[Senate Hearing 114-185]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRON-
MENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPRO-
PRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and
letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
Prepared Statement of the 1854 Treaty Authority
1854 treaty authority
The 1854 Treaty Authority (Authority) is a tribal organization
funded by a Public Law 93-638 contract with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) under its Trust-Natural Resources Management-Rights
Protection Implementation (RPI) budget.
--The Authority supports the administration's proposal for an
increase of $4.5 million for BIA Rights Protection
Implementation and a corresponding increased allocation for the
Authority.
--The Authority supports the full finding of contract support for its
Public Law 93-638, Self-Determination contract. The Authority
believes that at least the amount requested by the
administration should be appropriated, but it does not support
the administration's proposal to institute statutory caps on
contract support. Not only have those caps been proposed
without the consultation required for significant policy
changes, but the Authority has no source of funding to make up
for contract support shortfalls.
--The Authority supports maintaining funding for the EPA Great Lakes
Restoration budget at least at its current level.
The Authority is a tribal organization responsible for protecting,
preserving, and regulating the treaty-reserved hunting, fishing and
gathering rights in the territory ceded to the United States by the
Chippewa in the treaty of September 30, 1854, 10 Stat. 1109. The Bois
Forte Band and the Grand Portage Band created the Authority following
Federal court affirmation of the rights in 1988. As part of a court-
approved agreement with the State of Minnesota, the Bands have
obligations to preserve the natural resources in the 5 million acre
ceded territory and to regulate the activities of Band members through
a conservation code, enforcement officers, and a court. The Authority
has also been involved with a variety of inter-agency efforts to study
the effect of invasive species, climate change, and activities that
impact treaty resources.
Although it has significant responsibilities in a geographic area
the size of Massachusetts, the Authority has only 11 full-time
employees. With those limited resources, the Authority has been able to
collaborate with State, tribal and Federal agencies to become a
prominent presence in the conservation of resources critical to the
subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering activities of the Chippewa.
However, the successes of the Authority are overshadowed by the
challenges facing the trust resources that are at the heart of the
treaty rights. The Minnesota moose population has declined
precipitously in just a few years and for reasons unknown. Invasive
species threaten the treaty fishing and wild rice production areas
across the ceded territory, and human activities continue to deplete or
displace wildlife populations.
The Authority urges the subcommittee and the Congress to
acknowledge that the resources we seek to protect are trust resources,
reserved in treaties that the United States has a legal obligation to
protect and preserve.
______
Prepared Statement of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) welcomes the
opportunity to share its views with the subcommittee regarding fiscal
year 2016 funding from the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) for
National Park Service (NPS) activities. The ACHP is an independent
Federal agency that promotes the preservation, enhancement, and
sustainable use of our Nation's historic resources. Created by the
National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, the ACHP is charged with
advising the President and Congress on national historic preservation
policy. The ACHP membership, the majority of which is appointed by the
President, is made up of Federal agencies, preservation experts,
concerned citizens, a mayor, a governor, and major preservation non-
profit organizations.
Traditionally, the HPF is the source of NPS grants-in-aid to State
Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation
Offices (THPOs), which perform critical functions in administering the
Federal preservation program established by the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA). The fiscal year 2016 budget proposal would
continue this funding while also appropriating monies from the HPF for
NPS grants to support the preservation of sites associated with the
African American Civil Rights Movement and the identification of
historic properties associated with communities currently
underrepresented in the National Register of Historic Places. The ACHP
supports the fiscal year 2016 budget proposal for the HPF as a minimum
funding level and applauds the addition of funding for the Civil Rights
initiative, but asks that the subcommittee also consider increasing
funding to SHPOs and THPOs given chronic underfunding of their
activities.
SHPO/THPO Funding.--In 1976, Congress established the HPF to
support the delivery of programs mandated by the NHPA. Annually, the
HPF funds a variety of activities carried out by SHPOs and THPOs,
forming the backbone of preservation activity in the Nation. These
include conducting surveys of historic properties; preparing
nominations to the National Register of Historic Places; reviewing the
impact of Federal projects on historic properties; assisting in Federal
Historic Tax Credit project reviews; implementing disaster recovery
grants; and conducting preservation education and planning.
In 1980, Congress authorized up to $150 million in annual Outer
Continental Shelf revenue from oil and gas leases to be deposited into
the HPF. However, annual appropriations have never approached this
figure and, in recent years, have been less than $60 million. This
level of funding has seriously impacted the overall capacity of both
SHPOs and THPOs to efficiently fulfill their obligations in the Federal
preservation program. This has constrained their effectiveness when
participating in Federal agency planning processes and when providing
expert advice on historic properties affected by Federal actions.
Although funding levels for SHPOs have increased slowly since 1981,
they have never approached full funding nor have they kept pace with
inflation. Since 2010, funding essentially has been flat lined; the
$46.925 million proposed in the fiscal year 2016 budget is level with
last year's appropriation. When inflation is factored in, the current
buying power of HPF funding for SHPOs is virtually the same as it was
in 1987. Meanwhile, the demands placed on SHPOs have continued to
increase as State budgets have declined.
While SHPOs have been challenged by recent HPF funding levels, the
picture has been even bleaker for THPOs. The average allocation of
funds to individual THPOs has decreased so significantly over recent
years that some programs have had to close for several months at the
end of each year because of lack of funds. As the number of Indian
tribes operating approved THPO programs increases, the amount of HPF
funds appropriated for THPOs has not kept pace. In fiscal year 1996, 12
tribes received an average of $80,000. In 2014, there were 151 THPOs
certified by NPS to receive funds. The resulting average allocation of
about $58,000 translated to a decrease of approximately $22,000 per
THPO compared to 1996 even before adjusting for inflation. While the
ACHP fully supports the proposed increase of $1 million for THPOs in
the fiscal year 2016 budget, we believe that this increase is only a
partial step toward meeting the need.
The ACHP supports the proposed fiscal year 2016 funding level for
SHPOs and THPOs as preferable to a lower figure. However, we urge the
subcommittee to give serious consideration to increasing such funding.
The ACHP strongly supports full and permanent funding for the HPF at
its authorized level of $150 million for fiscal year 2016 and beyond.
Adequate funding is critically important to ensure the effective
participation of SHPOs and THPOs in consultation with Federal agencies
on projects involving national priorities such as energy development
and infrastructure permitting, disaster planning and resilience,
climate change adaptation, military readiness and national security
needs, and public lands management. SHPOs and THPOs also need
predictable funding to continue to identify properties worthy of
preservation and manage such information with modern digital
technology. October 15, 2016, marks the 50th anniversary of the NHPA.
Full and permanent funding for the HPF in the fiscal year 2016 budget
would be a fitting recognition of this milestone and signify the
Federal Government's continued commitment to assisting States and
Indian tribes in preserving the rich heritage of our Nation for future
generations.
Civil Rights Initiative.--To mark the 50th anniversary of the
Voting Rights Act, the fiscal year 2016 NPS budget proposes $50 million
to restore and highlight key sites across the country that tell the
story of the struggle for civil rights. Of that amount, $32.5 million
would come from the Historic Preservation Fund, including $30.0 million
in competitive grants to document, interpret, and preserve the stories
and sites associated with the Civil Rights Movement and the African-
American experience, and $2.5 million for grants to Historically Black
Colleges and Universities.
The struggle to end legal racial discrimination and segregation had
a profound influence on the course of American history and continues to
shape our society today. The physical places associated with the people
and events of the civil rights movement help us both to understand and
to celebrate what took place 50 years ago. There are sites throughout
the country associated with the African American civil rights struggle
of the 1950s and 1960s, some of which are being preserved and
interpreted, and some of which are threatened either directly by
development or through deterioration. The proposed competitive grants
from the HPF to help preserve such properties are much needed, and the
ACHP fully supports this proposed funding.
Historic structures on the campuses of historically black colleges
and universities (HBCUs) also face threats, including lack of resources
for repairs. Since the mid-1990s, Congress periodically has funded
preservation grants for HBCUs, but the last funding was in 2009 with an
infusion of funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The
proposed fiscal year 2016 HBCU grant funding would build upon the past
benefits of this grant program and would be an important component of
the overall NPS Civil Rights Initiative. The ACHP supports this
proposed HPF funding.
Grants for Underrepresented Communities.--The fiscal year 2016 NPS
budget would continue an existing grant program that addresses the
issue of underrepresentation of certain communities and groups in the
range of properties included in the National Register of Historic
Places. The goal of the program is to make strides toward ensuring that
the makeup of the National Register fully reflects the diversity of the
American story. In fiscal year 2014, funded projects included
inventories of African American heritage sites in Montana, Pueblo
Nations in New Mexico, LGBT sites in New York City, Latino properties
in Washington's Yakima Valley, and Asian American sites in Utah. fiscal
year 2014 grants also are supporting the preparation of National
Register nominations for LGBT sites in Kentucky, African American Civil
Rights resources in Baltimore, and sites associated with Chinese
immigrants and Chinese Americans in Boston.
The changing demographics of America pose opportunities as well as
challenges for the national historic preservation program. The
diversity of cultures in the United States shapes and enriches the
American experience, and the Federal Government can encourage wider
involvement and representation in determining what historic sites are
worthy of recognition and preservation; how history and cultural
heritage should be valued, interpreted, and preserved; and how the
American public as a whole can take advantage of the programs and tools
created under the NHPA. The HPF-funded underrepresented community grant
program is an important tool in building a more inclusive preservation
program, and the ACHP fully supports its continued funding in fiscal
year 2016.
Thank you for this opportunity to advise the subcommittee on fiscal
year 2016 appropriations for the National Park Service from the
Historic Preservation Fund. If the ACHP can provide any additional
information, please contact our Executive Director, John M. Fowler, at
[email protected].
______
Prepared Statement of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc.
The requests of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA)
for the fiscal year 2016 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as
follows:
--Require IHS to provide an additional $1.1 million in recurring
funds to our Compact which has been reduced by $4.9 million due
to St. Paul's transfer.
--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.
--Provide or require the IHS to allocate an additional $15 million to
fully fund Village Built Clinic Leases and make it a line item
in the budget.
--Place Contract Support Costs on a mandatory funded basis.
--Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis.
The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA) is a regional non-
profit tribal organization with members consisting of the 13 federally
recognized tribes of the Aleutian Chain and Pribilof Islands region.
APIA provides healthcare services to the Alaska Natives in four of the
tribal communities of this region through funding received from IHS
under Title V of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act (ISDEAA). We also provide health-related services through various
non-IHS grants and agreements.
Our Regional Health Delivery System Imperiled.--The Alaska Tribal
Health System depends on strong regional care organizations
coordinating limited resources to produce economies of scale enabling
them to provide quality healthcare services to Alaska Natives in their
regions. For a region like the Aleutian Pribilof Islands, achieving
economy of scale is a fragile undertaking. Last May the Aleut Community
of St. Paul Island, the largest community in our region, notified us
that they intended to withdraw from our Self-Governance agreement and
transfer the responsibility of their healthcare services and associated
funding from APIA to the Southcentral Foundation's Self-Governance
agreement. This action became effective January 1, 2015, and it has
resulted in the loss of 46 percent ($4.9 million) of our health budget.
This will cause catastrophic disruption and reduction of services for
the remaining communities in the APIA regional health system. It has
greatly diminished economy of scale in providing the collaborative
health arrangements throughout our area that we have worked so hard to
establish. These collaborative arrangements also include funding
outside of IHS such as Health Resources and Services Administration and
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration grants which
now must be untangled because of St. Paul's departure.
As you know, there has been in effect since 1998 a statutory
provision which is designed to promote efficient use of IHS funds by
maintaining a regionalized system of healthcare delivery in Alaska by
prohibiting disbursal of funds to tribes that withdraw from regional
health entities. St. Paul may have the right to switch from one Self-
Governance agreement to another but it certainly is a blow to the
carefully constructed regional health delivery system in Alaska.
IHS Self-Governance has an underlying principle to do no harm to
other tribes. The program from its beginning in 1992 as a demonstration
project is replete with congressional report language and IHS Budget
Justification statements of support for the program and simultaneously
noting that Self-Governance agreements are to do no harm to other
tribes. The huge loss of funds as the result of St. Paul transferring
its healthcare service is doing severe harm to the remaining members of
the communities serviced by our Self-Governance agreement.
Hence, we are asking Congress to direct the IHS to provide an
additional $1.1 million to APIA and that such funds be recurring to
help us take the necessary steps and at least partially mitigate the
loss of economy caused by the transfer of St. Paul.
Funding For Reconstruction of Two Health Care Facilities Destroyed
During WWII.--During World War II, communities within the APIA region
suffered historic losses, not only to their populations due to deaths
arising from inadequate healthcare and poor living conditions during
removal by the U.S. Government to camps in Southeast Alaska, but also
to two healthcare facilities that were destroyed and never rebuilt or
accounted for in prior restitution made to the Aleutian and Pribilof
tribal communities.
On June 4, 1942, the Japanese bombed the 24-bed hospital operated
at that time by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Unalaska, Alaska. Since
that time, the closest hospital is located in Anchorage, Alaska--800
air miles away, and not accessible by roads. Ten days later and 350
miles to the east, on June 14, 1942, the residents of Atka Island were
forcibly evacuated from the Island by the U.S. 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 800 air miles away 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 often must leave their families for
months at a time when receiving care; and mothers must leave their
families for 4 months to deliver their babies. 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, 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 Committees' 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 competitive
and funding is limited. This year the IHS announced the results of its
2014 Joint Venture solicitation--of 37 pre-applications, 13 were
selected to submit final applications and six of those will be chosen
to move forward. Yet, the IHS has indicated it does not have adequate
resources to fund even those programs, with the next Joint Venture
solicitation taking place in 3-5 years. Tribes in Alaska support the
IHS joint venture program as one of the best solutions to immediately
address critical healthcare needs in our communities.
Funding for Village Built Clinics in Alaska.--For the last several
years, APIA has submitted testimony 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. The CHAP
utilizes a network of community health aides and practitioners to
provide primary healthcare services in otherwise unserved rural and
isolated areas.
In 1989, Congress specifically authorized the operation of 170 VBCs
in Alaska and provided approximately $3 million in funding. 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 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 Community Health Aid Program that hinges on the
continued availability of properly maintained VBC space. Our facilities
in Atka and Nikolski have been cited for numerous patient HIPPA 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.
A recent estimate is that $15 million additional dollars are needed
to fully fund the VBC program. We urge you to provide or to direct the
IHS to add $15 million to the current amount (about $4 million)
provided for the VBCs and that this be made a line item in the budget.
Mandatory Contract Support Costs/IHS Advance Appropriations.--We
join with many others in Indian Country in supporting the
administration's proposal to place Contract Support Costs (CSC) on a
mandatory basis, although we and other tribes/tribal organizations urge
that it be implemented beginning in fiscal year 2016. It is heartening
to see that the hard work of tribes on this issue has brought them
around on the matter of the Federal Government honoring its contracts.
We thank this subcommittee for its support for full funding for CSC and
urge that you take it to its logical conclusion which is that the
funding be converted to a mandatory basis.
We also support placing the IHS budget on an advance appropriations
basis, as Congress has done with the Veterans Administration health
accounts. The fiscal year 2016 budget justification for the VA said
advance appropriation is necessary to ``fulfill the administration's
commitment to provide reliable and timely resources to support the
delivery of accessible and high-quality medical services for veterans.
This funding enables timely and predictable funding for VA's medical
care to prevent our Nation's veterans from being adversely affected by
budget delays, and provides opportunities to more effectively use
resources in a constrained fiscal environment.'' The same can be said
about healthcare for Indians and Alaska Natives.
We appreciate your consideration of our request outlined in this
testimony. On behalf of APIA and the people we serve, I am happy to
provide any other additional information desired by the committees.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Alliance of Museums
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to submit this testimony. My
name is Ford Bell and I serve as President of the American Alliance of
Museums (AAM). We urge your support for at least $155 million each in
fiscal year 2016 for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), as well as $935.8 million
for the Smithsonian Institution. We also request your support for the
Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), including at least $50 million for
State Historic Preservation Offices, $15 million for Tribal Historic
Preservation Offices, $32.5 million to preserve the sites and stories
of the Civil Rights Movement, and restored funding for the Save
America's Treasures and Preserve America programs.
