhill Cranes as well as
    providing a haven for other waterfowl from a current farming threat.

        U.S. Forest Service: $15,271,000 million--10 tracts--7,701 acres

        Appalachian National Scenic Trail (North Carolina).--$3,906,500 to
    protect high priority, high elevation viewshed along the Appalachian
    Trail that connects with North Carolina land purchased to the south to
    provide an extensive natural heritage area.
        Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Montana).--$255,000 to
    achieve uninterrupted trail corridor enabling animal migration and
    human recreation.
        Trail of Tears National Historic Trail (Tennessee).--$585,000 to
    preserve one of the few remaining segments of Trail of Tears in its
    original condition along the Unicoi Turnpike.
        Old Spanish National Historic Trail (New Mexico).--$2,570,000 to
    finalize the protection of a 5-mile-long segment of the Old Spanish
    Trail as it enters Carson National Forest.
        Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (Washington).--$2,800,000
    to conserve grizzly bear and Canadian lynx habitat while filling in a
    2.5 mile gap of the Pacific Northwest Trail along Big Sheep Creek.
        Nez Perce National Historic Trail (Montana).--$1,050,000 to
    complete the consolidation of lands on Bloody Dick and Selway Creeks in
    the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.
        Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (California, Washington).--
    $4,104,000 for trail, resource, and watershed protection near the
    headwaters of the Trinity River and through populous King County to
    increase public recreation.

     National Park Service Budget Request $25,002,600 million--22 tracts--
                                  5,349 acres

        Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (Hawaii).--$3,900,000 for trail
    and resource conservation in the Great Crack.
        Appalachian National Scenic Trail (New Hampshire).--$4,260,000 to
    extinguish the threat of imminent development and to create a block of
    2,000 acres of conservation land that protects an Appalachian Trail
    viewshed.
        Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Colorado).--$308,000 to
    remove motorized use of 0.5 miles of the Continental Divide Trail and
    to restore 1 acre of habitat currently occupied by an access road and
    buildings in the scenic Rocky Mountain National Park.
        Ice Age National Scenic Trail (Wisconsin).--$3,700,000 to provide
    an urban access point to the Ice Age Trail in the city of St. Croix,
    and to enhance the geologic diversity of the trail by completing a
    continuous 4-mile segment through Wisconsin's Driftless Area.
        New England National Scenic Trail (Massachusetts).--$120,000 to
    significantly improve hiker safety and scenic viewshed by keeping
    hikers off 2.5 miles of busy road, and to contribute to the protection
    of a contiguous open space corridor extending from Erving State Forest
    to the east and Rattlesnake Mountain and Northfield Mountain and Mount
    Grace to the west.
        Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (Virginia).--
    $6,000,000 to permanently protect and open for public education and
    archaeological research a nationally significant American Indian site.
        North Country National Scenic Trail (Michigan).--$1,061,300 to
    protect a corridor along Tyler Creek that connects existing protected
    land and gets four miles of the North Country Trail off dangerous
    roads.
             private sector support for the national trails system
        Public-spirited partnerships between private citizens and public
    agencies have been a hallmark of the National Trails System since its
    inception. These partnerships create the enduring strength of the
    Trails System and the trail communities that sustain it by combining
    the local, grass-roots energy and responsiveness of volunteers with the
    responsible continuity of public agencies. They also provide private
    financial support for public projects, often resulting in a greater
    than equal match of funds.
        The private trail organizations' commitment to the success of these
    trail-sustaining partnerships grows even as Congress' support for the
    trails has grown. In 2013 the trail organizations fostered 1,144,407
    hours of documented volunteer labor valued at $25,337,171 to help
    sustain the national scenic and historic trails. The organizations also
    raised private sector contributions of $11,151,247 for the trails.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Performing Arts Alliance
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, we
    thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the
    Performing Arts Alliance (PAA). We urge the subcommittee to designate a
    budget of $155 million to the NEA for fiscal year 2015. PAA member
    organizations include:

    Alternate ROOTS
    American Composers Forum
    Association of Performing Arts Presenters
    Chamber Music America
    Chorus America
    Dance/USA
    Fractured Atlas
    League of American Orchestras
    National Alliance for Musical Theatre
    National Association of Latino Arts and Cultures
    National Performance Network
    Network of Ensemble Theaters
    New Music USA
    OPERA America
    Theatre Communications Group