Before detailing these funding priorities for the museum field, I
want to express my deepest appreciation for the difficult position in
which the subcommittee finds itself, given inadequate 302(b)
allocations in recent years. Like many museums, the subcommittee will
need to make many difficult decisions, each of which comes with a
unique set of consequences. In this context, however, we would posit
that each of our priorities outlined below is a vital investment that
will both protect our Nation's cultural treasures and provide a
tremendous benefit to the overall economy.
AAM is proud to represent the full range of our Nation's museums--
including aquariums, art museums, botanic gardens, children's museums,
culturally specific museums, historic sites, history museums, maritime
museums, military museums, natural history museums, planetariums,
presidential libraries, science and technology centers, and zoos, among
others--along with the professional staff and volunteers who work for
and with museums. AAM is proud to work on behalf of the Nation's
museums, which employ 400,000 people, invest more than $2 billion
annually on educational programs, receive more than 55 million visits
each year from primary and secondary school students, and directly
contribute $21 billion to their 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, job preparedness, and a range of programs geared
toward homeschooling families. 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, creativity, and
collaboration. We believe museums are uniquely situated to help
learners develop these core skills, and this is borne out by
evidence. According to a recent University of Arkansas study,
students who attended just a half-day field trip to an art
museum experienced an increase in critical thinking skills,
historical empathy and tolerance. For students from rural or
high-poverty regions, the increase was even more significant.
--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 addressing veterans' post-war trauma 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 more 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 as keepers of our cultural, historical, and scientific
heritages.
In 2014, through Preservation & Access, one of NEH's national
program divisions, 67 peer-reviewed, competitive grants totaling over
$4.8 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 128 awards totaling over $13.5 million. Demand for humanities
project support, as demonstrated by NEH grant application rates, far
exceeds available funding. In fiscal year 2014, NEH received 4,281
competitive grant applications representing more than $431 million in
requested funds, but was only able to fund 15.2 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 2014, 55 State councils
supported 2,402 events in museums, reaching a total audience of more
than 5.8 million people.
Here are just two examples of how NEH funding supports museums'
work in your communities:
--In 2013, the Mississippi Department of Archives and History
received $274,390 to select, digitize, and make available
100,000 pages of Mississippi newspapers published between 1836
and 1922. These primary sources offer vital insight into State
and national heritage.
--Historic London Town in Edgewater, Maryland received $177,814 in
2013 to support two 1-week workshops for 80 school teachers on
the development of slavery in the Chesapeake Bay region, with
lessons from local museums on teaching this difficult issue.
The National Endowment for the Arts makes art accessible to all and
provides leadership in arts education. Established in 1965, NEA
supports great art in 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 2014, more than 2,200 museums participated as Blue Star
Museums--a partnership between NEA, Blue Star Families, and the
Department of Defense--to offer 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 offer military discounts or free admission throughout the
year.
In 2014, NEA made more than 140 direct awards to museums, totaling
over $5.4 million. Forty percent of NEA's grant funds are distributed
to State arts agencies for re-granting, and many museums participate at
this level as well.
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 $9 dollars from other sources.
Here are two examples of how NEA funding is used to support
museums' work in your communities:
--Alaska's Chilkat Indian Village received a $50,000 grant to work
with museum professionals to create an exhibit that will convey
the ancestral, cultural, and artistic history of the Chilkat
people. The exhibition will help foster community identity,
serving the village, the neighboring community of Haines, and
national and international visitors.
--The International Folk Art Foundation in Santa Fe, New Mexico
received $50,000 to support its Imagining Home Project.
Traditional artists from local immigrant communities and abroad
display work in the museum's Gallery of Conscience on the
themes of leaving home, and the challenges and opportunities
presented by life in a new country.
In addition to these direct grants, NEA's Arts and Artifacts
Indemnity program also allows museums to apply for Federal indemnity on
major exhibitions, saving them roughly $30 million in insurance costs
every year and making many more exhibitions available to the public--
all at virtually no cost to the taxpayer. We were glad last year to
work with the Association of Art Museum Directors and with the
subcommittee to increase the indemnity limits as part of Public Law
113-235, and we remain extremely grateful for the subcommittee's work
on this matter.
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 visitors and learners of all
ages, in the Nation's capital and across the country, with innovative
exhibits and programs. Its 20 museums--including the National Zoo--
attract 30 million visits every year, and their content and curricula
are used by teachers all over the country.
The President's fiscal year 2016 budget request of $935.8 million
includes critical funding for the National Museum of African American
History and Culture, which will tell an essential part of American
history. Additional funding for collections care, ground-breaking
research, facilities maintenance, and technology upgrades will allow
the Smithsonian to care for the Nation's treasures and increase access
for all. We enthusiastically support this robust funding proposal 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
Institutes of Health, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) is the funding source of
preservation awards to States, tribes, local governments, and
nonprofits. 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 making
nominations to the National Register of Historic Places, reviewing
impacts of Federal projects, providing assistance to developers seeking
a rehabilitation tax credit, working with local 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 not been funded in recent years.
Also in the context of the Historic Preservation Fund, we support
the proposed Civil Rights Initiative, including $30 million for
competitive historic preservation grants to preserve the stories and
sites associated with the Civil Rights Movement as well as $2.5 million
to help Historically Black Colleges and Universities conduct similar
documentation and interpretation.
The 2005 Heritage Health Index of archives, libraries, historical
societies, and museums concluded that action is needed to prevent the
loss of 190 million artifacts that require 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 development engines and job creators.
Funds invested in building rehabilitation have been shown to create
more jobs and retail activity than those spent on new construction.
I want to once more acknowledge the difficult choices that the
subcommittee faces. I hope that my testimony has made it clear why
these priorities are of critical importance to the Nation and will
provide a worthwhile return on investment to the American taxpayer.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
To the Chair and members of the subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of
the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) about the
importance of the geological programs conducted by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS).
AAPG is the world's largest scientific and professional geological
association. The purpose of the association is to advance the science
of geology, foster scientific research, and promote technology. AAPG
has over 40,000 members around the world, with roughly two-thirds
living and working in the United States. These are the professional
geoscientists in industry, government, and academia who practice,
regulate, and teach the science and process of finding and producing
energy resources from the Earth.
AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial role that
the geosciences, and particularly petroleum geology, play in our
society. The USGS is crucial to meeting these societal needs, and
several of its programs deserve special attention by the subcommittee.
unconventional oil and gas research
Multiple Programs
As part of the effort to improve America's energy security, protect
the environment, save consumers money, and maintain United States
leadership in emerging energy technologies, the USGS, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) have created an interagency program that aims to understand the
potential environmental, health, and safety impacts of hydraulically
fractured oil and gas resources.
AAPG would like to emphasize that while hydraulic fracturing
technology continues to evolve, it is not a new technology and we have
substantial knowledge about its impacts as well as evidence of its
long-term safety. This should form the basis for any new research.
--AAPG supports the USGS budget increase in the fiscal year 2016
President's request that will support this research effort including:
resource assessments and characterization; water quality; and water
availability--areas of USGS scientific leadership. AAPG does not
support proposed funding for Contaminants Biology. Collection of human
health data is the responsibility of the EPA, as outlined in the
Interagency Unconventional oil and gas strategy.
geologic resource assessments
Energy Resources Program
The USGS Energy Resources Program (ERP) conducts both basic and
applied geoscience research focused on geologic energy resources (both
domestic and international), including oil, natural gas, coal, coalbed
methane, gas hydrates, geothermal, oil shale, and bitumen and heavy
oil.
--AAPG supports the President's fiscal year 2016 request for the
Energy Resources Program.
An urgent problem addressed through the ERP is the preservation of
geological and geophysical data, engineering data, maps, well logs, and
samples. This effort has never been funded at the authorized level, $30
million/year. This financial neglect is compounded by the difficult
financial situations facing State geological surveys that are
responsible for preserving most of the country's subsurface data.
Responsible management and efficient development of natural
resources requires access to the best available scientific information.
Over many years industry, such as petroleum and mining companies, has
invested billions of dollars to acquire geological and geophysical
data. Because of changing company focus and economic conditions this
data may no longer have value to the company that acquired it, and is
in jeopardy of being discarded.
But this data still has value to society. The data is valuable for
further natural resources exploration and development, and can be
applied to basic and applied earth systems research, environmental
remediation, and natural-hazard mitigation. It is the type of data that
will enable future generations of scientists and policy makers to
address the Nation's energy, environmental, and natural hazard
challenges of the 21st century.
For example, this data has been essential to the development of oil
and gas from shales. Geoscientists require previously acquired
subsurface cores and samples to identify prospective natural gas
deposits that were bypassed before new technology made shale resources
economically producible.
The NGGDPP was authorized at $30 million annually in EPACT 2005.
Historical allocations for this program have ranged from $750,000 to
$1,332,345 per year. These funding levels are inadequate to achieve the
program's objectives. Furthermore, with the precipitous decline in oil
prices some companies may go out of business or cease operations in a
particular region. This could lead to additional obligations on public,
primarily State, repositories.
--AAPG supports the reauthorization of the Preservation of the
Geological and Geophysical Data Program and recommends that the
subcommittee appropriate an additional $5 million in fiscal year 2016
for the preservation of geological and geophysical data.
Mineral Resources Program
The United States is the world's largest consumer of mineral
commodities. They form the building blocks of our economy.
It is therefore essential to the Nation's economic and national
security that the Federal Government understands both the domestic and
international supply and demand for minerals and mineral materials.
This data is used throughout government (Departments of Commerce,
Interior, Defense, and State; the Central Intelligence Agency; the
Federal Reserve) and the private sector.
The USGS Mineral Resources Program (MRP) is the only Federal and
publicly-available source for comprehensive information and analysis of
mineral commodities and mineral materials.
--AAPG supports the President's fiscal year 2016 request for the
Mineral Resources Program.
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program
AAPG supports the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program
(NCGMP). This unique partnership between the Federal and State
governments and the university community demonstrates the importance of
geoscience to society. The geologic maps produced by this program are
used for natural resource management, natural hazard mitigation, water
resource management, environmental conservation and remediation, and
land-use planning.
NCGMP deserves special commendation for its EDMAP initiative. This
university partnership enables students, working in a close mentoring
relationship with faculty, to produce maps while learning essential
mapping skills. As such, the program delivers an immediate return on
the Federal investment in terms of beneficial maps, as well as a future
return in the form of a trained and competent next generation
workforce.
--AAPG supports the President's funding request of $25.3 million
for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, including
increases for Coastal Resilience and Landscapes and Sinkhole Hazards.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee. AAPG also appreciates your leadership and support for the
geosciences. As you deliberate appropriate funding levels for these
USGS programs, please consider the important public policy implications
these choices entail.
If you have any questions about AAPG or this testimony, please
contact Edith Allison, the director of our policy office in Alexandria
at e-mail [email protected].
______
Prepared Statement of the American Bird Conservancy
April 8, 2015.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski Hon. Tom Udall
Chairwoman Ranking Member
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee
United States Senate United States Senate
131 Dirksen Senate 125 Hart
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
American Bird Conservancy (ABC) is a 501(c)(3) national non-profit
organization dedicated to the conservation of wild native birds and
their habitats throughout the Americas. Founded in 1994, ABC is the
only U.S. based group dedicated solely to overcoming the greatest
threats facing native birds in the Western Hemisphere. ABC supports the
highest level of funding possible for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act Grants and Migratory Bird Joint Ventures for fiscal
year 2016.
Each spring, more than 4 billion birds make their spectacular
migration from their winter habitats in Mexico, Central and South
America, and the Caribbean to their breeding grounds throughout North
America. Many species of birds that we see in our back yards are
affected by habitat conditions in their wintering grounds located
outside of the U.S. Birds like the Wilson's warbler and the Mountain
plover are currently in decline and may become endangered or threatened
resulting in the need for even more resources to be allocated making it
more important than ever now to support funding for the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act.
Since 2002, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA)
has functioned as a matching grant program to fund projects that
conserve neotropical migratory birds--those that breed in or migrate
through the United States and Canada and spend the non-breeding season
in Latin America and the Caribbean. Migratory birds make a significant
contribution to the U.S. economy. Recreation associated with migratory
birds is big business in this country. The 2011 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, conducted by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that nearly 47 million Americans
enjoy watching and feeding birds, spending $107 billion on birdwatching
equipment and travel within the United States that year alone creating
660,000 jobs and $13 billion annually in local, State, and Federal tax
revenue.
NMBCA has a proven track record of success over more than a decade.
Since its inception, the program has received more than $50.1 million
to positively affect 3.7 million acres and partners have leveraged
Federal funds with more than $190.6 million in non-Federal
contributions--a more than 4-to-1 match ratio.
As an organization that works with migratory birds, which by
definition cross international borders during their migration patterns,
we know that protection and restoration of habitat must occur across
the continent if the goal is to protect the species. As a result, ABC
respectfully requests that NMBCA be funded at the highest level
possible. In fiscal year 2015 the program was funded at approximately
$3.66 million and the President's budget fiscal year 2016 request is
$4.16M.
Migratory Bird Joint Ventures (JVs) also exemplify a highly
successful, cost-effective approach to conservation. By applying
science and bringing diverse constituents together, JVs across the
United States have created a model for solving wildlife management
problems and restoring habitats critical to conserving declining
species. Nationally, JVs have protected, restored, or enhanced more
than 24 million acres of important habitat for migratory bird species.
There are currently 21 JVs in the United States that provide
coordination for conservation planning and implementation of projects
that benefit all migratory bird populations and other species. Since
the program's inception in 1986, Joint Ventures have worked with 5,700
partners to help enhance, conserve, restore, and protect nearly 24
million acres of essential habitat across North America.
Joint Ventures have a long history of success in implementing bird
conservation initiatives mandated by Congress and by international
treaties. Projects are developed at the local level and implemented
through diverse public/private partnerships. These projects reflect
local values and needs, while addressing regional and national
conservation priorities. The projects benefit not only birds, but many
wildlife species, and have a positive impact on the health of
watersheds and local economies. For every dollar appropriated for Joint
Ventures leveraged more than $33 in non-Federal partner funds. ABC
respectfully requests that JVs be funded at the highest level possible.
Joint Ventures have been funded at approximately $13.1 million in
fiscal year 2015. The administration's fiscal year 2016 request for
Joint Ventures is $18.591 million with an additional $5 million to help
JVs increase species resilience.
America faces a serious challenge to reverse the decline of many of
our bird species, but it is possible. Since birds are sensitive
indicators of how we are protecting our environment as a whole, this
decline signals a crisis that Congress must act now in order to reverse
it. ABC strongly believes increased funding for NMBCA and JVs is
essential to achieving conservation goals critical to our environment
and the economy.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Cultural Resources Association
Our Request: $89.91 million for the Historic Preservation Fund as
follows:
--$46.925 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs)
--$9.985 million for the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs)
--$500,000 in grants for underrepresented populations
--$30 million for the Civil Rights competitive grants initiative
--$2.5 million for competitive grants for Historically Black Colleges
and Universities (HBCUs)
These programs are funded through withdrawals from the U.S.
Department of the Interior's National Park Service Historic
Preservation Fund (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470h) (HPF).
acra members deliver responsible heritage management solutions that
balance economic development and heritage preservation
ACRA is the national trade association representing the interests
of heritage management firms of all sizes, types and specialties.
ACRA's member firms undertake much of the legally mandated heritage
management studies and investigations in the United States.
There are approximately 1,300 heritage management firms nationwide
that employ over 10,000 heritage management professionals, including
archaeologists, preservation architects, architectural historians,
historians, and an increasingly diverse group of other specialists.
These firms generate over $1 billion in revenue annually. ACRA firms
create and support jobs, providing employment for American-educated and
trained professionals, and serve an important role in delivering
responsible heritage management solutions for our communities that
appropriately balance economic development and heritage preservation.
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. 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. Heritage management 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 heritage management firms can
get the job done. ACRA appreciates the administration's efforts to
support preservation and the HPF, and applauds the addition of funding
for the Civil Rights initiative; however, we ask that the subcommittee
also consider increasing funding to SHPOs and THPOs given chronic
underfunding of their activities.
The budget request does include a $1 million increase for THPOs.
THPOs are chronically underfunded; the additional $1 million is a start
to solving that challenge for tribes working to preserve and protect
their culture and history. The request also includes $30 million for
Civil Rights initiatives and $2.5 for HBCUs in recognition of the
anniversary of the Civil Rights movement. ACRA supports these funding
pieces, as well, and hopes that such funds will help diversify the
sites preserved under the HPF.
conclusion
On behalf of its 150 member firms, ACRA would like to thank the
subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony. ACRA also thanks
the subcommittee for its commitment to historic preservation and
heritage management.