        PAA is a national network of more than 33,000 organizational and
    individual members comprising the professional, nonprofit performing
    arts and presenting fields.
        We submit this testimony to highlight the importance of the Federal
    investment in the arts in order to sustain a vibrant cultural
    community. The National Endowment for the Arts holds a significant
    Federal leadership role for the arts and culture in America. Its grants
    are investments in education, artistic development, the continuation
    and preservation of our country's artistic heritage, and the overall
    quality of life for American citizens. There are many reasons why we
    are asking you to support the agency:
      --NEA grants support a range of educational and community engagement
            projects;
      --NEA funds spread across the country and expand arts access;
      --Federal funding for the arts leverages private funding; and
      --Rural and underserved communities--as well as underserved
            populations--benefit from arts programs supported by NEA funds.
        We share with you the following examples of constituents of PAA
    members who have received NEA grants in fiscal year 2014. Their work is
    a sample of the numerous ways in which the Endowment's support widens
    citizen access to the cultural, educational, social, and economic
    benefits of the arts in American communities.
    NEA grants support a range of educational projects
        American Jazz Museum in Kansas City, Missouri--a member of
    Association of Performing Arts Presenters and Chamber Music America--
    received Art Works support for its 2014 18th and Vine Jazz Festival.
    The Museum partners with the Metropolitan Community College-Penn Valley
    for this annual festival which brings jazz music training, workshops,
    and performance opportunities to local middle and high school and
    college student. During the festival, budding musicians hone their
    musical skills under the tutelage of world renowned jazz artists and
    learn about the history of this rich American art form from some of the
    history makers themselves.
        Arts education also includes training in behind-the-scenes,
    technical aspects of the performing arts. OPERA America member Lyric
    Opera of Kansas City (Missouri) will operate its STAGES summer youth
    opera camp this year with support from an Art Works grant. STAGES
    provides youth with significant hands-on experience in design,
    lighting, and stagecraft, introducing them to the possibilities of a
    career in the field. Our Nation's performing arts organizations put
    people to work, and education programs like this offer youth--
    tomorrow's workforce--opportunities to learn the many trades within our
    sector.
        Chorus America member Boston's Children's Chorus received an Art
    Works grant for its Premier Choir and Young Men's Ensemble, which
    provides rigorous, professional training for high school youth in music
    theory and choral performance, as well as performance opportunities.
    Another Chorus America member supported by the NEA is Young People's
    Chorus of New York City, an award-winning organization which offers
    music education and choral performance to children of all cultural and
    economic backgrounds, helping them reach their potential through
    artistic excellence.
    NEA grants preserve and continue our country's artistic heritage
        Performing arts organizations play a great role in preserving our
    Nation's artistic heritage. Other Minds in San Francisco--a member of
    Chamber Music America--is doing this with support from an Art Works
    grant for its New Music Preservation Project. The organization is
    converting archival live recordings of performances, interviews, and
    conversations with innovative composers and artists of 20th-century
    American music into digital media. The recordings will be available
    worldwide via www.radiOM.org. Fractured Atlas and Dance/USA member
    Lucky Plush Productions in Riverside, Illinois received Art Works
    support for the creation and presentation of The Queue, a new dance
    theater work exploring the physical comedy forms of the early 20th-
    century slapstick and Vaudeville. These are just a few examples of how
    the NEA's support helps today's audiences connect to art forms and
    artists of previous times.
        NEA grants also invest in the artistic heritages of the many
    cultures within American communities. Grants support projects that
    create opportunities for learning and dialogue while sustaining rich
    traditions. Relampago del Cielo, Inc. in Santa Ana, California--a
    member of National Association of Latino Arts and Cultures--received
    Art Works support for its preservation of traditional Mexican
    performing arts through youth classes in music, folklore, and dance. It
    shares these traditions with the greater community via outreach
    presentations and educational activities. League of American Orchestras
    member South Dakota Symphony in Sioux Falls received Art Works support
    for its Lakota Music Project, an initiative developed with the United
    Sioux Tribes of South Dakota. The project's goal is to build bridges
    between Native Americans and non-Native Americans. It honors Native
    American musical traditions and aims to advance cultural understanding
    and create an environment of openness and collaboration through the
    music.
    NEA funds benefit every congressional district, expanding arts access
            to all people in all communities--both urban and rural
        Chamber Music America member Community MusicWorks in Providence,
    Rhode Island exists to create a cohesive urban community through music
    education and performance that transforms the lives of children,
    families, and musicians. Art Works funding supports their programs that
    reach students and families in Providence's underserved South Side
    neighborhoods. MusicWorks creates access to classical music training
    and encourages appreciation for the art form among program
    participants. Its weekly music lessons are accompanied by work around
    social justice issues, mentorship programs, and opportunities for
    students to create and present music programs that are relevant to
    their own community.
        People of all physical abilities will be able to experience
    inventive contemporary dance due to NEA support given to San Francisco-
    based AXIS Dance Company--a member of Dance/USA. AXIS received Art
    Works funding to support its Dance Access and Dance Access/Kids!
    educational and outreach dance programs as the company tours. These
    programs offer ``physically-integrated'' dance classes for youth and
    adults with and without disabilities, and with NEA support, AXIS will
    be able to offer these classes to many around the country.
        Perseverance Theatre--a member of Theatre Communications Group--
    creates professional theatre by and for Alaskans, such as the world
    premiere of Rush at Everlasting by Alaskan playwright Arlitia Jones.
    Production of this play was supported by an Art Works grant. It was
    also supported by the Alaska State Arts Council--a member of
    Association of Performing Arts Presenters (APAP)--a recipient of an
    fiscal year 2014 NEA State Partnerships grant. Approximately 40 percent
    of the NEA's budget is directed towards States via State partnerships
    such as this one which extend the NEA's Federal reach and impact,
    translating national leadership into local benefit. Rush at Everlasting
    will be presented in both Juneau and Anchorage.
        With a similar mission, APAP member Lied Performing Arts Center in
    Lincoln, Nebraska is presenting a tour of singer/songwriter Susan
    Werner celebrating the lives and challenges of rural Nebraskan farmers.
    In partnership with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Institute of
    Agriculture and Natural Resources, the tour will also include an oral
    history project documenting Nebraska's agricultural heritage.
    The NEA supports arts organizations bringing awareness to important
            social issues
        The arts can create community dialogue around important social
    issues such as care for older Americans and gang violence. The Sojourn
    Theatre in Portland, Oregon--a member of the Network of Ensemble
    Theaters (NET)--will present its The Islands of Milwaukee free
    performance series this year with Art Works support. The performances
    will occur in public spaces and explore social connectedness among
    older adults throughout Milwaukee neighborhoods. The theatre company
    will collaborate with older adults in urban and suburban Milwaukee that
    are living alone, engaging them in the creation of the performances.
    Project partners include the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the
    Milwaukee Department on Aging, and Interfaith Older Adult Programs.
        With the support of a Challenge America Fast-Track grant, NET
    member Su Teatro in Denver, CO will present this season PLACAS by Paul
    S. Flores. Featuring actor and playwright Ric Salinas, PLACAS is a new
    multimedia play about the impact of gangs on an El Salvadoran family,
    portraying tattoo removal as a metaphor for healing and transformation.
    In addition to public performances, Salinas and Flores will lead
    workshops intended to serve former and current gang members,
    collaborating with Denver's Gang Rescue and Support Project (GRASP).
    NEA grants support artistic excellence and works that engage new
            audiences
        Arts organizations around the country are energizing audiences by
    refreshing classic works and presenting fresh, new productions and
    artists in their communities. This is bringing new and diverse
    participants out to experience the arts. Trinity Repertory Company in
    Providence, Rhode Island--a member of the National Association for
    Musical Theatre and Theatre Communications Group--is doing this with
    its new production of Oliver!, Lionel Bart's musical based on Charles
    Dickens' Oliver Twist. The company is re-visioning the show with a new
    adaptation of the book and score and with a set design that extends the
    scenery into the audience's space, heightening their engagement.
        National Performance Network member Sandglass Theatre in Putney,
    Vermont is bringing ``world-class, cutting-edge, socially engaged
    puppetry and theatre'' to southern Vermont audiences with Art Works
    support for its Arts and Issues 2014 presenting series. This series
    includes Voices of Community and New Visions events and productions:
    Community activities present a diverse roster of artists for
    residencies and community discussions on all aspects of diversity.
    Visions activities cross-pollinate puppetry with other performing arts
    genres and invite the audience into the artists' discovery processes
    while purposefully creating intercultural and intergenerational
    dialogue.
        Opera Theatre of Saint Louis--a member of OPERA America--will
    present this season 27 by American composer Ricky Ian Gordon and
    librettist Royce Vavrek. Supported by an Art Works grant, 27 will
    feature acclaimed mezzo-soprano Stephanie Blythe as the visionary
    American writer and art collector Gertrude Stein. This will be the
    company's 24th premiere in 39 seasons; last season's premiere,
    Champion, was also supported by the NEA. This production was attended
    at 98 percent capacity across its run and also attracted an audience
    that was markedly younger and more diverse than the traditional opera-
    goers.
        NEA funding helps organizations present exceptional work to their
    audiences. Nashville Ballet--a member of Dance/USA--received Art Works
    funding to present Jiri Kylian's Petite Mort. The Ballet had the
    pleasure of introducing Nashville to Kylian's work which had never
    before been presented in the city. The entire program, which included
    Balanchine's Serenade and a world premiere choreographed by Artistic
    Director Paul Vasterling to Ben Folds' recent piano concerto, was
    enthusiastically received by audiences and critics alike, due also to
    the level of excellence at which the dancers performed. Ticket sales
    reflected this enthusiasm, and also reflected that there were 600 new
    households attending the performances.
        Federal dollars invested in the National Endowment for the Arts
    realize significant returns both measurable and intangible. The
    artistic programming of the arts organizations supported by the NEA
    give vitality to their communities. They allow communities to:
    appreciate our Nation's culture and heritage, unite to dialogue about
    and collaborate on social issues, and experience meaningful educational
    opportunities.
        We, the members of the Performing Arts Alliance, urge you to
    designate no less than $155 million to the NEA in fiscal year 2015.
    Thank you for your consideration of our request.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of Preservation Action
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee, on behalf of the members of Preservation Action, I
    appreciate the opportunity to present written testimony in support of
    the Department of Interior's fiscal year 2015 $2.6 billion budget for
    the National Park Service (NPS) and its historic preservation programs.
    As the Nation continues to rebuild our economy, historic preservation
    is a partner and part of the solution in creating economic vitality. We
    ask Congress to continue its investment as envisioned in the National
    Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and protect our historic and cultural
    resources by providing the appropriations for critical historic
    preservation programs.
        Preservation Action is a national membership organization that
    represents preservationists from many sectors across the U.S. and its
    territories. Creating a national landscape of policies that protect our
    cultural heritage is fundamental to all we do. Historic preservation
    has provided lasting economic benefits in communities throughout the
    Nation. Studies show that historic districts maintain higher property
    valuesand a greater sense of community. Our mission is to make historic
    preservation a more widely recognized national policy. We do this
    through energized and engaged grassroots advocacy that connects to all
    levels of government.
        As urban renewal swept across our country, unnecessarily destroying
    historic structures, Preservation Action was at the forefront of
    America's preservation movement working to protect historic places. For
    40 years, Preservation Action has advocated for historic preservation
    policy including two of the most important tools--the Federal
    Rehabilitation Tax Credit and the Historic Preservation Fund.
        Our Nation's cultural resources and natural resources are
    important. And, as we look to the 50th anniversary of the Historic
    Preservation Act and the National Park Centennial, it is a critical
    time to support investments in our Nation's rich heritage so that it
    remains for generations to come.
        The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provided the
    direction and tools to protect our historic resources. ``The spirit and
    direction of the Nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic
    heritage; the historical and cultural foundation of the Nation should
    be preserve as a living part of our community life and development in
    order to give a sense of orientation to the American people . . . the
    preservation of the irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so
    that its vital legacy of cultural, economic, aesthetic, inspirations,
    economic, and energy benefits will be maintained and enriched for
    future generations of Americans.''
        The members of Preservation Action believe in that vision provided
    by Congress nearly 50 years ago. And, we encourage Congress to provide
    funding for historic preservation to fully realize the importance of
    our natural and cultural assets and provide the funding and leadership
    to realize the full vision of the Historic Preservation Act.
                         historic preservation programs
        The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) is the principal source of
    funding to implement the Nation's historic preservation programs.
    Preservation Action supports funding for State and Tribal Historic
    Preservation Offices in the Interior Department fiscal year 2015 budget
    at the following levels:
      --$50 million for State Historic Preservation Offices;
      --$15 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices;
      --$6 million for survey, inventory and digitization of records;
      --$5 million for a competitive grant program for underrepresented
            populations; and
      --$10 million for rehabilitation of historic properties competitive
            grant program.
        The NPS distributes HPF funding to State Historic Preservation
    Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs).
    States also match HPF dollars at a 40 percent minimum.
        SHPOs and THPOs administer much of the HPF program on behalf of the
    Department of Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic
    Preservation. SHPOs locate and record historic resources; nominate to
    the National Register of Historic Places; provide funds for
    preservation activities; comment on Federal rehabilitation tax credit
    projects; review all Federal projects for historic preservation impact;
    and provide technical assistance to Federal agencies, State and local
    governments and the private sector. THPOs carry out many of those
    functions on their tribal lands. THPOs are key in implementing tribal
    and Federal preservation laws on tribal lands, including federally-
    mandated archaeological clearances and evaluation and management of
    tribal historic properties.
        The Certified Local Government (CLG) Program is another way the NPS
    and SHPOs support preservation in communities. Local, State, and
    Federal governments work together in the Federal Preservation Program
    to help communities save their irreplaceable historic character. SHPOs
    award at least 10 percent of their HPF allocation to CLG's. The grants
    fund a variety of projects including: surveys, National Register
    nominations, rehabilitation work, design guidelines, educational
    programs, training, structural assessments, and feasibility studies.
    CLGs receive technical assistance and training through the partnership.
                      preservation in economic development
        The Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC), administered by SHPOs
    and the NPS, is the most significant Federal investment in historic
    preservation. Since its creation more than 30 years ago, the HTC has
    been a catalyst for development with the rehabilitation of nearly
    39,000 buildings throughout the Nation. And, the HTC has created 2.4
    million jobs and leveraged nearly $109 billion in private investment.
    From the Mill No. 1 project in Baltimore, Maryland, Elm Terrace in
    Portland, Maine, to the Boyle Hotel redevelopment in east Los Angeles,
    historic preservation is helping communities rebound and recapture
    their economic vitality as well as provide creative uses for old
    buildings and stimulate job growth.
        Because of the success of the program, Preservation Action and its
    national members urge Congress to realize the benefits of this program
    to economic development and to ensure its continuance.
            preserving america's rich and diverse cultural heritage
        In addition to our support for SHPO and THPO operating funding,
    Preservation Action fully endorses the Interior Department's program
    for competitive grants for the survey, outreach and pre-nomination
    activities of properties in underrepresented communities to the
    National Register of Historic Places and the National Historic
    Landmarks Program. It is important for our historic record to reflect
    the full spectrum of America's heritage--and this program would correct
    the underrepresentation. Studies report that fewer than 5 percent of
    listings in the National Register of Historic Places and National
    Historic Landmarks identify culturally diverse properties. While the
    current funding level of $500,000 is a step in addressing this
    underrepresentation, it does not go far enough to tell the rich story
    of America's diverse heritage. Therefore, we ask the subcommittee to
    consider increasing the amount to $5 million.
        We also support an additional $10 million to the HPF for a
    competitive grant program to support State and local level
    rehabilitation projects. Rehabilitation of historic structures has
    proven a success in driving neighborhood pride and redevelopment.
                       digitization of america's heritage
        Preservation Action believes that providing the public with access
    to accurate information on our historic resources is important to
    maintaining the record of America's heritage. Having easy access to
    digital records will help expedite Federal permitting, project review,
    and improve accessibility. Therefore, Preservation Action also supports
    the administration's request for $6 million for legacy data
    digitization.
                            national heritage areas
        The National Heritage Areas (NHAs) are community driven heritage
    conservation placeswhere natural, cultural and historic resources
    combine to form a cohesive, nationally important stories of America's
    diverse heritage. Currently, there are 49 National Heritage Areas
    designated by Congress. The Federal support for NHAs has been
    instrumental in spurring the grassroots efforts that reflect the unique
    resources, significance and values of each community. On average, for
    every dollar of Federal investment, NHAs bring $5.50 in public and
    private investment.
        NHA programs have demonstrated their ability to both support
    economic benefits in their communities through tourism dollars and tell
    underrepresented stories across the Nation. Preservation Action is
    concerned that the reduction of Federal funding proposed in the fiscal
    year 2015 budget for the heritage areas program impairs the
    sustainability of the program. Funding of $18 million--the amount
    appropriated in fiscal year 2014--is the minimum needed to continue the
    cost effective impacts of the NHA program.
                                   conclusion
        Preservation Action has been a proud partner with a cross-section
    of Federal agencies and the NPS in protecting America's cultural and
    natural resources and in engaging the public in maintaining these
    valuable assets. We value the work of the employees across the NPS who
    protect our cultural and natural resources, engage communities,
    businesses and governments in heritage sites, education, and tourism,
    and the many offices that work in collaboration of historic
    preservation efforts and communications. Importantly, as we review
    Federal historic preservation policies and their impacts in
    communities, we value the partnership of the Advisory Council on
    Historic Preservation as well as the instrumental work SHPOs and THPOs
    conduct in preserving America's cultural heritage.
        Thank you for including the voices of the preservation community as
    you consider the Department of Interior's fiscal year 2015 budget.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM)
                                                         April 4, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
    support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
    consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
    subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                                   Chris Olson,
                                        Vice President, PNM Generation.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of Restore America's Estuaries
        Restore America's Estuaries (RAE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
    organization that has been working since 1995 to restore our Nation's
    greatest estuaries. Our mission is to restore and protect estuaries as
    essential resources for the Nation. Restore America's Estuaries is a
    national alliance of community-based coastal conservation organizations
    across the Nation that protect and restore coastal and estuarine
    habitat. Our member organizations include: American Littoral Society,
    Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Save
    the Sound--a program of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment,
    Conservation Law Foundation, Galveston Bay Foundation, North Carolina
    Coastal Federation, EarthCorps, Save The Bay--San Francisco, Save the
    Bay--Narragansett Bay, and Tampa Bay Watch. Collectively, we have over
    250,000 members nationwide.
        As you craft your fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and
    Related Agencies appropriations bill, Restore America's Estuaries
    encourages you to provide the funding levels below within the
    Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and
    the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for core programs
    which greatly support coastal community economies:
      --$15 million for USFWS Coastal Program.--Interior: USFWS: Resource
            Management: Habitat Conservation: Coastal Program
      --$27.2 million for USEPA National Estuary Program.--USEPA: Water:
            Ecosystems: National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways
        These non-regulatory investments strengthen and revitalize
    America's coastal communities by improving habitat and local water
    quality. Healthy coastlines protect communities from flood damage and
    extreme weather, improve commercial fisheries, protect vital
    infrastructure, and support tourism and recreational opportunities.
                             usfws coastal program
        The Coastal Program (CP) is a voluntary, incentive-based program
    that provides technical and financial assistance to coastal communities
    and landowners to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat on
    public and private lands in 24 priority coastal ecosystems, including
    the Great Lakes. The Coastal Program works with other Federal, State,
    local, and non-governmental partners and private landowners to deliver
    strategic habitat protection and restoration for the benefit of Federal
    trust species, including threatened and endangered species, migratory
    birds, inter-jurisdictional fish, certain marine mammals, and species
    of international concern.
        Since 1985, the Coastal Program has:
      --Partnered with more than 5,000 Federal, tribal, State and local
            agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, and
            private landowners.
      --Restored 300,616 acres of wetland; 135,033 acres of upland; and
            2,160 miles of stream habitat.
      --Protected more than 2 million acres of coastal habitat.
      --Provided technical assistance to a diverse range of conservation
            partners.
        Support for the management and stewardship of our coastal
    ecosystems that bridge land and sea has never been more important due
    to the accelerating pace of environmental change now occurring. While
    environmental degradation of estuaries has continued in recent years,
    the Coastal Program has been a key program aimed at on-the-ground
    habitat restoration. Despite the program's relatively small cost, it is
    having a huge impact on-the-ground. A recent estimate by USFWS Coastal
    Program staff shows that the program leverages $8 non-Federal dollars
    for every Federal dollar spent. This makes the Coastal Program one of
    the most cost-effective habitat restoration programs within the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Restore America's Estuaries has enjoyed a collaborative
    relationship with the Coastal Program for many years. The nature and
    scope of our partnership spans the national and local levels as we work
    with CP headquarters on long-term issues, and locally the program works
    with our member groups through regional CP staff to conduct on-the-
    ground habitat restoration.
        As an example of a true partnership, the Coastal Program worked
    with RAE member Save The Bay--San Francisco as well as the San
    Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge to restore salt marsh on Bair
    Island. This project is helping to provide critical habitat for a
    variety of species, including the endangered California clapper rail
    and the salt marsh harvest mouse, and a number of birds that traverse
    the area on their journey across the Pacific.
        On the East Coast, the Coastal Program assisted RAE member
    Chesapeake Bay Foundation to choose and prepare a site to plant redhead
    grass near the Magothy River in Maryland. This is a good example of the
    invaluable technical assistance that the Coastal Program is able to
    provide to a non-governmental organization, which can then better
    restore habitat for numerous migratory bird and inter-jurisdictional
    fish species.
        In the Gulf, the Coastal Program worked side-by-side with RAE
    member Galveston Bay Foundation to construct geotextile tube offshore
    breakwaters on Snake Island Cove. This effort has led to the protection
    of 200 acres of estuarine marsh from erosion and the creation of a 65-
    acre calm shallow water area conducive to seagrass restoration.
        The Coastal Program is also essential in efforts to restore fish
    passage of anadromous fish populations and restore riverine habitat.
    RAE member Conservation Law Foundation worked with the Coastal Program
    and other regional partners to support the removal of dams along the
    Penobscot River, as well as install fishways to restore native Atlantic
    salmon.
        Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support and
    funding for the USFWS Coastal Program. This program delivers habitat
    protection and restoration in priority coastal areas on both public and
    private lands through partnerships with other Service programs, Federal
    agencies, State and local agencies, tribal governments and native
    corporations, non-governmental organizations, universities,
    corporations, and private landowners.
        The Coastal Program stimulates local economies by supporting jobs
    necessary to deliver habitat conservation projects including
    environmental consultants, engineers, construction workers, surveyors,
    assessors, and nursery and landscape workers. These jobs also generate
    indirect economic activities that benefit local hotels, restaurants,
    stores, and gas stations. The Program estimates that the average
    project supports 60 jobs and stimulates 40 businesses--this represents
    major local economic returns on the Federal investment.
        Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support of the
    Coastal Program and asks that you provide $15 million for fiscal year
    2015.
                         usepa national estuary program
        The National Estuary Program (NEP) is a non-regulatory network of
    voluntary community-based programs that safeguards the health of
    important coastal ecosystems across the country. The program utilizes a
    consensus building process to identify goals, objectives, and actions
    that reflect local environmental and economic priorities.
        Currently there are 28 estuaries located along the Atlantic, Gulf,
    and Pacific coasts and in Puerto Rico that have been designated as
    estuaries of national significance. Each NEP focuses its work within a
    particular place or boundary, called a study area, which includes the
    estuary and surrounding watershed.
        Each National Estuary Program demonstrates real environmental
    results through on-the-ground habitat restoration and protection. Their
    efforts reflect local environmental and economic priorities and involve
    the community as equal partners throughout the decisionmaking process.
    Collectively, NEPs have restored and protected more than 1.5 million
    acres of land since 2000.
        Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support of the
    National Estuary Program and ask that you provide $27.2 million for
    USEPA National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways. Within this amount
    for fiscal year 2015, no less than $600,000 should be directed to each
    of the 28 NEPs in the field.
                                   conclusion
        Restore America's Estuaries greatly appreciates the support this
    subcommittee has provided in the past for these important programs.
    These programs help to accomplish on-the-ground restoration work which
    results in major benefits:
      --Economic Growth and Jobs.--Coastal habitat restoration creates
            between 17 and 33 direct jobs for each million dollars invested
            depending on the type of restoration. That is more than twice
            as many jobs as the oil and gas sector and road construction
            industries combined. The restored area supports increased
            tourism and valuable ecosystem services.
      --Huge Leverage.--From 2005 to 2012, Federal investment in the USFWS
            Coastal Program leveraged non-Federal dollars at a ratio of 8
            to 1. The NEPs leveraged non-Federal dollars at a ratio of 15
            to 1. In a time of shrinking resources, these are rates of
            return we cannot afford to ignore.
      --Resiliency.--Restoring coastal wetlands can help knock down storm
            waves and reduce devastating storm surges before they reach the
            people and property along the shore.
        Thank you and we greatly appreciate you taking our requests into
    consideration as you move forward in the fiscal year 2015
    appropriations process. We stand ready to work with you and your staff
    to ensure the health of our Nation's estuaries and coasts.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Sac and Fox Nation
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal year 2015
    Interior, Environment and Related agencies appropriations.
    Congratulations to Chairman Calvert as the new Chairman and to
    Congressman David Valadao, the newest member on this subcommittee. I am
    George L. Thurman, Principal Chief of the Great Sac and Fox Nation,
    home of Jim Thorpe, one of the most versatile athletes of modern sports
    who earned Olympic gold medals for the 1912 pentathlon and decathlon.
    On behalf of the Sac and Fox Nation thank you for the opportunity to
    present our requests for the fiscal year 2015 budgets for the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS).
        A fundamental goal for Indian Country governmental services is
    parity with similarly situated governments or services. Although tribes
    have made some progress in addressing terribly inadequate public
    services that many Americans routinely take for granted, they are still
    experiencing what the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights called ``A Quiet
    Crisis'' of unmet Federal funding needs. Full funding of Contract
    Supports Costs (CSC) is a step in the right direction for tribes to be
    paid the costs of performing services under contract with the Federal
    Government enjoyed by non-tribal Federal contractors. It is not fair
    that the Federal Government's legal obligation to pay CSC requires
    reducing tribal funds to meet the Federal trust obligation to tribal
    nations.
        In fiscal year 2013 tribal programs incurred cuts totaling over
    $500 million under the sequestration. We were not able to recover the
    sequestered funding under the Murray/Ryan budget deal and the BIA and
    IHS Spending Plans further disappointed our expectations for budget
    equity during these fiscally strained times. We strongly urge Congress
    to fully restore sequestration cuts from fiscal year 2013 and exempt
    tribal funds from future sequestration. It threatens the trust
    responsibility and reduces portions of the budget that are not major
    contributors to the deficit.
                           i. tribal specific request
        $4.95 Million to Fully Fund Operations of the Sac and Fox Nation
    Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC)--Bureau of Indian Affairs--Public
    Safety and Justice--Office of Justice Services--Detention/Corrections
    Account.
                ii. national requests--bureau of indian affairs
        1.  Public Safety and Justice--Law and Order--Detention/
    Corrections:
               a.  Increase the 2015 Request ($192.9 million) by $4.95
            million for Detention/Corrections to fund the SFNJDC.
               b.  Fully fund all provisions of the Tribal Law and Order
            Act of 2010.
        2.  Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($119 million) to Tribal Program
    Funding.
        3.  +$19.3 million over fiscal year 2014 for Tribal Priority
    Allocations Account.
        4.  $4 million over fiscal year 2015 request to fully fund Contract
    Support Costs (CSC).
        5.  $500,000 for Johnson O'Malley education assistance grants to
    support a new student count in 2015 and provides funding for the
    projected increase in the number of students eligible for grants.
        6.  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.
                 iii. national requests--indian health service
        1.  Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($220 Million) to Tribal Health
    Services.
        2.  Support IHS Mandatory Funding (maintain current services).
        3.  +$30 million over fiscal year 2015 request to fully fund
    Contract Support Costs (CSC).
        4.  +$50 million over 2015 request for Purchased and Referred Care.
        5.  Restore $6 million to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance
    (OTSG) to fulfill legal requirements under title V of Public Law 106-
    260 which increased the responsibilities of OTSG.
     the sac and fox nation juvenile detention center (sfnjdc)--bureau of
    indian affairs--public safety and justice--office of justice services--
                         detention/corrections account
        In 1996, the Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC)
    opened its doors as the first regional juvenile facility specifically
    designed for American Indians/Alaska Natives, as well as the first
    juvenile facility developed under Public Law 100-472, the Self-
    Governance Demonstration Project Act.
        At that time, the Bureau of Indian Affairs made a commitment to
    fully fund the SFNJDC operations; however this commitment was never
    fulfilled. Even though the Nation continues to receive and use Federal
    dollars to address the issue of juvenile delinquency and detention for
    tribes in the Southern Plains Region and Eastern Oklahoma Region, it
    has never received sufficient funds to operate the facility at its
    fullest potential. Full funding to the facility by the Bureau would
    relieve financial burdens on area tribes to pay for detention services
    elsewhere and keep tribal youths close to home.
        Full funding would allow the Nation to provide full operations
    including (but not limited to):
      --Juvenile detention services to the 46 tribes in Oklahoma, Kansas
            and Texas;
      --Rescue more of our at-risk youth and unserved youth in need of a
            facility like the SFNJDC;
      --Re-establish programs we have lost due to inadequate funding such
            as: On-site Mental Health Counseling; Transitional Living,
            Vocational Training, Horticulture, Life Skills, Arts and
            Crafts, Cultural Education and Activities, Spiritual Growth and
            Learning;
      --Offer job opportunities in an area that is economically depressed;
            and
      --Fully staff and expand staff training to address high volume of
            staff turnover which will allow for continuity in operations
            and service delivery.
        Most recently at the fiscal year 2016 Regional Budget Formulation
    Session, these tribes continue to support and endorse full funding for
    operation of the SFNJDC and included it as a priority in their ``Top 10
    Budget Increases'' for the fiscal year 2016 BIA budget.
        The current funding level represents only approximately 10 percent
    of what is needed to fully fund the Juvenile Detention Center.
    Additional funding in the amount of $4,950,000, over what Sac and Fox
    already receives in base funding ($508,000), would fully fund the
    facility at a level to address the need of juvenile delinquency in the
    tri-State area and create opportunities for employment for more tribal
    members.
        The SFNJDC is a 50,000+ square foot, full service, 24 hour, 60 bed
    (expandable to 120 beds) juvenile detention facility that provides
    basic detention services to all residents utilizing a classification
    system based on behavioral needs to include special management, medium
    and minimal security. Our facility was designed to provide programs
    including behavioral management, alcohol and substance abuse, spiritual
    and cultural growth and learning, self-esteem, arts and crafts, health
    and fitness, horticulture, nutrition, life skills, vocational technical
    training, counseling, educational programs and a Transitional Living
    Center.
        Through a partnership with the local high school, students are
    afforded an education at the public school level, including a
    graduation ceremony and issuance of a certificate upon successfully
    achieving the State requirements. Additionally, the Sac and Fox Nation
    has an on-site justice center providing law enforcement and tribal
    court services and the Nation also operates an on-site health clinic
    which provides outstanding medical services that include contract
    service capabilities for optometry, dental and other health-related
    services.
        The lack of adequate funding from the BIA and decreases in base
    funding have mushroomed into underutilization and erosion of the
    programs our facility was built to offer. Our current funding levels
    only allow us to provide an alcohol and substance abuse program, some
    health and fitness activities and a basic education program. We have
    lost our programs for vocational training, horticulture, life skills,
    arts and crafts, on-site counseling and transitional living. The
    passage of the 2010 Tribal Law and Order Act was applauded by the Sac
    and Fox Nation because we saw this as an opportunity for the Federal
    Government to finally step up to its pledge to fully-fund the SFNJDC
    and honor its treaty and trust obligations to our people. However, the
    lack of funding is also impeding the implementation of TLOA!
        In 1996, the SFNJDC was built as a model facility in Indian
    Country. And nearly 20 years later there is still a need for such a
    facility to help our youth return to their traditional healing and
    spiritual ways. As a Self-Governance Tribe we operate our tribal
    government on the premise that we are the best provider of the services
    and know which services are most needed in our communities. We saw the
    increasing need in the 1990's for a facility like the SFNJDC and we
    acted on our instincts to help our youth by giving them a place to turn
    their lives around and the access to programs, services and holistic
    care they needed to recover and heal. Sadly, the number of Native
    American youth, and juveniles overall requiring detention has not
    decreased. The Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center was built
    with the same ideals that the Tribal Law and Order Act Long Term Plan
    to Build and Enhance Tribal Justice Systems espouses today. The SFNJDC
    has the facility, staffing, ability, commitment and capacity to provide
    superior detention and rehabilitation services to Native American
    youth, as well as any youth in the tri-State area in need of our
    services. We do not understand the Federal Government's desire to fund
    the construction of more detention facilities while our beds remain
    empty.
        With access to full funding for operations, the SFNJDC will have
    the stability to fulfill the mission the tribal leaders envisioned to
    help our youth once again find their way and recover from the ills that
    resulted in them coming to the Facility. With adequate funding we
    believe it is possible to thrive and benefit the lives of juveniles who
    enter our Center and are desperately in need of our help to develop and
    assist them to have a more healthy and productive future.
        Thank you for allowing me to submit these requests on the fiscal
    year 2015 budgets.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the San Juan Water Commission
                                                         April 1, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
    support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
    consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
    subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                          L. Randy Kirkpatrick,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Seattle Indian Health Board
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee, my name is Ralph Forquera.
    I am the Executive Director for the Seattle Indian Health Board in
    Seattle, Washington. I also direct our Urban Indian Health Institute. I
    am an enrolled member of the Juaneno Band of California Mission
    Indians, a State-recognized Indian tribe. My tribe was one of 43 tribes
    and bands of California Indians terminated in 1958 through the
    California Rancheria Termination Act (Public Law 85-671).
        The Indian Health Service has requested an inflationary increase
    for urban Indian health of $646,000. This figure represents a 1.58
    percent increase over the fiscal year 2014 enacted appropriation, far
    below medical inflation in the Nation. I ask the subcommittee to
    consider an increase of at least $5 million to address the growing
    urban Indian population needs.
        Urban American Indians now represent more than 7 out of 10
    Americans self-identifying as having heritage in an American Indian or
    Alaska Native tribe, according to the 2010 United States Census. The
    permanent reauthorization of the 1976 Indian Health Care Improvement
    Act in the Affordable Care Act, claims, in its declaration of policy,
    an obligation to aid urban Indians. Subtitle IV of the Act (Previously
    title V) spells out a discrete authority to assist local, non-profit,
    Indian-governed organizations in enhancing access and assuring health
    improvements to meet the national goal of health parity for Indian
    people.
        The movement of Indian people to American cities has been steady
    since first documented with the 1970 census. Analysis using the
    American Community Survey for the period 2006-2009 finds that more than
    1 in 4 urban Indians have incomes at or below 200 percent of the
    Federal poverty level. This description likely undercounts the number
    of urban Indians in poverty, since the collection method for this
    national survey does not reach a sizeable portion of the urban Indian
    population, particularly those living in unstable households that are a
    common problem among poorer urban Indians. There is currently no
    specific assessment of urban American Indians and Alaska Natives. Our
    understanding is derived from Federal and State regularly scheduled
    data collection strategies and agency reporting standards that often do
    not specify Indian identity in their collection processes to document
    conditions and outcomes among the general population.
        The Indian Health Service itself has not focused attention on a
    reporting mechanism explicit for addressing urban specific health
    concerns. Instead, the IHS has tried to include our work in their
    tribally-based reporting standards that, in my view, misrepresent the
    health disparities among urban Indians. This lack of information that
    could paint a more accurate portrayal of the health and social
    conditions that influence the health status of urban Indians leads to
    inappropriate and misguided policies that disrupt our ability to
    effectively serve our communities.
        But regardless of the limitations of the data sources, evidence
    grows that health disparities are extensive for urban Indians and that
    factors that contribute to poor health generally affect urban Indians
    across the Nation. For example, evidence of low academic achievement,
    high unemployment, high rates of mobility among the population, and a
    general over-representation in social metrics known to contribute to
    poor health are consistently found upon analysis. The fact that this
    evidence can be identified in work not explicit to urban Indians
    reinforces the fact that these social factors are crucial in
    perpetuating health disparities among urban Indians.
        In the past several years, a growing awareness of how social
    factors influence health has drawn attention from policy makers,
    elected officials, and the general public. Key factors like low
    educational attainment and substandard or inadequate housing,
    particularly in cities indicate that urban Indians are often listed as
    living with conditions that adversely influence health. This reality
    places urban Indians at greater risk for health problems and early and
    unnecessary death and disability.
        The Affordable Care Act calls for data to identify and track
    changes in the health status of groups like urban Indians. But to
    collect and analyze this information, funding is needed to build the
    infrastructure and support the personnel needed to gather data and
    perform the necessary analysis. Our Institute has discussed building
    this capacity with Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) and
    other Federal agencies but funding has not been forthcoming. Therefore,
    as noted, we do our best to find ways to use national and State data
    collection strategies and apply scientifically-sound methodologies to
    understand health conditions for urban Indians. While these methods are
    limiting, the preponderance of findings reinforce the disparities we
    see daily at my organization.
        The question is frequently asked whether Indians living in cities
    retain eligibility for Indian health benefits. Legal analysis shows
    that Indians leaving reservations do not lose the right to the benefits
    and protections granted Indians by the Congress, but that the extent of
    these Indian-specific programs and services is subject to the level of
    funding devoted to them by the Congress. Over the decades, in spite of
    the dramatic shift in the Indian and Native population's living
    arrangements, resources to help urban Indians have fallen farther and
    farther behind.
        There are some who have argued that only enrolled members of
    federally-recognized Indian tribes and those living on Indian
    reservations are eligible for Federal assistance. Currently, this
    policy is being applied to the Affordable Care Act as it affects the
    marketplace aspect of reform. This claim misinterprets the nature of
    the Indian trust relationship.
        Back in 2005, I prepared a paper I would be happy to share with the
    subcommittee illustrating the historical and legislative history of aid
    for urban Indians in response to a question from the Senate Committee
    on Indian Affairs. This response became the foundation for the Congress
    to increase urban Indian health funding by $7 million in 2008. However,
    other problems subsequent have since disrupted this appreciation for
    the need for greater financial aid for urban Indians and the current
    funding allocated for urban Indian health now represents only 0.92
    percent of the overall Indian Health Service budget.
        When the line item for urban Indian health was first established in
    1979, about 1.48 percent of that year's IHS appropriation was directed
    for urban Indians. Over the decades, the percentage devoted for urban
    Indians has fluctuated around the 1 percent threshold until 2009, when
    the allocation dropped below 1 percent.
        A further review of the IHS budget process finds that the agency
    has seldom requested additional funds for urban Indians. At best, the
    agency has sought inflationary increases that are generally far less
    than healthcare inflation has run over the decades including for fiscal
    year 2015. As each year passes, the inability to meet just the
    inflationary challenges has forced reductions in services. Since the
    agency responsible for advocating for the health of Indian people fails
    to request funding to aid urban Indians, it should not be a surprise
    that the agency is not actively seeking solutions and support for our
    work.
        As an example, the recent reauthorization of the Indian Health Care
    Improvement Act requires that the IHS create a conferring policy
    similar to the tribal consultation policy to assure that the guidance
    of the urban contractors is given when considering policy or
    programmatic change. It is now more than 4 years after the law was
    enacted and a conferring policy has not been approved, leaving those of
    us who operate Urban Indian Health Organizations without a formal means
    of communicating our ideas or sharing our concerns with the Indian
    Health Service. In larger tribal consultation sessions, we are mostly
    overshadowed by the tribal leadership present. Essentially, the voices
    of the majority of Indian people are not reflected in Indian policy
    today.
        It should also be noted that the urban Indian health program
    defined in subtitle IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is a
    discrete authority intended to improve access to healthcare for Indians
    living in cities. This role was expanded in 1987 as increased evidence
    arose that the acceptability of healthcare service was critically
    important to many urban Indians that carry the ill effects of past
    failed Federal actions toward Indians as a core belief. Given the
    continuing lack of attention toward urban Indians, this reality is
    still an important characteristic of the work we do on their behalf.
        Few today remember the forced sterilization of Indian women during
    the 1970s or the sense of abandonment that accompanied the termination
    of tribes in the 1950s. Many today experience denial of help from IHS
    and tribal facilities that only treat members of federally recognized
    tribes. Others feel thwarted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs that does
    not recognize displaced Indians. My tribe, for example, has had its
    petition for re-acknowledgment rejected on several occasions by the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs, leaving members without benefits and
    protections granted those that have been restored to Federal
    recognition in the past several decades. These continuing actions
    reflect the reality that urban Indians are not seen as equals to those
    who were fortunate not to experience termination or who continue to
    reside on reservation lands. This treatment helps to foster the sense
    of second-class citizenry for urban Indians within Indian Country. Some
    tribes under self-governance compacts have recognized the
    discriminatory nature of these actions and, when financially feasible,
    offer some help.
        It should also be noted that the lack of attention to the health
    and welfare of urban Indians is best illustrated by both the lack of
    funding, but also a lack of recognition and understanding of this
    portion of Indian Country. Little effort has been made by the Indian
    Health Service or others to describe the health status of urban Indians
    or to find ways to aid those urban communities with sizable Indian
    populations but lacking an urban Indian health organization. In fact,
    there are fewer urban Indian health organizations today than there were
    in the mid-1980s.
        When the Indian Health Care Improvement Act was passed in 1976, the
    House Report accompanying the passage of the bill made the bold claim
    that ``The most basic human rights must be the right to enjoy decent
    health. Certainly, any effort to fulfill Federal responsibilities to
    the Indian people must begin with the provision of health services. In
    fact, health services must be the cornerstone upon which rest all other
    Federal programs for the benefit of Indians. Without a proper health
    status, the Indian people will be unable to fully avail themselves of
    the many economic, educational, and social programs already directed to
    them or which this Congress and future Congresses will provide them.''
    H.R. Report No. 94-1026, pt. I at 13 (1976) as reprinted in 1976
    U.S.C.C.A.N. 2652, 2653. It is clear that this proclamation has not
    been fulfilled for urban Indians.
        The inequity in funding for urban Indian health is an artifact of
    history. The reality of funding inadequacy reinforces the
    administrative policy of limiting both the work and the scarce
    resources to the more limited aspect of Indian Country--members of
    federally recognized tribes and those living on or near Indian
    reservations. However, Congress has the authority to allocate
    additional funds to assist urban Indians if they so choose.
        As mentioned earlier, another hat I wear is as the Director for the
    Urban Indian Health Institute. I founded the Institute in July of 2000
    to find ways to document and study health disparities among urban
    Indians to help build a case for needed resources. In 2004, the
    Institute published the first large scale national report, illustrating
    the severity of health problems faced by urban Indians. These findings
    were reinforced when an independent Urban Indian Health Commission
    funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, made similar claims in
    its 2007 report. (find reports at www.uihi.org). Additional reports and
    studies including several published in peer-reviewed professional
    journals verify the disparity in health experienced by urban Indians,
    but these findings have not successfully translated to the provision of
    the essential resources needed.
        We recognize and respect the fact that Indians living on
    reservations who are enrolled in a federally-recognized Indian tribe
    have needs deserving of congressional support. But just caring for
    reservation Indians is insufficient in addressing the broad trust
    obligation that the Nation bears towards its indigenous citizens,
    especially since more than 7 out of 10 Indian and Native people now
    live in cities.
        After spending more than three decades working to improve the
    health of urban Indians, I recognize that we face daunting challenges.
    Expectations that the Affordable Care Act will improve conditions for
    urban Indians fail to take into account the historic maltreatment and
    broken promises experienced by Indian people that large scale programs
    like the ACA will not correct. In this regard, it is my hope that this
    subcommittee will recognize and renew its commitment to assure that all
    Indian people, regardless of their place of residence or their standing
    as being federally-recognized, achieve the House's proclamation of the
    importance of good health in Indian affairs.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Shoalwater Bay Tribe
                                    summary
        The Shoalwater Bay Tribe is located on Willapa Bay in southwestern
    Washington. Our tribe was formed in 1866 incorporating members of Lower
    Chehalis, Shoalwater Bay and Chinookan people. As a small but strong
    tribe, we strive to keep our language, culture and economic health
    active and viable. While very connected to our past, Shoalwater Bay
    tribal members work to expand our influence and increase awareness of
    our tribal culture while improving our health and way of life. We
    request that the subcommittee provide the following items in the fiscal
    year 2015 appropriations cycle.
      --Make full Contract Support Costs funding mandatory spending.
      --Reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program for Indians.
      --Fund the IHS budget with advanced appropriations.
                  mandatory funding for contract support costs
        We are pleased that the administration has sought to fully fund
    contract support costs (CSC) under the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) in fiscal year 2015, and we urge
    Congress to support that goal. We also acknowledge that the
    administration's request is a direct response to Congress' actions with
    regard to fiscal year 2014 appropriations, which removed historical
    caps on CSC funding and rejected the administration's proposal--put
    forward without consultation and vehemently opposed by tribes--to
    individually cap contract support cost recovery at the contractor
    level. Contract support costs fund vital administrative functions that
    allow us to operate programs that provide critical services to our
    members. If contract support costs are not fully funded, however, our
    programs and services are directly impacted because we are forced to
    divert limited program funding to cover fixed overhead expenses
    instead. We therefore appreciate Congress' support in fiscal year 2014
    and hope that it carries through to fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
        However, the CSC funding problem is not yet solved. Full funding
    for CSC must not come with a penalty--namely, a reduction in program
    funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds.
    That result would have the same devastating effect on our service
    delivery as the failure to fully fund CSC. Yet Congress, in the Joint
    Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act, noted that ``since [contract support costs] fall
    under discretionary spending, they have the potential to impact all
    other programs funded under the Interior and Environment Appropriations
    bill, including other equally important tribal programs.'' Moreover,
    without any permanent measure to ensure full funding, payment of CSC
    remains subject to agency ``discretion'' from year to year, even though
    tribes are legally entitled to payment under the ISDEAA. Noting these
    ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to consult
    with tribes on a permanent solution.
        In our view, there is a logical permanent solution which Congress
    is empowered to implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory
    entitlement. The Congressional Budget Office defines ``Entitlement'' as
    ``A legal obligation of the Federal Government to make payments to a
    person, group of people, business, unit of government, or similar
    entity that meets the eligibility criteria set in law and for which the
    budget authority is not provided in advance in an appropriation act.''
    Further, ``Spending for entitlement programs is controlled through
    those programs' eligibility criteria and benefit or payment rules.''
    \1\ CSC meets every part of this definition except that the budget
    authority is currently provided and controlled through appropriation
    acts--as if CSC were a discretionary program. Under the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act, the full payment of CSC is
    not discretionary, but is a legal obligation of the United States.
    Indeed, the underlying purpose of the ISDEAA--to end Federal domination
    of Indian programs and allow for meaningful control by Indian tribes
    over their own destinies in the face of Federal bureaucratic
    resistance--will always be threatened so long as the mechanisms that
    allow the statute to function are considered ``discretionary.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Congressional Budget Office Glossary, available at http://
    www.cbo.gov/publication/42904 (updated January 2012).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        From an appropriations standpoint, the fiscal year 2014 Joint
    Explanatory Statement recognized that the current fundamental mismatch
    between the mandatory nature of CSC and the current appropriation
    approach leaves both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
    in the ``untenable position of appropriating discretionary funds for
    the payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.'' As the
    Joint Explanatory Statement also noted, ``Typically obligations of this
    nature are addressed through mandatory spending.'' The obvious solution
    then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the statutory
    requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory
    entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge
    the Congress to move to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory
    basis.
                    reauthorize the special diabetes program
        While the entitlement funding for the Special Diabetes Program for
    Indians (SDPI) is not part of the IHS appropriations process, those
    funds are administered through the IHS. With the recent enactment
    (Public Law 113-93) of a 1 year extension of the SDPI as part of the
    Medicare ``doc fix'' bill, it is funded through fiscal year 2015 at
    $150 million, minus a 2 percent reduction ($3 million) due to the
    sequestration of non-exempt mandatory programs (Public Law 112-240).
    This funding level has not increased since 2004. The SDPI has proven
    highly effective in Indian Country, and has produced excellent results.
    For example, in the 4 years preceding the last report on the SDPI in
    2011, the average blood sugar level dropped nearly a percentage point
    overall, corresponding to a 40 percent decline in the risk of eye,
    kidney, and nerve complications due to diabetes. We ask that you
    support ongoing efforts to reauthorize this program for a 5-year period
    at increased funding levels.
                  fund the ihs through advanced appropriations
        An important goal for Shoalwater Bay--and for all of Indian
    Country--is the reliable, advance appropriation of the IHS budget 1
    year in advance. The goal is for the IHS and tribal healthcare
    providers to have adequate advance notice of the amount of Federal
    appropriations to expect and thus not be subjected to the uncertainties
    of late funding and short-term Continuing Resolutions. Under advance
    appropriations funding is provided in the initial year for 2 years and
    thereafter for 1 year, but it is a year in advance. Because the funding
    does not count against the subcommittee's funding cap or the Budget
    Resolution score until the year in which it is to be obligated, that
    initial second year of funding does not have a negative effect on the
    subcommittee or Budget Resolution. Congress provides advance
    appropriations for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and
    the request is for parity in the appropriations schedule for the IHS.
    Bilsl that would authorize IHS advance appropriations have been
    introduced--H.R. 3229 by Representative Don Young and S. 1570 by
    Senators Murkowski and Begich. We request that you support the effort
    to authorize and to appropriate funding for Indian Health Service
    advance appropriations.
        Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and requests. We
    are happy to respond to questions or provide any additional information
    you may request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA)
    Request:
      --$46.925 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs).
      --$8.985 million for the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices
            (THPOs).
      --$500,000 for grants for survey and National Register/National
            Landmark nominations for underrepresented populations.
        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 Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic
    Preservation opted to partner with the States and use SHPOs and THPOs
    to, among other tasks, review all Federal projects for their impact on
    historic properties. 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, Chairman Reed, 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 the Society of American Foresters
        The Society of American Foresters (SAF), with more than 12,000
    professionals working across all segments of the forestry profession,
    promotes science-based, sustainable management and stewardship of the
    Nation's public and private forests. SAF appreciates this opportunity
    to submit written public testimony on fiscal year 2015 appropriations
    because proper funding for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the
    Department of Interior (DOI) is vital to conserving and improving the
    health and productivity of our Nation's forests.
        Society as a whole relies on the 751 million acres of forests in
    the United States to provide clean and abundant air and water,
    recreational opportunities, forest products, wildlife habitat, and
    scenic beauty. As our reliance continues to grow, pressures on forests
    from wildfires, drought, insects, disease, and invasive species have
    risen to unprecedented levels. Land management agencies must manage
    these mounting threats while still providing for multiple uses and
    important ecosystem services. Maintaining this balance demands that
    Federal land managers identify innovative ways to maximize the rate of
    return when considering investments to improve the health of America's
    forests.
        The following highlights SAF's top priorities in the fiscal year
    2015 budget process. These priorities impact a range of programs within
    USFS and DOI. Recognizing fiscal constraints, these requests will
    assist forest managers in sustaining our Nation's forests and providing
    a multitude of benefits for generations to come.
                               saf top priorities
        1.  Adoption of a new approach to wildfire suppression funding that
    features flexible spending caps for emergency wildfire suppression
    costs in addition to funding USFS and DOI Hazardous Fuels Programs at a
    level that is sufficient to conduct fuels reduction projects to reduce
    wildfire risks on Federal, State, and private lands.
        2.  Increased funding levels for USFS Research and Development
    (R&D) to no less than $231 million and no less than $72 million for the
    Forest Inventory and Analysis Program (FIA).
        3.  Funding the Forest Health Management Program (FHP) as a
    consolidated USFS State and Private Forestry budget line item at no
    less than $111 million.
        4.  Continued support for the Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program (CFLRP) at no less than $40 million.
        5.  Removal of the Bureau of Land Management Forest Ecosystem
    Health and Recovery Fund sunset provision set to go into effect at the
    end of fiscal year 2015.