______
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.
--Support the U.S. Forest Service Forest Health Protection (Federal
and Cooperative) at the fiscal year 2012 funding level of $111
million;
--Support the U.S. Forest Service Forest Stewardship Program fiscal
year 2012 budget level of $29 million;
--Support the President's funding request of $23.513 million for the
Landscape Restoration Program;
--Support the Presidents funding request of $83 million for the
Forest Inventory and Analysis research;
--Support the U.S. Forest Service Research and Development Program at
the fiscal year 2012 funding level of $231 million;
--Support the U.S. State Fire Assistance Program at the fiscal year
2012 funding level of $86 million; and
--Support the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act that will provide $86
million in funding for fire suppression activities.
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.
forest health investments
Threats from invasive species and pests continue to pervade onto
American tree-farmer's land, posing economic and environmental
hardships. 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.
There was a 2.2 percent reduction in State and Private Forestry
(S&PF) land that was reached from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013
for support for invasive species infestations.\2\ Approximately 423,000
acres of Cooperative lands were reached in fiscal year 2013, but a
reduction in funding from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013 resulted
in 321,000 fewer acres receiving treatment. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ USFS Forest Health, January 2015, Forest Health Monitoring:
National Status, Trends, and Analysis 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
forest stewardship program
The Forest Stewardship Program provides the guidance necessary to
ensure our Nation's family-owned forests can continue to provide
benefits (clean air and water, etc.), while leaving them less
susceptible to forest health threats and conservation to non-forest
users. Approximately 14 billion tons of carbon are stored on family
forests and close to 400,000 acres of family forests are critical for
the health of headwater streams. Active family forest-owners that
provide many environmentally sustainable benefits are in need of the
Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) to help them perform forest management
plans on their property. The FSP is also critical in engaging the 95
percent of woodland owners who are not actively managing their land,
and therefore have forests that are more susceptible to the
environmental and economic threats such as invasive species and pests.
Families and individuals are the largest group of forest owners in
the U.S., therefore responsible for the stewardship of 35 percent of
America's forest legacy.\3\ Many of these families and individuals
receive key advice and technical assistance from State service
foresters. The Forest Stewardship Program can increase its
effectiveness by focusing on high-priority areas and new landowners.
This can be accomplished if the U.S. Forest Service Forest Stewardship
Program fiscal year 2012 budget level of $29 million is supported. In
addition, the AFF has partnered with State forest agencies to implement
outreach tools and micro-targeting strategies to engage ``unengaged''
woodland owners; to date, the AFF has seen a 12 percent response rate.
These outreach tools combined with a highly focused, appropriately
funded Forest Stewardship Program has the potential to have an even
greater impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ USDA, May 2008, Who Owns America's Forest?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
support the landscape scale restoration program
The Landscape Scale Restoration Program helps to concentrate
resources to accomplish outcomes on-the-ground where they are needed
the most. This program complements the ongoing work of the FSP and
further targets measureable outcome in high-priority areas. AFF
strongly urges the subcommittee to support the President's funding
request of $23.513 million for the Landscape Restoration Program.
Along with the FSP and AFF, the Landscape Scale Restoration Program
would help family and individual woodland owners that are working to
improve, maintain, and sustain high ecological standards and preserve
the biodiversity of their land. In addition, 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.
forest inventory and analysis and forest service research & development
program
Both the Forest Inventory and Analysis and Forest Service Research
and Development Programs provide extensive science and forest
information. This essential data provides forest landowners with
critical updates on forest health and market trends to help them know
how to mitigate growing threats.
In particular, the USFS Research and Development Program provides
the science to help manage invasive species in urban and rural forests.
The R&D function also provides 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.
During fiscal year 2014 FIA maintained annualized inventory
activity in all 50 States, total area currently sampled represents
about 90 percent of all U.S. forestland. Due to late budget
allocations, FIA was not able to maintain annual plot production at
efficient level in fiscal year 2014. Total funding from all sources for
the FIA program in fiscal year 2014 was $77.7million; total funding
from all sources was 14 percent below the amount needed for full
program implementation.\4\ AFF is urging support for the Presidents
funding request of $83 million for the Forest Inventory and Analysis
and fiscal year 2012 funding level of $231 million for Research and
Development in order to gain a stronger understanding of our woodlands
in order to protect them from the increasing threats mentioned
previously and to allocate woodland resources appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Forest Inventory and Analysis, February 2015, Fiscal Year 2014
Business Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
state fire assistance
Forest fires pose a large threat to family and individual
landowners as these fires continue to increase in frequency and
intensity. The State Fire Assistance helps the 22 million family
woodland owners protect their land from devastating forest fires
through technical fire program assistance and enhances State, local,
and rural organizations including: community-based wildfire hazard
mitigation efforts, fire plan development, and fire adapted ecosystem
restoration.
The funds from the State Fire Assistance also provides coordinated
fire protection and mobilization for fire suppression on both Federal
and non-Federal lands. It also supports State coordinated hazard
mitigation activities in the wildland-urban interface, focused on
reducing property loss, decreasing fuels hazards, increasing public
awareness, developing fire plans and citizen-driven solutions in rural
communities.\5\ These threatening factors continue to increase and
require proper funding, therefore we are requesting support for the
U.S. State Fire Assistance Program at the fiscal year 2012 funding
level of $86 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ USFS, Fire & Aviation Management: State Fire Assistance (SFA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
wildfire disaster funding
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 2012,
the USFS transferred $440 million and in fiscal year 2013 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.
In order to have programs that do all of this work--(1) reduce the
threat of invasive species, (2) provide technical assistance to
woodland owner's for good stewardship, and (3) provide restoration
activities and active management work to reduce future fire risks--we
need a permanent solution to the wildfire funding problem. The American
Forest Foundation is asking that Congress pass the Wildfire Disaster
Funding Act (S. 235/H.R. 167) as it would end disrupting, monetary
transfers from the USDA Forest Service and Department of Interior to
fund fighting wildfires. During fiscal year 2014 there were several
fire funding shortfalls, which resulted in funding offsets from other
programs, negatively impacting the Forest Legacy Program, Forest
Landscape Restoration Program, and Urban Forestry.
American Forest Foundation would like to acknowledge that the
subcommittee must find areas to reduce spending, but we hope that the
subcommittee will consider the impact these reductions have on millions
of family forest owners, along with all other Americans who are
effected by all the benefits well-managed, working forests provide. We
thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide some insight on
these programs and appreciate consideration of my testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
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 2016
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 2016, TCUs seek $89.220 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, $88.5 million is for Titles I
& II operating grants (28 TCUs); $109,000 for Title III (endowment
grants); and $601,000 for increasingly needed technical assistance.
TCUs are founded and chartered by their respective American Indian
tribes, which hold a special legal relationship with the Federal
Government, actualized by more than 400 treaties, several Supreme Court
decisions, prior congressional action, and the ceding of more than 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--have
suffered the ramifications of sequestration. Should sequestration
resume in fiscal year 2016, along with added across the board cuts that
have become part of the regular order, the TCUs will suffer even
greater annual reductions to this already underfunded program.
Regrettably, the long-term Federal investment in this program, which
has proven to be 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 inadequate funding they
receive. After 35 years since this essential grants program was first
funded, our fiscal year 2016 request seeks to finally achieve the
authorized funding level for institutional operating grants, which is
based on a per Indian student allocation; and to retain $601,000 to
provide critically needed, ever changing and expanding technical
assistance.
AIHEC's membership also includes two 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 $9,300,000 for this program. For the
Institute of American Indian Arts, AIHEC supports the President's
budget request of $11,619,000. Haskell Indian Nations University and
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute are the Bureau of Indian
Education's two postsecondary institutions. AIHEC supports a minimum of
$19,990,000, included in the President's fiscal year 2016 budget, for
these important institutions.
Lastly, but very important, AIHEC is seeking a one-time $20 million
appropriation necessary to transition the institutional operating
grants of the five TCUs that are still funded on the Federal fiscal
calendar to an academic funding schedule. These institutions are the
ONLY schools, funded through the Department of the Interior, that still
receive their institutional funding on the Federal fiscal year (October
1) or more likely, later in the year when the annual Interior
appropriation bill is passed, rather than the first week of July in
preparation for the upcoming school year. Once forward funded these
TCUs, like all other BIE/Interior schools, will be able to plan
multiyear budgets and to start (and end) each school year with
dependable funding. Forward funding does not increase the Federal
budget in the long-term. 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. We recognize the severe budgetary constraints
that Congress is currently working under and suggest that the funds
needed to transition these five colleges to a forward funded schedule
could be accomplished over 2 or 3 years. Affected colleges would
receive a second appropriation for one-half or one-third the amount
needed to establish forward funding the grant program. After the second
or third year, depending on the transition timeframe chosen, the
Department of the Interior would begin distributing the colleges'
annual institutional operating grants in July of each year, going
forward.
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, more than 70 percent of whom receive
Federal financial aid. In total, the TCUs annually serve about 89,000
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 AI/ANs 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
binding 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 support is well 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 $20,000/
student, because this is the level of need as determined by the U.S.
Government. In contrast, most TCUs receive $6,355/Indian Student (ISC)
under the Tribal College Act, less than 80 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. It is important to understand that we are by no
means suggesting that our sister MSI, Howard University does not need
or deserve the funding it receives; it does. We are only pointing out
that the TCUs also need and deserve adequate institutional operations
funding; however, TCU operating budgets are chronically underfunded.
TCU budgets are at a further disadvantage because the colleges
receive funding for only about 76 percent of their enrolled 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 24 percent
of the TCUs' collective enrollments are non-Indian students living in
the local community, TCUs receive Federal funding based only on Indian
students, defined as members of a federally recognized tribe or the
biological children of an enrolled tribal member. While many TCUs do
seek funding from their respective State legislatures for their non-
Indian, State-resident students (oftentimes 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 are open to all students, Indian and non-Indian,
believing that education in general, and postsecondary education in
particular is a catalyst to a better economic future for their areas.
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 $28,184. However, the annual per
capita income of AI/ANs is reported to be $16,777, or 40 percent lower
than 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 a Native workforce that includes highly
trained AI/AN 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'' occupations 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 TCU 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 happily 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 5.5 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 extremely 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 less successful or non-
gaming State.
appropriations request for fiscal year 2016
As noted earlier, it has been 35 years 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 2016 would require an increase of approximately $19.4 million over
the fiscal year 2015 appropriated level. Details of the request are
outlined in the Request Summary above.
conclusion
AIHEC Member institutions/Tribal Colleges and Universities provide
quality higher education to many thousands of American Indians and
other reservation residents, as well as essential community programs
and services to those 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 thoughtful
consideration of our fiscal year 2016 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 2016. AIBS encourages Congress to provide the USGS with $1.2
billion in fiscal year 2016 and $176.3 million for the Ecosystems
activity. We further request that Congress provide the USFS Forest and
Rangeland Research program with at least $296.0 million, and EPA
Science and Technology with at least $769.1 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 and evaluation of control measures for Asian carp,
sea lamprey, Burmese pythons, and other invasive species that
cause billions of dollars in economic losses.
--New insights on the spread of avian flu, chronic wasting disease,
and other wildlife diseases in North America.
The requested fiscal year 2016 budget would support several
important ecosystem science priorities at USGS. Science in support of
critical landscapes, such as the Arctic and sage steppe, would be
boosted. The budget would also focus research efforts on emerging
invasive species and the declining status of native pollinators. USGS
would support efforts to further the science and integration of
ecosystems services frameworks into decision-making and implement
efforts to assess and sustain the Nation's environmental capital.
New funding is proposed for the Cooperative Research Units to
increase undergraduate involvement in research. These efforts would
complement the existing focus on graduate education. 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.
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 $176.3 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 2016 budget request would cut funding for Forest
Service research by $4.0 million. Nearly all Forest Service research
program areas are targeted for budget cuts. Six of seven research areas
would be cut by 7 to 8 percent. Research on wildfires, invasive
species, and resource management would be impacted.
Scaling back research efforts is a lost opportunity for USFS in
fulfilling their mission to sustain the health, diversity, and
productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands. Scientific
information is needed to best manage public lands for economic
development, recreational uses, and preservation of the natural
environment.
We ask Congress to restore the proposed cuts and to fund the Forest
and Rangeland Research program at $296.0 million, the same amount as in
fiscal year 2015.
environmental protection agency
The EPA 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 approximately 20 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.''
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 by bees
and other species, and flood control. The program has been long
underfunded, according to the EPA Science Advisory Board. The fiscal
year 2016 request would continue the declining funding trend with a $3
million cut. We ask that Congress address the chronic underfunding of
the program.
Two valuable training opportunities for the next generation of
scientists will be eliminated as part of a proposed government-wide
reorganization of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education programs. Funding would be zeroed out for EPA Science to
Achieve Results (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.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
white-nose syndrome (wns)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.--$4.5 million (President's budget
request) total. $2 million in Endangered Species Recovery; $2.5 million
in Service Science.
U.S. Geological Survey.--$1.424 million (President's budget
request) in Ecosystems/Wildlife.
National Park Service.--$3.155 million (President's budget request)
in Operations/Park Management/Natural Resource Stewardship.
Bureau of Land Management.--$500,000.
U.S. Forest Service.--$2.5 million ($1.8 million increase over
$700,000 available in fiscal year 2015) in Research and Development;
$500,000 in Forest Systems.
Nine years after the first known observation of white-nose
syndrome, WNS remains at the root of North America's most precipitous
wildlife die-off of the past century. WNS has killed at least 5.7
million bats and has spread to 26 States and 5 Canadian provinces. The
disease is caused by an invasive species of fungus, Pseudogymnoascus
destructans (Pd), that thrives in caves and abandoned mines and infects
bats hibernating there, disrupting their physiological processes. WNS
has struck seven species, including the federally endangered Indiana
and gray bats, and has the potential to affect 25 of our 47 bat
species. Declines are so severe that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) has designated the northern long-eared bat as threatened due to
WNS.
Bats are integral to our economy and environment. They are primary
predators of night-flying insects, including agricultural pests that
attack corn, soybeans, cotton, and other crops. By eating these pests,
bats reduce the need for pesticides, lower food production costs, and
save U.S. farmers an average of $22.9 billion per year. Bats also
perform ecological services for 66 plant species that produce timber.
The Federal Government and its partners have responded admirably to
the WNS crisis. Thanks to steady Government funding, their research has
unlocked much of the disease's basic biology and informed initial
management decisions. More remains to be done, however.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the lead agency for WNS
response. The agency serves as an umbrella organization for nationwide
WNS action, steering, facilitating, and managing information flow for
the efforts of the more than 100 Federal, State, local, tribal,
academic, nonprofit, and other entities that contribute to the WNS
fight. In this role, FWS creates dialogue among the partners that sets
the direction for WNS work, advancing WNS science and identifying how
best to spend WNS funds. FWS also catalyzes scientific research on WNS
by distributing millions of dollars in research grants every year. The
grants fund work that likely would not occur otherwise and increases
our knowledge of the disease, such as a paper published last year on
research suggesting that Pd can persist in caves and abandoned mines
for long periods in the absence of bats. FWS is the largest source of
funding for State agencies to monitor, manage, and research WNS. We
support the President's request for FWS WNS activities.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) plays a critical role in WNS
research. When WNS was first observed in 2006, both it and Pd were
unknown to science. Since then, USGS's research has laid much of the
foundation of our understanding of them. The agency continues to expand
this knowledge and has begun exploring ways to treat WNS. In recent
years, USGS developed a more accurate WNS test for bats that, unlike
previous methods, doesn't require euthanizing the animals; the agency
now is collaborating with State agencies at the WNS border to deploy
this test to monitor the disease. With a view to possible treatments,
USGS also is studying Pd's cave environment to identify conditions
conducive to and hostile to the fungus, as well as whether other
microbes found on bats' skin could mitigate the effects of Pd. We
support the President's request for $1.424 million for USGS in the
Wildlife account to continue this work.
The natural resources of the National Park Service (NPS) provide
opportunities and challenges related to WNS management and information-
sharing. NPS conducts bat and disease monitoring in its many caves and
abandoned mines, and plays an important role in educating the public
about WNS. The many visitors that NPS hosts also heighten the need for
the agency to prevent the human spread of Pd. Conducting chemical
disinfection with visitors and staff when entering and exiting caves
and abandoned mines has enabled NPS to research and advance knowledge
of the efficacy of various decontamination methods used by natural
resource-management personnel and recreational cavers across the
country. Finally, NPS is integrating WNS into all staff bat-resource
activities; for example, conducting wing swabs for WNS is becoming
standard procedure whenever NPS staff handle bats. We support the
President's budget request of $3.155 million in Natural Resource
Stewardship for NPS to continue these activities.