        SAF represents forestry and natural resources professionals working
    on public and private forests across America. SAF members are eager to
    work with Federal agencies and Congress to identify reasonable
    solutions to facilitate increasing the pace of management on Federal
    lands.
        Since 1910, forest area in the U.S. has been relatively stable,
    with a slight increase in the last two decades.\1\ The current volume
    of annual timber growth is 32 percent higher than the volume of annual
    removals, but SAF is concerned that 90 percent of the timber harvested
    in the Nation came from private forestlands.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2007. U.S. Forest Resource Facts
    and Historical Trends. Available online at http://fia.fs.fed.us/
    library/brochures/docs/Forest%20Facts%201952-2007%20English
    %20rev072411.pdf; last accessed April 2015.
        \2\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2010. National Report on
    Sustainable Forests--2010. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/
    research/sustain/2010SustainabilityReport/documents/2010_
    SustainabilityReport.pdf; last accessed April 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        SAF is pleased that the administration recognizes the need for
    management of Federal lands, and set a harvest target of three billion
    board feet for fiscal year 2015. With 65 to 82 million acres in the
    National Forest System (NFS) in need of restoration and total U.S.
    timber harvests at the lowest levels since the 1960s, SAF encourages
    USFS to seize this opportunity to implement more projects on Federal
    lands.\3\ USFS can work with rural communities to get these projects
    started now without adding the potential for complications and
    confusion that could arise with the expansion of the Integrated
    Resource Restoration (IRR) line item beyond the pilot phase. SAF
    members are convinced that this volume target can be reached using
    existing mechanisms and infrastructure. The increased volume output
    will help to satisfy increased demand for construction and wood
    products while also improving the health and resilience of our Nation's
    forests.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2010. National Report on
    Sustainable Forests--2010. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/
    research/sustain/2010SustainabilityReport/documents/2010_
    SustainabilityReport.pdf; last accessed April 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           saf budget recommendations
        Simply appropriating dollars for Federal land management agencies
    is not enough. Successful implementation of USFS and DOI programs is
    predicated on finding an alternative to how fire suppression activities
    are managed and funded. In the span of only 2 years--fiscal year 2012
    and 2013--USFS and DOI were forced to transfer more than $1 billion
    that Congress had appropriated to other priority programs to fund fire
    suppression. Changing the fire funding structure and committing to fund
    the Hazardous Fuels Programs at USFS and DOI will prevent future
    transfers and assist the agencies in achieving important land
    management objectives.
        SAF encourages the subcommittee to avoid transfers in fiscal year
    2015 by including language similar to the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster
    Funding Act, introduced in the House and Senate (H.R. 3992 & S. 1875)
    in the fiscal year 2015 House Appropriations Bill.
        A balanced approach to averting threats posed by fire is
    imperative. The Hazardous Fuels line items in the USFS and DOI budgets
    are integral to restoring forest health and resilience and reducing the
    costs of wildfire suppression. SAF members appreciate this
    subcommittee's consistent support for wildfire management and encourage
    the subcommittee to allocate funds to address fire risks inside and
    outside the wildland urban interface. Directing funds to treat areas
    outside of the wildland urban interface will reduce the costs
    associated with suppression and, in certain instances, the intensity of
    wildfires after outbreak. SAF supports consolidating hazardous fuels
    funding in the USFS and DOI Hazardous Fuels Programs with $479 million
    allocated for USFS and $178 million allocated for DOI.
        Investments in forestry research are investments in the future
    health and sustainability of the Nation's forests. USFS R&D conducts
    essential research on disturbances, forest ecosystems, species and
    forest resilience, treatment methods for controlling forest insects,
    diseases, and invasive species, renewable energy development and woody
    biomass conversion technology, and forest products and technology. SAF
    is concerned that the forestry research capacity in the U.S. continues
    to decline, threatening U.S. competitiveness and the ability of forest
    managers to meet tomorrow's challenges with current science and
    technical information. SAF supports a funding level of $231 million for
    USFS R&D with particular emphasis on prioritizing research efforts and
    transferring knowledge to forestry professionals working in the field.
        USFS R&D Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is the
    backbone of U.S. forestry, providing the only national census of
    forests across all ownerships. Through FIA, USFS (partnering with State
    forestry agencies and the private sector) collects and analyzes forest
    data to assess trends on issues such as forest health and management,
    fragmentation and parcelization, and forest carbon sequestration. The
    data and information collected by FIA serves as the basis for:
    identifying trends in forest ownership; assessing fish and wildlife
    habitat; evaluating wildfire, insect, and disease risk; predicting the
    spread of invasive species; determining capital investment in existing
    forest products facilities and selecting locations for new forest
    product facilities; and identifying and responding to priorities
    identified in State Forest Action Plans. FIA data also evaluates forest
    disturbance risks, such as wildfire, insects and disease, and spread of
    invasive species. SAF members urge this subcommittee to reverse the
    spending cuts to FIA and requests funding in fiscal year 2015 at a
    level of at least $72 million.
        USFS State and Private Forestry (S&PF) allocations support
    sustainable forestry on public and private lands. SAF strongly supports
    funding S&PF programs to work in cooperation with the States to provide
    assistance to private landowners who own more than 50 percent of the
    forestland in the United States. The consolidated S&PF Forest Health
    Management programs (FHP) manage forest health through direct action on
    the NFS lands and provide assistance to other Federal agencies, State
    and local agencies, and private landowners to prevent and mitigate
    insect and disease outbreaks as well as the spread of invasive species.
    SAF recommends funding FHP at the fiscal year 2012 enacted funding
    levels of $111 million to continue monitoring and responding to forest
    health concerns.
        SAF remains committed to the Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program (CFLRP). CFLRP encourages collaborative, science-
    based ecosystem restoration on priority forest landscapes.\4\ In 4
    years, the 23 selected projects have reduced hazardous fuels, generated
    timber receipts, and provided a boost to rural economies.\5\ To ensure
    CFLRP's continued success, SAF supports a $40 million dollar funding
    level and consideration of additional funds for the program if
    available.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ U.S. Forest Service. 2012. Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program. U.S. Forest Service Web site. Accessible online at
    http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/index.shtml; last accessed April
    2015.
        \5\ U.S. Forest Service 2014. Fiscal year 2015 President's Budget
    Justification. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/
    2015/FS15-FS-Budget-Justification.pdf; last accessed April 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In closing, SAF would like to highlight an issue of concern. SAF
    members were delighted with the return of the Bureau of Land Management
    Public Domain Forestry Program (PD) to fiscal year 2012 funding levels
    as a part of the 2014 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. However, SAF members
    are troubled by the pending loss of the Forest Ecosystem Health and
    Recovery Fund, commonly referred to as the 5900 account. This fund
    allows PD and BLM Oregon and California Railroad Grant Lands (O&C) to
    use a portion of the receipts from sales of timber and wood products on
    BLM lands not returned to the neighboring counties to fund management
    activities. This permanent operating fund created in the Appropriations
    Act of 1993 expires at the end of fiscal year 2015.
        After fiscal year 2015, all receipts generated from these sales
    currently used to continue management and restoration activities on PD
    and O&C lands will be returned to the Federal treasury. This loss of
    revenue will leave few dollars in the tight PD budget for planning,
    preparing, implementing, and monitoring forest ecosystem restoration
    activities. SAF recognizes that permanent operating fund accounts
    should be periodically evaluated for continued relevance or possible
    elimination, but BLM's use of the 5900 account reduces the budgeted
    dollars required to operate PD. SAF recommends this account be
    reauthorized and not allowed to expire at the end of fiscal year 2015.
        Thank you for your time and consideration of these important
    requests. SAF and its extensive network of forestry and natural
    resources professionals stand ready to assist with further development
    and implementation of these efforts.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe
                                                      January 16, 2015.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: On behalf of the Southern
    Ute Indian Tribe, I am requesting your support for fiscal year 2015
    appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper
    Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River
    Basin Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President's
    recommended budget. I request that the subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        The tribe requests the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal
    year 2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and
    personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery
    programs. The tribe recognizes and appreciates that the past support
    and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success
    of these ongoing efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                               James L. Olguin,
                                                              Chairman.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Southwestern Water Conservation District
                                                         April 8, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: The Southwestern Water
    Conservation District was established by the Colorado legislature to
    conserve and protect the waters of the San Juan and Dolores Rivers and
    their tributaries.
        Following this mandate, I am requesting your support for fiscal
    year 2015 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 in the amount of
    $1,392,100.00 consistent with the President's recommended budget. I
    request that the subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        On behalf of our District board, I request the subcommittee's
    assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to allow the FWS to
    continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally
    important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past
    support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the
    success of these ongoing efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                               Bruce Whitehead,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe
        On behalf of the tribal leadership and members of the Squaxin
    Island Tribe, thank you for the invitation to submit our funding
    priorities and recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 budgets for the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS). Squaxin
    Island Tribe requests that tribal program funding throughout the
    Federal Government be exempt from future sequestration cuts. Further we
    ask that the legal obligations to pay full Contract Support Costs (CSC)
    not be at the expense of reducing tribal program funding and that
    tribal programs not be subjected to across the board rescissions not
    imposed on other beneficiaries of the Federal Government. For the
    fiscal year 2015 budget, we submit the following requests:
                            tribal specific requests
        1.  $500,000 Shellfish Management Program--BIA.
        2.  $2 Million to Build and Operate an Oyster and Clam Nursery for
    Southern Puget Sound--BIA.
        3.  $1.5 Million Increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center
    (NWITC) Residential Program in IHS.
        national requests and recommendations--bureau of indian affairs
        1.  Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($119 million) to Tribal Program
    Funding.
        2.  +$4 million over fiscal year 2015 request to fully fund
    Contract Support Costs (CSC).
        3.  +$19.3 million over fiscal year 2014 for Tribal Priority
    Allocations Account.
        4.  Fully fund all of the provisions of the Tribal Law and Order
    Act of 2010 that authorizes additional funding for law and order
    programs that affect Indian Tribes;
        5.  $500,000 for Johnson O'Malley education assistance grants to
    support a new student count in 2015 and provides funding for the
    projected increase in the number of students eligible for grants.
        6.  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.
          national requests and recommendations--indian health service
        1.  Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($220 Million) to Tribal Health
    Services.
        2.  Support IHS Mandatory Funding (maintain current services).
        3.  +$30 million over fiscal year 2015 request to fully fund
    Contract Support Costs (CSC).
        4.  +$50 million over 2015 request for Purchased and Referred Care.
        5.  Restore $6 million to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance
    (OTSG) to fulfill legal requirements under title V of Public Law 106-
    260 which increased the responsibilities of OTSG.
        The Squaxin Island Tribes supports the fiscal year 2015 budgets
    requests of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, Northwest
    Portland Area Indian Health Board and the Northwest Indian Fisheries
    Commission.
                        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 Mason 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
        1. $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. $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 Tribe
    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 to a
    size that can 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' in their region 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.
        3. $1.5 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.--The Squaxin Island Tribe has
    been operating the Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC) since
    1994. Ingenious in creativity, the center offers a wide variety of
    cultural activities and traditional/religious ceremonies, making it a
    natural place to heal--body, mind and soul. Fittingly, the center was
    given the spiritual name ``D3WXbi Palil'' meaning ``Returning from the
    Dark, Deep Waters to the Light.'' Since the original Congressional set-
    aside in 1993, NWITC has not received an adequate increase in the base
    Indian Health Service budget. It is critical to increase the NWITC's
    annual base in order to sustain the current services to the Tribes of
    the Northwest. An increase of $1.5 million would restore lost
    purchasing power and meet the need to add mental health and psychiatric
    components to the treatment program through other funding agents. This
    increase would allow NWITC to continue its effective treatment of
    Native Americans.
        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. It is a 28 bed, 30-60 day
    residential facility.
        Welcomed and hailed by tribal Leaders who felt the urgent need for
    such a facility, NWITC is centrally located in Grays Harbor County
    between Olympia and Aberdeen, on 2.5 acres in the small rural town of
    Elma, Washington. NWITC accepts patients that are referred through
    outpatient treatment programs, parole and probation services,
    hospitals, assessment centers and child and family service centers.
    Medical care is provided through local Indian Health Service clinics
    and other medical service providers. NWITC has responded with an
    overwhelming success rate of nearly 65 percent.
        In 2011, the NWITC served 225 patients from 28 tribes and added
    intensive case management and crisis support to alumni in order to
    continue to promote positive outcomes for clients. Despite funding
    challenges, NWITC has continued to develop and deliver innovative,
    culturally appropriate services to meet increasingly complex demands.
        The Treatment Center's traditional foods and medicines program is
    supported through a partnership with the Northwest Indian College and
    is funded through grants from the Washington Health Foundation, the
    National Institute of Food and Agriculture, The Potlatch Fund and
    several tribes. Weekly hands-on classes focus on traditional foods and
    medicines, including methods for growing, harvesting, processing, and
    preparation. Twice a month, tribal elders, storytellers, and cultural
    specialists speak as part of the program. A monthly family class allows
    patients to share what they are learning with their loved ones.
    Patients gain hands-on experience by working in three on-site teaching
    gardens. This program serves as a model for other tribal communities.
        Although we are submitting testimony on the fiscal year 2015 BIA
    and IHS budgets, we must comment on the fiscal year 2013 sequestration
    which disproportionately impacted tribal programs. The BIA and IHS
    tribal funding incurred a disproportionate share of cuts; IHS $220
    million and BIA $119 million. This act continues to undermine Indian
    treaty rights and the Federal obligations and trust responsibility to
    American Indian and Alaskan Native people. The ongoing contribution of
    tribal nations to the U.S. economy is the land on which this Nation is
    built.
        It is ironic that we were forced into a lifestyle and to give up
    our land, and that which we retained or have since regained is
    threatened by the promises you made and have since reclaimed!
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
        The requests of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe for the fiscal year 2015
    Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows:
      --Ensure that Contract Support Costs continue to be fully funded by
            moving the program to mandatory entitlement spending.
      --Support reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for
            Indians.
      --Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis.
        The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe is located astride the U.S. Canadian
    border in northern New York. Traditionally the keepers of the Eastern
    Door of the Iroquois Confederacy, we have continued as a government for
    our people since before the arrival of Europeans on U.S. shores. We
    cooperate with the United States on a nation-to-nation basis, and today
    operate our own environmental, social, policing, economic, health and
    educational programs, policies, laws and regulations. We operate our
    own medical clinic, and provide a variety of services from mental
    healthcare, nutrition care, pharmacy and laboratory services,
    outpatient services, dental care, pregnancy care, and other services.
      ensure contract support costs receive funding via mandatory spending
        We are pleased that the administration has sought to fully fund
    contract support costs (CSC) under the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) in fiscal year 2015, and we urge
    Congress to support that goal. We also acknowledge that the
    administration's request is a direct response to Congress' actions with
    regard to fiscal year 2014 appropriations, which removed historical
    caps on CSC funding and rejected the administration's proposal--put
    forward without consultation and vehemently opposed by tribes--to
    individually cap contract support cost recovery at the contractor
    level. Contract support costs fund vital administrative functions that
    allow us to operate programs that provide critical services to our
    members--programs like those described above. If contract support costs
    are not fully funded, however, our programs and services are directly
    impacted because we are forced to divert limited program funding to
    cover fixed overhead expenses instead. We therefore appreciate
    Congress' support in fiscal year 2014 and hope that it carries through
    to fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
        However, the CSC funding problem is not yet solved. Full funding
    for CSC must not come with a penalty--namely, a reduction in program
    funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds.
    That result would have the same devastating effect on our service
    delivery as the failure to fully fund CSC. Yet Congress, in the Joint
    Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act, noted that ``since [contract support costs] fall
    under discretionary spending, they have the potential to impact all
    other programs funded under the Interior and Environment Appropriations
    bill, including other equally important tribal programs.'' Moreover,
    without any permanent measure to ensure full funding, payment of CSC
    remains subject to agency ``discretion'' from year to year, even though
    tribes are legally entitled to payment under the ISDEAA. Noting these
    ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to consult
    with tribes on a permanent solution.
        In our view, there is a logical permanent solution which Congress
    is empowered to implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory
    entitlement. The Congressional Budget Office defines ``Entitlement'' as
    ``A legal obligation of the Federal Government to make payments to a
    person, group of people, business, unit of government, or similar
    entity that meets the eligibility criteria set in law and for which the
    budget authority is not provided in advance in an appropriation act.''
    Further, ``Spending for entitlement programs is controlled through
    those programs' eligibility criteria and benefit or payment rules.''
    \1\ CSC meets every part of this definition except that the budget
    authority is currently provided and controlled through appropriation
    acts--as if CSC were a discretionary program. Under the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act, the full payment of CSC is
    not discretionary, but is a legal obligation of the United States.
    Indeed, the underlying purpose of the ISDEAA--to end Federal domination
    of Indian programs and allow for meaningful control by Indian tribes
    over their own destinies in the face of Federal bureaucratic
    resistance--will always be threatened so long as the mechanisms that
    allow the statute to function are considered ``discretionary.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Congressional Budget Office Glossary, available at http://
    www.cbo.gov/publication/42904 (updated January 2012).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        From an appropriations standpoint, the fiscal year 2014 Joint
    Explanatory Statement recognized that the current fundamental mismatch
    between the mandatory nature of CSC and the current appropriation
    approach leaves both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
    in the ``untenable position of appropriating discretionary funds for
    the payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.'' As the
    Joint Explanatory Statement also noted, ``Typically obligations of this
    nature are addressed through mandatory spending.'' The obvious solution
    then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the statutory
    requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory
    entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge
    the Congress to move to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory
    basis.
                    reauthorize the special diabetes program
        While the entitlement funding for the Special Diabetes Program for
    Indians (SDPI) is not part of the IHS appropriations process, those
    funds are administered through the IHS. With the recent enactment
    (Public Law 113-93) of a 1 year extension of the SDPI as part of the
    Medicare ``doc fix'' bill, it is funded through fiscal year 2015 at
    $150 million, minus a 2 percent reduction ($3 million) due to the
    sequestration of non-exempt mandatory programs (Public Law 112-240).
    This funding level has not increased since 2004. The SDPI has proven
    highly effective in Indian Country, and has produced excellent results.
    For example, in the 4 years preceding the last report on the SDPI in
    2011, the average blood sugar level dropped nearly a percentage point
    overall, corresponding to a 40 percent decline in the risk of eye,
    kidney, and nerve complications due to diabetes. We ask that you
    support ongoing efforts to reauthorize this program for a 5-year period
    at increased funding levels.
                fund the ihs on an advance appropriations basis
        We support legislation that would place the IHS budget on an
    advance appropriations basis. The goal is for the IHS and tribal
    healthcare providers to have adequate advance notice of the amount of
    Federal appropriations to expect and thus not be subjected to the
    uncertainties of late funding and short-term Continuing Resolutions.
    Under advance appropriations 2 years of funds is approved in the first
    year, but the second year's worth of appropriations is not counted
    against the subcommittee's allocation nor the Budget Resolution until
    the year in which it is obligated. Thereafter funding is appropriated 1
    year at a time, but it is 1 year in advance. This contrasts with
    forward funding which does require a one-time extra (3/4 of a year)
    funding that does count against the subcommittee's allocation and the
    Budget Resolution. Congress provides advance appropriations for the
    Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is for parity
    in the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Legislation to authorize
    IHS advance appropriations has been introduced--H.R. 3229 by
    Representative Young and S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski and Begich. We
    ask that you support the effort to fund IHS on an advanced basis.
        Thank you for your consideration of our requests. We will be glad
    to provide any additional information the Committee may request.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the State of New Mexico
                                                        April 29, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
    support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
    consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
    subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                       Scott A. Verhines, P.E.,
                                             New Mexico State Engineer.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Suquamish Tribe
        Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: The Suquamish
    Tribe asks that you support economic development, job creation, and our
    national heritage by appropriating increased funding for the Historic
    Preservation Fund (HPF) for fiscal year 2015. We agree with the
    National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers that the
    appropriation needs to be $15 million for Tribal Historic Preservation
    Officers (THPOs) and $50 million for State Historic Preservation
    Officers (SHPOs).
        Historic Preservation Officers funded through the HPF form the
    backbone of our Nation's historic preservation programs. Together these
    programs provide the tools needed to revitalize, rehabilitate, and
    protect the places that give meaning to our great Nation. Funding also
    leverages investments through local jobs, non-Federal contributions,
    and long-term economic development in communities around the country.
        Tribal Historic Preservation Officers are recognized as the
    authentic representatives of cultures and societies that have been in
    existence for countless generations. They are an active expression of
    tribal sovereignty and perform many functions and responsibilities in
    Indian County. THPOs are involved with projects to improve Indian
    schools, roads, health clinics, and housing, conducting important
    Federal and State compliance work. They are the first responders when a
    sacred site is threatened; when an ancestral home is uncovered; and
    when Native ancestors are disturbed by development. They are also
    responsible for their tribe's oral history programs and operating
    tribal museums and cultural centers.
        The amount appropriated in fiscal years 2012-2014 and the
    President's fiscal year 2015 request was $56.4 million. Of that amount,
    $46.9 million was for the State line item and $9.0 million was for the
    tribal line item. In addition, $500,000 was appropriated for a
    competitive grant program to help survey and identify historic
    resources important to underrepresented populations.
        Unfortunately, the amount of HPF funds appropriated is not keeping
    pace with the increase in THPOs. There are now 151 THPOs, compared to
    only 12 in fiscal year 1996 when the program was first funded. There
    are expected to be at least 156 THPOs in fiscal year 2015. The addition
    of new THPOs each year keeps the average level of support per THPO
    suppressed below $60,000, barely enough to operate a program to protect
    cultural resources on and off tribal lands.
        Without adequate funding, America's national treasures will be
    forever lost. The HPF is the primary, and in many communities the only,
    means to ensure appropriate implementation of our Nation's historic
    preservation laws and the only way to adequately safeguard our historic
    resources. For nearly the past half century, the HPF has enabled
    successful Federal-State, Federal-tribal, and public-private
    partnerships that have helped preserve historic sites and communities
    throughout the Nation. Thank you for your continued support.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition
        Dear Chairman Jack Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and honorable
    members of the subcommittee: The Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition
    (SUFC) represents nonprofits, national associations, nursery and
    landscape professionals, public works professionals, arborists, and
    others nationwide. Working together since 2004, these diverse
    professionals monitor, care and advocate for urban trees and green
    infrastructure. Collectively, we are asking for your support for
    several programs under the Interior Subcommittee's jurisdiction that
    support urban forests and green infrastructure.
        Urban forests are vital to creating and maintaining healthy,
    livable communities of all sizes. Trees growing in populated areas are
    a key component of community infrastructure and provide proven benefits
    to more than the 80 percent of Americans who live there. Urban forests
    enhance air and water quality, reduce energy use, increase property
    values, and provide quantifiable health and wellness benefits to
    people. Creating and maintaining a healthy tree canopy also creates a
    substantial demand for green collar jobs in a sector poised for rapid
    growth.
                              usda forest service
        Since the passage of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of
    1990, the Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) program has been a
    catalyst and provided important technical assistance for promoting
    healthy forests in our communities. In addition, the U&CF program
    provides critical assistance to help communities manage risk, respond
    to storms and disturbance, and contain threats from invasive pests. In
    2013, the U&CF program delivered technical, financial, educational, and
    research assistance to 7,292 communities and nearly 198 million people,
    over 60 percent of the U.S. population. Urban forests are integral to
    any community striving to reinvest in itself, encourage active, healthy
    citizens, and create a healthier and more sustainable environment with
    smart green infrastructure. The SUFC understands the current economic
    conditions of the country and recommends fiscal year 2015 funding be
    allocated at fiscal year 2012 enacted levels for the Urban and
    Community Forestry program at $31.3 million.
        The Forest Service's Forest and Rangeland Research program is
    essential in providing support for urban forestry research activities
    focused on understanding conditions and trends in our Nation's urban
    and community forests and in providing tools and best management
    practices to community groups and urban forestry practitioners. Forest
    Service researchers and partners have made huge strides in recent years
    in developing new technologies and tools, such as the i-Tree program,
    for mapping the urban forest and to understand the current situation
    and future trends. Similarly, agency researchers have been helping
    policymakers and practitioners to understand the environmental,
    economic, and social services that trees and forests provide. The SUFC
    urges Congress to provide funding for the Forest and Rangeland Research
    line item at $303 million. This reflects $231 million for basic forest
    research, consistent with the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, and $72
    million for Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA). We also call the
    subcommittee's attention to our collaborative efforts with the Forest
    Service to make progress toward incorporating urban forest assessments
    into the agency's FIA program. We urge the subcommittee to encourage
    the Forest Service to make strong efforts to integrate urban forests
    into FIA so that its critical data-collection efforts on our Nation's
    forests include the estimated 100 million acres of urban forest lands.
        Finally, the SUFC wishes to thank Congress for the report language
    it included with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, which
    encourages the Forest Service to maintain a strong urban forest
    research program. While there is no budget line item for urban forestry
    research, the Forest Service has recognized Urban Natural Resources
    Stewardship as one of seven Priority Research Areas within its overall
    Forest and Rangeland Research program. We urge the subcommittee to
    continue including such language in its Interior Appropriations reports
    as a reflection of Congress' interest in strong urban forestry research
    in the absence of a budget line item.
        Exotic pests and invasive species are among the greatest threats to
    urban forests. Trees in our towns and cities are at risk from non-
    native insects and diseases such as the emerald ash borer and Asian
    longhorned beetle. Non-native pests already cost city governments $2
    billion each year to remove and replace trees they have killed.
    Homeowners in these communities pay another $1 billion per year to
    remove dead trees from their own properties. The substantial loss of
    trees in our communities also impacts the quality of life and property
    values. Funding for the Forest Health Program supports activities
    related to prevention, suppression, and eradication of insects,
    diseases, and plants as well as conducting forest health monitoring
    through pest surveys. SUFC supports no less than fiscal year 2012
    funding levels of $111 million (of which $48 million was directed to
    cooperative lands) in fiscal year 2015 for the USDA Forest Service
    Forest Health Management Program.
                        environmental protection agency
        All forests play vital roles in delivering clean water to
    communities of every size. Urban and rural forests offer fiscally-sound
    green solutions to the management of stormwater, water storage,
    groundwater recharge, and pollutant reduction. Green infrastructure is
    a cost-effective and resilient approach to stormwater infrastructure
    needs that provides many community benefits: improving water and air
    quality; reducing energy use and mitigating climate change; improving
    habitat for wildlife; reducing a community's infrastructure cost and
    promoting economic growth.
        SUFC supports the EPA's goal of strengthening green infrastructure
    activities to further sustainability goals by incorporating green
    infrastructure and enhancing stormwater management. SUFC also supports
    efforts to expand the use of green infrastructure to meet Clean Water
    Act goals through the Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF). SUFC
    supports the President's fiscal year 2015 request of $5 million to
    strengthen green infrastructure activities, and the fiscal year 2014
    enacted level of $1.449 billion for CWSRF.
        The Urban Waters Federal Partnership is a 13 interagency
    coordinated effort helps stimulate local economies, create jobs,
    improve quality of life, and protect health by revitalizing urban
    waterways and the communities around them, focusing on underserved
    urban communities of all sizes. SUFC supports appropriating fiscal year
    2015 funding to the Urban Waters Federal Partnership, coordinated by
    the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water.
                        land and water conservation fund
        SUFC supports full and dedicated funding for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF), including funding for the State and Local
    Assistance Program. We support the fiscal year 2015 budget request
    which calls for permanent authorization of $900 million in mandatory
    funding for LWCF programs in the Departments of Interior and
    Agriculture beginning in 2016. During the transition to permanent
    funding in 2015, the budget proposes $350 million in discretionary and
    $550 million in permanent funding, shared by the Departments of
    Interior and Agriculture. This includes discretionary funding for State
    Assistance grants at $48.1 million, which includes $3 million for
    ``Competitive Grants.''
                           the national park service
        The reestablishment of the Urban Parks Recreation and Recovery
    (UPARR) program within the National Parks Service, proposed to be
    funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, is essential to
    bring nature to the urban communities. These competitive grants focus
    on engaging and connecting communities, especially young people, to
    their neighborhood parks through projects that would revitalize and
    rehabilitate park and recreation opportunities. SUFC supports the
    President's fiscal year 2015 request of $25 million from LWCF for the
    Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR).
                Sincerely,