With at least 3,000 caves and an estimated 31,000 abandoned mines
on its lands, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has much work to do
on WNS but has never been allocated the funds for it. Most of BLM's
lands, concentrated in the western U.S., have not yet suffered from
WNS, but addressing the disease is necessary, and BLM has begun the
task, thanks in part to directive language from Congress starting in
fiscal year 2012. To address a paucity of information about bats and
their habitat on BLM lands, staff are conducting bat inventories. To
minimize the risk of Pd spread, the agency has integrated
decontamination into protocols for personnel who enter caves or
abandoned mines and is producing educational programming on
decontamination for visitors. BLM also aims to prevent Pd spread by
closing abandoned mines, installing gates on other mines and caves to
keep out people, and selectively closing caves to visitors. One way BLM
has been carrying out these measures is through an internal small-grant
program; field offices apply for up to $2500, which must be matched by
other funds, often from State agencies or local NGOs. In the face of
continued WNS spread these efforts must be increased. We request
$500,000 for the BLM to implement on-the-ground WNS measures.
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has an important role to play in WNS
response. Drawing on resources such as the Center for Forest Mycology
Research--specialized in the study of fungi--USFS scientists have
contributed greatly to the understanding of WNS and Pd. In 2013, agency
researchers taxonomically reclassified the WNS-causing fungus, laying
the foundation for a better understanding of Pd. USFS is currently
working to pinpoint Pd's harmful genes, in the hope of silencing them.
USFS also is exploring the use of a native soil bacterium to inhibit Pd
and improve survival of WNS-infected bats. In response to directive
language from Congress in fiscal year 2012, USFS wrote a WNS science
strategy. With the goals of that strategy accomplished, USFS is about
to issue an updated strategy. Although implementing it will cost $2.5
million in the first year, USFS's Research and Development branch is
able to allocate only $700,000; we request that the subcommittee
provide the $2.5 million needed to implement its strategy. (The
President's budget allocates $83 million to USFS Research and
Development's Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) budget; according to
agency officials, only $75 million can be spent efficiently in fiscal
year 2016. We request that the subcommittee use the extra $8 million
for non-FIA Research and Development needs, including WNS.) We also ask
for $500,000 for USFS's Forest Systems branch for WNS management,
monitoring, and field research on USFS lands. Finally, we respectfully
ask the subcommittee not to tie WNS funds to, or otherwise encumber the
threatened listing of the northern long-eared bat.
fish and wildlife service--office of law enforcement--$75.4 million
The FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) is one of the most
important lines of defense for America's wildlife. OLE enforces 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 ranks third only to the illicit trade in narcotics and weapons in
terms of global revenue--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. We support FWS's proposed
appropriation of $75.4 million for OLE, an increase of $8.7 million
over the fiscal year 2015 enacted budget, and the addition of 45 full-
time employees (FTE) over the fiscal year 2015 enacted budget. These
increases 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 FWS's ability to
combat wildlife trafficking.
National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory--$750,000 increase
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. Proposed funding 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.
Wildlife Trafficking--$4,000,000 increase +25 FTE
Combatting increased wildlife trafficking has become a high
priority for the administration, Congress, and numerous governmental
agencies. Wildlife trafficking threatens not only species conservation,
but also global peace given its close association with terrorism and
criminal syndicates. High-speed electronic communication has expanded
the rapidity, ease, and range by which criminal elements conduct
business, and funds derived from this illegal activity are often used
for other crimes and terrorist activities. With poaching reaching
unprecedented levels worldwide, domestic and international governmental
and private entities have been turning to FWS for leadership in
coordinating, guiding, and implementing a workable response. This
funding increase supports the Executive Order on combating wildlife
trafficking; with it, FWS will hire 25 new personnel. Specifically, the
new positions will focus on information analysis in order to forge
permanent liaisons with the U.S. intelligence community and other
Federal law enforcement agencies. Currently, OLE does not have the
staff to mount a focused, concerted, and effective effort to address
high speed or electronic illegal activities. These new analysts will
allow OLE to better combat and pursue traffickers of natural resources
on the Internet and in high speed transport. Other special agents will
be assigned to FWS regions, headquarters, and selected overseas
embassies as attachs to focus on investigating illegal electronic
commerce.
Law Enforcement Activities--$4,000,000 increase +20 FTE
OLE's ability to enforce critical wildlife laws, such as the Lacey
Act, and safeguard species has been increasingly limited by shortfalls
in Special Agent staffing. Currently, a majority of the staff are
thinly spread in single-agent duty stations across the country. Often,
only one or two agents cover an entire State, forcing agents to
frequently work alone, which raises concerns about officer safety and
efficiency as they can only focus on a limited number of cases at a
time. With the increase, FWS will hire 20 new Special Agents to address
staffing shortfalls that affect OLE's ability to perform ongoing
investigations. The new agents will be deployed to the field for direct
interdiction of illegal commercial activities.
wild free-roaming horses and burros act
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) continues to round up wild
horses and warehouse them on private lands at great public expense.
This is not a humane or responsible solution, and for the last few
years this subcommittee has called on the BLM to implement humane on-
the-range solutions. It appears this message is being heard by the
Agency. We appreciate the subcommittee's continued commitment to
finding humane and responsible long-term solutions and encourage you to
maintain this path. We support the BLM's proposed increase of $2.9
million for wild horse and burro management. These funds are to be used
for humane population control research, including ongoing research into
developing more effective and longer lasting fertility control agents.
We support these efforts and request that any increase in
appropriations under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act be
used solely to implement humane, on-the-range management methods such
as immunocontraception, and not unnecessary roundup. 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 wildlife refuge system--pilot program and data collection
We support the administration's $508.2 million request to operate
and maintain the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), which
generates $2.5 billion in economic impacts and $342.9 million in tax
revenues. To enhance the NWRS's stated purpose of conserving fish and
wildlife, including species threatened with extinction, we request that
FWS implement the following two programs geared towards minimizing the
damage and threats posed by indiscriminate and injurious body-gripping
traps to humans, wildlife, and other animals on refuge land:
Pilot Program: The subcommittee should direct FWS to develop and
implement a pilot program of no fewer than 5 years banning body-
gripping traps (snares, Conibear traps, and leg-hold traps) from
National Wildlife Refuges within Region 5 (Northeast Region). FWS will
collect data on the program's effects on wildlife populations, other
approved recreational uses, and FWS facilities, and report back to
Congress within 90 days of the program's conclusion.
Data Collection Program: The subcommittee should direct FWS to
compile data regarding the use of animal traps within the NWRS.
Specifically, FWS should provide Congress information regarding the
number and species of animals trapped, number of target versus non-
target animals, the primary purposes for trapping on refuge land, the
humaneness of body-gripping traps, the impacts of trapping on
endangered and threatened species and domestic animals, and the extent
to which trapping impacts other recreational uses allowed within the
NWRS. Additionally, FWS should allow interested and qualified outside
parties to submit data relevant to the request above through a public
comment period of no less than 30 days. FWS should present a report to
Congress containing this and any other relevant information within 120
days of this bill's enactment.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Task Force of the ASME
Environmental Engineering Division
Mr. Chairman, ranking members, and members of the Subcommittee:
The ASME Environmental Protection Agency Task Force (Task Force) is
pleased to provide this testimony on the fiscal year 2016 budget
request for the EPA Science and Technology (S&T) programs.
introduction
ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide mechanical engineering professional
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
U.S. scientists and engineers have a long-standing professional
interest in applying Science & Technology (S&T) to improve the
environment and human health. Mechanical engineers increasingly
collaborate with other professionals to develop innovative and cost-
effective environmental technologies and systems.
The EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is an essential
part of the Nation's efforts to protect human health and safeguard the
environment in a scientifically sound and sustainable manner. ORD's
efforts improve environmental health, provide innovative environmental
monitoring techniques, and support environmental technology development
and implementation.
overview of the asme epa task force review
The fiscal year 2016 budget request for EPA is $8.5 billion, a $452
million or 5.5 percent increase from the $8.1 billion enacted in fiscal
year 2015. The EPA's ORD Science and Technology (S&T) accounts would
increase by $34.4 million to $769 million, a 4.6 percent increase.
Key research areas for mechanical engineering within the S&T
portfolio include the Air, Climate, and Energy area, the Safe and
Sustainable Water Resources research program area, and research at the
National Risk Management Research Laboratory. Air, Climate, and Energy
would increase by $8.4 million (9.1 percent) to $100.3 million, and
Safe and Sustainable Water Resources would increase by 3.4 million (3.3
percent) to $111 million. Chemical Safety and Sustainability would see
the largest increase at 13.8 million (10.8 percent) to $140.7 million.
Funding for the National Risk Management Research Laboratory would be
reduced slightly from $71 million to $70.6 million.
EPA has seen declining budget figures for the last several budget
cycles. Funding proposed for fiscal year 2016 is actually below that
provided to the agency in fiscal year 1995. The reduced funding has
resulted in a 10 percent contraction in the S&T workforce over the past
20 years, which places extraordinary pressure on the agency to provide
the S&T support required by EPA and other Federal and State
organizations. The Task Force feels that the President's budget
allocation for fiscal year 2016 is warranted given the Nation's
environmental challenges. Additional R&D funds are needed in order to
enhance study responses to resolve hydraulic fracturing and oil shale
waste issues, to better understand the impacts of climate change, to
support the development of terrestrial carbon sequestration and
management, to help guide the proper development of biofuels, to
improve our understanding of chemical safety and toxicology, to measure
the environmental impacts of nanotechnology, to promote sustainable
waste management, and to better understand water resources utilization
and development.
The Task Force's comments on the fiscal year 2016 budget focus on
the mechanical engineering-intensive activities of the S&T portfolio
within the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). The change
in funding levels supporting these core objectives in the last two
budget cycles along with the proposed fiscal year 2016 budget figures
are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2014 2015 2016
(million) (million) (million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Air and Radiation......... $7.2 $5.9 $6.6
Homeland Security................ 38.5 37.1 38.1
Clean Air and Climate............ 110.3 116.5 124.8
Safe and Sustainable Water 120.0 107.4 111.0
Resources.......................
Human Health Protection.......... 3.7 3.5 3.7
Air, Climate, and Energy Research 99.4 91.9 100.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
epa office of research and development (ord)
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 provide
responsive technical support to its scientific partners. The ORD
administers programs addressing both basic research and the development
of the scientific tools used to understand and evaluate environmental
health. ORD also conducts 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 in each of the last 5
fiscal years--a loss of more than 200 environmental science
professionals--a staffing level that makes it difficult to permit
efficient action on a number of topics of national importance,
particularly toxicology, nanotechnology, sustainable waste management
and water resources. Effort should be made to bring ORD staff to
approximately pre-sequestration levels so that EPA can continue to
support R&D on current and future environmental problems.
The Task Force supports 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 are outlined below:
INDOOR AIR AND RADIATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2014 (million) 2015 (million) 2016 (million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Air: Radon Program....................................... $0.21 $0.19 $0.0
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air.................................... 0.36 0.31 0.41
Radiation Protection............................................ 2.5 1.9 2.1
Radiation Preparedness Response................................. 4.1 3.5 4.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2014 (million) 2015 (million) 2016 (million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Infrastructure Protection.............................. $10.2 $10.3 $11.8
Preparedness, Response and Recovery............................. 27.8 26.2 25.6
Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure.................. 0.54 0.54 0.60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 supports the
additional funding allocated to the Critical Infrastructure Protection
program.
CLEAN AIR AND CLIMATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2014 (million) 2015 (million) 2016 (million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Protection.............................................. $11.7 $8.0 $7.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA Task Force views Climate Protection Research as an
important issue and is somewhat surprised by the funding trajectory for
this program given funding levels supported in previous fiscal years.
The Task Force supports this request given the constrained budget
environment.
RESEARCH: AIR, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2013 2014 2015
(million) (million) (million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S&T Activities.................. $99.4 $91.9 $100.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA Task Force supports the full fiscal year 2016 increased
request for Air, Climate and Energy Research, particularly the
additional proposed funding for hydraulic fracturing programs and
carbon sequestration.
SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2013 2014 2015
(million) (million) (million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research...................... $120.0 $107.4 $111.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe and Sustainable Water Resources funding supports a variety of
activities related to the challenges facing U.S. water resources,
including drinking water and wastewater from industrial activities. The
Task Force is pleased that sustainability funding has been increased,
just over $3.5 million, and supports the fiscal year 2016 request.
HUMAN HEALTH PROTECTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2013 2014 2015
(million) (million) (million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drinking Water Programs.......... $3.7 $3.5 $3.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the fiscal year 2016 budget request calls for a slight
increase from the fiscal year 2015 appropriated amount. The Task Force
considers 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 Grants program. Last year, Congress
provided $4.1 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 2015 appropriated level
for this program.
environmental education
The fiscal year 2016 budget includes $10.9 million in funding to
support Environmental Education, which was funded at $8.7 million in
fiscal year 2015. Such investments are critical to providing
fellowships for U.S. citizens who are scientists and engineers,
ensuring top quality research and development of our Nation's S&T
workforce.
Many of EPA's environmental education activities have been
transferred to the National Science Foundation (NSF) over the last 2
years, and we urge improved interagency coordination to ensure that the
goals of EPA's programs are met under NSF's administration. The Task
Force urges continued support ($15 million) for EPA's Science to
Achieve Results (STAR) and Greater Research Opportunities (GRO)
fellowship programs (program started in 1995) and urges the
subcommittee to support strong funding for the National Center for
Environmental Research.
conclusion
The administration's fiscal year 2016 request reflects of a
difficult fiscal climate where tough choices have to be made to support
important national priorities. This is particularly true for basic
environmental research. As noted above, the Task Force requests
additional funding be allocated for the toxicology, nanotechnology,
sustainable waste management, and water resources (quality and quantity
challenges) programs at EPA to ensure continued progress in our
understanding of environmental and health impacts in these areas.
Further, the Task Force proposes strong funding of EPA's National
Center for Environmental Research and National Risk Management Research
Laboratory programs, urges the subcommittee to support funding for
EPA's graduate fellowships, and urges additional funding to ensure that
full-time S&T staffing needs at EPA ORD are met.
This statement represents the views of the ASME EPA Task Force and
is not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of American State Geologists
Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
The Association of American State Geologists urges Congress to fund
USGS 3DEP to at least the level recommended by the President; enhanced
elevation data will stimulate economic growth, while improving our
health and security; Federal leadership will increase the efficiency
and effectiveness of the activity as a whole.
State Geologists direct State geological surveys and work to ensure
that their States are supported by optimal information. From time to
time, a technology matures in a way that offers an opportunity to
revolutionize everything that we do on the land--resulting in cost
savings and improved benefits for a broad range of activities in the
economy. LiDAR and associated technologies offer that opportunity.
The Association of American State Geologists (AASG) is confident
that appropriate and desirable Federal leadership through the US
Geological Survey (USGS) 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) will result in
significantly improved protection and management of water, better
recognition of hazards, improved management and discovery of energy and
mineral resources, more efficient efforts in agriculture, landscape
restoration, transportation, and construction, as well as tremendous
improvement in the insights we all can have into our natural heritage.
We therefore urge Congress to fund 3DEP to at least the level
recommended by the President. We are confident that doing so will be a
wise investment that will bring returns far exceeding the expenditure.
[This statement was submitted by Jonathan D. Arthur, Ph.D., P.G.,
President, AASG.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Navajo Community Controlled
School Board, Inc.
The Association of Navajo Community Controlled School Board
(ANCCSB), Inc. is an organization of 11 member school boards who
operate federally funded schools on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona
and New Mexico under contracts or grants from the Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE).
We urge that the BIE school system be exempted from any further
reductions in Federal spending, we highlight below four of the most
pressing areas of need that directly impact our schools' educational
programs, facilities, student transportation, and administrative
management.
tribal grant support costs
Since the 1988 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
reauthorization, tribally operated elementary and secondary schools
have received funding for the administrative expenses incurred for the
operation of BIE-funded schools through an Administrative Cost Grant,
now called Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC). These funds are used for
costs of essential services such as contract/grant administration;
program planning and development; human resources; insurance; fiscal,
procurement, and property management; required annual audits;
recordkeeping; and legal, security and other overhead services.