    Alliance For Community Trees
    American Forests
    AmericanHort
    American Planning Association
    American Public Works
    American Rivers
    American Society of Landscape Architects
    Arbor Day Foundation
    Davey Tree Foundation
    Keep America Beautiful
    International Society of Arboriculture
    National Association of Clean Water Agencies
    National Association of Conservation Districts
    National Association of State Foresters
    National Recreation and Parks Association
    Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee
    Outdoor Power Equipment Institute
    Professional Landcare Network
    Sacramento Tree Foundation
    SavATree Consulting Group
    Society of American Foresters
    Society of Municipal Arborists
    The Nature Conservancy
    Tree Care Industries Association

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Teaming With Wildlife Steering Committee
        This testimony is submitted on behalf of the following members of
    the national Teaming With Wildlife Steering Committee:

    Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
    Association of Zoos & Aquariums
    Izaak Walton League of America
    National Wildlife Federation
    The Nature Conservancy
    The Wildlife Society
    Wildlife Conservation Society
    Wildlife Management Institute

        Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
    subcommittee: Thank you for this opportunity to provide recommendations
    on the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill. The 6,414 organizations and businesses that are
    part of the Teaming With Wildlife coalition represent millions of
    birders, fish and wildlife professionals, hunters, anglers, boaters,
    hikers and other nature enthusiasts. The State and Tribal Wildlife
    Grants program was created in response to this diverse coalition. We
    encourage the subcommittee to provide a minimum of $58.695 million for
    the State & Tribal Wildlife Grants program in fiscal year 2015, which
    would avoid further cuts to this program. Funding for the State &
    Tribal Wildlife Grants program has been reduced by 35 percent since
    fiscal year 2010.
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the only Federal
    program with the singular purpose of preventing Federal endangered
    species listings. It is achieving success as highlighted in the State
    Wildlife Grants Success Stories Report which showed how partnerships in
    every State are conserving vulnerable fish and wildlife, including many
    that are candidates for Federal endangered species listing. The program
    is providing needed capacity to assess and implement actions to
    conserve many of the hundreds of species that have been petitioned for
    Federal endangered species listing.
        Preventing new endangered species listings is a goal shared by
    conservationists, business, farmers and ranchers and has broad
    bipartisan support. Through early and strategic action, we can be
    successful in preventing new endangered species. Adequate and
    consistent funding for the program is essential to fulfillment of the
    shared Federal-State responsibility for keeping our Nation's wildlife
    from becoming endangered. Now more than ever, we should be focusing
    limited resources on this kind of smart, effective investment in
    conservation.
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program has been cut by \1/3\
    since 2010. The reduction in funding is impacting States' and their
    partner's ability to restore habitat, protect land, incentivize private
    lands conservation, monitor species, conduct research and mitigate
    threats like invasive species and disease. Past cuts are slowing
    conservation work which is leading to a higher probability for future
    endangered species listings. There is no other program that can take
    the place of the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program.
        Although the need is much greater, continued funding will help
    maintain essential capacity to conserve the more than 12,000 species
    that States have identified as at-risk in their State Wildlife Action
    Plans. These plans were developed collaboratively by leading
    scientists, conservationists, sportsmen and private landowners and
    identified the most effective and practical means to prevent wildlife
    from becoming endangered in every State, territory and the District of
    Columbia. The plans are up for a critical 10-year review and revision
    in 2015. Funding is needed to ensure States and their partners have the
    resources needed to update the plans to ensure the best science is
    available to inform the plans so that successful implementation can be
    achieved.
        We understand and appreciate the fiscal constraints that face our
    Nation. However, the investment in the State & Tribal Wildlife Grants
    program is relatively modest compared to the scope of work it funds
    (proactive conservation in all 56 States, territories and the District
    of Columbia) and the importance of that work (recovery of some of our
    Nation's most imperiled fish and wildlife). We appreciate the
    subcommittee's past support for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
    program and hope the highest level of funding possible will be realized
    for the program in fiscal year 2015.
                                     ______

             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 36 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 2015.
        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.
                          nea grants and their impact
        Here are some recent examples of NEA grants and their impact:

        With a $10,000 Art Works grant from the NEA, Trinity Repertory
    Company in Providence, Rhode Island, will produce a new production of
    Oliver, directed by Sharon and Richard Jenkins. Audience members will
    experience a production which offers fresh insights to a classic work,
    giving prominence to character and narrative, and introducing updated
    orchestrations that reveal the beauty of the music. Post-show
    discussions will encourage audiences to immediately reflect on their
    ideas. Outreach activities will include a free performance for
    constituents served by social service agencies, and a pay-what-you-can
    performance. Six matinees will welcome 3,000 school children, and
    workshops will bring actors and other teaching artists into the
    region's classrooms for 50 customized pre- and post-show sessions.
    Fifteen actors and musicians will be employed, as well as designers,
    artisans and a 100-member staff. Nine local children will also receive
    the enriching experience of working in a professional theatre while
    living at home and staying in school.
        In order to create a lasting impact on the field and promote
    burgeoning playwrights, South Coast Repertory (SCR) based in Costa
    Mesa, California received a $50,000 Art Works grant to support the 17th
    annual Pacific Playwrights Festival which brings together artists,
    local audiences and theatre professionals from across the country.
    Audiences will enjoy seven previously unproduced works and the world
    premieres of Samuel D. Hunter's Rest, Rachel Bonds' Five Mile Lake and
    Adam Rapp's The Purple Lights of Joppa Illinois. Additionally, the
    festival will include staged readings of Theresa Rebeck's Zealot, Eliza
    Clark's Future Thinking, Rajiv Joseph's Mr. Wolf and Melissa Ross' Of
    Good Stock. All five readings from last year's festival went on to full
    productions at SCR and other theatres. This NEA grant will help support
    all seven projects and advance new American playwrights across the
    American stage. In addition to programming like this festival SCR
    annually serves more than 15,000 Orange County students and teachers
    through ticketing programs and bus subsidies that make professional
    theatre accessible to underserved youth and free after-school dramatics
    workshops available for at-risk children in Title One elementary
    schools.
        Weston Playhouse Theatre based in Weston, Vermont, received a
    $20,000 grant to support a production of Pulitzer-Prize winning author,
    Annie Baker's adaptation of Anton Chekhov's ``Uncle Vanya.'' The
    production is being complemented by a series of engagement and learning
    opportunities. In the spring, a teachers' workshop was held that
    provided more than a dozen educators with a wealth of knowledge about
    the playwright, the play, the art of translation, and the creative
    process of production development. In the early fall, these educators
    will bring their students to a matinee performance of this masterpiece
    for just $9 a ticket. Teachers will have the opportunity to engage with
    their students after the show, with carefully-prepared study guides.
    Last year's Mockingbird matinee series brought in 1,365 students and 75
    educators. Similar numbers are expected this year. For adults this
    summer, there will be a gallery showing of the 1994 film ``Vanya on
    42nd Street,'' and plans are in place for a pre-show reception for a
    group from the Vermont Land Trust, igniting the environmental themes
    explored in all of Chekhov's work and giving members of the community
    the opportunity to have a voice in addition to a deep artistic
    experience.
        Not only did the NEA's funding contribute to realizing this
    production, but it also helped to further Weston Playhouse Theatre
    Company's mission to enrich the lives of a broad rural population with
    theatre of national quality and significance supported through
    education and outreach. To do this, a year-round staff of seven swells
    to more than a hundred during the summer months. Every summer, more
    than 20,000 ticket-holders take a seat in one of Weston's three
    performance spaces. Each production is enhanced with show notes,
    director notes, pre-show director talks, and post-show talkbacks. In
    building audiences and performers for the future, Weston runs a Student
    Ambassador program, as well as residency programs in local schools and
    classes.
        The NEA has awarded Shakespeare Festival St. Louis in Missouri a
    $15,000 grant to support Shakespeare in the Streets (SITS), a
    grassroots theatrical experience that invites St. Louis' diverse
    neighborhoods to tell their unique community stories. Under the
    guidance of a creative team, community residents contribute to
    developing an original play based on Shakespeare's works--a play whose
    themes reflect the community's social and economic ``character.'' Their
    partnership results in three free street performances that showcase the
    combined talents of professional actors performing alongside local
    residents. The project uses techniques in community co-creation to
    inspire regional collaboration and conversation.
        The audience for the three free performances was over 2000 people
    in 2013. Over 130 local area residents participated in the production
    aimed to reclaim St. Louis city streets as places of community,
    conversation, and collaboration. The program employs dozens of artists,
    teaching artists, and provides stipends for neighborhood young people
    to work professionally with the Festival and gain transferable skills
    to other disciplines. SITS involves dozens of corporate, foundation,
    and community partners and provides educational workshops at all three
    area schools, followed by free Summer Shakespeare Camps for
    neighborhood students, allowing them the chance to create their own
    version of the Shakespeare production while fostering an understanding
    of Shakespeare's universal themes. The Festival annually employs over
    80 artists and craftsmen, serves over 25,000 young people at 125
    schools, and performs for more than 60,000 patrons each year through
    its main stage and community programs. In 2013 the Festival entertained
    its 600,000th patron in Forest Park.
        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
    2015 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 2014 budget; however, it has
    never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in fiscal year 1996 and
    its programs are still under-funded. We urge the subcommittee to fund
    the NEA at a level of $155 million to preserve the important cultural
    programs reaching Americans across the country.
        Thank you for considering this request.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Town of Baldwin, Florida
        This outside witness testimony is being submitted by the Town of
    Baldwin, Florida to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment and Related Agencies for consideration of fiscal year 2015
    appropriations within the U.S. Department of the Interior and/or the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the amount of $1,000,000.
                              i. project synopsis
        The Town of Baldwin is presently under a Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection (FDEP) Administrative Order (AO 160 NE) that
    calls for an investigation and monitoring of the effluent wastewater
    discharge at the Baldwin Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF), as FDEP
    does not have reasonable assurance the discharge will meet the State of
    Florida's numeric nutrient criteria (NNC). Because the WWTF will not
    likely meet these NNC requirements, the town will look to completely
    eliminate all effluent surface water discharge.
        This project aims to eliminate the WWTF surface water discharge by
    piping reclaimed/reuse water from the WWTF to the Brandy Branch
    Generating Station owned and operated by the Jacksonville Electric
    Authority (JEA) for use as cooling water. Approximately 0.25 millions
    of gallons per day (MGD) annual average daily flow (AADF) of wastewater
    effluent will be reused, resulting in the complete elimination of
    surface water discharge into the unnamed ditch that flows to Deep
    Creek. The Brandy Branch Generating Station currently uses up to 1.0
    MGD of groundwater for cooling water, and this project would reduce
    JEA's groundwater withdrawals by 0.25 MGD.
                             ii. project evaluation
        JEA owns and operates the Brandy Branch Generating Station which is
    located east of Baldwin. This facility is a gas-fired power plant which
    utilizes 1.0 to 1.5 MGD of groundwater for cooling purposes, which far
    exceeds the Baldwin WWTF average day design flow of 0.4 MGD and maximum
    day design flow of 0.8 MGD. Discussions with JEA representatives have
    indicated that they would be willing to accept the WWTF effluent for
    use as cooling water. The facility typically only utilizes cooling
    water during daylight hours. Effluent would be discharged at the base
    of existing cooling towers which are located approximately 7 ft. above
    grade. The facility has no onsite storage. Currently, the facility
    utilizes Floridan Aquifer wells to supply 100 percent of their cooling
    water needs. This alternative would have the added benefit of reducing
    groundwater withdrawals, in addition to eliminating a surface water
    discharge.
        The following facilities would be required to convey reclaimed
    water to the Brandy Branch Generating Station: (1) effluent transfer
    pump station to pump reclaimed water into an onsite ground storage
    tank; (2) 1.25 MG domed-top ground storage tank at the WWTF site; (3)
    two high service pumps with variable frequency drives (VFD); (4) 19,000
    linear feet (LF) of 10-inch force main to convey reclaimed water to
    Brandy Branch Generating Station; (5) two jack & bores of the CSX
    railroad and two directional drills; (6) yard piping; (7) sitework and;
    (8) electrical/instrumentation.
        Operation of the transfer pumps would be liquid level controlled.
    Operation of the high service pumps would be flow and/or pressure
    controlled. The high service pumps would shut off upon encountering
    high pressure resulting from a closed valve at the Brandy Branch
    Generating Station. The ground storage tank would be equipped with an
    overflow discharging to the existing surface water outfall in the event
    that the tank filled to capacity. It is anticipated that an emergency
    discharge to the surface water outfall would have to be maintained for
    those infrequent events when the generating station was not taking
    cooling water for maintenance reasons. No new treatment facilities
    would be required at the Baldwin WWTF, only storage and pumping
    facilities.
    A. Technical Feasibility
        This project is technically feasible. Further evaluation of
    effluent quality by JEA will be necessary to see what effects the
    blending with groundwater may have on their facilities. Also, control
    logic for the high service pumps will need to be developed to coincide
    with JEA's operational requirements.
    B. Design Criteria
        Design criteria for the proposed facilities are summarized in Table
    B-1, as follows:

                           TABLE B-1--DESIGN CRITERIA
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Effluent Transfer Pump Station
        Type..................................  Submersible
        Number................................  2
        Design Point..........................  700 gpm @ 40 ft. TDH
        Horsepower............................  20 HP
    Effluent Ground Storage Tank
        Type..................................  Domed-Top Circular Pre-
                                                 Stressed
        Number................................  1
        Effective Capacity....................  1.25 MG
        Diameter..............................  93 ft.
        Height................................  25 ft.
    High Service Pumps
        Type..................................  Self-Priming
        Number................................  2
        Design Point..........................  833 gpm @ 80 ft. TDH
        Horsepower............................  40 HP
    Effluent Force Main
        Size..................................  10 in.
        Length................................  19,000 LF
        Material..............................  PVC
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C. Environmental Impact
        This project would have significant positive effects on the
    environment. It would result in the elimination of a surface water
    discharge, thereby improving the water quality of the receiving stream.
    It would also result in the reduction of groundwater withdrawals at the
    generating station, thereby conserving precious groundwater. The only
    potential deleterious effect would be that an emergency discharge to
    the existing outfall would need to be maintained for those infrequent
    times that the generating station was not taking reclaimed water. It is
    anticipated that the emergency discharge would be needed for less than
    two weeks per year.
    D. Economic Evaluation
        An economic evaluation of this project has been conducted, to
    include estimated capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, and
    present worth analysis.
                1. Capital Cost
        The capital cost for this project has been developed utilizing bid
    pricing from similar work, manufacturers price quotes, and engineering
    judgment. All costs presented are in 2014 U.S. dollars. A construction
    contingency of 10 percent and non-construction costs of 15 percent will
    be included. The capital cost for the proposed project is summarized in
    Table D-1, as follows:

             TABLE D-1--ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Estimated
                            Description                             Cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      a. Mobilization and General Conditions..................      $100,000
      b. Effluent Transfer Pump Station.......................       150,000
      c. Effluent Storage Tank (1.25 MG)......................       750,000
      d. Reuse High Service Pumps.............................       100,000
      e. Yard Piping..........................................       100,000
      f. Sitework.............................................        50,000
      g. Electrical/Instrumentation...........................       150,000
      h. 19,000 LF of 10 in. Reuse Main.......................       950,000
      i. Two (2) Jack & Bore of CSX Railroad..................       100,000
      j. Two (2) Directional Drills of 12 in. HDPE............        50,000
                                                               -------------
          Subtotal--Estimated Construction Cost...............     2,500,000
              Construction Contingency (10 percent)...........       250,000
                                                               -------------
          Total--Estimated Construction Cost..................     2,750,000
              Estimated Non-Construction Cost.................       412,000
                                                               -------------
                  Total--Estimated Capital Cost...............     3,162,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                2. O&M Cost
        An annual O&M cost for this project will be developed, assuming the
    following: current average daily WWTF flow of 0.25 MGD; power costs of
    $0.10/kWh; equipment maintenance costs equivalent to 3 percent of
    equipment capital cost, and; pipe and tank maintenance costs equivalent
    to 0.2 percent of capital cost. Labor costs are assumed to remain the
    same as existing as this alternative will not require increased
    staffing. The O&M cost for the proposed project is summarized in Table
    D-2, as follows:

                      TABLE D-2--PROJECTED ANNUAL O&M COSTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Projected
                          Description                          Annual Cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Power..................................................           $7,100
    Equipment Maintenance..................................            7,500
    Tank & Pipeline Maintenance............................            3,400
                                                            ----------------
          Total--Projected Annual O&M Cost.................           18,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                3. Present Worth Analysis
        A present worth analysis of the alternative will be performed,
    taking into account the estimated capital cost, projected O&M cost, and
    salvage value. The 2013 EPA discount rate of 4.125 percent will be used
    in determining the present worth of the corresponding O&M costs and
    salvage value of the alternative. A period of analysis of 20 years will
    be utilized.

            (P/A, 4.125 percent, 20 yrs) = 13.44
            (P/F, 4.125 percent, 20 yrs) = 0.446

            i. Estimated Capital Cost
                    $3,162,000
                    Present Value = ($3,162,000)

            ii. Projected O&M Cost
                    $18,000
                    Present Value = ($18,000) x 13.44 = ($241,900)

            iii. Salvage Value
                    Piping (50 yrs.) = $1,200,000 x 0.446 x (50 yrs. - 20
                    yrs.)/50 yrs. = $321,100
                    Structures (30 yrs.) = $825,000 x 0.446 x (30 yrs. - 20
                    yrs.)/30 yrs. =
                      $122,700
                    Equipment (20 yrs.) = $425,000 x 0.446 x (20 yrs. - 20
                    yrs.)/20 yrs. = $0
                    Present Value = $443,800

            iv. Total Present Worth
                    ($3,162,000) + ($241,900) + $443,800 = ($2,960,100)
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Tri-County Water Conservancy District
                                                        April 11, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
    support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
    consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
    subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                                    Mike Berry,
                                                       General Manager.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Tribal Education Departments National
                                    Assembly
        Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Cochran and members of the
    subcommittee, my name is Quinton Roman Nose and I am the Executive
    Director of the Tribal Education Departments National Assembly
    (``TEDNA''). TEDNA is a national non-profit membership organization for
    tribal education agencies/departments (``TEAs''), which are executive
    branch agencies of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments
    responsible for Tribal education matters. There are an estimated 200
    TEAs, located in 32 States, serving over 700,000 American Indian and
    Alaska Native (``Native American'') students. TEDNA respectfully
    requests $2 million to support TEAs in the Department of the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year
    2015 to conduct much needed Indian education activities. Further, TEDNA
    supports the President's request through his Opportunity, Growth and
    Security Initiative for $3 million to be directed toward incentives for
    Bureau of Indian Education grant-funded schools, capacity-building and
    Tribal control of those schools.
                           authorization for funding
        Federal funding for TEAs is authorized in the No Child Left Behind
    Act of 2002, title X, section 1140 (25 U.S.C.Sec. 2020).
                           justification for funding
        Federal education policy is failing Native American students.
    Native American students drop out of high school at a higher rate and
    score lower on achievement tests than any other student group. The
    national dropout rate of Native American students is double that of
    their non-Indian peers. Likewise, the U.S. Department of Education's
    Office of Civil Rights (``OCR'') March 2014 Data Snapshot recognized
    that Native American elementary and secondary students in public
    schools are disproportionately suspended and expelled. OCR also found
    that Native American kindergarten students are among those held back a
    year at nearly twice the rate of white kindergarten students, and that
    9 percent of Native American ninth grade students repeat ninth grade.
        In achievement, Native American 8th grade students are 18 percent
    more likely to read or perform in mathematics at a ``below basic''
    level. Only a quarter of Native American high school graduates taking
    the ACT score at the ``college-ready'' level in math and only about
    one-third score at the ``college-ready'' level in reading. A 2013
    report issued by the Education Trust pointed out:

            Unlike achievement results for every other major ethnic group
            in the United States, those for Native [American] students have
            remained nearly flat in recent years, and the gaps separating
            these students from their white peers have actually widened.\1\

        At the same time, tribal government involvement in the education of
    Native American students is severely restricted. Since 1988, Congress
    has authorized funding specifically to build tribal capacity to
    directly serve Native students in Bureau of Indian Education (``BIE'')
    schools. However, funds have never been appropriated to fulfill this
    crucial need. A similar authorization for tribal capacity building
    aimed at public schools on Indian reservations has been funded since
    fiscal year 2012, resulting in the Department of Education's pioneering
    State-Tribal Education Partnership Program (``STEP''). Though very
    important, STEP only addresses one aspect of the existing need. While
    the corresponding funding opportunity for BIE schools has gone
    unutilized, our Native American students in BIE schools have continued
    to be underserved.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Education Trust, The State of Education for Native American
    Students at 3 (August 2013), available at: http://www.edtrust.org/
    sites/edtrust.org/files/NativeStudentBrief_0.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        TEAs are in a unique position to halt and reverse the negative
    outcomes for Native students. TEAs have already proven that they are
    capable of improving Native American student outcomes. For example, the
    Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, one of the STEP grantees, has a science,
    technology, and math program, among many other education programs, that
    serves approximately 250 Chickasaw students. Ninety percent of senior
    students participating in the program enroll in college. Through the
    STEP grant, Chickasaw has already put in place the framework to improve
    student outcomes and attendance. For example, before the co-governance
    model was in place, several Native American students were falling
    through the cracks and being expelled. Now, the Chickasaw Nation has
    stepped in to move expelled students into other alternative high school
    programs. Through this process, Local Education Agencies (``LEAs'') now
    understand that this is exactly the type of situation that the
    Chickasaw Nation TEA can address before the expulsion stage so
    intervention services can be provided, such as counseling, to students
    that are at risk. Thus, the STEP Program put in place a process
    allowing the TEAs and LEAs to proactively flag at risk students and
    provide the necessary intervention services.
        The work of the Nez Perce Tribe's TEA is another good example. The
    most current research indicates that Native American academic
    achievement must include effective teaching strategies. Also,
    researchers studying the achievement of Native American students have
    found a connection between low achievement and low cultural relevance.
    The Nez Perce Tribe, another STEP grantee, has made a large in-road to
    providing teacher training on the integration of cultural pedagogy,
    tribal education standards, and common core standards. In addition,
    technical assistance is provided by the Nez Perce TEA to their partner
    LEA's on use of the Native Star Culture and Language Indicators which
    address culturally-responsive school leadership, community engagement,
    and infusion of culture and language into the school's curriculum and
    instruction.
        The State of Idaho's State Education Agency (``SEA'') acknowledged
    that it does not have the expertise to provide training or technical
    assistance in meeting the unique educational and cultural needs of
    Native American students. Nez Perce's STEP grant has provided a
    platform for the Tribe's TEA and the local LEAs and SEA to work
    together to improve Native American student performance in this manner
    vis-a-vis the three Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    programs (title I, part A; title II, part A; and School Improvement
    Grants). Nez Perce also has a family engagement piece to their STEP
    grant that recognizes the role of the family as the first educator and
    organizes the parents and school staff to work together to assess
    parent involvement programs, policies, and practices. The end goal is
    to improve the educational experience and college/career readiness of
    the students.
        A final example is The Hoopa Valley Tribe of California, which
    operates a learning center that works with at risk students. The Hoopa
    Valley TED identifies K-12 students at risk, pairs the students with
    mentors, and develops student-learning plans. Students are tutored in
    target academic areas and coached in life skills. This program alone
    has improved student academic performance by two letter grades in core
    academic areas.
        These examples of success demonstrate the positive impact tribal
    involvement has on Native American students. This type of successful
    tribal involvement in the education of Native American students should
    be expanded and replicated in BIE schools. Congress has identified in
    the Elementary and Secondary Education Act several areas of focus in
    meeting this worthy objective. If appropriated by this subcommittee,
    these funds would be used to facilitate tribal control in all matters
    relating to Native American education on reservations. More
    specifically, there are three areas of particular focus. First, TEAs
    can use this funding to support early education initiatives and develop
    culturally relevant curriculum and assessments. Second, increased
    tribal participation will include TEAs providing coordination,
    administrative support services and technical assistance to schools and
    education programs on Indian reservations. This would include
    maintaining and sharing electronic data regarding Native American
    students, and implementing programs to increase graduation rates and
    post-secondary school readiness. This would foster much-needed
    cooperation and coordination with entities carrying out education on
    Indian reservations. Third, this appropriation would fund the
    development and enforcement of tribal educational codes, including
    tribal educational policies and tribal standards applicable to
    curriculum, personnel, students, facilities, and support programs. As
    Congress has already recognized, these three areas are core educational
    functions that are most appropriately left to tribes.
        We applaud President Obama's request in his Opportunity, Growth and
    Security Initiative that Congress invest in ``incentivizing schools
    funded through the Bureau of Indian Education to introduce reforms that
    improve student outcomes.'' TEDNA supports the President's approach to
    provide incentives to tribally controlled schools so that they
    voluntarily adopt certain research-based reforms rather impose mandates
    and sanctions. Further, TEDNA suggests that this funding be modeled on
    the discretionary grants used by the U.S. Department Education to
    foster competition among applicants and build tribal capacity,
    particularly the capacity of tribal educational agencies, to operate
    schools. At a low cost to taxpayers, such a competition would bring
    much-needed reform to many of the tribally controlled schools in the
    BIE-funded system, one of the lowest-achieving school systems in the
    Nation.
        Moreover, tribal governments, acting through their TEAs, should
    have a central role in a reformed BIE school system. Therefore, the
    President's initiative should restructure the administration of BIE
    schools and have TEAs act as school boards for BIE grant schools. This
    is the type of administrative and governance reform TEDNA has
    encouraged for many years. We believe that TEDNA's request today for
    the appropriation of capacity-building dollars complement the
    President's initiative well.
        Investment in TEAs is sound Federal policy. Direct tribal
    involvement in education eliminates undue bureaucratic barriers and
    streamlines administration. Moreover, encouraging and supporting tribal
    control in education begins to implement the policy of Tribal self-
    determination in education and further the United States' trust
    responsibility to Native American students. Thus, this subcommittee is
    presented with a unique opportunity to increase tribal involvement and
    leverage the expertise of TEAs in educating Native students.
                                    request
        TEDNA respectfully requests $2 million TEAs in the Department of
    the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for
    fiscal year 2015. TEDNA also supports the President's request in the
    Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative to foster competition in
    tribally controlled grant schools funded by the BIE and we urge
    Congress to appropriate $3 million for fiscal year 2015 for that
    purpose.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of The Trust for Public Land
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee: Thank you very much 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 2015 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 that you 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 and Environment bill this year. Our work in many
    States around the country shows that there is tremendous support for
    conservation and access to recreation at the local, State and Federal
    level, and the programs under your jurisdiction play a critical role in
    bringing those community visions to reality. Thank you for your
    support.
        Federal funding is an absolutely critical part of the land
    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 solutions to sometimes complex conservation
    funding challenges. The major programs under your jurisdiction that we
    count on year in and year out are the entire suite of Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) programs--including the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the
    National Park Service (NPS) and the United States Forest Service (USFS)
    acquisitions, NPS State and local grants, the Forest Legacy Program and
    the Cooperative Endangered Species Act Fund--as well as the United
    States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) North American Wetlands
    Conservation Act and the USFS 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 dedicated specific revenues to ensure that
    funds would be available for annual land conservation and outdoor
    recreation needs. The major source of these revenues has been offshore
    oil and gas development in Federal waters. LWCF does not rely at all on
    taxpayer dollars. Instead, revenues generated from energy development
    and natural resource depletion are used for the protection of other
    natural resources such as parks, open space, and wildlife habitat for
    the benefit of current and future generations. We (and, polls show,
    most of America) believes it is both logical and necessary that this
    principle--using a small percentage of annual Outer Continental Shelf
    (OCS) receipts (which average over $6 billion) as a conservation
    offset--be fully honored.
        Investments in conservation and outdoor recreation make sound
    economic sense, too. The Outdoor Industry Association estimates that
    active outdoor recreation contributes $646 billion annually to the U.S.
    economy, supports nearly 6.1 million jobs across the U.S., and
    generates $39.9 billion in annual national tax revenue.
        For these and many other reasons we strongly support the fiscal
    year 2015 President's budget proposal to fully fund the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund at $900 million, with $350 million from discretionary
    sources and $550 million in mandatory funds, for the various component
    programs funded under LWCF. In the fiscal year 2015 bill, we
    respectfully request that you allocate at least $350 million in
    discretionary funding as the budget proposes to support essential
    community-based conservation. We recognize that the mandatory funding
    request requires additional legislative action, and that you face
    significant challenges in addressing the many competing demands covered
    in your bill. We believe that continued investment in the entire suite
    of LWCF programs as proposed in the budget is essential and are ready
    to work with the subcommittee to ensure that dollars invested are well
    spent on our Nation's most urgent needs. We greatly appreciate the key
    role your subcommittee plays in ensuring that program dollars are used
    for high-priority strategic investments.
        LWCF's programs bring specific and complementary conservation
    benefits to the American public. These key programs are:
                           federal land acquisitions
        Every year tens of millions of Americans, as well as visitors to
    our country, visit our Federal public lands--national parks, forests,
    wildlife refuges and BLM conservation lands. Strategic inholding and
    other acquisitions in these Federal areas through LWCF ensure
    recreation access and nature education; foster vital economic growth;
    protect clean water and other community resources; enhance the
    incomparable natural and scenic treasures that belong to all Americans;
    and frequently resolve complex land-use conflicts and produce
    management savings. Without adequate funding, the unfortunate
    alternative often is an irretrievable loss of public use and enjoyment
    of these areas and irreversible damage to the resources we all care
    about.
        This is precisely the choice for numerous outdoor recreation and
    natural resource protection projects budgeted in fiscal year 2015,
    including lands in the San Bernardino and Tahoe national forests in
    California, the newly-designated Rio Grande del Norte National Monument
    in New Mexico, the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota, the
    Appalachian Trail in New Hampshire, , and within the Yakima River
    Watershed in Washington State. The Trust for Public Land is working in
    these and other areas identified in the President's budget and looks
    forward to working with the subcommittee as you consider these critical
    needs.
        At the same time that incompatible development within Federal units
    is a mounting concern for the public, we have found that many private
    inholding owners are open to and quite often eager to find a
    conservation solution. Faced with uncertainty about the availability of
    LWCF dollars, however, many landowners find that they cannot afford to
    wait for that 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. As the subcommittee evaluates the myriad
    programmatic needs and measures for making programs more efficient for
    the fiscal year 2015 Interior and Environment 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/state and local assistance grants
        Since 1965, the State and local assistance grant program has
    provided formula funds to States and local communities for 43,000
    projects that create and expand State and local parks or improve
    recreation facilities. This program reaches deep into communities
    across our Nation, supporting citizen-led efforts to conserve places of
    local importance and opportunities for close-to-home recreation. As TPL
    continues our work with many of these communities to meet these needs,
    we hope the subcommittee will fully fund the administration's request
    for stateside grants. We also support the allocation of LWCF funds to a
    new nationwide competitive State and local grants program, which was
    first funded in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations bill and is
    proposed for additional funds in the President's fiscal year 2015
    budget. This proposal is generating substantial interest in cities and
    towns across the Nation and we look forward to working with you and
    others to make it a success.
              national park service/urban park and recreation fund
        The President's Budget for fiscal year 2015 proposes $25 million
    (included in the mandatory LWCF proposal) to fund the Urban Park and
    Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). Funding UPARR in fiscal year 2015
    would enable the National Park Service to issue competitive grants for
    improved recreational opportunities in parks and along trails in
    metropolitan areas throughout the country. From 1978 to 2002, UPARR
    grants helped bring improvements to parks and playgrounds in 380
    communities in 43 States as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto
    Rico. Grants have gone to places as diverse as Providence, Rhode
    Island; San Francisco, California, Knoxville, Tennessee; Springfield,
    Missouri; Omaha, Nebraska; and Meridian, Mississippi. Through our Parks
    for People Program, The Trust for Public Land works closely with cities
    to meet a goal of providing safe access to recreation within a 10
    minute walk from home or school. We work with schools and communities
    to design, fund and care for improved parks and playgrounds. The
    restoration of UPARR funding in the fiscal year 2015 Interior and
    Environment Appropriations bill would be a sound investment in the
    health and well-being of our Nation's children.
                   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
    over 2.3 million acres of forestland and has leveraged more than the
    required 25 percent match. For fiscal year 2015, the President's budget
    recommends projects that provide multiple public benefits through
    forest protection--clean water, wildlife protection, climate change
    adaptation and mitigation, public access to recreation, economic
    development and sustainable forestry. We urge your continued support
    for sustained investment in this strategic and successful program.
    Included in the fiscal year 2015 budget proposal are numerous projects
    where TPL is working in partnership with the States 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. Among
    these are the program's top priority project in Montana, which will
    protect the primary water supply for the community of Whitefish; a
    2,085-acre addition to Camel's Hump State Park in the Green Mountains
    of Vermont; the second-phase of a project protecting an important
    watershed adjacent to Eureka, California; an 1800-acre property 2 miles
    from Zion National Park; a 6,700 acre working forest project on the
    Olympic Peninsula along Puget Sound; and a working forest project in
    Maine that represents 22 percent of the State's entire maple syrup
    production and 4 percent of the entire national output.
         u.s. fish and wildlife service/cooperative endangered species
                               conservation fund
        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 (CESCF), which leverages State and
    private funds and has protected threatened and endangered species
    habitat across the Nation. The Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) land
    acquisition program within CESCF is critical to communities like
    Whitefish, Montana where landowners and public wildlife managers are
    working together through integrated HCP's to foster species recover and
    appropriate economic development. In TPL's work with these and other
    communities, we have seen how essential CESCF Federal cost-share
    dollars are to species conservation and local economies. In addition,
    the Recovery Land Acquisition (RLA) program under CESCF aids species
    recovery where there is no HCP--as, for instance, with the proposed
    protection of a ranch along the Lower Deschutes River in Wasco County,
    Oregon.
        Beyond LWCF, we urge the subcommittee to provide adequate funding
    to other conservation programs including:
    u.s. fish and wildlife service/north american wetlands conservation act
                                    (nawca)
        We respectfully request your support for program funding at the
    President's budget level of $34.1 million in fiscal year 2015. The
    North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) provides much-needed
    matching grants to carry out wetlands conservation, restoration and
    enhancement projects. Our recent work through the NAWCA program will
    ensure protection of fast-disappearing coastal habitat in Connecticut
    and support restoration along the Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico. This
    is a highly-leveraged program with a substantial record of success and
    is another important Federal conservation tool to support critical
    wetland habitat.
                  u.s. forest service/community forest program
        Last but not least, we urge your continued support for the
    Community Forest Program (CFP), which the subcommittee has funded since
    fiscal year 2010. 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 Forest Service
    has now approved 13 grants to innovative local and tribal projects in 9
    States, and the program has generated significant interest from local
    entities concerned about the future of their close-to-home forests. Our
    successful projects using CFP grants include the Barre Town Forest in
    Vermont and the Thurston Hills Community Forest in Oregon. Given the
    strong interest in community forests from coast to coast, we urge you
    to include $5 million in the fiscal year 2015 bill for this innovative
    conservation tool.
        The programs highlighted here 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; and 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 2015 Interior, Environment and Related
    Agencies bill. Thank you for your help and support, and for your
    consideration of our requests.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Tuba City Boarding School--Governing Board

    Hon. Sally Jewell, Secretary,
    U.S. Department of Interior,
    Washington, DC.
    Hon. Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary,
    U.S. Department of Interior,
    Washington, DC.

    american indian education study group tribal consultation: proposal to
     redesign the u.s. department of interior's bureau of indian education
        Dear Secretary Jewell and Assistant Secretary Washburn: As the
    Navajo Nation Local Control Education Governing Board we are very
    thankful to be given the opportunity to provide additional comments on
    the ``Draft Proposal to Redesign the U.S. Department of Interior's
    Bureau of Indian Education (Dated: April 17, 2014).'' In many respects,
    we are very supportive of the goals, objectives, and statements
    contained in the draft proposal, especially with its emphasis on
    promoting tribal control, achieving high performing schools, as well as
    and increasing and improving services and support that builds tribal
    capacity. In line with these goals, the Navajo Nation reiterates its
    prior position regarding the American Indian Education Study Group and
    expresses strong support for a Navajo Nation State Education Agency,
    the Navajo Nation's alternative definition of Adequate Yearly Progress
    (``AYP''), and Navajo Nation's Alternative Accountability Workbook. A
    copy of the Navajo Nation's position (Dated: January 10, 2014) is
    attached to this letter.

    In particular, we strongly support the goals contained in the working
    draft because it:

    1.  Promotes Tribal Control
       -- Align BIE's path forward with President Obama's policy of self-
            determination for tribes because tribes understand the unique
            needs of their communities best.
       -- With a careful transition plan in place, gradually transform
            BIE's mission from running schools to serving tribes to conform
            with the reality that most BIE schools are now operated by
            tribes.
    2.  Achieve High-Performing Schools
       -- Ensure BIE meets its responsibility that all students attending
            BIE-funded schools receive a world-class and culturally
            appropriate education, are prepared for college and careers,
            and can contribute to their tribe and country.
       -- Provide necessary resources and support (e.g., facilities and
            human capital) to schools so that they can meet the demands of
            21st century teaching and learning.
    3.  Increase and Improve Services and Support that Tribal Build
    Capacity
       -- Scale up best practices in successful tribally controlled schools
            to other schools.
       -- Support chronically failing schools with adequate support and
            research-based interventions, if necessary.
       -- Provide pathways for tribes that wish to take over control of
            remaining BIE-operated schools by providing technical
            assistance and guidance on operating high-achieving schools.
       -- In the December 2011 White House Tribal Nations Conference
            Progress Report, the Obama administration expressed strong
            support for a proposal to enhance the role of tribal
            educational agencies through a new pilot authority, called the
            State Tribal Education Partnership (STEP) grant, which would
            support tribal educational agencies in working closely with
            public school districts and schools located on reservations.
            This pilot authority and grant presently allows the Navajo
            Nation to enter into collaborative agreements with State of New
            Mexico and two of the largest public school districts serving
            Native American students in the United States and to assume
            responsibility for some State-level functions in administering
            ESEA programs.

        We also agree with key priorities highlighted in the draft proposal
    because it also provides for:

      --World Class Instruction for all BIE Students.--Challenge each
            student to maximize his or her potential and be well-prepared
            for college, careers and tribal/global citizenship.
      --Highly Effective Teachers and Principals.--Help tribes to identify,
            recruit, retain and empower diverse, highly effective teachers
            and principals to maximize the highest achievement for every
            student in all BIE-funded schools.
      --Agile Organizational Environment.--Build a responsive organization
            that provides the resources, direction and services to tribes
            so that they can help their students attain high-levels of
            student achievement.
      --Budget that Supports Capacity Building Mission.--Develop a budget
            that is aligned with and supports BIE's new mission of tribal
            capacity building and scaling up best practices.
      --Comprehensive Supports through Partnerships.--Foster parental,
            community and organizational partnerships to provide the
            emotional and social supports BIE students need in order to be
            ready to learn.

    In line with those goals, we also recommend:

    1.  In line with identifying, recruiting, retaining highly effective
    teachers/principals, and building teacher/principal capacity (human
    capital) we strongly recommend that the BIE and other appropriate
    government agencies to enact a teacher/principal scholarship program
    that is very similar to the Indian Health Service (``IHS'') scholarship
    program. Ever since the IHS Scholarship Program's creation in 1977, the
    program has successfully supported thousands of American Indian and
    Alaska Native students in their quest for a health/medical professions
    degree leading to a career in Indian health. A scholarship program that
    is specifically targeted to identify, recruit, and support teachers,
    including principals, especially in hard-to-fill Science, Technology,
    Engineering, Mathematics (``STEM'') areas, would significantly help our
    schools to meet the demand and need for highly effective teachers/
    principals. Not only would such a scholarship program enable tribes to
    build capacity, because scholarship recipients would be committed to
    serving several years on the Navajo Nation or in other Native American
    schools.
    2.  Changing, amending, or waiving rules, regulations that negatively
    impact rural schools such as the regulation [25 C.F.R.
    Sec. 36.11(a)(5)] that limits the number of days that schools can
    employ long-term substitute teachers. Because of extreme remoteness and
    difficultly hiring highly effective and fully qualified and licensed
    teachers, many of our schools have little to no choice but hire long-
    term substitute teachers who may need to teach students much longer
    than the existing regulation allows. Changing, amending, or waiving
    this regulation may allow our schools to provide the continuity in
    instruction that students need until a fully qualified and licensed
    teacher can be hired to fill that position.
    3.  Any education plan to reform and restructure the BIE must also
    provide strong support, including funding, to identify, recruit, and
    enhance the role and capacity of highly effective bilingual teachers.
    There is statistically significant research that shows that students
    who are educated in their language and culture perform better
    academically, while also reinforcing their self-identity, and
    preserving their language and culture. At the moment, many of the
    existing bilingual teachers who possess strong content knowledge,
    including the ability to effectively teach Navajo language and culture,
    are on the verge of retirement or leaving our schools, which further
    complicates attempts by tribes to preserve and maintain our language
    and culture. The Navajo Nation has lead the way in many respects, by
    working with 3 different States to enact alternative teacher licensing
    regulations, which presently allows persons who are knowledgeable and
    competent in Navajo language and culture to teach in our schools. We
    have also enacted the Navajo Nation's Five (5) Content Standards
    (Navajo Language, Culture,

        History, Government, ( Character), which can readily be
    incorporated into many school's curriculums because it also complements
    the Common Core State Standards (``CCSS'').

    4.  In light of the recommendations provided in the draft proposal to
    build tribal control of education and capacity, we also recommend that
    the BIE (or other appropriate government entities), to consult and meet
    with tribes such as the Navajo Nation to conduct an evaluation/
    assessment of a tribe's existing capacity or provision of funding to
    accomplish that objective.

        As we move forward with redesigning/transforming the Bureau of
    Indian Education (``BIE'') and improving the quality of education that
    our Navajo/Native American students receive, it is extremely important
    to remember that we are fighting for the lives of our children and that
    we can no longer afford to lose another generation of young people to a
    failing education system or to continue to make excuses for failure and
    low expectations. We must always put the needs of our children and
    students first; not adults, special interests, or politics. When we put
    the needs of our students first, it will make many of the tough
    decisions that must inevitably be made, easier, clearer, and worth the
    fight. Thank you.
                Sincerely,
                                       Marie B. Acothley, Tuba City WNA
                                           Board President.
                                       Juanita Burns-Begay, Vice-President.
                                       Sarana Riggs, Secretary.
                                       Frank Bilagody, Member.
                                       Irvin Begaye, Member.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the United States Geological Survey Coalition
                                    summary
        The USGS Coalition appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony
    about the fiscal year 2015 budget for the United States Geological
    Survey (USGS). The administration's budget requests $1.073 billion for
    the USGS. This level represents an increase of $41 million over the
    fiscal year 2014 level. The request, however, also includes $41 million
    in cuts to on-going programs and does not include $75 million in
    important research and development initiatives that have been
    identified by the agency as priorities should funding be available.
    Thus, the USGS Coalition respectfully requests that Congress work to
    provide the USGS with $1.189 billion for fiscal year 2015, which would
    allow the agency to sustain current efforts and make strategic new
    investments that will produce the knowledge and decision-support tools
    needed by decision-makers across the country.
        The USGS is uniquely positioned to provide information and inform
    responses to many of the Nation's greatest challenges. Few modern
    problems can be addressed by a single scientific discipline. The USGS
    is an agency that has a unique capacity to deploy truly
    interdisciplinary teams of experts to gather data, conduct research,
    and develop integrated decision support tools that improve ecosystem
    management, ensure accurate assessments of our water quality and
    quantity, reduce risks from natural and human-induced hazards, deliver
    timely assessments of mineral and energy resources, and provide
    emergency responders with accurate geospatial data and maps.
              about the united states geological survey coalition
        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 United States 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 agency 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 biological, 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 decision makers 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 1,000,000 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 analysis 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. 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. Ecosystems 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
        Over the years, Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to
    provide essential funding to the USGS. These efforts have paid
    dividends and helped the USGS provide answers to the challenging
    questions facing decision-makers across the country.
        Through careful management and deferring staff travel and training,
    the USGS has survived the recent budget cuts resulting from
    sequestration. Staff training and participation in scientific meetings,
    however, are necessary investments that help USGS maintain its
    technical capacity. It is through exchanges at scientific meetings and
    workshops that new ideas emerge and scientific analyses are shared,
    challenged by colleagues, and honed prior to submitting research for
    publication in peer-reviewed journals. We encourage Congress to work
    with the USGS to ensure that scientists are able to fully participate
    in scientific meetings.
        As a science agency, much of the USGS budget is dedicated to
    salaries and equipment that must be maintained and updated to ensure
    the continuity of data acquisition and 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. The budget request for fiscal year 2015 includes cuts
    to scientific support, which includes information technology and
    administration and management functions. Although efficiencies can
    often be found through innovation in these areas, we encourage Congress
    to ensure that these cuts do not hinder the provision of services and
    support that agency personnel require to complete research, gather
    data, and provide the information needed by the public for informed
    decisionmaking.
        The USGS has offset some new investments by eliminating a
    significant number of full time equivalent positions. Research progress
    and the communication of research findings to end-users will be slowed
    or disrupted as a result of the reduction in staffing. Rebuilding
    scientific and technical expertise can be challenging. Thus, the loss
    of any positions can have long-term implications for USGS programs.
        Among the programmatic reductions the scientific community is
    concerned about are:
      --$13.0 million in cuts to Core Science Systems, such as the Bio-
            Science Data synthesis, Urban Area assessments, National Atlas,
            and other programs.
      --$11.3 million in cuts to various water research and monitoring
            programs.
      --$4.5 million in cuts to Administrative Services.
      --$2.5 million in cuts to the National Civil Applications Program.
      --$1.0 million in cuts to the Coastal Vulnerability program.
      --$5.4 million in cuts to Fisheries, Wildlife and Environments
            Research.
      --$1.9 million in cuts to Energy Research, Oil and Gas Assessments,
            and Wastewater contaminants research.
        We recognize and appreciate that budget conditions remain
    challenging and the work before the subcommittee is not easy. Yet, we
    believe that sustained and strategic new investments in the USGS
    promise significant long-term benefits. Should funds be available, we
    hope that Congress will restore proposed cuts and provide new funds for
    research and development priorities that USGS has identified but lacks
    resources to pursue. The agency has identified at least $75 million in
    research and development opportunities in the areas of (1) energy and
    mineral development; (2) climate resilience; (3) landscape scale
    ecosystem management, restoration and protection; (4) water resources
    management; and (5) species protection and health.
                                   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 $1.189 billion for fiscal year 2015.
        The USGS Coalition appreciates the subcommittee's past leadership
    in strengthening the United States Geological Survey. Thank you for
    your thoughtful consideration of this request.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of United Tribes Technical College
        For 45 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. Despite such challenges 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 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
    2015 Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)/Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    are:
      --$6.8 million in BIE funding for our Indian Self-Determination Act
            contract which is in the Tribal Technical Colleges BIE line
            item and is $2.5 million over the administration's request for
            UTTC.
      --One-time BIE funding to forward fund United Tribes Technical
            College and the few other tribal colleges who are not forward
            funded.
      --Congressional support for a tribally administered law enforcement
            training center at UTTC and/or more involvement in law
            enforcement training initiatives.
        Base Funding.--UTTC administers its BIE funding under an Indian
    Self-Determination Act agreement, and has done so for 37 years. BIE
    funds requested above the fiscal year 2014 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 are in the bottom quartile of pay
    for comparable positions elsewhere; and (4) fund program and curriculum
    improvements.
        We appreciate that the administration is requesting a $200,700
    increase for UTTC for a total of $4,564,000 but our need is so much
    more than that. We request that the UTTC portion of the Tribal
    Technical Colleges line item be $6.8 million and that the total line
    item of Tribal Technical Colleges be at least $11 million.
        Acquisition of additional base funding is critical as UTTC has
    significantly increased its number of students within the past 10 years
    while actual base funding for educational services, including Carl
    Perkins Act funding, have not increased commensurately. Our BIE funding
    provides a base level of support while allowing us to compete for
    desperately needed discretionary contracts and grants. 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 support services but cannot replace core
    operational funding.
        We highlight several relatively recent updates of our curricula to
    meet job market needs: 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. And we recently opened a
    distance learning center in Rapid City where there are some 16,000
    American Indians in the area. We are also working toward the
    establishment of an American Indian Specialized Health Care Training
    Clinic.
        Forward Funding.--We have wanted BIE forward funding for some time
    and the experience these past several years 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 University (NTU)) 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 NTU.
        When the administration requested $50 million for forward funding
    its fiscal year 2010 budget, they asked for it under the line item of
    ``tribally controlled colleges and universities''--that line item
    includes 27 tribally controlled colleges. However, we are funded under
    the line item of ``tribal technical colleges'' and Haskell,
    Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI), and the Institute of
    American Indian Arts (IAIA) are funded under other authorities, and
    thus when Congress provided the requested $50 million for forward
    funding, UTTC and NTU, Haskell, SIPI, and the IAIA were left out. The
    American Indian Higher Education Consortium has estimated $22 million
    is needed to forward fund these schools. This does not increase the
    Federal budget over the long run. It simply provides funds for vital
    education programs before the start of each school year, which is
    critically important when appropriations are delayed and the Government
    is funded under continuing resolutions.
        The manner of distribution of fiscal years 2013 and 2014 BIE funds
    has been a disaster. Between having funding provided via continuing
    resolutions and held back due to the prospects of a sequestration,
    planning has been very difficult. Six months into fiscal year 2013 we
    had been allocated only 37 percent of our BIE funding and in the
    current (fiscal year 2014) year only about 25 percent of funds were
    allocated in the first 6 months. The unprecedented uncertainty in terms
    of timing and amount of funding 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.
          additional information 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 23 associate degree programs, 19 certificate and 3
            bachelor degree programs (Criminal Justice; Elementary
            Education; Business Administration). Six courses are offered
            online.
      --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 1,391.
      --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 that the
            five tribal colleges in North Dakota made a direct and
            secondary economic contribution to the State of $181,933,000 in
            2012.
        A Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy.--We ask Congress
    to seriously look at the problem of addressing crime in Indian country
    with an eye toward the 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. 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. State and national training
    resources would have an important role in this new endeavor.
        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, and
    Military Investigative services; and private security agents. We point
    out that the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
    contains requirements regarding background checks and character
    investigations. We want to expand our endeavors to help meet law
    enforcement needs in Indian country. Given our Criminal Justice
    program, our location and our campus resources, we propose the
    establishment of a Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy.
        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.
        The fiscal year 2015 Indian Affairs budget justification (p. IA-
    PSJ-12) notes that training initiatives for the Indian police academy
    includes developing a pre-academy training program for candidates prior
    to their attending the academy; developing a mid-level manager training
    program; and establishing an online distance learning program for
    recertification, among other things. These are things that UTTC could
    do as part of an academy at UTTC or in partnership with the Indian
    Police Academy.
        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.
        The Duplication or Overlapping Issue.--As you know, in March 2011
    the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued two reports regarding
    Federal programs which may have similar or overlapping services or
    objectives (GAO-11-474R and GAO-11-318SP). Funding from the BIE and the
    Department of Education's Carl Perkins Act for Tribally Controlled
    Postsecondary Career and Technical Education were among the programs
    listed in the reports. The full GAO report did not recommend defunding
    these programs; rather, 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, as long as program
    funds are not cut.
        BIE funds represent over 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 NTU. Combined, these institutions received less than
    $15 million in fiscal year 2014 Federal operational funds ($7.7 million
    from Perkins; $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 and many
    of whom come to us needing remedial education and services. Although
    BIE and Perkins funds do not pay for remedial education, 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 Utah Water Users Association
                                                         April 3, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
    support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
    consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
    subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                               Carly B. Burton,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
                                                         April 3, 2014.
    Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
            on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
            Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
    support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
    consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
    subcommittee:

      --Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
            Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
            $124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
            fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
            Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
      --Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
            for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
            meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
            Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
      --Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
            Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
            Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
            Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
            Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
            propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
            Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
            Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.