Impact.--Since TGSC appropriations have historically been
insufficient to meet the level of need without other sources of
revenue, we must re-direct more and more funds from our education
program budgets to cover essential administrative costs. Our schools
must make difficult decisions--such as delaying purchase of new
textbooks and other materials, paying non-competitive teacher salaries,
reducing the number school days--to fit within these reduced budgets.
Even with these cost-saving measures, some schools are still struggling
with further reductions in management and business-office personnel at
the risk of prudent internal controls and meeting the federally
mandated requirements for fiscal processes and operation of education
grants/programs. TGSC is forward-funded, so the fiscal year 2016
appropriation would provide TGSC funds for school year 2016-2017.
We are gratified that this year the administration proposes to
follow through on commitments to pay full TGSC funding for all BIE-
funded schools, and to include in its request sufficient funding for
schools that are deciding to transition to grant or contact school
status. Up until last year, schools had only received, at most, two-
thirds of the TGSC needed to cover overhead costs. ANCCSB applauds this
subcommittee's and the administration's decision to treat schools'
support costs the same as contractors with the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and the Indian Health Service.
Request.--We fully support the administration's proposal that TGSC
and startup costs be funded at $75.34 million, and request that this
subcommittee provide this level of funding for TGSC.
facilities operations and maintenance
Facilities Maintenance funds are intended to provide for the
preventative, routine, and unscheduled maintenance for all school
buildings, equipment, utility systems, and ground structures. The
fiscal year 2016 Facilities Maintenance request contains a $10 million
proposed increase, which is a marked improvement from its current
level, but will not meet the needs of our schools or others. We are
faced with rising costs of maintaining school buildings--particularly
for the older facilities that make up much of the BIE schools.
There are numerous studies which attest to the fact that there is a
close correlation between poor or inadequate facility conditions and
poor student and staff performance. According to the administration's
fiscal year 2016 request, 42 of the 183 BIE-funded schools and
dormitories (one-third) are still rated in ``poor'' condition in the
Bureau's Education Facility Condition Index (FCI). Further, the
administration's fiscal year 2016 request elaborates that there is
$377.1 million in deferred maintenance backlogs! It is clear that there
is a long way to go with regard to upkeep of our schools. Part of the
maintenance problem will be solved by replacing school wholesale, but
Federal resources for this crucial need must increase so our schools
buildings can make it to their replacement date.
Facilities Operations funding is for the ongoing operational
expenses such as electricity, heating fuels, custodial services,
communications, refuse collection, water and sewer service, grounds
maintenance, etc. This budget category is also underfunded, with the
latest estimates indicating that Federal funds provide only an
estimated 46 percent of need. This is the first year the administration
requests funds that will be over the recent high-water mark of $59.4
million from fiscal year 2010, as the proposed budget contains $66.1
million for Facilities Operations. However, this level is still only 60
percent of the need.
Impact.--Our schools are making every effort to make do with the
meager facilities funding. Since we cannot delay paying our utilities
or avoid taking actions that would impact student safety, we often have
to resort to using our other education or academic program monies. We
caution that insufficient funding to for facilities maintenance and
operations will mean delaying routine, as well as unscheduled,
maintenance of buildings, equipment, utility systems and grounds--
thereby jeopardizing student and staff safety. Attempts to moderate
electrical and/or heating costs, or reduce custodial and refuse
services and similar costs cutting measures would only make our already
compromised learning conditions more uncomfortable and unhealthy for
students and staff. If we cannot provide a decent learning environment,
how can we expect our students to focus on achieving academic success?
Request.--To fully fund Facilities Maintenance would require $76
million, and $109.8 million would be needed to fully fund Facilities
Operations.
student transportation
The Student Transportation account is intended to cover: (1) the
costs of the daily bus services for children attending the BIE-funded
elementary and secondary schools; and (2) air travel for children who
attend distant boarding schools. School transportation costs include
vehicle rental (buses, vans), maintenance and repair, fuel, and
qualified bus driver salaries. The BIE budget justification states that
students at BIE-funded schools travel 16 percent of their miles on
unimproved roads, and that the BIE-funded schools have transportation
routes where the mileage covered is ``significantly higher than in
metropolitan areas.''
For the schools located on the Navajo Reservation, the percentage
of unimproved roads traveled by our buses is much higher and in some
cases it can be as much as 90 percent. Further, these unpaved roads are
often subject to becoming ``washboards'' due to adverse weather impacts
such as mud and snow. At times these roads become impassable so we must
resort to using 4-wheel drive vehicles to ferry the students to a
waiting bus. There have been times, however, when even the 4-wheel
vehicles cannot reach the students so they are prevented from making it
to class through no fault of their own. These conditions take a
tremendous toll on vehicles, resulting in greater maintenance and
repair costs, and greatly increase student travel time as well as the
drivers' work day.
The administration must be aware of the enormous increases in costs
over the past several years. Nonetheless, the administration seeks a
paltry increase of $197,000 in the proposed fiscal year 2016 budget.
The administration's proposal will prevent our schools from making any
forward progress on safely and reliably getting our children to school.
From our experience, the 66 BIE-funded schools on the Navajo
Reservation must supplement our Student Transportation allocated
amounts by at least $70,000 to $100,000 each year. The best estimates
show that there is a $21 million shortfall in funding for Student
Transportation as the BIE has allowed funding to fall far behind need,
and has been willing to allow schools to poach other school funds for
transportation purposes. This, in the face of multiple challenges for
schools at Navajo, including transporting students to/from evaluations
to determine eligibility for Special Education services (when
evaluators will not drive to our remote areas to conduct assessments),
additional bus runs related to after-school academic services (many
parents lack transportation or are not employed close-by to pick up
children), and extra miles traveled around washouts or road hazards.
Impact.--As with the other program shortages, varied cost cutting
measures have been instituted--from reducing the number of bus routes
(resulting in longer rides for our students) to delaying vehicle
replacements as long as possible. Nonetheless, underfunding Student
Transportation will continue to adversely impact classroom programs
since each year schools have no choice but to use scarce education
program dollars to subsidize transportation costs.
Request.--We request that the subcommittee provide at least $73
million for Student Transportation in the BIE system.
indian school equalization formula (isef)
The Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF) is the core budget
account for Educational and Residential programs of the BIE elementary
and secondary schools and dormitories. These funds are used for
instructional programs at BIE-funded schools and residential programs
at dormitories, and include salaries of teachers, educational
technicians, principals, and other school-level program administration,
kitchen, and dormitory staff. The ISEF amount due to each school is
determined by a statutorily mandated formula established by regulation
(24 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 39.12(g)(1)-(2), 39.13, & 39.14).
During the eight-year period of fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year
2010, the ISEF account increased by almost $45.5 million; but in only
two (2) of those years--fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010--the
increase was actually an increase in program funding. For the other
years, the requested increases were limited to amounts needed for fixed
costs and related changes, as opposed to actual program increases.
Funding for ISEF began to fall in fiscal year 2011, and the fiscal year
2015 level was actually $5 million less than in fiscal year 2010.
Impact.--For most BIE-funded schools, the chronic shortfall in the
other key school accounts has a negative impact on ISEF funding,
because ISEF funds are often diverted to make up the shortfalls in
other accounts such as Student Transportation, Facilities, and Tribal
Grant Support Costs when a tribe or tribal school board has no other
source of revenue to satisfy those shortfalls. This means fewer dollars
are available for the education and residential programs.
Request.--The administration's proposal of $391.8 million for ISEF
restores the funding to fiscal year 2010 levels, but does not
acknowledge the shortfalls that have been building for years. ANCCSB
Members Schools respectfully request funding of ISEF at least $431
million.
conclusion
Thank you Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, and members of
this subcommittee for the opportunity to relay our needs to you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Public and Land-Grant
Universities (APLU) Board on Natural Resources (BNR)
On behalf of the APLU Board on Natural Resources (BNR), we thank
you for your support of science and research programs within the United
States Geological Survey (USGS). We appreciate the opportunity to
provide recommendations for the following programs within USGS: $8.8
million for the Water Resources Research Institutes and $18.6 million
for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units.
APLU BNR requests $8.8 million for the Water Resources Research
Institutes (WRRI). The APLU BNR request is based on the following:
$7,000,000 in base grants for the WRRI as authorized by section 104(b)
of the Water Resources Research Act, including State-based competitive
grants; $1,500,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g)
of the Act, which is a competitive matching grants program that
addresses national and regional water issues and $300,000 to support
USGS administrative costs. Federal funding for the WRRI program is the
catalyst that moves States and cities to invest in university-based
research to address their own water management issues. State WRRIs take
the relatively modest amount of Federal funding appropriated, match it
2:1 with State, local and other funds and use it to put university
scientists to work finding solutions to the most pressing local and
State water problems that are of national importance. The Institutes
have raised more than $16 in other funds for every dollar funded
through this program. The added benefit is that often research to
address State and local problems helps solve problems that are of
regional and national importance. Many of the projects funded through
this program provide the knowledge for State or local managers to
implement new Federal laws and regulations. Perhaps most important, the
Federal funding provides the driving force of collaboration in water
research and education among local, State, Federal and university water
professionals. This program is essential to solving State, regional and
inter-jurisdictional water resources problems. As USGS itself has
stated: ``The Water Institutes have developed a constituency and a
program that far exceeds that supported by their direct Federal
appropriations.''
The institutes also train the next generation of water resource
managers and scientists. Last year, these institutes provided research
support for more than 1,400 undergraduate and graduate students at more
than 150 universities studying water-related issues in the fields of
agriculture, biology, chemistry, earth sciences, engineering and public
policy. Institute-sponsored students receive training in both the
classroom and the field, often working shoulder-to-shoulder with the
top research scientists in their field on vanguard projects of
significant regional importance.
In addition to training students directly, Water Resources Research
Institutes work with local residents to overcome water-related issues.
For example, the California Institute for Water Resources, like most of
its peers, holds field days, demonstrations, workshops, classes,
Webinars, and offers other means of education in an effort to transfer
their research findings to as many users as possible. Outreach that
succeeds in changing a farmer's approach to nitrogen application or
reducing a homeowner's misuse of lawn treatments can reduce the need
for restrictive regulation.
Below are some examples of work being done in various States:
--The current drought in California is creating serious economic
hardship for agricultural producers and local communities. The
University of California's (UC) California Institute for Water
Resources (CIWR) has responded by creating an information hub
that is being accessed by agricultural and urban interests to
gain vital information on how to adapt during the drought. This
hub contains valuable information from multiple units within
the UC system. It also brings together information on workshops
and seminars (many of which are and will be provided in video
form on the Web). In 2014, UC promoted and hosted over 150
workshops and has more than 25 planned (ciwr.ucanr.edu). The
CIWR has also produced a Webinar series of short (15-minute)
talks with useful information on irrigation practices, salinity
management, landscape management and more.
--The Minnesota Water Resources Center has funded a number of
research projects that address important, nationally relevant
water resources issues with USGS/WRRA funding over the last 4
years. This funding has been highly leveraged with university
funds and the Minnesota Environmental Trust Fund. Researchers
have addressed critical issues, including determining the
biogeochemical variables that can be used to predict how much
arsenic will get into groundwater used for drinking water, and
determining the degree of antibiotic resistance in wastewater
treatment plant effluent.
--Researchers with the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute have
collaborated with Idaho Department of Water Resources
scientists to develop technology for assessing crop-water usage
over large areas using satellite based remote-sensing
information. This technology is now used routinely within the
Idaho Department of Water Resources for investigating and
resolving water rights conflicts, for aquifer depletion
modeling and for stream flow management. This technology is
also being adopted by 10 western States and parts of Africa,
Europe and Australia.
APLU BNR requests at least $18.6 million for the Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Units (CRU). This program: (1) trains the next
generation of fisheries and wildlife managers; (2) conducts research
designed to meet the needs of unit cooperators; and (3) provides
technical assistance to State, Federal and other natural resource
managers. Originally established in the 1930s to provide training for
students in fisheries and wildlife biology, the units were formally
recognized by the Cooperative Units Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-686).
The CRUs provide experience and training for approximately 600 graduate
students per year, a critical need as State and Federal workforces face
unprecedented retirements over the next 5 to 10 years. The CRUs also
provide valuable mission-oriented research for their biggest clients,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating State agencies.
Today, there are 40 Cooperative Research Units in 38 States.
Each unit is a true Federal-State-university-private sector
collaboration in that it is a partnership between the U. S. Geological
Survey, a State natural resources management agency, a host university,
and the Wildlife Management Institute. For every $1 the Federal
Government puts into the program, $3 more are leveraged through the
other partners. The U.S. economy has long relied on the bountiful
natural resources bestowed upon this land. Federal investment in the
CRUs will be returned many times over though the training of future
natural resource managers who will guide the Nation in sustainable use
of our natural resources. The research conducted by CRU scientists
directly supports the difficult management challenges faced by natural
resources managers. The examples below demonstrate the value of the
CRUs to wildlife issues with local and national importance.
--Minnesota: The Minnesota CRU is currently researching the olfactory
sensitivity of Asian carps to putative sex pheromones. This
work has recently received national attention, because Asian
carps are an invasive species that threatens many of the
Nation's freshwater native fishes through competition for food.
The Minnesota CRU hopes to use the sex pheromones to attract
and trap Asian carp, removing them permanently from the
Nation's freshwater lakes and rivers. Minnesota CRU researchers
are also studying human behavior, working to understand the
motivations of agricultural producers enrolling in USDA water
quality and wildlife habitat programs. They hope to gain
insight into designing and developing programs, practices and
messages that encourage broader participation in those
programs.
--Tennessee: In 2011, an estimated 826,293 anglers fished in
Tennessee, creating an economic impact of nearly $1.3 billion
for the State. The Tennessee CRU supports this economic driver
by assessing fish stocks, working on recovery efforts for
threatened and endangered species, providing research and
technical assistance to support State decisions related to
fishing. For example, research on sauger in the Tennessee River
showed that minimum size requirements by the State were not
leading to increased mortality of released fish below the
minimum size. Their research also kept ``stinger'' hooks
available for fishermen by showing they also did not contribute
to increased mortality.
--Oklahoma: The Oklahoma CRU is celebrating its seventh decade of
activity. Since opening in 1948, the graduate students that
conducted research at the CRU have completed over 400 theses
and dissertations. One on-going research project is to gather
an accurate count of the black bear population expansion out of
Arkansas and into eastern Oklahoma. Wildlife managers need this
information for appropriate management of the bear population
now that black bear hunting has been reintroduced in Oklahoma.
Based on the examples provided above, we urge you to support the
Wildlife Cooperative Research Units and the Water Resources Research
Institutes.
about aplu and the board on natural resources
APLU's membership consists of 238 State universities, land-grant
universities, State-university systems and related organizations. APLU
institutions enroll more than 4.8 million undergraduate students and
1.3 million graduate students, award 1.2 million degrees, and conduct
$41 billion annually in university-based research annually. The Board's
mission is to promote university-based programs dealing with natural
resources, fisheries, wildlife, ecology, energy, and the environment.
BNR representatives are chosen by their president's office to serve and
currently number over 500 scientists and educators, who are some of the
Nation's leading research and educational expertise in environmental
and natural-resource disciplines.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators
The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)
respectfully submits the following recommendations for fiscal year 2016
appropriations on behalf of the drinking water programs in the fifty
States, territories, District of Columbia, and Navajo Nation.
Summary of Request: ASDWA respectfully requests that, for fiscal
year 2016, 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; $1.186 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.
overview: the importance of safe drinking water for our communities and
the economy & the role of state drinking water programs
States need increased Federal support to maintain public health
protection and to support the needs of the water systems they oversee.
State drinking water programs strive to meet the Nation's 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. 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 the 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 safe water is often a critical factor in
attracting new businesses to communities. Public water systems--as well
as 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
recent incidents in the U.S. have led to illnesses, death, or
prohibitions against use, due to unsafe drinking water. These have
included deaths in several States due to microbiological contaminants;
unsafe drinking water in Charleston, West Virginia for over a week due
to an upstream chemical spill; and unsafe drinking water in Toledo,
Ohio for over a day due to algal toxins. These incidents serve as stark
reminders of the critical nature of the work that State drinking water
programs do--every day--and the reason why State drinking water
programs must be adequately funded.
state drinking water programs: how they operate, why support is needed,
and justifications for requested amounts
The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program
How the PWSS Program Operates.--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 that 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 ``source
to tap.'' These include source water assessments and protections for
communities and watersheds; technical assistance for water treatment
and distribution for challenged utilities; and enhancement of overall
water system performance. 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, States perform
all of these tasks more efficiently and cheaply than would be the case
if the program were federally implemented. Well supported State
drinking water programs are a good deal for America.