        I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
    2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
    participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
    recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
    subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
    efforts.
                Sincerely,
                                                  Manuel Heart,
                                                       Tribal Chairman.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Scott A. Verhines, P.E.
                                    summary
        This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2015
    appropriations for Colorado River Basin salinity control activities of
    the Bureau of Land Management. I urge that at least $5,200,000 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 $1,500,000 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 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 created a 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 2015 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.
                                       Scott A. Verhines, P.E.
                                               New Mexico State Engineer
                                               Secretary, New Mexico
                                                   Interstate Stream
                                                   Commission
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Western Governors' Association
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the Western Governors'
    Association (WGA). My name is James D. Ogsbury and I am the Executive
    Director of the WGA. WGA is an independent, non-partisan organization
    representing the Governors of 19 Western States and 3 U.S.-flag
    islands. We are pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the
    appropriations and activities of the Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service
    and Environmental Protection Agency.
        Western Governors recognize that certain agencies within this
    subcommittee's jurisdiction are especially impactful to the West. These
    Federal agencies have rich potential to supplement State efforts or
    impinge on State authority. They can exercise vital leadership or they
    can interfere with well-managed State activities. Accordingly, it is
    critical that State and Federal agencies develop and maintain positive
    and cooperative working relationships. Western Governors believe that
    such cooperation is only possible when States are regarded as full and
    equal partners of the Federal Government in the development and
    execution of programs for which both have responsibility.
        As you consider appropriations and policy directives for Federal
    agencies, Western Governors urge you to take cognizance of States'
    authority in resource management and their potential to enhance the
    delivery of government services and protections to our citizens.
    Western Governors are strong and pragmatic chief executives, committed
    to judicious exercise of their power within constitutional and
    practical constraints. The following requests and recommendations are
    thematically related in that they commonly call for greater recognition
    of State authority and better utilization of State capabilities by the
    Federal Government.
        With respect to funding levels of appropriated programs, WGA
    recommends the enactment and full funding of a permanent and stable
    funding mechanism for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program administered
    by the Department of Interior. As you know, these appropriations do not
    represent a gift to local jurisdictions; rather they represent
    important (if inadequate) compensation for the disproportionate acreage
    of non-taxable Federal lands in the West. Similarly, continued funding
    of the Secure Rural Schools program will help compensate communities
    whose timber industries have been negatively impacted by actions and
    acquisitions of the Federal Government.
        Western States are investing enormous amounts of time, money and
    manpower in species conservation. It is only appropriate that Federal
    agencies likewise commit sufficient resources for species protection,
    particularly on Federal lands. If Federal lands are inadequately
    managed, no amount of effort on State and private property will be
    sufficient to assure species' success. Federal agencies should
    demonstrate their commitment to species preservation and recovery by
    committing adequate funding for conservation efforts on Federal lands.
        Part of the Federal commitment to species conservation involves
    financial support for species management by State agencies through the
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grant program. Because State responsibilities
    for species conservation are increasing in number and complexity, the
    subcommittee is urged to reject the $8.7 million reduction to this
    program proposed by the administration.
        The subcommittee is well informed regarding the pressing problem of
    ``fire borrowing,'' pursuant to which resources necessary for the
    reduction of wildfire threats are transferred to emergency firefighting
    activities, perpetuating a cycle of high fire risk and elevated
    emergency expenditures. Be advised that WGA is on record as supporting
    legislation that would solve the budgetary issue of fire borrowing by
    creating a funding structure similar to that used by the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency in its response to natural disasters.
        During last year's Government shutdown, certain national parks were
    kept open through the initiative of States which undertook
    responsibilities of park management. The subcommittee is encouraged to
    provide the resources necessary to compensate those States for the
    costs they incurred in shouldering a Federal obligation.
        WGA understands that this subcommittee is as interested in how
    funds are spent as it is in how much money agencies spend. The
    following recommendations are intended to help ensure that the taxpayer
    realizes a better return on the investment of limited discretionary
    resources. This goal will be more readily achieved to the extent that
    Federal agencies better leverage State authority, resources and
    expertise.
        Last year this subcommittee included language in its report
    directing Federal land managers to use State fish and wildlife data and
    analyses as sources to inform land use, land planning and related
    natural resource decisions. Federal and State agencies need data-driven
    science, mapping and analyses to effectively manage wildlife species
    and their habitat. States possess constitutional responsibilities for
    wildlife management, as well as intimate knowledge of wildlife habitat
    and resources. In addition, they often generate the best available
    wildlife science. The use of State science should be more effectively
    utilized to both reduce total costs and increase the efficacy of
    Federal wildlife management efforts. Accordingly, the subcommittee is
    encouraged to reiterate and strengthen its report language regarding
    this issue for fiscal year 2015.
        Western Governors believe that States should be full and equal
    partners in the implementation of the Endangered Species Act and should
    have the opportunity to participate in pre-listing and post-listing ESA
    decisions. The ESA is premised on a strong State-Federal partnership.
    Section 6(a) of the ESA states that, ``In carrying out the program
    authorized by the Act, the Secretary shall cooperate to the maximum
    extent practicable with the States.'' WGA submits that such cooperation
    should include partnership with States in the establishment of
    quantifiable species recovery goals, as well as in the design and
    implementation of recovery plans.
        It is axiomatic that ESA listing decisions have dramatic impacts on
    vital State interests. Consequently, States should have the right to
    intervene in proceedings regarding the ESA. The subcommittee is urged
    to support the legal standing of States to participate in
    administrative and judicial actions involving ESA that, by their
    nature, implicate State authority and resources.
        Several Federal statutes--including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
    Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act--vest the States with
    the role of co-regulator with the Environmental Protection Agency. That
    role would be significantly enhanced by greater State representation on
    the Science Advisory Board (SAB), on which the agency relies to provide
    the scientific underpinnings of regulatory decisions.
        The SAB was established by the Environmental Research, Development,
    and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 in accordance with the
    Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) and has a broad mandate
    to advise EPA on scientific, technological, and social and economic
    issues. The SAB Charter defines the SAB as a scientific and technical
    advisory committee. Sections 5(b)(2) and 5(c) of FACA require the
    membership of an advisory committee to be ``fairly balanced in terms of
    points of view represented and the functions to be performed.''
        Despite the foregoing mandates and the tremendous value that would
    be added to SAB processes by State participation, States are woefully
    and demonstrably under-represented on the SAB, as well as on its
    standing and ad hoc committees. States are equipped and prepared to
    contribute their regulatory expertise, as well as their scientific
    resources and data, to SAB deliberations. Consequently, the
    subcommittee is urged to ensure that EPA achieves more balanced SAB
    representation, to include State participation that constitutes no less
    than 10 percent of the membership of SAB committees, subcommittees and
    subject matter panels.
        On March 25, the administration unveiled a proposed rule of the
    Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    intended to clarify the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act.
    Many States have indicated concern that the proposed rule significantly
    expands the definition of ``waters of the United States'' and could
    impinge on State authority over the regulation of waters within their
    borders. WGA is concerned that States were insufficiently consulted in
    the development of this proposal and played no role in the creation of
    the rule, which has such major implications for States.
        Congress intended that the States and EPA would implement the CWA
    in partnership, delegating authority to the States to administer the
    law as co-regulators with EPA. Accordingly, WGA encourages
    congressional direction to EPA to engage the States in the creation of
    rulemaking, guidance, or studies that threaten to redefine the roles
    and jurisdiction of the States. State water managers should have a
    robust and meaningful voice in the development of any rule regarding
    the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act or similar statutes.
        Solving many of the West's challenges will require a broad view of
    the interrelated nature of natural resource problems. For example,
    Federal underinvestment in the eradication of invasive species (like
    cheatgrass) and in the active management of national forests can result
    in increased severity of wildfires. This greater wildfire threat in
    turn poses greater peril to the crucial of habitat of species (like the
    greater sage grouse) that States are working diligently to conserve.
        Western Governors appreciate the enormity of your job, as well as
    your commitment to the provision of cost-effective government services.
    The foregoing recommendations are offered in a spirit of cooperation
    and respect, and WGA is prepared to assist you as appropriate as you
    discharge your critical and challenging responsibilities.
        Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Western States Water Council and Native
                              American Rights Fund
                                i. introduction
        The Western States Water Council (WSWC) and the Native American
    Rights Fund (NARF) submit the following joint testimony in support of
    adequate funding for the Secretary of the Interior's Indian Water
    Rights Office (SIWRO) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to carry
    out their responsibilities in support of Indian water rights
    settlements.\1\ This testimony is based on WSWC Policy Resolution
    #336.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The WSWC is a government entity created by the Western
    Governors, which advises the Governors of 18 Western States on water
    policy matters and is affiliated with the Western Governors'
    Association. NARF is a non-profit 501c(3) organization that provides
    legal representation and technical assistance to Indian tribes,
    organizations and individuals nationwide--a constituency that often
    lacks access to the justice system.
        \2\ Available at: http://www.westgov.org/wswc/
    336%20indian%20water%20rights%20settlements
    %207oct2011.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For over 30 years, the WSWC and NARF have worked together to
    support the negotiated resolution of Indian water rights claims. Our
    organizations believe there is a need to quantify Indian water rights,
    that negotiated settlements are preferable to litigation as a means of
    quantifying those rights, and that the Federal Government should
    encourage and facilitate settlements. As discussed below, the SIWRO and
    the BIA play a key role in the settlement process, and Congress should
    ensure they receive sufficient funding to carry out their settlement
    efforts.
             ii. prior appropriation and indian water right claims
        The doctrine of prior appropriation governs the allocation of water
    in most Western States. Under this system, the first parties to
    physically divert and put water to a ``beneficial use'' have priority
    over subsequent water users. Thus, senior water right holders with
    earlier priority dates (the date the water was first put to beneficial
    use) can seek curtailment of uses with junior priority dates in times
    of shortage.
        Most non-Indian water development in the West occurred after the
    Federal Government finalized treaties and executive orders to establish
    reservations for tribes, and after Congress severed land and water
    rights in the West and directed that water rights be obtained under
    State law. In addition, most tribal treaties and executive orders
    creating Indian reservations did not specify the tribes' water rights.
        The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the resulting conflict in Winters
    v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), finding that tribal treaties and
    executive orders impliedly reserved water rights necessary to meet the
    purpose(s) of a tribe's reservation. These reserved rights differ from
    State-issued water rights because they: (1) arise independently of
    beneficial use; (2) are not limited by beneficial use; (3) are measured
    by present and future supplies needed to fulfill the reservation's
    purpose(s) instead of past uses; and (4) have priority dates that
    correspond to the date the tribe's reservation was established.
              iii. the need to resolve tribal water rights claims
        Resolving Winters rights claims is critical for Western States
    because tribal rights typically have priority dates that are senior to
    non-Indian uses, and therefore have the potential to displace
    established State-issued rights. This is especially problematic where
    tribal rights pertain to river systems that are fully appropriated by
    non-Indian users. The un-quantified nature of many tribal rights
    creates great uncertainty with regard to existing State-based uses and
    can impede local, State, and regional economic development. As a
    result, quantifying tribal water right claims is essential for Western
    States to address increasing water demands related to the West's
    growing population, and to allocate water supplies that continually
    change and are often scarce due to drought, reduced snowpacks, and
    other factors.
        At the same time, tribes often lack the resources to develop their
    water rights. This lack of a reliable water supply and related
    infrastructure throughout Indian Country sometimes prevents tribes from
    protecting the health, welfare, and safety of their communities. For
    example, over 40 percent of tribal members in the Navajo Nation haul
    water for domestic use. This lack of potable water has caused various
    illnesses.\3\ Members of the Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas, the Chippewa
    Cree Tribe of Montana, and others also haul water for basic domestic
    needs.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Concerning S. 1771--Northwest New Mexico Rural Water Projects
    Act: Hearing on S. 1771 Before the S. Comm. on Energy and Natural
    Resources, 110th Cong. 8 (2007) (statement of Joe Shirley, Jr.,
    President, Navajo Nation).
        \4\ Testimony of John Echohawk on behalf of the Native American
    Rights Fund: Oversight Hearing on Indian Water Rights Settlements
    Before the Subcomm. on Water and Power of the H. Comm. on Natural
    Resources, 110th Cong. 7-8 (2008) (statement of John Echohawk,
    Executive Director, NARF) [hereinafter Echohawk Testimony].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The absence of adequate and reliable potable water supplies also
    contributes to unemployment, poverty, and mortality rates on
    reservations that are much higher than those of neighboring non-Indian
    communities. In California, the lack of an adequate water supply has
    prevented the Tule River Tribe from providing fire protection, housing,
    and economic opportunities to tribal members. The tribe also has
    unemployment and mortality rates that are 50 percent higher than Tulare
    County as a whole and has been unable to act on hundreds of housing
    applications.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ In Support of S. 789, the Tule River Tribe Water Development
    Act: Hearing to Receive Testimony on S. 637, S. 789, S. 1080, and S.
    1453 Before the Subcomm. on Water and Power of the S. Comm. on Energy
    and Natural Resources, 111th Cong. 7 (2009) (statement of Ryan
    Garfield, Chairman, Tule River Tribe); Echohawk Testimony, supra note
    6, at 7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Settlements are the preferred manner of resolving tribal water
    rights claims because they allow States and tribes to address these
    issues in ways that are not available through litigation. Specifically,
    settlements: (1) enable tribes to turn quantified rights into ``wet
    water,'' while litigation typically provides tribes with ``paper
    rights'' only; (2) allow tribes and non-Indian parties to craft
    mutually-beneficial solutions tailored to their specific needs; (3) are
    often less costly and time-consuming than litigation, which can last
    for decades and be extremely expensive for all parties, including the
    Federal Government; (4) give States and tribes control over the
    resolution of water rights claims; and (5) build positive relationships
    between States, tribes, and the Federal Government, which are essential
    because water is a shared resource that all parties must cooperatively
    manage after adjudication.
        For example, the Federal Government holds Indian water rights in
    trust for the tribes and has a fiduciary duty to protect tribal water
    rights. Because the Federal Government has not always protected tribal
    water rights, tribes often have significant breach of trust claims
    against the United States. At the same time, many tribal water rights
    claims in the arid West involve fully-appropriated stream systems. To
    address these issues, tribes will often waive their breach of trust
    claims against the Federal Government as well as a portion of their
    claimed water rights in consideration for Federal funding to build
    needed drinking water infrastructure, water supply projects, and tribal
    fishery restoration projects. These projects generally enable tribal
    and non-tribal water users to use existing water supplies more
    efficiently and advantageously and do not take water from existing non-
    Indian water users. Moreover, these types of mutually-acceptable
    outcomes are simply not available through litigation.
             iv. the role of the federal government in settlements
        The Federal Government is joined in all water rights adjudications
    involving tribes because it holds the tribes' rights in trust. This
    means that it has a fiduciary duty to help tribes resolve their rights
    and ensure that settlements are funded and implemented, in addition to
    its obligation to protect tribal water rights. It also means that
    Congress and the President must approve each settlement.
        The Federal Government has long supported a policy of resolving
    Indian water rights claims through negotiation rather than litigation.
    To this end, the Department of the Interior's Indian Water Rights
    Settlement Program facilitates Federal involvement in the settlement
    process. The SIWRO leads this program in consultation with Interior's
    Officer of the Solicitor, facilitating inter-agency participation and
    cooperation needed to achieve and implement comprehensive settlements.
        In particular, the SIWRO coordinates and supports Federal
    settlement activities through 38 Federal assessment, negotiation, and
    implementation teams that are working throughout the West. These teams
    consist of representatives from agencies and bureaus within Interior,
    including the BIA, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Solicitor's Office,
    the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the Department of Justice and
    other Federal departments. These teams also provide a unified Federal
    voice that helps further the settlement process, a matter of crucial
    importance for the States as well. However, the legitimate need for
    these teams far outstrips the number of teams available.
        Furthermore, Interior and its agencies and bureaus provide critical
    monetary, personnel, and technical support that tribes need to
    effectively participate in the settlement process. As part of these
    efforts, the BIA provides technical assistance to tribes and
    coordinates the process of soliciting water-related funding proposals
    from tribes. It also identifies funding needs for studies required in
    ongoing Indian water rights litigation and negotiations. For instance,
    the BIA's Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation Program provides
    necessary documentation, technical studies, and other materials needed
    for the United States to further the negotiation of tribal water right
    claims.
        Appropriating insufficient funds for these purposes hinders the
    resolution of tribal water right claims. Therefore, Congress should
    ensure that the SIWRO and the BIA receive adequate appropriations to
    carry out their responsibilities in support of Interior's water rights
    settlement program.
            v. the consequences of not supporting settlement efforts
        Tribes require the resources that the SIWRO and the BIA provide to
    participate effectively in the settlement process. Failure to provide
    adequate appropriations for these programs could postpone the
    negotiation and implementation of Indian water rights settlements.
    Ultimately, this makes the resolution of many tribal water rights
    claims more expensive for the Federal Government in the long-run
    because increasing water demands, decreasing water supplies, and other
    factors will only increase the costs of resolving these claims.
                                 vi. conclusion
        The United States has a trust obligation to the tribes that
    includes ensuring that they can participate in the settlement process.
    Failure to provide sufficient funding to fulfill this obligation will
    only increase Federal costs, perpetuate hardships to tribes, and
    prolong resolution of conflicts between reserved water rights and
    State-created water rights. This, in turn, could potentially disrupt
    established economies and hinder effective State and regional water
    planning and development.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Wilderness Land Trust
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
    subcommittee, my name is Reid Haughey and I am the president of the
    Wilderness Land Trust. We are a small not-for-profit organization
    focused on protecting designated wilderness. To do this, we work in
    partnership with landowners who own private property within designated
    and proposed wilderness areas and the agencies that manage these areas.
    We acquire properties from willing sellers with the intent to transfer
    ownership to the United States. My testimony focuses on a very small
    portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund--funding for the
    Inholding Acquisition Accounts for the four land management agencies.
    Continued modest funding of the Inholding Accounts is vital to the
    success of securing and preserving wilderness already designated by
    Congress, while treating private landowners within these areas fairly.
        The management of human development activities in wilderness is
    expensive for the agencies. The potential resource damage to the
    protected lands and waters is enormous. By contrast, the cost of
    acquiring these properties when they are offered for sale is relatively
    small. That is why it is so important to continue the modest
    appropriations needed for the inholding acquisition program.
        As we approach the 2014 50th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act, I
    am before you today to thank you for funding the Inholdings Accounts in
    fiscal year 2014 and to ask for that support once again. An
    appropriation of between $3 and 5 million to each of the land
    management agencies, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management,
    the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, is
    sufficient to enable the agencies to acquire high priority inholdings
    from willing sellers. Support for these accounts:
      --Saves money by eliminating management inefficiencies that
            frequently exceed the cost of acquisition;
      --Helps private landowners within federally designated wilderness and
            other conservation areas;
      --Allows the agencies to act when opportunities occur to acquire
            inholdings, often only once a generation; and
      --Completes designated wilderness areas, removing threats from
            incompatible and harmful development within their boundaries.
        We are not asking Congress to undertake a new acquisition program
    or to significantly increase current appropriation levels. As 2014 is
    the 50th Anniversary of The Wilderness Act, we ask Congress to continue
    its 50-year commitment to complete the wilderness areas it has
    designated, and to provide private landowners who wish to sell the
    opportunity to transfer their land within those wilderness areas to
    public ownership by prioritizing the use of the inholding accounts for
    the acquisition of inholdings within and adjacent to designated
    wilderness areas. Focusing the inholding accounts on designated
    wilderness and funding the Forest Service Wilderness Inholdings core
    project will be money well spent, completing established congressional
    designations and taking care of landowners who still own lands within
    these now-designated wildernesses.
        So, why worry? Aren't wilderness areas secured when Congress
    designates them? All designations include language that authorize the
    Federal acquisition of private lands within these areas and, once
    acquired, automatically protect them as part of the designated
    wilderness that surrounds them. As part of our celebration of the 50th
    anniversary of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the Trust has commissioned an
    inventory of private lands within wilderness. The results are
    startling. The report determined that within the lower 48 States,
    180,000 acres of private lands still remain. There are also 440,000
    acres of State owned lands.
        This represents tremendous progress reducing private inholdings in
    wilderness over the last 20 years. When the Trust last estimated the
    amount of private land within designated wilderness in the lower 48
    States, we estimated there were 400,000 acres of private lands. It has
    taken decades of steady work to reduce that by more than half. During
    the same timeframe, 507 new or additional areas were congressionally
    designated, adding close to 29 million acres to the National Wilderness
    Preservation System. So, true progress indeed. Large appropriations for
    the inholding accounts did not accomplish this success--just steady,
    modest funding so that lands can be purchased when landowners want to
    sell. This is the level of funding we are hoping to continue.
        These designated lands are worthy of completion. Landowners who are
    ready to sell deserve to have their properties purchased. Their
    isolated properties are primarily the result of 19th century
    congressional policy when homesteads, mining operations and timber
    production were encouraged without the balance of conservation. As a
    result, wilderness areas now dedicated by Congress are pockmarked with
    islands of private ownership that compromise the wilderness resource,
    where ''even man is a visitor who shall not remain'', become expensive
    management issues for the agencies and often befuddle landowners who
    wish to sell these properties for the benefit of their companies or
    families.
        Why is consistent funding for the inholding accounts vital? We have
    learned that these lands become available about once a generation. Our
    20 years of steady work has shown that about 5 percent of the
    properties within wilderness come up for sale in any 1 year. If the
    opportunity to acquire these when offered is lost, the management
    issues and inefficiencies that result from private lands remaining
    within designated wilderness continue. Without consistent funding,
    numerous opportunities to acquire these private parcels will be lost.
    Not for a year, but often for at least another generation.
        Many inholding acquisitions secure access. However, the Forest
    Service fiscal year 2015 budget request to alter the purpose of the
    inholdings acquisition program to focus solely on recreational access
    would undermine the success of the program. Acquiring inholdings
    secures access where it is now blocked by private land within the
    Forest Service boundary--in our case within designated wilderness. The
    Recreational Access idea is a new program that aims to expand Federal
    ownership to include access easements outside current Forest Service
    boundaries. We do not have a position on the merits or need for such an
    expansion of Forest Service management responsibilities. We are here to
    simply to say that the aim of the new program is not the same as the
    inholdings acquisition program and should be evaluated on its own
    merits, not substituted for a 50-year proven effort specifically
    authorized by Congress. We urge you to assure the continued success of
    the inholdings acquisition program by maintaining the traditional use
    of the accounts for all four land management agencies and prioritizing
    wilderness acquisitions in any fiscal year 2015 appropriations
    legislation.
        This year, critical acquisitions will not be completed without a
    commitment to fund the inholding accounts. In 2013, critical project
    examples we worked to acquire included:
      --The only inholding within the Hells Canyon Wilderness in Idaho was
            offered for sale by the family that long owned it. We bought it
            and are in the process of transferring it to Federal ownership.
            Buying this key 10 acre mining claim parcel completed the
            wilderness, helped the family with its generational change and
            kept the promise that when wilderness inholders want to sell,
            the United States will acquire their properties.
      --East Fork High Rock Canyon Wilderness in Nevada includes historic
            reminders of the settlement of the west in the mid-19th
            Century. It also included one remaining 320 acre inholding. Now
            transferred to Federal ownership, this wilderness is complete
            and the family ranching operation that used to own it
            successfully reorganized so the next generation will continue
            their ranching business and tradition.
      --The Elkhorn Ridge Wilderness is less than one quarter of a mile
            from Highway 101 in Northern California. But ``you can't get
            there from here''. The access to the wilderness is blocked by
            40 acres of private land. When acquired by BLM, this beloved
            wilderness that stretches toward the sea from Highway 101 will
            be accessible to the many youth groups that covet this summit
            to sea hiking and educational wilderness experience. We bought
            it and are now working through the transfer to BLM to create
            much needed public access and preserve the 50-year tradition of
            wilderness education at the summer camp on the property.
        We've also been able to help other private landowners and secure
    other wilderness areas. Among them--
      --A timber company in northern California that is re-aligning its
            landownership and has worked with the Trust to sell its
            property, opening access to the Castle Crags Wilderness from
            the east and the nearby freeway. The newly created access to
            the nearby wilderness has the potential to provide significant
            new economic opportunities for the nearby hard-hit community of
            Dunsmere to develop recreation-based businesses.
      --And, a landowner who built a cabin at a former gold mine on the
            banks of the Salmon River within the Frank Church River of No
            Return Wilderness. We will work over the next year to clean up
            the mine site to protect the river. The transfer of this
            property to Federal ownership will further consolidate
            protection of the wilderness and enhance the recreational
            opportunities so economically important to Idaho and as a
            resource for the Nation.
        The expenses of managing these isolated private lands do not fall
    solely on the Federal Government. Tax revenues received by local
    governments do not offset the cost of providing fire protection,
    emergency and general government services to these isolated and far
    flung properties. It costs more to serve these isolated single
    properties than the tax revenue they generate. If you fund the
    inholding accounts, we will be back next year with more stories of
    success:
      --Success completing already designated wilderness;
      --Success helping those private landowners, who often feel trapped
            within designated wilderness, but were promised that their land
            would be purchased at a fair market price if they chose to
            sell;
      --Success helping local governments control costs; and
      --Success helping land management agencies reduce costs of management
            and fire suppression.
        In summary, continued consistent funding of the inholding accounts
    is vital. Without such funding, significant opportunities to acquire
    private parcels within our designated wilderness areas will be lost for
    at least another generation. We urge your support of continued funding
    for these accounts and for the Forest Service's Wilderness Inholdings
    core project.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We greatly appreciate
    your time and consideration and the support of the subcommittee in
    securing these appropriations.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Wilderness Society
        The Wilderness Society (TWS) represents more than 500,000 members
    and supporters who share our mission to protect wilderness and inspire
    Americans to care for our wild places. We thank the subcommittee for
    the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year 2015 Interior,
    Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
        When deciding on funding that affects hundreds of millions of
    Americans, we urge you to take into account the full economic, social,
    environmental and cultural value of the many programs managed by this
    subcommittee. Our public lands and waters contribute significantly to
    the U.S. outdoor recreation economy. The Outdoor Industry Association's
    latest report shows that outdoor recreation alone generates $646
    billion in direct consumer spending, supports 6.1 million direct jobs
    and generates $79.6 billion in Federal, State and local tax revenue.
        Investments in these critical programs will provide jobs and
    protect the health and economic wellbeing of local communities. We urge
    bold, immediate action in support of conservation funding for fiscal
    year 2015. Specifically, TWS recommends:
                             wilderness management
        The 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act is September 3rd, 2014.
    This provides a unique and valuable opportunity to highlight the role
    wilderness plays in protecting ecosystems, wildlife, and primitive
    outdoor recreation opportunities across the country. America's National
    Wilderness Preservation System is a world renowned model for land
    conservation, yet our wilderness areas are suffering from a lack of
    funding. Trail maintenance, law enforcement, monitoring, and user
    education are all significantly underfunded, leading to an erosion of
    wilderness values and a diminution of the experience for wilderness
    visitors. We recommend that each of the agency wilderness management
    accounts be increased to provide trails maintenance, update signage,
    remove fencing, fight invasive species, restore degraded hydrology, and
    monitor effects of climate change, among other critical wilderness
    preservation system needs. Specifically:

      --Crosscutting.--Adequately fund the Carhartt Training Center, the
            Leopold Research Institute, and the Interagency Wilderness
            Character Monitoring Team to complete wilderness character
            baseline assessments using Wilderness Fellows.
      --Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wilderness.--The budget proposal of
            $18.435 million for BLM wilderness management is strong, but
            still 7 percent lower than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level,
            the funding level necessary to ensure resource and visitor
            safety in the 221 BLM wilderness areas. TWS supports restoring
            BLM Wilderness funding to the fiscal year 2011 level of $19.663
            million.
      --Forest Service Recreation, Wilderness and Heritage.--Recreation is
            the most ubiquitous use of our forest lands, connecting with
            more people and occurring on more acres than any other use, as
            well as accounting for more than half of all job and income
            affects attributable to Forest Service programs (over 190,000
            jobs and $11 billion in spending effects by visitors). We urge
            Congress to support wilderness and recreation by restoring
            funding to the fiscal year 2010 level of $285.1 million for the
            Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Program.
      --National Park Service Wilderness.--Provide a funding increase for
            the base wilderness program from its current level of $450,000
            as well as 2 years of total funding at $520,000 to highlight
            and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act.
            Additional funding would eliminate the backlog of Wilderness
            Stewardship Plans, support training for all wilderness park
            superintendents, improve coordination with interagency
            Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, and reduce the likelihood
            of litigation due to management inconsistencies.
                        land and water conservation fund
        Now in its 50th Anniversary year, LWCF remains the premier Federal
    program to conserve our Nation's land, water, historic, and recreation
    heritage. It is a critical tool to acquire inholdings and protect
    national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, BLM lands,
    and other Federal areas. The companion LWCF State grants program
    provides crucial support for State and local park acquisitions,
    recreational facilities, and trail corridors. LWCF also funds two other
    important State grant programs--the Forest Legacy Program and
    Cooperative Endangered Species programs--that ensure permanent
    conservation of important forest lands and threatened and endangered
    species' habitat, as well as important wildlife and recreational
    habitat and ensures that public lands stay public for hunters, anglers,
    and other outdoor recreationists for generations to come.

      --TWS strongly supports fully funding LWCF at the proposed $900
            million. Full funding for LWCF will allow land management
            agencies to manage our public lands more efficiently and cost-
            effectively. This is achieved through strategic inholdings
            acquisition which reduces internal boundary line surveying,
            right-of-way conflicts and special use permits.
                           emergency wildfire funding
        For years U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the
    Interior (DOI) have had to divert funds away from vital conservation
    and wildfire mitigation programs to cover wildfire suppression costs.
    This is having long term negative effects on conservation and land
    management, especially where these funds are diverted from programs
    aimed at reducing fire risks and costs, which creates a vicious cycle.
    With longer and more severe fire seasons the Forest Service has seen
    its wildfire management activities rise from 13 percent of the agency's
    budget in fiscal year 1991 to almost 50 percent for the past several
    fiscal years.

      --TWS strongly supports the President's proposal of $954 million in
            new budget authority for wildfire suppression under the FLAME
            Suppression Cap Adjustment. This will eliminate the need to rob
            other accounts to pay for the worst 1 percent of wildfires.
                           climate change resiliency
        Wilderness, public lands, connected wildlife habitats and other
    types of ``green infrastructure'' are some of the most cost-effective
    investments that can be made to increase climate change resiliency.
    Connected wild landscapes allow species and habitats to adapt more
    easily to changes in climate, buffer local communities from storms and
    natural disasters and our national forests can be effective carbon
    sinks.

      --TWS supports the President's $1 billion climate change fund to
            safeguard not only our public lands but our communities and our
            economy.
                         blm onshore oil and gas policy
        The BLM is implementing important management reforms of its oil and
    gas program that is leading toward a better balance between oil and gas
    development on public lands and the protection of the numerous natural
    resource values that were put at risk by previous policies. The
    administration has proposed these reforms of the BLM's oil and gas
    program, which TWS supports:

      --A fee on onshore Federal operators sufficient to provide for a $48
            million per year inspection and enforcement program to
            implement recommendations made by the Government Accountability
            Office; Continuation of the $6,500 APD fee; A $4.00 per acre
            fee on non-producing onshore leases.
                             sage grouse initiative
        The Wilderness Society supports the administration's $15 million
    request for the BLM's National Greater Sage Grouse Planning Strategy.
    If successful, implementation of this strategy will lead to recovery of
    this important western game species without the necessity of a listing
    under the Endangered Species Act.
                  blm's national landscape conservation system
        The National Landscape Conservation System (Conservation Lands)
    comprises some 27 million acres of congressionally and presidentially
    designated lands and waters, including National Monuments, National
    Conservation Areas, Wilderness Areas and other designations.
    Stewardship of the Conservation Lands provides jobs for thousands of
    Americans while supporting vibrant and sustainable economies in
    surrounding communities. The Conservation Lands provide immeasurable
    public values from modest investments: outstanding recreational
    opportunities, wildlife habitat, clean water, wilderness, and open
    space near cities. We ask Congress to:

      --Support the administration's fiscal year 2015 recommendation of
            $66.5 million to ensure the natural, cultural, and historical
            resource protection provided by the Conservation Lands for the
            American public.
      --Restore the Challenge Cost Share Program at full funding of $19
            million. This is a cross-cutting program within DOI, which
            provides a 1:1 match for volunteer activities.
                                renewable energy
        TWS is a strong proponent of transitioning our country to a clean
    energy economy by developing our renewable energy resources
    responsibly. We believe renewable energy is an appropriate and
    necessary use of the public lands when sited in areas screened for
    habitat, resource, and cultural conflicts. TWS hopes the Department
    will continue to support a program that ensures our public lands can
    play an important role in supporting renewable energy infrastructure
    through environmental review, suitability screening, and energy zone
    identification to find suitable places for needed renewable energy
    projects. TWS is also a supporter of Secretarial Order 3330 on
    Mitigation that would ensure that any impacts are avoided or offset.
    TWS urges Congress to:

      --Support increased funding for renewable energy programs across
            Interior from fiscal year 2014 enacted.
      --Support the Department's request to fund BLM's renewable energy
            activity at no less than $29 million to make up for the impact
            of sequestration.
      --Increase funding for the FWS to review and permit renewable energy
            projects on public lands.
                    national wildlife refuge system funding
        The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's finest network
    of protected lands and waters. Designed to conserve our fish and
    wildlife resources, refuges are located in every State and territory
    and provide enormous economic benefit for their local communities.
    Every year, the System attracts 45 million tourists, hunters,
    fishermen, and other recreationists, generating $1.7 billion in sales,
    sustaining nearly 27,000 jobs annually, and contributing over $185
    million in tax revenue. The Refuge System has been under increasing
    fiscal strain, however, with a maintenance backlog of over $3 billion.

      --We urge Congress to support funding for the National Wildlife
            Refuge System at the President's recommendation of $476.4
            million.
                          national forest restoration
        The Legacy Roads and Trails (LRT) and Collaborative Forest
    Restoration Programs (CFLR) provide essential funding to restore
    watersheds, improve recreational access by focusing on roads and trails
    where water quality and aquatic species are at risk and advance
    collaborative restoration projects. Despite its success, the LRT
    program was slashed 50 percent in fiscal year 2011 and again in fiscal
    year 2014 by 22 percent. We look forward to the results of the 3-region
    test pilot for Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR). However, we do
    not recommend that the IRR pilot program be expanded until the test
    regions have proven that IRR can improve restoration outcomes without a
    loss of program transparency and accountability. To achieve restoration
    goals in fiscal year 2015, TWS recommends that Congress:

      --Restore Legacy Roads and Trails funding to $45 million within
            Capital Improvement and Maintenance;
      --Fully fund the CFLRP at the President's recommendation of $60
            million; and
      --Extend the IRR pilot program, and works closely with the Forest
            Service and stakeholders to ensure transparency and
            accountability for the activities and outcomes of the pilot
            program.
               forest service inventory & monitoring and planning
        The Inventory and Monitoring is integral to forest planning serving
    both as the baseline data and trigger for course correction. The
    Planning Program funds amendments and revisions to Land Management
    Plans, the overarching documents that guide the management of
    individual forests and grasslands. By providing adequate and consistent
    funding to both these programs, we advance plans and projects, and
    avoid bad decisionmaking, unnecessary costs, and more risks to water
    quality and quantity, wildlife, and recreation. TWS recommends that
    Congress:

      --Support Inventory & Monitoring and Planning by restoring funding to
            the running 10-year average of $163,689,000 and $48,254,000,
            respectively.
                             national forest roads
        Over the past 4 years, Forest Service roads funding has been cut by
    30 percent adding even more strain to a road system where the
    collective cost continues to far outstrip the Forest Service's
    financial capacity. Roads are one of the most significant stressors on
    watersheds and ecosystems, contributing to water pollution and declines
    in salmon, trout and other fish. Adequate funding for the road system
    is needed to address public safety issues, the negative effects of
    roads on wildlife and water, and provide high quality recreational
    access to the American public. Adequate funding will also ensure that
    previous taxpayer investments in our forest infrastructure are not
    squandered through lack of maintenance.

      --We urge Congress to fund Capital Improvement and Maintenance Roads
            at the running 10-year average of $207,383,000 in fiscal year
            2015.
      --We recommend that Capital Improvement and Maintenance Roads funds
            are available for maintenance and operations, reconstruction,
            limited construction, and decommissioning.
                             national forest trails
        There are 155,600 miles of trails in the National Forest System.
    These trails provide 50 million visitor days of cross-country skiing,
    hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and off-road vehicle use
    each year. The number of annual visitor days has grown 376 percent
    since 1977, and the total mileage of trails has grown 56.9 percent to
    accommodate this use. In fiscal year 2014 the trails budget was cut
    nearly 9 percent to $75 million, despite the fact that the Government
    Accountability Office reported in June 2013 that the agency has more
    than a $500 million trail maintenance backlog. Currently, the Forest
    Service is able to maintain only a third of its trail miles to a
    minimum standard condition.

      --In light of the history and conditions we describe above, we urge
            Congress to fund Capital Improvement and Maintenance Trails at
            its fiscal year 2010 level of $85,381,000 in fiscal year 2015.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Conservation Society
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
    subcommittee: The Wildlife Conservation (WCS) was founded with the help
    of Theodore Roosevelt in 1895 with the mission of saving wildlife and
    wild places worldwide. Today, WCS manages the largest network of urban
    wildlife parks in the United States led by our flagship, the Bronx Zoo.
    Globally, WCS works to protect 25 percent of the world's biodiversity
    and address four of the biggest issues facing wildlife and wild places:
    climate change; natural resource exploitation; the connection between
    wildlife health and human health; and the sustainable development of
    human livelihoods. While taking on these issues, we manage more than
    200 million acres of protected lands around the world, employing more
    than 4,000 staff including 200 Ph.D. scientists and 100 veterinarians.
        The American conservation tradition is based on promoting
    sustainable use of our natural resources in order to preserve the
    world's species and environment for future generations. In recognition
    of the current fiscal constraints, it is important to note that
    effective natural resources management and conservation has indirect
    economic benefits, including contributing to local economies through
    tourism and other means.
        Domestically, the story of the American bison is an excellent
    example of how long-term conservation and management of a natural
    resource can have a very positive economic impact. Brought to the edge
    of extinction at the end of the 19th century, a few bison were saved,
    mostly through the actions of private ranchers. Conservationists, led
    by Roosevelt and William Hornaday, brought some of the few remaining
    bison to the Bronx Zoo to breed the animals for eventual
    reintroduction. Within 2 years, 15 bison bred in captivity at the Zoo
    were returned to their natural habitat under Federal control in the
    Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge in Congressman Cole's district in
    Oklahoma, the very first wildlife refuge in the United States. This is
    the first known instance of a nearly-extinct mammal being successfully
    reestablished.
        Today, more than 20,000 bison are in federally-managed herds and
    serve as major tourist attractions at Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and
    other jewels of the National Park system. States are also successfully
    managing herds, with the Henry Mountains herd in Congressman Stewart's
    district being particularly notable because, in addition to being a
    tourist attraction, it generates revenues through hunting concessions.
    And in every State in the country, private producers manage 200,000
    bison, sustaining thousands of jobs and generating more than $280
    million in revenue. Clearly, the rescue, reestablishment and
    conservation of bison is a great success, both environmentally and
    economically.
        Internationally, by supporting conservation, the U.S. is increasing
    capacity and governance in developing nations and improving our own
    national security as a result. And these efforts are absolutely
    critical, as we have reached a crisis with regard to the trafficking of
    wildlife. U.S Government estimates compiled by the Congressional
    Research Service (CRS) last summer show that illegal trade in
    endangered wildlife products, including elephant ivory, rhino horns,
    and turtle shells, is worth at least an estimated $7 to $10 billion
    annually. When the trade in illegal logging, plants and fisheries are
    also included, CRS states that some estimates exceed $100 billion,
    which would place the illegal wildlife trade among the 10 largest
    criminal activities worldwide. Because of the lucrative nature of this
    industry, evidence is showing increasingly that transnational criminal
    organizations and terrorist groups that are involved in other major
    trafficking operations--drugs, humans and weapons--are engaged in
    wildlife trafficking as well.
        On the ground in Africa and elsewhere, WCS scientists are seeing,
    first-hand, the devastating impact poaching is having on elephants,
    rhinos, tigers, and other iconic species. In 2012 alone, we estimate
    that 35,000 African elephants were killed for their ivory--that is an
    average of 96 elephants per day or one killed every 15 minutes. The
    subspecies of African forest elephants has seen a decline of 65 percent
    since 2002, dwindling to less than 80,000 today. Continued poaching at
    these rates may mean the extinction of forest elephants within a
    decade. Action must be taken now, so that we do not end up where we
    were with bison 100 years ago. Although that story continues to be a
    happy one, there is no guarantee that story of the elephant will not,
    ultimately, be a tragedy.
        The Federal Government recently announced the National Strategy for
    Combating Wildlife Trafficking (National Strategy), which is designed
    to provide a framework for a whole-of-government approach to addressing
    wildlife trafficking. Several programs within this bill form the basis
    upon which that strategy is built. This testimony will touch on several
    of those programs, beginning with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    which plays a key role in the National Strategy and U.S.
    antitrafficking efforts.
                    united states fish and wildlife service
        Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF).--Global priority
    species--such as tigers, rhinos, African and Asian elephants, great
    apes, and marine turtles--face constant danger from poaching, habitat
    loss and other serious concerns. MSCF programs have helped to sustain
    wildlife populations by controlling poaching, reducing human-wildlife
    conflict, and protecting essential habitat--all while promoting U.S.
    economic and security interests in far reaching parts of the world.
    These programs are highly efficient, granting them an outsized impact
    because they consistently leverage three to four times as much in
    matching funds from corporations, conservation groups, and national
    governments. WCS requests that $10 million be appropriated for the MSCF
    for fiscal year 2015, equal to the fiscal year 2009 funding level.
        WCS has had great success on projects using funds from the MSCF. In
    2009, with support from the African Elephant Conservation Fund, WCS
    launched a new project in collaboration with Bauchi State Government to
    improve levels of protection and reduce rates of elephant poaching in
    Yankari Game Reserve. Yankari contains the largest surviving elephant
    population in Nigeria and one of the largest remaining in West Africa.
    WCS has been able to make substantial progress in building the capacity
    of the ecoguard staff and empowering local authorities to manage this
    population. Despite years of extreme poaching pressure, the number of
    elephants killed this year has been kept to a minimum through constant
    effort and surveillance. A strong team of ecoguards is now using
    durable, GPS-enabled technology to detect illegal activities and report
    back to authorities in an efficient way, utilizing real-time data and
    illustrative maps.
        Wildlife Without Borders Global and Regional Programs.--These
    programs are a great investment in addressing cross-cutting threats to
    ecosystems and wildlife such as disease outbreaks, human-wildlife
    conflict, and the bushmeat trade. Wildlife Without Borders (WWB) is
    making lasting impacts through capacity building, technical support and
    training, local community education and citizen science. In fiscal year
    2015, WCS recommends funding the WWB Global and Regional Programs
    commensurate with the President's request of $7.2 million.
        Created in 2010, the WWB Critically Endangered Animals Fund
    provided over $300,000 in grants in fiscal year 2013 to protect the
    most imperiled species on the planet. This funding was matched more
    than 2 for 1 by non-Federal contributions. A portion of this funding is
    supporting a successful WCS project in Myanmar to ensure a genetically
    diverse, self-sustaining, wild population of the Burmese roofed turtle.
    I urge you to include language in the report to accompany the bill that
    would ensure this small but important program for critically endangered
    species remains open.
        Office of Law Enforcement.--The U.S. remains one of the world's
    largest markets for wildlife and wildlife products, both legal and
    illegal. A small group of dedicated officers at the Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) are tasked with
    protecting fish, wildlife, and plant resources by investigating
    wildlife crimes--including commercial exploitation, habitat
    destruction, and industrial hazards--and monitoring the Nation's
    wildlife trade to intercept smuggling and facilitate legal commerce.
        Many of the new responsibilities placed on the FWS by the National
    Strategy will be enforced by the OLE, and WCS supports the President's
    request for $65.8 million. Most of the proposed increase will go to
    strengthening forensic capabilities needed to address wildlife
    trafficking and expanding the capacity of the Special Investigations
    Unit so that it can maximize the scope and effectiveness of FWS efforts
    to respond to the elephant poaching crisis and shutdown trafficking in
    elephant ivory. This funding, in concert with full implementation of
    the effort to deploy OLE personnel at key embassies overseas, will
    increase investigations involving species that are victimized by
    illegal trade.
        The National Strategy calls for the Federal Government to
    ``increase coordination among law enforcement and intelligence agencies
    to enhance the effectiveness of Federal efforts to combat wildlife
    trafficking.'' For no agency is this increased coordination with the
    intelligence community more important than for the OLE. We strongly
    encourage the Committee to include language in the report that would
    facilitate increased coordination between the OLE and the intelligence
    community.
        State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program.--The State and Tribal
    Wildlife Grants program gives States and tribes funding to develop and
    implement comprehensive conservation plans to protect declining
    wildlife and habitats before protection under the Endangered Species
    Act is necessary. This important program is supported by more than
    6,200 organizations that have formed a national bipartisan coalition
    called Teaming with Wildlife of which WCS is a steering committee
    member. WCS recommends Congress provide $58.7 million, equal to the
    fiscal year 2014 level, for the program to implement State Wildlife
    Action Plans.
                          united states forest service
        International Programs.--The Forest Service International Programs
    (FSIP) level the playing field in international trade for U.S. timber
    producers and reduce illegal logging by providing specialized
    experience. This improves the sustainability and legality of timber
    management overseas which translates to less underpriced timber
    undercutting U.S. producers. FSIP, through partnerships with USAID and
    the Department of State, helps to improve the resource management in
    countries of strategic importance to U.S. security. Resource scarcity
    and unregulated extraction of natural resources--whether water, food,
    timber, or minerals--is often a root cause of unrest and corruption,
    both of which undermine democracy, the rule of law and political
    stability. FSIP has increasingly leveraged modest funding from Congress
    to make a big impact for the U.S. taxpayer. For every Federal dollar
    invested in FSIP, four additional dollars is leveraged in matching
    funds and other contributions from partners. WCS requests that the
    fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $8 million for the FSIP is maintained
    in fiscal year 2015.
        With technical and financial support from FSIP, WCS has been
    working to conserve a biologically rich temperate forest zone called
    the Primorye in the Russian Far East. The region hosts over a hundred
    endangered species as well as numerous threatened species, including
    the Far Eastern leopard and Amur tiger. Habitat conservation for these
    animals, which are dependent on large tracts of intact forest
    ecosystem, benefits associated species and biodiversity in the region.
    FSIP works with us to exchange information and methodologies with
    Russian scientists, managers, and students on a variety of wildlife-
    related topics to support conservation and capacity building efforts
    and ensure the sustainable management of forests and wildlife habitat.
                      united states national park service
        Office of International Affairs.--In 1961, the U.S. Government
    initiated its first international conservation program with the
    creation of the Office of International Affairs (OIA). Since then, this
    office has facilitated technical assistance and exchange projects with
    counterpart agencies globally building on the legacy of American
    leadership in national parks management. OIA is also the managing
    agency for World Heritage Sites located in the United States. Thanks to
    this program, NPS is working on collaborative areas of trans-frontier
    concern, including at the Beringia Shared Heritage Initiative (U.S.-
    Russia), which WCS has been involved with as part of our ongoing
    conservation efforts in Arctic Alaska. WCS is currently studying the
    behavior and survivorship of migratory birds that travel to Teshekpuk
    Lake in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve to nest each year, as well
    as the impacts climate change is having on Alaska's walrus populations.
    The international work conducted by NPS is not only about helping other
    countries protect their parks and heritage. It is about bringing home
    best practices and learning from international engagement that could
    benefit the American parks. WCS recommends including the President's
    request of $897,000 for the OIA in fiscal year 2015.
        In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to share WCS's
    perspectives and make a case for increased investment in conservation
    in the fiscal year 2015 Interior, EPA and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act. Conservation of public lands is an American
    tradition and, as far back as 1909, Theodore Roosevelt recognized that
    the management of our natural resources requires coordination between
    all nations. Continued investment in conservation will reaffirm our
    global position as a conservation leader, while improving our national
    security and building capacity and good governance in developing
    countries. Thank you.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Society
        The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide
    testimony on the fiscal year 2015 budget for the Department of
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The Wildlife Society was
    founded in 1937 and is a non-profit scientific and educational
    association representing nearly 10,000 professional wildlife biologists
    and managers, dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through
    science and education. Our mission is to represent and serve the
    professional community of scientists, managers, educators, technicians,
    planners, and others who work actively to study, manage, and conserve
    wildlife and habitats worldwide.
                    united states 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 on the ground conservation
    actions in each State to keep common species common. Funding assistance
    for State wildlife agencies is one of the highest priority needs to
    prevent further declines in at-risk species in every State. Previous
    budget reductions and sequestration have had a serious and
    disproportionate impact on State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.
    Compounding these impacts is a decrease in funding recommended in the
    President's budget, to $50 million in fiscal year 2015. We recommend
    Congress appropriate at least $58.7 million for State and Tribal
    Wildlife Grants to maintain level funding in fiscal year 2015. 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 negative
    consequences.
        As a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, or
    CARE, The Wildlife Society supports the President's request for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System's operations and maintenance accounts
    at $476.4 million for fiscal year 2015. CARE estimates that the Refuge
    System needs at least $900 million in annual operations and maintenance
    funding to properly administer its 562 refuges and 38 wetland
    management districts spanning over 150 million acres. Given current
    fiscal realities, we understand that funding at $900 million is not
    currently possible. However, at its highest funding level in fiscal
    year 2010, the Refuge System received only $503 million--little more
    than half the needed amount. Since that time, congressional
    appropriations have not only failed to account for rising costs, but
    have been steadily backsliding resulting in the loss of 324 employees
    since 2011, or 9 percent of all staff. Yet the Refuge System actually
    pays for itself several times over by generating $4.87 in economic
    activity for every $1 appropriated by Congress to run the Refuge
    System.
        The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a cooperative, non-
    regulatory, incentive-based program that has shown unprecedented
    success in restoring wetlands, waterfowl, and other migratory bird
    populations. This program has remained drastically underfunded despite
    its demonstrated effectiveness. We support the President's request of
    $34.1 million and encourage Congress to match this request for fiscal
    year 2015.
        The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program
    supports partnership programs to conserve birds in the U.S., 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. This program should be funded
    at or above $6.5 million to achieve maximum success. However,
    recognizing the current fiscal climate, The Wildlife Society recommends
    Congress maintain level funding for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
    Conservation Act at $3.7 million in fiscal year 2015.
        The Wildlife Society supports adequate funding levels for all three
    subactivities within the Ecological Services Program. Endangered
    species recovery efforts can ultimately lead to delisting, resulting in
    significant benefits to species through State management efforts. FWS,
    with the help of 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 recovery, we recommend Congress
    match the President's request and provide $28 million for Listing, $105
    million for Planning and Consultation, and $124 million for
    Conservation and Restoration in fiscal year 2015.
        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
    over two-thirds of our Nation's lands held as private property, and up
    to 90 percent of some habitats lost, private lands play a key role in
    preserving our ecosystem. 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 the PFW Program in fiscal year 2015 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 $14.6 million in support of FWS
    International Affairs in fiscal year 2015.
                           bureau of land management
        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands support over 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 $52.6
    million for BLM Wildlife Management in fiscal year 2015. 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 $48 million in fiscal year 2015.
        The Wildlife Society, part of the National Horse and Burro
    Rangeland Management Coalition, appreciates the commitment of BLM to
    addressing the problems associated with Wild Horse and Burro
    Management. We support the requested increase of $2.8 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 12,000 horses above BLM's
    stated Appropriate Management Levels on the range and nearly 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 $80.2 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.
                        united states geological survey
        The basic, objective, and interdisciplinary scientific research
    that is supported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) is
    necessary for understanding the complex environmental issues facing our
    Nation today. This science will play an essential role in the
    decisionmaking processes of natural resource managers, 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 $1.1 billion for USGS in
    fiscal year 2015.
        The Ecosystems Program of USGS contains programmatic resources for
    fisheries, wildlife, environments, invasive species and the Cooperative
    Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The Ecosystems program strives to
    maximize research and support for comprehensive biological and
    ecosystem based needs. The Wildlife Society supports the President's
    request of $162 million for USGS's Ecosystems Department in fiscal year
    2015. Within Ecosystems, we support the request of $45.1 million for
    the Wildlife Program. Additionally, we appreciate the requested
    addition of $300,000 for pollinator research and of $1 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 2015 budget
    for the CFWRUs should be increased to $18.5 million, the level
    requested by the President. 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 2014 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
    2015.
                          united states forest service
        Our national forests and grasslands are essential to the
    conservation of our Nation's wildlife and habitat, and are home to
    about 425 threatened and endangered species, 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 $820
    million for the Integrated Resource Restoration program in fiscal year
    2015.
        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
    $275 million in fiscal year 2015 for Forest and Rangelands to support
    this high-quality research.
                department of interior wildland fire management
        The Wildlife Society supports the request for $30.0 million to
    establish a new ``Resilient Landscapes'' activity to improve the
    integrity and resilience of forests and rangelands by restoring natural
    vegetation landscapes to specific conditions and maintaining fire
    resiliency.
        Thank you for considering the recommendations of wildlife
    professionals.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the World Wildlife Fund
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) requests your support for a
    number of important conservation programs within the Department of the
    Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). WWF is the largest
    private conservation organization working internationally to conserve
    wildlife and nature. 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 in fiscal year 2015:
      --U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement at no less
            than the administration's request of $66.7 million, including
            additional funding to support implementation of the National
            Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking and at least $4.8 million for
            Lacey Act enforcement.
      --U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of International Affairs at
            the administration's request of $14.6 million, including
            additional funding to support implementation of the National
            Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking.
      --U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Multinational Species Conservation
            Funds at $10 million, $900,000 above the administration's
            request.
        One of WWF's top priorities is supporting efforts to combat
    wildlife trafficking and the current global poaching crisis. The
    illegal trade in wildlife, including timber and fish, is worth $10-20
    billion annually and is ranked among the top five most lucrative
    criminal activities worldwide. Wildlife trafficking is strongly linked
    to transnational organized crime organizations and other criminal
    activities, such as arms and drug trafficking. Large-scale illegal
    trade in wildlife, driven largely by soaring demand in Asia for
    wildlife products, has sparked a poaching crisis that is pushing some
    of our most iconic species towards extinction, including elephants,
    tigers and rhinos. This crisis is also having a devastating impact on
    local communities and undermining regional security and economic growth
    in the developing world, including in countries of strategic importance
    to the United States. According to an assessment released by Federal
    intelligence agencies in September 2013, there is also significant
    evidence that wildlife trafficking is helping to finance armed
    insurgencies and groups with ties to terrorism, including the Lord's
    Resistance Army, the Janjaweed, and al-Shabaab. Last year alone, an
    estimated 30,000-35,000 elephants were killed illegally throughout
    Africa. In the past 10 years, the number of forest elephants in Central
    Africa has dropped by two-thirds, putting them on the path to
    extinction within the next 10 years. East Africa is also being hit
    hard: in January, the Tanzanian Government released numbers showing
    that the population of elephants in that country's Selous Game Reserve
    had fallen 66 percent in just 4 years--a shocking decline for a reserve
    that until recently was home to Africa's second largest concentration
    of elephants. In South Africa, the number of rhinos lost to poaching
    has jumped 7000 percent between 2007 and 2013. A record 1004 South
    African rhinos were illegally killed for their horns in 2013--up 50
    percent from the year before and a stunning increase from only 13
    poaching incidents in 2007. As few as 3200 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 and
    programs that this subcommittee helps to fund play essential roles in
    combating this crisis, which is robbing developing countries of natural
    resources and economic opportunities, harming American businesses by
    flooding global markets with cheap illegal forest and fish products,
    and threatening U.S. security interests. Recognizing the seriousness of
    the situation, the President issued an Executive Order on July 2013 and
    mandated a National Strategy for Combatting Wildlife Trafficking,
    released in February 2014, which calls on all relevant agencies to work
    together as part of a whole-of-government response to the crisis. The
    Department of Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service will carry a
    large part of the responsibility for implementing the Strategy, and we
    believe they should be provided with the necessary resources to be
    successful.
       united states fish and wildlife service 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. Its agents and investigators also
    have a central role in implementing the new National Strategy on
    Wildlife Trafficking and enforcing new domestic regulations on elephant
    ivory. OLE wildlife inspectors are on the front lines in the fight
    against wildlife trafficking, working in nearly 40 designated and non-
    designated ports of entry around the country. In fiscal year 2011, they
    processed 179,000 declared shipments of wildlife and wildlife products
    worth more than $2.8 billion. OLE's 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. ``Operation Crash'' is an ongoing
    nationwide criminal investigation led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service that is addressing all aspects of U.S. involvement in the black
    market rhino horn trade. The first phase of this probe, focused on
    unlawful purchase and outbound smuggling of rhino horn from the U.S.,
    has resulted in 15 arrests and nine convictions to date, involving
    charges include conspiracy, smuggling, money laundering, tax evasion,
    bribery, and making false documents, as well as violations of the
    Endangered Species Act and Lacey Act (the primary domestic law against
    wildlife trafficking). Eight arrests were made in February 2012 as part
    of a nationwide ``takedown'' that involved more than 140 law
    enforcement officers executing search warrants in 13 States; 2013 has
    seen the arrests and indictments of several other individuals
    (including Chinese and U.S. antiques dealers) who were operating a
    second large-scale rhino horn and elephant ivory smuggling network. 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. OLE's budget has suffered a 17.8
    percent reduction in real dollars since fiscal year 2010, limiting its
    ability to investigate and prosecute wildlife crimes and help citizens
    to comply with the law. Budget cuts through fiscal year 2013 have
    caused cancellation of plans to hire 24 more special agents and
    prevented vacancies from being filled for 14 front line inspectors as
    well as 3 forensics experts for the Clark R. Bavin National Fish and
    Wildlife Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon--the only laboratory
    in the world dedicated to solving wildlife crimes and a unique asset in
    efforts to crack down on ivory and rhino horn smuggling. USFWS OLE is
    also responsible for enforcing of the Lacey Act and its expansion to
    cover plants and plant products, and additional funding is needed to
    carry out enforcement activities against those actors that choose to
    trade in illegal timber and timber products. The illegal timber trade
    is estimated to cost U.S. industry $1 billion annually. With public
    enforcement cases, FWS sends a message that illegal activities will not
    be tolerated. Due to pressing needs and enhanced responsibilities under
    the National Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking, WWF recommends at least
    $66.7 million for the USFWS Office of Law Enforcement, consistent with
    the administration's fiscal year 2015 budget request, including at
    least $4.8 million for Lacey Act enforcement.
    united states fish and wildlife service office of international affairs
        The USFWS International Affairs (IA) program supports efforts to
    conserve our planet's wildlife and biodiversity by protecting habitat,
    combating illegal wildlife trade and building capacity for landscape-
    level wildlife conservation around the world. The program's three
    divisions--the Division of International Conservation, the Division of
    Management Authority and the Division of Scientific Authority--manage
    various components of international wildlife conservation. The Division
    of Management Authority and the Division of Scientific Authority run
    the International Wildlife Trade (IWT) program, which provides
    oversight of domestic laws and international treaties that promote the
    long-term conservation of plant and animal species by ensuring that
    international trade and other activities do not threaten their survival
    in the wild. IWT works to prevent illegal trade in wildlife and
    wildlife products, which threatens vulnerable wildlife populations,
    undermines U.S. foreign policy and security objectives by financing
    criminality and corruption, and transmits diseases and invasive
    species, which negatively impact public health and economic
    productivity in the U.S.--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. Working with governments, industry and experts around
    the world, IWT also strives to establish conservation programs that
    include sustainable use, supporting economic opportunity while also
    conserving species. IWT also leads the U.S. Government's active
    engagement on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
    Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES), which is one of the most important
    tools for combating the global illegal wildlife trade. The Division of
    International Conservation provides critical support to on-the-ground
    species conservation through its Wildlife Without Borders (WWB)
    programs and signature initiatives. 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 crosscutting, global threats
    to wildlife, supports signature initiatives to maximize long-term
    impact, and address declines of critically endangered species, such as
    amphibians. From 2007 to 2013, the WWB Regional and Global Programs
    supported more than 940 conservation projects, awarded over $31 million
    in grants and leveraged an additional $46 million in matching funds for
    on-the-ground wildlife conservation programs, education, training and
    outreach. We recommend $14.6 million for the Office of International
    Affairs, consistent with the administration's fiscal year 2015 budget
    request.
         united states fish and wildlife service 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 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 consistently 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. In light of
    the resurgence of a severe poaching crisis in Africa, these funds are
    just as important and relevant now as they were when Congress passed
    them.
        Support from the Rhino-Tiger Conservation Fund (RTCF) and the Asian
    Elephant Conservation Fund (AsECF) to World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and its
    local partners has contributed to incredible successes in protecting
    endangered wildlife in Nepal. The funds have supported anti-poaching,
    habitat restoration and species monitoring that, combined with
    community-level engagement and strong government support, helped to
    ensure that no rhinos, tigers or elephants were poached in Nepal
    between February 2012 and February 2013. This is the second time Nepal
    has celebrated a year of zero-poaching (the first was in 2011) in spite
    of rising demand for rhino horn and ivory on Asian black markets and a
    sharp increases in the number of rhinos and elephants killed in Africa
    over the same period. In addition, RTCF funding has supported efforts
    that have led to a 63 percent increase in Nepal's tiger population from
    2009 to 2013 and is supporting the creation and expansion of tiger
    reserves and protected areas in Malaysia, India and Thailand as well as
    anti-poaching and enforcement efforts on the Indonesian island of
    Sumatra. Also on Sumatra, AsECF support to World Wildlife Fund has
    helped to established ``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. In 2009, they helped reduce
    elephant mortality in the Riau region by 27 percent in 2009 compared to
    the previous 4 years. 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. 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 gorillas. 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 (MTCF) 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.
        These programs have proven remarkably successful, generating
    enormous constituent interest and strong bipartisan support in
    Congress. Since 1989, they have awarded over 2,300 grants and actively
    engaged with nearly 600 domestic and foreign partners, working in over
    54 foreign countries. From 2007 to 2013, MSCF programs provided $77
    million in grant funding for on-the-ground conservation, leveraging
    nearly $117 million in additional matching funds. WWF recommends $10
    million for the Multinational Species Conservation Funds, an increase
    of $900,000 over the Administration's fiscal year 2015 budget request.
        Thank you for considering these requests.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Prepared Statement of the.   189
    Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    75
    Alliance for Community Trees, Prepared Statement of the..........   192
    American:
        Alliance of Museums, Prepared Statement of the...............   194
        Cultural Resources Association (ACRA), Prepared Statement of
          the........................................................   197
        Forest:
            And Paper Association, Prepared Statement of the.........   198
            Foundation, Prepared Statement of the....................   200
        Forests, Prepared Statement of...............................   202
        Geosciences Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............   205
        Hiking Society, Prepared Statement of the....................   208
        Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the   208
        Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the..   211
    Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the..............   213
    Appalachian Trail Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.........   217
    APS Four Corners Power Plant, Prepared Statement of the..........   219
    ASME Environmental Protection Agency Task Force, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   220
    Association of:
        Art Museum Directors, Prepared Statement of the..............   222
        State Drinking Water Administrators, Prepared Statement of
          the........................................................   225
        Zoos and Aquariums, Prepared Statement of the................   228