Why Adequate Support is Needed.--Simply put, State drinking water
programs are extremely hard pressed financially 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. State funding has historically
compensated for inadequate Federal funding, but State budgets have been
less able to bridge this funding gap in recent years. State drinking
water programs have often been expected to do more with less and States
have always responded with commitment and integrity but they are
currently stretched to the breaking point. Insufficient Federal support
for this critical program increases the likelihood of contamination
events that puts the public's health at risk. $101.9 million was
appropriated for the PWSS program in fiscal year 2015 and the
administration requested only $109.7 million in fiscal year 2016 (or,
on average, a paltry $2 million per State per year). These amounts are
woefully inadequate for the enormity of the task faced by State
drinking water programs. We believe, based on our rigorous assessment
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. States also want
to offer the flexibilities allowed under existing rules to local water
systems. However, fewer State resources mean less opportunity to work
one-on-one with water systems to meet their individual needs. This
situation has created a significant implementation crisis in several
regions of the country and is ultimately delaying or hampering
implementation of critically needed public health protections.
For the PWSS Program in fiscal year 2016, 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. The recommended amount is based on ASDWA's
aforementioned 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 to account for the eroding effects of inflation. We
further recommend that Congress not allow any Federal funds already
appropriated to State drinking water programs to be rescinded.
the drinking water state revolving loan fund (dwsrf) program
How the DWSRF Program Operates.--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, $17.7 billion in cumulative Federal capitalization grants
since 1997 have been leveraged by States into over $28 billion in
infrastructure loans to small and large communities across the country.
Such investments pay tremendous dividends--both in supporting our
economy and in protecting our citizens' health. 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 estimates that each public dollar invested in
water infrastructure increases private long-term Gross Domestic Product
output by $6.35. An important feature of the DWSRF program is States
``set-aside'' funds and another key reason for adequately funding this
critical program. States can reserve up to 31 percent of these funds
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' core public health
protection programs and these efforts work in tandem with
infrastructure loans.
Drinking Water Infrastructure Investment is Well below the
Documented Need.--The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the
Nation's drinking 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 (which more fully accounted
for more of the water distribution system replacement costs).
Investment is needed for aging treatment plants, storage tanks, pumps,
and distribution lines that carry water to our Nation's homes,
businesses and schools. The DWSRF must continue to be a key part of the
solution to the Nation's infrastructure crisis.
For the DWSRF Program in fiscal year 16, ASDWA respectfully
requests $1.186 billion.--States were very encouraged by the $1.387
billion appropriated for the DWSRF in fiscal year 2010 but have been
disappointed by 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 and fiscal year 2015. 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. In
light of these indicators of success and documented needs, we believe
funding at the $1.186 billion level--the level requested in the
President's fiscal year 2016 budget--will better enable the DWSRF to
meet the SDWA compliance and public health protection goals for which
it was designed.
state drinking water security programs
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.
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.
For State Drinking Water Security Programs in fiscal year 16, 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 California and 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 2016 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 2016, ASDWA asks that
the promise of that support be realized.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums
Thank you Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall for
allowing me to submit written testimony on behalf of the Nation's 215
AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums. Specifically, I want to express my
support for the inclusion of $11,100,000 for the Multinational Species
Conservation Funds (MSCF) operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and $11,000,000 for National Environmental Education Act
programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the fiscal
year 2016 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. AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums annually see more than
180 million visitors, collectively generate more than $17 billion in
annual economic activity, and support more than 165,000 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 AZA-accredited zoos and
aquariums can continue to serve in these important roles, I urge you to
include $11,100,000 for the Multinational Species Conservation Funds
operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and $11,000,000 for
National Environmental Education Act programs at the Environmental
Protection Agency in the fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Thank you.
[This statement was submitted by Jim Maddy, President and CEO.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Black Mesa Community School
My name is Lorraine Yazzie, and I serve on the Board of the Black
Mesa Community School, located in a remote mountainous area, 26 miles
North of Pinon, Arizona. We are a community grant school, and have an
enrollment of nearly 60 students in grades K-8th. Our community is
small, but the Black Mesa Community School lies at the center of it,
providing a space not only for children to learn, but for parents to
participate alongside them.
I testify during a time of both upheaval and promise in education
for both Navajo and other Indian students. This subcommittee has shown
an admirable commitment to Native schools with your recognition of
needs in both program funding and facilities. The administration has
paid more attention to the issue of Indian education in the last 2
years than ever before, and has recognized the need to finish work on
the now 11-year-old school replacement list. However, we recognize that
with increased attention come new priorities and strategies, which
could enhance our students' educational opportunities and safety or
which could adversely impact our small community school depending on
how these priorities are implemented. We submit this testimony with
strong hope that our concerns will be considered and that through a
partnership between the Congress, administration, tribes and schools we
will succeed in improving Indian education policy by better addressing
the needs of Native students.
Our recommendations can be summarized as follows:
--Increase ISEP funding to $431 million in fiscal year 2016.
--Fund Student Transportation at $73 million, and BIA road
maintenance at $40 million.
--Fully fund Tribal Grant Support Costs and Fund Technology
Improvements as proposed by the administration.
--Provide $109 million for facilities operation and $76 million for
facilities maintenance.
--Embark on a comprehensive 60-year plan for school replacement and
upkeep.
--Protect school funding from the proposed Federal bureaucratic
expansion.
1. Increase Funding for Indian School Equalization Programs
The most critical stream of funding for community grant schools
like ours is increased funding in the Indian School Equalization
Program (ISEP). The ISEP funds are those that schools use for their day
to day operation, whether that is paying teachers and staff, purchasing
curriculum and supplies, or running student programs.
For years our ISEP funds have had to cover shortfalls due to the
significant underfunding of grant support costs, facilities operations
and maintenance, and school transportation. Thus, our need to use ISEP
funds to paying utilities to ensure our students have heat or to repair
one of our school buses has meant that we cannot provide retirement
benefits to teachers and we must rely on part-time workers to perform
vital staff services. The need for increases in our available ISEP
funding is essential to attract and retain teachers for our school,
since we are remote and some teachers find a small school environment
challenging. We do not want to be in the situation where we are left
only with those teachers who cannot find a job elsewhere.
We also need teachers with the capacity to provide culturally
appropriate bilingual education consistent with requirements of the
Navajo Department of Education. We have seen important student
performance successes thanks to bilingual and cultural education
programs, but have no additional funding sources for training,
curriculum development, teacher certification and professional
development. ISEP funding increases are vital to enhancing learning
opportunities for all of our students through the training, development
and retention of excellent teachers.
The subcommittee should be aware that due to funding limitations,
year-after-year we have also been forced to go without a school nurse
or any security personnel. Because ambulance service and law
enforcement is more than 3 hours away, our school staff members are the
first responders in our community. Additional ISEP funding is necessary
so that we can employ a school nurse and security personnel. Inadequate
funding for these positions must be corrected so that our small size
and remote location does not make our students vulnerable.
This year, we are gratified to see the administration has requested
$391.8 million for ISEP funding, an increase of $5 million to the
program. This will be an important improvement that we fully support.
We also stress that ISEP is our schools' lifeblood, and we are still
struggling to make up for losses in past years. We encourage the
subcommittee to consider the National Congress of American Indians'
(NCAI) recommendation of $431 million for ISEP funding.
2. Increase Funding for Student Transportation
One of our school's largest challenges is getting our children to
school and back home. Our community is at high altitude, and our
weather takes a toll on our roads. In turn, our roads take a toll on
our school buses, particularly the computer sensors and electrical
systems that are not designed for the punishing road conditions our
buses face. Maintenance costs for our vehicles are higher than average
for this reason and because maintaining our buses requires long
transport trips to garages in Flagstaff and Gallup which are 150 and
170 miles away, respectively. Furthermore, although we have the ability
to perform many bus maintenance activities on site, we do not have the
funding resources to meet the numerous Federal environmental
requirements applicable to those maintenance activities. With funds
stretched so thin, we struggle to get our students to extracurricular
activities such as sports or field trips that students at non-Indian
schools enjoy as an everyday convenience. The administration has
requested $53.14 million for student transportation, but that is simply
not enough given the challenges of our roads and equipment. We request
at least $73 million for student transportation in the BIE system.
We also request that this subcommittee fund BIA road maintenance at
a sustainable level. For example, we had to cancel school on February
25-27 and March 2, March 3, March 5, and March 6 because our roads were
impassable--and we only had a half day on March 4. The condition of our
roads is directly affecting our students' ability to learn. The
administration has only requested an increase of $232,000 to the meager
$26.5 million budget for road maintenance. We echo NCAI's
recommendation that the subcommittee appropriate $40 million for road
maintenance in fiscal year 2016.
3. We support the President's proposal to fully fund Tribal Grant
Support Costs and Increase Technology Resources.
Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC) (formerly known as Administrative
Cost Grants) are the BIE analogue to Contract Support Costs, and are
necessary for community grant schools like Black Mesa to operate their
schools. Not only do the TGSC funds pay for the administration of the
school, but also fund all indirect costs like payroll, accounting,
insurance, background checks and other legal, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements. TGSC is also critical in order for schools
to comply with the increasingly burdensome reporting requirements
imposed by BIE and to comply with grant funding assurances, such as the
extensive and costly measures required by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
Black Mesa School wishes to underscore the importance of TGSC for
small schools like ours. Although our student population and staffing
numbers may be smaller than others, the administrative responsibilities
that we must meet are the same as those of large schools. As a result,
these administrative duties disproportionately affect us. This year,
the administration has proposed to fully fund TGSC. Black Mesa
Community School welcomes this important change, and applauds this
subcommittee's and the administration's decision to treat schools'
support costs the same as contractors with the BIA and the Indian
Health Service. We support the administration's proposal that TGSC and
startup costs be funded at $75.34 million.
Additionally, our limited Internet connectivity and no qualified
computer technician requires members of our staff to travel 4 hours
roundtrip on a weekly basis to obtain suitable Internet service to
submit our school's required progress reports (Native STAR school
improvement planning) and facilities management information system
(FMIS). Our schools technology needs, only a daily basis, financial
transaction/data (MIP Accounting software program), student information
system (NASIS), transportation program, environmental compliance
through the environmental management system (EMS), food service
compliance through State Department of Education and related electronic
sharing/reporting (i.e. fund drawdowns from ASAP/SAM, Clearinghouse to
report our audits, etc.). Given our dependence on inadequate satellite
Internet access and the increasing importance of Internet-based
technologies in the classrooms and administration, we also fully
support the President's call to expand access to broadband and other
communications infrastructure and technology with a computer technician
in every school.
4. Our schools need full funding for Facilities Operation and
Maintenance.
The condition of BIE-funded schools has been the subject of
national news attention for years. Some schools in the country are
forced to teach their students in converted bus barns or go without hot
water. We do the best we can with our facilities at Black Mesa School,
but constantly struggle with the fact that we do not have enough
funding for maintenance of our buildings, utilities, and every day
repairs.
The effective operation of our facilities is vital not only for the
learning readiness and comfort of our students, but also to protect
their health and safety. It is hard to learn and progress if you're too
cold, or if the lights are dim or flickering. In the last year it was
reviewed, the BIA listed our school condition as ``poor'' with a
deferred maintenance backlog of over three-quarters of a million
dollars. Our backlog has only grown in the intervening 4 years, and our
students are the ones who suffer as a result. Our facilities face
significant budgetary challenges, especially as EPA compliance
requirements must be given priority attention to avoid citations.
Meanwhile, because Facilities Operation and Maintenance funding for BIE
schools is allocated based upon square footage, our small school
receives insufficient funds to meet Federal environmental compliance
requirements while also covering immediate health, safety and
maintenance needs.
We appreciate that the administration has finally moved to complete
the replacement of schools on a list dated from 2004, but we need to
stress that these needs are ongoing. Further, it is critical for our
schools to have the funds to maintain and thus lengthen the useful life
of our facilities. We support the BIE's request for school
construction, but request that funding for facilities operation and
maintenance be increased to $109 million for operations and $76 million
for maintenance. This will help us meet our ongoing needs, and will set
us on the path to catching up with deferred maintenance from past
years.
We also note that the completion of the 2004 school replacement
list means that a new round of replacements will begin. We encourage
this subcommittee and BIE to work together with schools and tribes to
establish a comprehensive, long-term plan for school construction and
maintenance. We call on the subcommittee to embark on a 60-year schools
replacement plan with adequate funding to maintain buildings throughout
their life. Recent testimony from the Government Accountability Office
reported that even new construction is starting to fail due to
inappropriate maintenance or poor construction oversight. Our school
wants to protect the Federal investment in our students' education, and
we ask the subcommittee to empower local communities to do so by
removing and streamlining the bureaucratic hurdles in the facilities
management system.
5. Protecting School Funding and Programs from Federal Expansion
You have heard over the last year from us and other schools about
our concerns with the BIE's ``Blueprint for Reform'' and its ``One-
Grant Initiative.'' We do not doubt the administration's commitment to
Native students or improving the education outcomes at Indian schools--
even the President himself has commented on the issue. We have a
different perspective on what will be the best strategies to use to
achieve that goal and we fear that our views are not being heard.
Without delving into the detail of the Blueprint for Reform and the
Secretarial Order that accompanied it in June of last year, we urge the
limited amounts of new funding proposed by the President be directed to
the community school level, not the BIE bureaucracy. Accordingly, we
request that the subcommittee reprogram funds the administration has
proposed for bureaucratic reforms (like those contained in the
``Enhancement'' line item of the budget) to ISEP and Facilities. Any
funding for the BIE's internal reforms must come from outside the
Indian budget realm--our funds are scarce as is, and must not be
diverted away from students.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of John Bradley and Rebecca Bradley of Newark,
California
Dear Senators Feinstein and Boxer and Members of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related
Agencies:
We urge you to support the President's 2016 budget request for
$508.2 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System's Operations and
Maintenance account. For too many years now our National Wildlife
Refuge System has been operating on a shoe-string budget, trying
diligently to respond to infrastructure maintenance needs, and working
heroically with insufficient number of staff to provide us and our
children with quality interpretation, environmental education, habitat
protection and restoration, and access to wildlife.
We urge you to reauthorize and fully fund the Land and Water
Conservation Fund at $900 million per year, and provide $173.8 million
of such funding in fiscal year 2016 for procurement of conservation
easements and refuge in-holdings. We believe that we should be able to
maintain existing infrastructure and run quality operations, and at the
same time increase the number of acres that are protected for wildlife
habitat by investing in conservation easements and purchasing land from
willing sellers at fair market value.
We ask you along with our local and county governments to
appropriate $60 million for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund in fiscal
year 2016, which offsets losses in tax revenue because lands owned by
the Federal Government are exempt from property taxes. At the same time
we are encouraged by the annual reporting that confirms the value which
refuges provide to communities in economic terms, based on the spending
patterns of citizens and others who visit refuges. Refuges are not only
great for wildlife, they're often an asset to local economies. This is
another reason why we think it is important to maintain infrastructure
and services.
Finally, we will plead with you and all your Senate colleagues, to
pass a ``clean'' Appropriation bill, free from policy riders such as
removing the Service's authority to establish new refuges
administratively. This authority has been used by the executive
department in a non-partisan way to establish 90 percent of all
existing National Wildlife Refuges. It seems to us that appropriations
bills are intended to address the annual monetary needs of our
executive department, and are not meant to formulate or revise policy
issues or prior legislation. We think such riders can be very
distracting, counter-productive, and detrimental to responsible,
efficient legislation and governance.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input into the
appropriations process and try to make a difference for the natural
heritage we all hold dear.
______
Prepared Statement of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation
The requests of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation for the
fiscal year 2016 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget and our comments on
BIA Recognition are as follows:
--Allocate at least an additional $12.5 million to the IHS to fully
fund Village Built Clinic (VBC) leases and make it a line item
in the budget.
--Active support of the subcommittee to change Contract Support Costs
funding to a mandatory funded basis.
--Increased IHS behavioral healthcare funding.
--Funding for built-in costs.
--Department of Interior recognition of Knugank.
The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) was created in 1973
to provide healthcare services to Alaska Natives of Southwest Alaska.
BBAHC began operating and managing the Kanakanak Hospital and the
Bristol Bay Service Unit for the IHS in 1980, and was the first tribal
organization to do so under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (ISDEAA). BBAHC is a co-signer to the Alaska Tribal
Health Compact with the IHS under the ISDEAA and is now responsible for
providing and promoting healthcare to the people of 34 Alaska Native
Villages.
village built clinics
In our Bristol Bay region, our Village Built Clinic (VBC)
facilities continue to face a significant funding crisis. The VBCs are
essential for maintaining our Community Health Aide/Practitioner (CHAP)
programs in our villages. The CHAP program provides the only local
source of healthcare for our Alaska Native people.
Because the CHAPs could not operate in most of rural Alaska without
clinic facilities in the Alaska Native villages, the IHS established
the VBC leasing program in the 1970s, but the leases have been
chronically underfunded. Moreover, IHS has taken the position that
VBCs--unlike comparable facilities in the lower 48--are not eligible
for maintenance and improvement funding, for which Congress
appropriated over $53.6 million in fiscal year 2015. Current funding
for the VBCs is not sufficient to cover the cost of repair and
renovation as necessary to maintain the facilities in a safe condition.
Many have been closed due to the hazards to the health service
employees and patients, leaving villages without a clinic or access to
CHAP services. Lease rental amounts for VBCs have failed to keep pace
with costs; the majority of leases have not increased since 1989.
A very recent estimate is that $12.5 million more per year, in
addition to the current VBC allocation from IHS of about $4 million,
would be needed to maintain and operate Alaska VBCs on a par with
similar tribal health facilities elsewhere. Congress typically has not
appropriated VBC funding as a separate line item. Instead, IHS
allocates VBC lease funds from the Hospitals and Clinics line in its
multi-billion-dollar lump-sum appropriation. This leaves IHS the
discretion, in its view, to allocate however much--or little--it wishes
to VBCs. Congress, of course, can override this discretion. We
respectfully request that you direct IHS to (1) identify the amount
needed to fully fund all Alaska VBCs, (2) request that amount in a
separate line in the IHS budget, and (3) allocate that amount to the
VBC lease program.
contract support costs mandatory funding
We support the administration's proposal to fund Contract Support
Costs (CSC) on a mandatory basis, although we urge, along with many
other tribes and tribal organizations, that Congress enable it to
become effective with fiscal year 2016. The administration's proposal
differs from our and others in Indian Country proposal that CSC be
funded indefinitely and not capped, but we gratefully acknowledge this
proposal as a huge step for the administration. We are hopeful that the
$718 million proposed for CSC funds for IHS will be sufficient for full
funding for fiscal year 2016--a lot of work has gone into the estimated
calculation and that should bode well for future estimates as well.
We so appreciate your support for full funding of CSC and your
blunt statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 appropriations act
that the legal obligation to fully fund CSC had put the House and
Senate Committees in the ``untenable position of appropriating
discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract
support costs.''
We ask for your active help in working with the Budget Committee
and others in Congress who may want to weigh in on this proposal for
mandatory CSC funding. You have had a great deal of experience in
talking with Indian and Alaska Native leaders over the years about the
frustrations and the inequity of tribes and tribal organizations who
contract to assume administration of Federal programs not being paid
for the costs to administer them. We know that member to member
communications are of the utmost importance and you have much to offer
others in Congress who will impact this proposal.
behavioral health/social services funding
Alaska faces particular hardships in providing for our communities'
behavioral and mental health needs. BBAHC has only one social service
employee. There is a dire need for more prevention funding for suicide
intervention as well as alcohol and substance abuse prevention,
particularly for our youth. 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. Compounding and complicating
the suicide epidemic is alcohol and substance abuse, 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.
Thus we urge you to support the administration's Generations
Indigeneous (or ``Gen-I'') proposal for increased resources for tribes
to address youth behavioral, mental health and substance abuse and
auxiliary issues. For the IHS, the Gen-I proposal would include a $25
million increase in Substance Abuse Prevention account for additional
behavioral health staff and for youth-focused programs. For the BIA the
proposal is an increase of $15 million to expand the Tiwahe Initiative
designed to address the inter-related problems of poverty, violence and
substance abuse faced by Native communities. Of note, but not under
this subcommittee's jurisdiction, is the request for a $25 million
increase for SAMHSA as part of Gen-I--$10 million from the Mental
Health account and $15 million from the Substance Abuse Prevention
account.
built-in costs
We appreciate the administration's fiscal year 2016 request of
$147.3 million for built-in costs consisting of $71.2 million for
medical inflation at a 3.8 percent rate; $19.4 million for a 1.3
percent pay raise; and $56.7 million to partially fund population
growth ($70.3 million needed for full funding according to IHS) and
urge Congress to fund this request.
Built-in costs are often sacrificed in the budget negotiation
process, but lack of them impacts all programs. Inflation--medical and
non-medical; required pay raises, and population growth are real facts
of life and affect our ability to provide sufficient healthcare
services.
While for fiscal year 2015 the administration requested $63 million
for medical inflation and $2.6 million to partially fund pay raises,
the final bill provided only $2.6 million for pay raises (estimated
cost is $20 million) but no other built-in costs. For fiscal year 2014
the only IHS built-in costs included in the appropriations act was $35
million for medical inflation for the Purchased/Referred Care program.
In fiscal year 2013 the only built-in costs provided was $1.7 million
for a pay raise the Commissioned Corps program, and fiscal years 2011
and 2012 appropriations acts were similarly bleak in terms of built-in
costs funding. The cumulative effect of underfunding of built-in costs
takes a toll.
knugank recognition
We bring to your attention the efforts to get the Department of
Interior to correct the omission of Knugank (which is in the Bristol
Bay region) from the list of federally recognized tribes. We are
supporting Knugank in this effort and are hopeful this this situation
will be corrected soon although there has been a series of delays in
issuing a decision.
In a January 2012 letter to Senator Murkowski, the Assistant
Secretary of Indian Affairs explained that Knugank could be added to
the list of recognized tribes if it meets the standards established by
Congress in Section 1 of the Alaska Amendment to the Indian
Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 473a). Several months later, the
office of the Assistant Secretary agreed to evaluate Knugank's
extensive documentation, and based on the statutory standards, issue a
decision regarding Knugank's eligibility to be included on the list of
recognized tribes. Several times we have been told that a decision
(which we believe will be favorable to Knugank) is imminent and that
all needed information has been provided. It appears that, despite the
significant investments made over the course of many years by BBAHC,
Knugank, Members of Congress and the Agency to resolve this matter, the
Offices of the Solicitor and Assistant Secretary now seem unable to
find the time to take the final steps to finalize a decision. We and
our attorneys are in frequent communication with the Offices of the
Solicitor and Assistant Secretary and can tell you that delays at this
point are not about serious questions, but are due to an unwillingness
to give the issue the attention it deserves.
Knugank should be immediately added to the list of federally
recognized tribes, affirming their eligibility to organize as a tribe
under the standards and precedent established by the Alaska Amendment
to the Indian Reorganization Act, thus allowing them their rightful
government-to-government status and access to an array of Federal
resources.
other
There is no room within the page limits to comment on every major
issue of importance to us but want you to know that we join others in
full support of extending the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, for
establishment of Medicare-like Rates for non-hospital services thus
stretching our Purchased/Referred Care dollars, and, as Congress has
done for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, providing
funding to IHS on an advance appropriations basis so that may have
better lead time for our planning, budgeting, and purchasing processes
and for our recruitment of personnel.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and needs.
[This statement was submitted by Robert J. Clark, President/CEO.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Arizona Project
On behalf of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
(CAWCD), I encourage you to include $1.5 million for salinity specific
projects in the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water and Air
Program in fiscal year 2016. 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 $382 million per year to U.S.
users with projections that damages would increase to more than $600
million by 2035 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 2014 to meet this goal and prevent further degradation of
the quality of the Colorado River with a commensurate increase in
downstream economic damages.
The current drought that has significantly impacted the West
affects the amount of and quality of available water, which in turn has
the potential to exacerbate the salinity concentration levels. In
addition to initiatives such as the Drought Response program and
WaterSMART Grants, adequate funding for salinity control will prevent
water quality of the Colorado River from further degradation and ensure
the availability of supplies for future generations.
CAWCD urges the subcommittee to include $1.5 million for salinity
specific projects in the BLM's 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 Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority
i. summary
The Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA), on behalf of its
five member Indian tribes, requests $54,463,464 in recurring base
funding from the Department of Interior's fiscal year 2016
appropriation bill, to support tribal natural resource management
programs pursuant to two recently enacted Consent Decrees and support
for all intertribal resource management organizations under
``Evaluation and Research Activities--Climate Change''.
CORA is a coalition of five federally recognized Michigan tribes
including, the Bay Mills Indian Community, the Grand Traverse Band of
Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians,
the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and the Sault Ste Marie
Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
The tribes are parties to the historic United States v. Michigan, a
court case concerning the exercise of treaty-reserved fishing, hunting,
and gathering rights as they pertain to Article 13 of the 1836 Treaty
of Washington. Article 13 states that the tribes ``stipulate for the
right of hunting on the lands ceded, with the other usual privileges of
occupancy, until the land is required for settlement.''
ii. great lakes consent decree (2000)
In 1979, following nearly a decade of litigation in State and
Federal courts (United States v. Michigan), the Federal district court
affirmed the existence of treaty-reserved fishing rights in the upper
Great Lakes of Michigan. These court rulings also determined that the
tribes could regulate and manage their respective members' fishing
activities. Accordingly, the tribes have developed the biological,
enforcement, and judicial programs necessary to properly protect and
manage the Gieat Lakes fishery resource while continuing to exercise
commercial and subsistence fishing activities.
While these court decisions recognized that the tribes' right to
utilize the Great Lakes fishery resource was in fact reserved in the
1836 Treaty of Washington, the allocation of fishing opportunities
among competing user groups, and the inter-jurisdictional management
authority was not addressed. Subsequently, the seven parties to U S. v.
Michigan, which included the five CORA tribes, the State of Michigan,
and the United States initiated negotiations in the early 1980's that
culminated in a 15-year court-ordered settlement in 1985. In 2000, the
parties successfully renegotiated a comprehensive agreement that will
govern allocation and management of the Great Lakes fishery resource
through the year 2020. This agreement was entered into Federal court as
a Consent Decree on August 8, 2000.
The Great Lakes Consent Decree was a complex agreement that imposed
many new management obligations on the parties, particularly the
tribes. Recurring base funding levels for each tribe were established
prior to adoption of the 2000 Great Lakes Consent Decree; however,
since 2001, CORA has been annually requesting a modest increase in base
funding to help the tribes accomplish the extensive mandates imposed by
the Great Lakes Decree, and to offset over a decade of inflation.
iii. inland consent decree (2007)
In the early 2000's, the parties to U.S. v Michigan, strongly
desired to settle the Inland portion of the case through a joint
agreement, rather than contentious and costly litigation, such as
occurred during the Great Lakes phase. After some 2 years of complex
negotiations, the parties were successful in negotiating an agreement
that resolved the question of Inland treaty rights. This agreement was
also entered into Federal law as a Consent Decree on November 2, 2007
and has no expiration date. Similar to the Great Lakes Consent Decree,
it describes the allocation, management, and enforcement processes that
will govern the tribes' Inland (i.e. non-Great Lakes) treaty-reserved
hunting, gathering, and fishing rights throughout nearly 14 million
acres in northern Michigan. As with the Great Lakes Decree the Federal
Government is a signatory party.
The 2007 Inland Consent Decree is a comprehensive and complex
document that resolves the final phase of U.S. v. Michigan. In order to
achieve an agreement of this scope and magnitude, the CORA tribes made
many concessions, assumptions, sub-agreements, and politically
difficult changes in their natural resource harvesting activities and
associated management structures, including the forfeiture of
commercial opportunities. The Inland Consent Decree also establishes
many new obligations and responsibilities for all parties. For the
tribes, these responsibilities are heavily weighted toward development
of regulations, biological monitoring and assessment, enforcement of
the newly enacted regulations, and numerous inter-governmental
processes; all of which impose a substantial and permanent financial
burden for the tribes and of which Congress has provided initial
dollars for the implementation of tribal programs.
In order to meet the obligations mandated by the Inland Consent
Decree, while providing for long-term sustainable use of the resources
for the next seven generations, each of the tribes will need to
establish a management capability in several core areas, including
Conservation Enforcement, Biological Monitoring and Assessment, Tribal
Court, and Administration. These dollars will assist with establishing
management programs for each tribe under the 2007 Consent Decree to
ensure that the tribes can meet their obligations.
iv. funding request justification
Clearly, both the Great Lakes and Inland Consent Decrees represent
landmark accomplishments in resolving disputes related to rights
reserved in treaties between the United States and Indian tribes. These
two Decrees cover the geographic majority of the State of Michigan and
its Great Lakes waters; however, the viability and success of both the
Great Lakes Decree and the new Inland Consent Decree hinges on the
ability of all the parties (tribal, State, and Federal) to deliver
effective resource management programs--and the onus is on the tribes.
In order to properly meet the responsibilities and mandates
associated with both the Great Lakes and Inland Consent Decrees, CORA
requests funding for the following activities:
--Maintain and provide the current recurring base funding for
continued operation under the Great Lakes Consent Decree.
--Maintain newly enacted recurring base funding level to support
programs necessary for implementation of the 2007 Consent
Decree.
After making such landmark, long-term commitments, it is imperative
that the tribes not be placed in a position where inadequate funding
prohibits them from meeting their obligations, responsibilities, and
opportunities under either the Inland or Great Lakes Consent Decrees.
Adequate funding is absolutely critical to achieving the objectives and
responsibilities described in both Consent Decrees; agreements that
were designed to resolve complicated and culturally significant Treaty
Rights issues. Moreover, failure to meet mandated obligations risks a
``re-opening'' of these negotiated agreements or, at a minimum,
modifying certain terms of either Decree in a manner that would
adversely affect the tribes' ability to exercise their treaty-reserved
rights, or upset the delicate balance of allocation and management
strategies among the parties, which of course, includes the Federal
Government as a party. The CORA member tribes appreciate the initial
dollars received which will assist with implementation of the 2007
Inland Consent Decree.
v. distribution of fiscal year 2016 funding request among cora tribes
On behalf of CORA and its five member tribes, I would like to thank
you for your past financial support, and request your continued support
in fiscal year 2016 in maintaining CORA's current base funding for
Great Lakes activities, and maintaining the newly enacted recurring
base funding for implementing CORA's responsibilities under the Inland
Consent Decree.
vi. evaluation and research activities--climate change
The CORA tribes respectfully request your support for fiscal year
2016 RPI funding for all intertribal resource management organizations
for the Climate Change line item and to provide to CORA its
proportionate share of those funds. That amount is $398,464.00.
2000 GREAT LAKES CONSENT DECREE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes
Increase
($14,000) Total Request
CORA Member Tribe 2014 Great Lakes Requested (Fiscal Year
Increase (Fiscal 2016)
Year 2015)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Mills.............................................. $845,430 $2,800 $848,230
Little Traverse........................................ 650,900 2,800 653,700
Little River........................................... 650,900 2,800 653,700
Sault Ste. Marie (OSG Base)............................ 151,885 2,800 154,685
Grand Traverse (OSG Base).............................. 151,885 2,800 154,685
--------------------------------------------------------
Totals........................................... 2,451,000 14,000 2,465,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 INLAND CONSENT DECREE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Mills............................................ $320,000
Little Traverse...................................... 320,000
Little River......................................... 320,000
Sault Ste. Marie..................................... 320,000
Grand Traverse....................................... 320,000
------------------
Total.......................................... 1,600,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSG CUMULATIVE BASE, WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE RIGHTS PROTECTION
DISTRIBUTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chippewa/Ottawa Treaty
Self-Governance Tribe Voight Non-TPA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sault Ste. Marie (OSG Base)................. $633,607
Grand Traverse (05G Base)................... 616,832
---------------------------
Subtotal.............................. 1,250,439
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation and Research Activities--Climate Change--CORA Tribes--
$398,464
______
Prepared Statement of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
Good morning to distinguished members of this subcommittee and a
special congratulation to new members, Messrs. Derek Kilmer and Steve
Israel. Thank you for inviting the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma to
present oral testimony on the fiscal year 2016 President's proposed
budgets for the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). I submit this testimony which identifies the funding
priorities and budget issues important to the Choctaw Nation and its
citizens.