    Blunt, Senator Roy, U.S. Senator From Missouri, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    78
    Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, Prepared Statement of the...   229
    Bushnell, Jay, Prepared Statement of.............................   231

    Center for Biological Diversity, Prepared Statement of the.......   233
    Central:
        Arizona Project, Prepared Statement of the...................   236
        Utah Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the...   238
    Children's Environmental Health Network, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   238
    Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Prepared Statement of the............   241
    Choose Clean Water Coalition, Prepared Statement of the..........   243
    City of:
        Aurora, Prepared Statement of the............................   245
        Farmington, Prepared Statement of the........................   245
    Civil War Trust, Prepared Statement of the.......................   246
    Coalition Against Forest Pests, Prepared Statement of the........   247
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Questions
      Submitted by

    Colorado:
        River:
            Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of the..   249
            District--Colorado River Water Conservation District,
              Prepared Statement of the..............................   250
        Springs Utilities, Prepared Statement of the.................   251
    Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   251
    Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International
      Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Volunteer Fire
      Council, Prepared Statement of the.............................   254
    Connor, Hon. Mike, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Interior.....................................     1
    Conservation Fund, Prepared Statement of the.....................   255
    Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   258
    Corps Network, Prepared Statement of the.........................   261
    Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   263
    Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Prepared Statement of the..................   265

    Dance/USA, Prepared Statement of.................................   268
    Defenders of Wildlife, Prepared Statement of.....................   270
    Denver Water, Prepared Statement of..............................   273
    Dixon, Tony, Director, Strategic Planning, Budget, and
      Accountability, United States Forest Service, Department of
      Agriculture....................................................   127

    Edison Electric Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............   274
    Entomological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the......   276

    Federal Forest Resource Coalition, Prepared Statement of the.....   278
    Federation of State Humanities Councils, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   281
    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
      Questions Submitted by

    Fire Suppression Funding Solutions Partner Caucus, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   284
    Friends of:
        Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of
          the........................................................   287
        Maine's Seabird Islands (FOMSI), Prepared Statement of the...   288
        Rachel Carson NWR, Prepared Statement of the.................   290
        The:
            Florida Panther Refuge, Prepared Statement of the........   291
            Silvio O. Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge, Prepared
              Statement of the.......................................   293
            Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges, Inc., Prepared
              Statement of the.......................................   294
    Froehlich, Maryann, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Environmental
      Protection Agency..............................................    83

    Geological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the.........   296
    Great Salt Lake Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   298

    Haze, Pamela K., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget, Finance,
      Performance and Acquisition, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Interior.....................................     1
    Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, Prepared Statement of..   299
    Hoeven, Senator John, U.S. Senator From North Dakota, Questions
      Submitted by

    Hopi Tribe, Prepared Statement of the............................   302
    Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   302

    Independent Tribal Courts Review Team, Prepared Statement of the.   305
    Interstate Mining Compact Commission, Prepared Statement of the..   307
    Intertribal Timber Council, Prepared Statement of the............   310

    Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.............   313
    Jewell, Hon. Sally, Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Interior.....................................     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................    10
        Summary Statement of.........................................     6
    Jicarilla Apache Nation, Prepared Statement of the...............   316
    Johanns, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator From Nebraska, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    81
    Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota, Questions
      Submitted by

    King, Mrs. Barbara, Prepared Statement of........................   316

    League of American Orchestras, Prepared Statement of the.........   319
    Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
        Prepared Statement of........................................    86
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   115

    Maniilaq Association, Prepared Statement of the..................   322
    McCarthy, Hon. Gina, Administrator, Environmental Protection
      Agency.........................................................    83
        Prepared Statement of........................................    88
        Summary Statement of.........................................    87
    Meineck, Dr. Peter, Prepared Statement of........................   324
    Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   327
    Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
        Questions Submitted by

        Statements of

    National:
        Association of:
            Abandoned Mine Land Programs, Prepared Statement of the..   328
            Clean Air Agencies, Prepared Statement of the............   333
            State:
                Energy Officials, Prepared Statement of the..........   335
                Foresters, Prepared Statement of the.................   337
        Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Prepared
          Statement of the...........................................   340
        Congress of American Indians, Prepared Statement of the......   343
        Indian:
            Child Welfare Association, Prepared Statement of the.....   346
            Education Association, Prepared Statement of the.........   348
        Institutes for Water Resources, Prepared Statement of the....   351
        Parks Conservation Association, Prepared Statement of the....   353
        Recreation and Park Association, Prepared Statement of the...   356
        Trust for Historic Preservation, Prepared Statement of the...   359
        Wildlife:
            Federation, Prepared Statement of the....................   362
            Refuge Association, Prepared Statement of the............   365
    Native:
        Hawaiian Education Council, Prepared Statement of the........   368
        Village of Barrow, Prepared Statement of the.................   370
    Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the....................   371
    Navajo Nation, Prepared Statement of the.........................   374
    New England Forest Policy Group, Prepared Statement of the.......   375
    Nez Perce Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.......................   378
    Northern Water--The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................   381
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the.   382
    Norton Sound Health Corporation, Prepared Statement of the.......   384

    OPERA America  The National Opera Center, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   387
    Oregon Water Resources Congress, Prepared Statement of the.......   389
    Outdoor Industry Association, Prepared Statement of the..........   391
    Outdoors Alliance for Kids, Prepared Statement of the............   393

    Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared Statement of the.............   394
    Partnership for the National Trails System, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   396
    Performing Arts Alliance, Prepared Statement of the..............   399
    Preservation Action, Prepared Statement of.......................   402
    Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   404

    Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island:
        Opening Statements of

        Questions Submitted by

    Restore America's Estuaries, Prepared Statement of...............   405

    Sac and Fox Nation, Prepared Statement of the....................   407
    San Juan Water Commission, Prepared Statement of the.............   409
    Seattle Indian Health Board, Prepared Statement of the...........   410
    Shoalwater Bay Tribe, Prepared Statement of the..................   413
    Society:
        For Historical Archaeology (SHA), Prepared Statement of the..   414
        Of American Foresters, Prepared Statement of the.............   415
    Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.............   417
    Southwestern Water Conservation District, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   418
    Squaxin Island Tribe, Prepared Statement of the..................   419
    St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Prepared Statement of the................   421
    State of New Mexico, Prepared Statement of the...................   423
    Suh, Hon. Rhea, Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and
      Budget, Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior....     1
    Suquamish Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.......................   424
    Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition, Prepared Statement of the...   424

    Teaming With Wildlife Steering Committee, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   426
    Theatre Communications Group, Prepared Statement of the..........   427
    Tidwell, Tom, Chief, United States Forest Service, Department of
      Agriculture....................................................   127
        Prepared Statement of........................................   133
        Summary Statement of.........................................   131
    Town of Baldwin, Florida, Prepared Statement of the..............   429
    Tri-County Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the.   432
    Tribal Education Departments National Assembly, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   433
    Trust for Public Land, Prepared Statement of the.................   435
    Tuba City Boarding School--Governing Board, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   438

    Udall, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From New Mexico, Question
      Submitted by...................................................   116
    United:
        States Geological Survey Coalition, Prepared Statement of the   440
        Tribes Technical College, Prepared Statement of..............   443
    Utah Water Users Association, Prepared Statement of the..........   445
    Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Prepared Statement of the................   446

    Verhines, Scott A., P.E., Prepared Statement of..................   446

    Western:
        Governors' Association, Prepared Statement of the............   448
        States Water Council and Native American Rights Fund,
          Prepared Statement of the..................................   450
    Wilderness:
        Land Trust, Prepared Statement of the........................   452
        Society, Prepared Statement of the...........................   454
    Wildlife:
        Conservation Society, Prepared Statement of the..............   458
        Society, Prepared Statement of the...........................   461
    World Wildlife Fund, Prepared Statement of the...................   464

                               SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          United States Forest Service

                                                                       Page

    Aircraft Received From the Coast Guard For Firefighting--Table of
      What Work Remains to be Accomplished and the Earliest and
      Latest Date the Aircraft Will be Available for Firefighting....   182
    Airtankers

    Aviation Questions...............................................   181
    Big Thorne:
        Current Schedule for the Remaining Administrative Processes
          for the Timber Sale Project................................   152
        Information About the:
            Final Environmental Statement............................   151
            Forest Supervisor

            Record of Decision.......................................   151
            Supplemental Information Report..........................   152
        Sale

    Budget:
        Challenges

        Request and Focus Areas......................................   135
    Building Thriving Communities....................................   136
    C-130H Model Aircraft Received From the Coast Guard for
      Firefighting...................................................   182
    Challenges to Conservation.......................................   135
    Collaborative Forest Landscape:
        Program......................................................   183
        Restoration..................................................   150
            Program..................................................   146
    Cost Savings.....................................................   140
    Current Projects--How Much Each Project Has Received to Date, and
      Would be Expected to Receive in Fiscal Year 2015 if Funded at
      the $40 Million Level and $60 Million Level....................   184
    Farm Bill........................................................   158
    Fire Suppression Cap Adjustment

    Fiscal Year:
        2009-2013 Stewardship Contracting Collections and Spending...   176
        2014 Next Generation Airtankers..............................   181
        2015 Budget

    Forest Jobs and Recreation Act...................................   158
    Future Outlook...................................................   140
    Key Authorities..................................................   131
    Land and Water Conservation Fund.................................   160
    Managing Wildland Fires..........................................   138
    Next Generation Airtankers Fiscal Year 2014......................   181
    Percent of all Sawtimber Sold Under Stewardship Authority in
      Fiscal Year 2013...............................................   173
    Plan Revision--Tongass...........................................   157
    Projects.........................................................   184
    Recreation and Tourism

    Renewable Energy Resources.......................................   156
    Restoring Resilient Landscapes...................................   135
    Roadless Rule

    Safety and Inclusion.............................................   139
    Sawtimber Sold Under Stewardship Authority in Fiscal Year 2013...   173
    Secure Rural Schools.............................................   181
    Stewardship Contracting..........................................   173
        Collections and Spending.....................................   176
    Timber:
        Harvest......................................................   155
        Sales........................................................   149
    Tongass..........................................................   166
        Plan Revision................................................   157
        Roadless Rule

    Value of the Forest Service......................................   134
    Wildfire Cap Adjustment..........................................   184
    Wildfire Disaster Funding Act

    Wildland Fire....................................................   140
    Wildland-Urban Interface.........................................   149

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    2015 Budget......................................................    11
    Alaska:
        Funding Schedules for the Eastern Interior Resource
          Management Plan (RMP), the Bering Sea/Western Interior RMP,
          the Central Yukon RMP, and the National Petroleum Reserve
          in Alaska (NPR-A)..........................................    70
        Land Conveyance..............................................    74
        Volcano Observatory Funding..................................    72
    Arctic:
        Outer Continental Shelf......................................    46
        Programs.....................................................    26
        Strategy.....................................................    25
    Beaufort and Chukchi Leases......................................    47
    Building a Landscape Level Understanding of Our Resources........    14
    California Drought...............................................    31
    Celebrating and Enhancing America's Great Outdoors...............    12
    Climate Change...................................................    10
    Contract Support Costs

    Drought..........................................................    36
    Energy...........................................................     9
    Engaging the Next Generation.....................................    13
    Ensuring Healthy Watersheds and Sustainable, Secure Water
      Supplies.......................................................    13
    Fire Suppression and the Discretionary Budget Cap................    21
    Fish Hatcheries..................................................    29
    Foregone Pumping

    Funding Schedule for the Eastern Interior Resource Management
      Plan (RMP), the Bering Sea/Western Interior RMP, the Central
      Yukon RMP, and the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A)    70
    Greater Moose's Tooth--National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.........    67
    Heritage Areas...................................................    24
    Hurricane Sandy Funding..........................................    41
    Indian:
        Affairs......................................................     8
            Funding..................................................    45
    Joint Curatorial Facility at Great Smoky Mountains National Park.    29
    Katmai/Brooks Camp Bridge........................................    71
    King Cove Road

    Lake Cumberland..................................................    29
    Land and Water Conservation Fund

        Projects in South Dakota.....................................    39
    Landsat..........................................................    38
    Landscape Level Approach.........................................     9
    Legacy Well Cleanup..............................................    70
    Letter From the San Joaquin River Water Authority

    Maintenance Backlog..............................................    40
    Major Changes in the 2015 Request................................    14
    Mandatory Proposals..............................................    20
        Bureau of Land Management Foundation.........................    21
        Centennial Initiative........................................    20
        Discontinue AML Payments to Certified States.................    21
        Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act....................    21
        Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps.......    21
        Federal Oil and Gas Reforms..................................    20
        Geothermal Energy Receipts...................................    21
        Land and Water Conservation Fund.............................    20
        Palau Compact................................................    20
        Payments in Lieu of Taxes....................................    20
        Reclamation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines......................    21
        Recreation Fee Program.......................................    21
        Reform Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands......................    21
        Return Coal Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fees to Historic
          Levels.....................................................    21
    National Park:
        Centennial

        Service Centennial...........................................    49
            Initiative...............................................    70
    National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Land Planning/Other Land
      Plan
      Costs..........................................................    69
    Offsetting Collections and Fees..................................    22
    Oil and Gas Development on Public Lands..........................    67
    Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative.....................     9
    Oregon:
        And California Grant Lands...................................    26
        Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument.....................    36
    Payments in Lieu of Taxes........................................    36
    Pilot Offices....................................................    37
    Powering Our Future..............................................    13
    Projected Operations Beginning March 26 Through April 9, 2014

    Red Devil Mine/Native Land Contamination.........................    72
    Reimbursing States During Shutdown...............................    30
    San Joaquin River Water Authority Letter Regarding Request for
      Emergency Relief Due to Impending Storm Events

    Science..........................................................     9
    Sequestration....................................................    36
    Site Contamination at Transferred Lands

    Strengthening Tribal Nations.....................................    12
    Upcoming Storms Commencing March 23, 2014

    Water............................................................    10
        Pumping......................................................    31
    White-nose Syndrome..............................................    75
    Wildfire Cap Adjustment Emergency Proposal.......................    64
    Wildland Fire....................................................     7
        Cap Adjustment

    Youth

        And Veteran Programs.........................................    48

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Abandoned Uranium Mines Settlement...............................    94
    Aerial Over Flights..............................................    99
    Agricultural Community...........................................   103
    Beach Act Grant Program..........................................   106
    Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants..................   103
    Clean Water Act..................................................   107
        Rulemaking on Power Plant Water Intake Structures............   120
    Climate Change...................................................    99
    Cutting the Workforce............................................   111
    Discharges from Offshore Fish Processors.........................   118
    E-Enterprise Initiative..........................................   112
    EPA Furloughs--Payroll Discrepancies.............................   112
    Forest Roads.....................................................    93
    Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--New Units   117
    Hydraulic Fracturing and Drinking Water..........................   109
    Inspector General (IG) Report Concerning EPA Credit Card Abuse...   121
    Lake Champlain Geographic Program................................    91
    Maps of Streams and Wetlands.....................................   108
    National:
        Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for
          Geotechnical Discharges/Arctic Oil and Gas Development.....   119
        Resilience Task Force........................................    92
    Pebble Mine......................................................    96
    Pesticide Registration Improvement Act 1, 2, and 3--Total Number
      of Actions Completed and the Number of Those Actions Completed
      Late...........................................................   123
    Radon............................................................   116
        Program......................................................   106
    Renewable Fuel Standards.........................................   105
    Small Remote Incinerators........................................   117
    Southern New England Estuaries...................................   105
    State Revolving Fund.............................................    98
        Funds........................................................    93
    Waste Isolation Pilot Project....................................    95
    Waters of the United States......................................   100

                                       [all]