This is a very important subcommittee for American Indians and
Alaska Natives because you determine just how much funding will be
appropriated for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health
Service to support basic essential services for Indian people to
fulfill the United States' trust responsibility. While there have been
increases in both agencies over the past decade, tribal programs remain
underfunded and tribes are expected to do more with less. We incurred
the wrath of cuts from the 2013 sequester and we were hit with
additional cuts in 2014 and 2015 to fully pay Contract Support Costs
(CSC). We remain resilient and are optimistic that the fiscal year 2016
President's budget proposal will address the long-term fix for CSC and
bring attention to the forefront regarding the lack of budget equity
for tribal program funding that has persisted for far too long. We want
to rebuild our faith in the government-to-government relationship that
we have invested in for many generations--but partnerships involve more
than one party to make it happen!
We recommend the following:
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
1. Joint Venture Program--Increase President's request to $100
million.
2. Special Diabetes Program for Indians--Reauthorize for 5 years
at $200 million/year for 5 years.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE AND BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
1. Contract Support Costs--Fully fund in 2016 and shift into
mandatory funding beginning in 2017 with 3-Year Spending Authority.
2. Exempt tribal government services and program funding from
sequestrations, unilateral rescissions and budget cuts.
3. Provide funding increases--Office of Tribal Self-Governance
(IHS) and the Office of Self-Governance (DOI) to fully staff to support
the number of tribes entering Self-Governance.
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, nine (9) 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. The Choctaw
Nation has operated under the Self-Governance authority in the
Department of the Interior (DOI) since 1994 and in the Department of
Health and Human Services' IHS since 1995. As a Self-Governance tribe,
the Nation is able to re-design programs to meet tribally specific
needs without diminishing the United States' trust responsibility.
Self-Governance is now a permanent reality for many tribes.
In 2014 the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma was designated one of the
five, and the only tribal, Promise Zones in the United States. The
initiative will enhance cooperation between Federal agencies, local
government branches, community advocates and the Choctaw Nation to
focus on key areas that will contribute to economic growth and
revitalize opportunities for a better quality of life in southeastern
Oklahoma.
joint venture construction program--increase president's request to
$100 million
The Joint Venture Construction Program (JVCP) is a unique
opportunity for the Indian Health Service to partner with tribes and
make scarce Federal dollars stretch much farther than in the
traditional Federal construction programs. The President's proposed
level of $18 million will not support the intent of the JVCP and should
be increased to $100 million at a minimum. Tribes have taken on great
risks in financing the construction of new or replacement facilities.
These risks are taken with a commitment from the IHS to fund necessary
staffing and operating costs upon completion of facility construction.
Failure to fund staffing and operating costs in a sufficient and timely
manner leaves tribes without the means to safely operate these
facilities, compromising their ability to service loan agreements while
jeopardizing the health and safety of our entire communities.
In 2014 the Choctaw Nation applied for and was awarded a JVCP for a
new Regional Health Care Facility in Durant, Oklahoma. There are no IHS
facilities in the County and the 2014 estimated user population is
6,939 with projected primary provider visits of almost 29,000 which
speak volumes to the need. The Nation will design, construct, and equip
the new facility consisting of 123,780 sq. ft. (11,500 sq. m) in size
and it will be operated under the Nation's Self-Governance Agreement.
Upon projected completion of construction the IHS agrees to request
congressional appropriations for additional staffing and operations
based on the tribes' projected dates of completion, beneficial
occupancy and opening. Another key element to a successful JVCP
partnership is full payment of Contract Support Costs (CSC). Without
reimbursement of Contract Support Cost, offsetting program reductions
must be made and services reduced. Upon entering into 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 Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) has been a top
priority for the Choctaw Nation since it was initially authorized in
1997. SDPI is currently reauthorized through March 31, 2015 at a flat-
line rate of $150 million/year (since 2004). Continuing support of the
SDPI will maintain critical momentum in diabetes research and care to
help bring diabetes-related costs under control. The permanency of SDPI
would be a great asset to promoting stability for this important health
program and for reversing the trend of Type 2 diabetes in Indian
Country. In addition it will provide for staff retention, programmatic
long-term planning which increases and improves patient care, and more
stable outside contracts with vendors and suppliers.
Congressional funding remains the critical factor in the battle
against diabetes and we request that as we continue to work for
permanent authorization and mandatory program status, that you urge
your colleagues to extend the reauthorization to 5 years and increase
funding to $200 million/year for the SDPI program.
contract support costs--full funding for bia and ihs in 2017 with 3-
year re-authorization
Full funding of contract support costs in the fiscal year 2014 and
fiscal year 2015 budgets was timely and appreciated, however it was at
a price that severely impacted tribal program funding in both the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the IHS. The Choctaw Nation supports
the President's fiscal year 2016 budget proposal which bears the likes
of a two-prong conundrum: (1) obtaining fair compensation for past CSC
shortfalls; and (2) ensuring full CSC funding for all contracts or
Self-Governance compacts to manage programs previously administered by
the Department of the Interior and Department of Health and Human
Services. The law is very specific, ``Tribes contracting and compacting
under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(ISDEAA) are entitled to full Contact Support Costs.''
Today, we find ourselves at a place that many thought was not in
the foreseeable future. However, a long-term proposed fix to fully fund
CSC is underway. Over the years, both the BIA and IHS established CSC
workgroups, consisting of tribal and Federal representatives, to work
on resolving the CSC shortfall and to develop strategies to fully fund
CSC. While many tribes have settled their CSC claims in IHS, it was an
onerous and costly exercise for most of us.
The Choctaw Nation engaged in negotiations with the IHS and because
of the recalcitrance of the agency representatives, we had to engage
legal counsel. The CSC shortfall due Choctaw was reduced to 75 percent
after we incurred the legal cost, 25 percent, to get through the
negotiations. The unfortunate part for the tribe is that the total
amount paid by IHS was the ``original'' full CSC shortfall amount due
to the Nation. However because of the haranguing and lack of
facilitating in good-faith on behalf of the United States, the Nation
did not receive the full 100%--simply put because we had to pay legal
fees which should have been spent on services for tribal citizens.
The BIA has been just as asinine. The Choctaw Nation cannot settle
our claim because ``not all tribes [17]'' have negotiated their
settlement and the agency is withholding ALL of the payments to avoid
incurring overpayments to tribes. So rather than settle and close
claims with tribes at the table, BIA has put a hold on payments unless
settlements for all tribes have been negotiated. There is nothing in
the law that allows the agency to withhold funds. Tribes continue to
bear the brunt of their ineptness at math and their unwillingness to
follow the intent of Congress and fully implement the law to pay ALL
CSC claims.
The Choctaw Nation asks that Congress directs the BIA and IHS to
enter into these negotiations with the honor and respect intended by
Congress and not to invoke its own judgement during these proceedings.
Lawyers should not be factored into the government-to-government
relationship that is between tribal governments and the United States.
exempt tribal government services and program funding from
sequestrations
The Choctaw Nation requests that Congress exempts ALL tribal
programs from future sequestrations, unilateral rescissions and budget
cuts. American Indian and Alaska Natives are the most at risk
population in the United States and we do not rebound from extreme
cuts, such as the 2013 sequestration, in a few years because our
programs are disproportionately underfunded. Traditionally, tribes have
borne an unfair share of the budget deficits to our healthcare systems,
law enforcement, education and essential governmental services, just to
name a few. Sequestration reneges on the United States contract with
tribal governments and cripples services and benefits to our citizens.
We are continually subjected to the broken and empty promises by
our Federal trustees. We ask the United States to step up and honor the
agreements and treaties between our great Nations and protect the
funding of Native American programs.
The Choctaw Nation supports the budget requests of the National
Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Health Board.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Choose Clean Water Coalition
March 4, 2015
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Chair,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies,
S-128 Capitol,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Udall, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies,
S-146A Capitol,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
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. More than 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 2016:
u.s. environmental protection agency
Chesapeake Bay Program--$73.0 million
We support level funding of $73.0 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.
We strongly oppose the $6 million cuts to the Chesapeake Small
Watershed Grants and the Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction
Grants that are in the President's 2016 budget request. Much of this
money is proposed to be reallocated from on-the-ground restoration at
the local level to personnel costs; contract support for permit
reviews, rule implementation and enforcement; and the revision of 25
management strategies.
We urge you to retain the critical funding for both the Chesapeake
Small Watershed Grants Program and the Innovative Nutrient and Sediment
Reduction Grants--$6 million each. These are two well-run, competitive
grant 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. The President's budget offers no
justification for the cuts and acknowledges that cutting these two
grant programs ``. . . will reduce the number of restoration projects
that watershed groups and local governments will be able to implement
to reduce nutrient and sediment pollutant loadings to the Bay and its
tributaries.'' This is not the time to stop local implementation of
restoration work.
We strongly support the language in last year's 2015 Consolidated
and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, where Congress protected
these critical local grant programs: ``The bill provides $73,000,000.
From within the amount, the Committees direct $6,000,000 for nutrient
and sediment removal grants and $6,000,000 for small watershed grants
to control polluted runoff from urban, suburban and agricultural lands,
and include no further directives.'' We urge you to retain the same
language in the fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) --$1.448887 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 few
years and we urge you to do so again in fiscal year 2016. 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 2015 that provided $312 million in low
interest loans to local governments in Delaware, Maryland, New York,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. The
President's 2016 budget request would cut $73.748 million from those
six Chesapeake watershed States and the District of Columbia--a drastic
23.6 percent cut. The 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 2016.
department of the interior
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)--Chesapeake Bay Studies--$11.689 million
We support the President's 2016 budget request of $11.689 million
for the USGS to provide the critical science necessary for restoration
and protection efforts in the Chesapeake Bay region, and to implement
the 2014 Chesapeake Watershed Agreement. This includes $500,000 to
collect land-elevation data needed for water-quality and sea-level rise
investigations. This would allow the USGS to systematically collect and
manage high-quality elevation data for the eastern shore of the
Chesapeake Bay--in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. The results will
help the Chesapeake Bay Program to develop high-resolution, land-cover
information to more effectively place conservation practices to improve
water quality and help conserve healthy watersheds.
The USGS will focus on: (1) understanding the factors affecting
freshwater fisheries and streams, including the effects of shale-gas
drilling; (2) identifying sources and effects of endocrine-disrupting
compounds and other contaminants that threaten fisheries and wildlife;
(3) modeling the effects of sea-level rise on coastal wetlands near
wildlife refuges important for waterfowl; (4) forecasting the effects
of land and climate change to inform land conservation; and (5)
monitoring and explaining water-quality response to reduce nutrient and
sediment reduction practices.
National Park Service--Chesapeake Regional Programs--$3.036 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 2016 budget request
that we support are: Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Trails ($2,014,000);
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail ($387,000); Star
Spangled Banner National Historic Trail ($151,000); and, support for
coordinating these programs through the National Park Service
Chesapeake Bay Office ($484,000).
department of the interior/u.s. department of agriculture
National Park Service/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Bureau of Land
Management/U.S. Forest Service--Rivers of the Chesapeake
Collaborative Landscape Planning Projects--Land and Water
Conservation Fund--$33.326 million
We support the President's 2016 budget that calls for the strategic
use of funds for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and for the
first time, requests funding for the Rivers of the Chesapeake
Collaborative Landscape Planning initiative. This new effort targets
conservation funds for priority landscapes throughout the country--and
the Rivers of the Chesapeake is one of eight such priority areas. These
projects will enhance public access and education, preserve key
historic and heritage sites, conserve forests, and protect important
freshwater and tidal habitat areas critical to migratory birds and
economically important fish and shellfish.
Bureau of Land Management
Nanjemoy National Resource Management Area (MD)--$191,000*
Nanjemoy National Resource Management Area (MD)--$465,000
Meadowood Special Recreation Management Area (VA)--$2.4 million*
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (MD)--$1.511 million*
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (MD)--$1.9 million
Rappahannock River National Wildlife Refuge (VA)--$1.6 million*
Rappahannock River National Wildlife Refuge (VA)--$3.89 million
James River National Wildlife Refuge (VA)--$950,000
U.S. Forest Service
George Washington/Jefferson National Forests (VA)--$1.99 million*
George Washington/Jefferson National Forests (VA)--$2.7 million
George Washington/Jefferson National Forests (WV)--$3.0 million
National Park Service
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (DC/DE/MD/
VA)--$2.237 million*
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (DC/DE/MD/
VA)--$5.178 million
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (VA)--$3.0 million
Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historic Park (VA)--$500,000
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park (VA)--$1.814
million
* Indicates projects with Current/Discretionary Authority.
National Park Service --Land Protection in Maryland and Pennsylvania
through the Land and Water Conservation Fund--$856,000
We support the President's 2016 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 ($285,000) in Pennsylvania and Piscataway Park ($571,000)
in Maryland. These projects will enhance public access and education,
preserve key historic and heritage sites and protect key habitat areas
critical to an array of fish and wildlife species. Both of these
projects have Current/Discretionary Authority.
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 Heron Environmental Network, Inc.
Blue Water Baltimore
Blue Ridge Watershed Coalition
Cacapon Institute
Cecil Land Use Association
Center for the Celebration of Creation
Chapman Forest Foundation
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Chesapeake Legal Alliance
Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage
Clean Water Action
Delaware Nature Society
Earth Forum of Howard County
Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Environment America
Environment Maryland
Environment New York
Environment Virginia
Float Fishermen of Virginia
Friends of Lower Beaverdam Creek
Friends of the Rappahannock
Friends of the Rivers of Virginia
Interfaith Partners for the Chesapeake
Izaak Walton League of America
James River Association
Lackawanna River Corridor Association
Lancaster Farmland Trust
Little Falls Watershed Alliance
Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy
Maryland Academy of Science at the Maryland Science Center
Maryland Conservation Council
Maryland League of Conservation Voters
Mattawoman Watershed Society
Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy
National Parks Conservation Association
National Aquarium
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nature Abounds
PennEnvironment
PennFuture
Pennsylvania Council of Churches
Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited
Piedmont Environmental Council
Port Tobacco River Conservancy
Potomac Conservancy
Potomac Riverkeeper
Prince William Conservation Alliance
Queen Anne's Conservation Association
Richmond Audubon Society
Rivanna Conservation Society
Riverkeepers Chesapeake
Rock Creek Conservancy
St. Mary's River Watershed Association
Savage River Watershed Association
Severn River Association
Shenandoah Riverkeeper
Shenandoah Valley Network
Sidney Center Improvement Group
Sierra Club, Maryland Chapter
Sleepy Creek Watershed Association
South River Federation
Susquehanna Gateway Heritage Area
Trash Free Maryland Alliance
Trout Unlimited
Upper Susquehanna Coalition
Virginia Conservation Network
West/Rhode Riverkeeper
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy
West Virginia Rivers Coalition
Wicomico Environmental Trust
Wild Virginia
______
Prepared Statement of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission
My name is Patty Brown-Schwalenberg. As Executive Director of the
Chugach Regional Resources Commission (``CRRC''), located in Alaska, I
am pleased to submit this testimony reflecting the needs, concerns and
requests of CRRC regarding the proposed fiscal year 2016 budget. Like
everyone, we are aware of the ongoing economic problems in the United
States, and the growing concern over the Federal deficit. While the
Government is trimming its spending, the Federal Government must still
fulfill its legal and contractual spending obligations. The Bureau of
Indian Affairs not only has a legal and contractual obligation to
provide funding for the CRRC, but the CRRC is able to translate this
funding into real economic opportunity for those living in the small
Alaska Native villages located in Prince William Sound and Lower Cook
Inlet.
We describe first, our specific requests and recommendations on the
budget, and then why these are so important to us and the Alaska Native
Villages and their members who we serve.
budget requests and recommendations
CRRC funding.--We are once again very pleased that the BIA has
recognized the importance of natural resource funding for CRRC and has
requested at least $410,000 for CRRC in fiscal year 2016 as part of the
Trust-Natural Resources program, Tribal Management/Development
subactivity. In its fiscal year 2016 Budget Justification, the BIA
recognized CRRC's role in developing the capabilities of its member
Alaska Native Villages to better facilitate their active participation
in resource use and allocation issues in Alaska. We urge the
subcommittee to include CRRC funding as proposed by the BIA.
BIA Trust-Natural Resources Management.--We support the President's
overall proposal to increase the BIA's Trust--Natural Resources
Management programs, particularly the increases to Fish, Wildlife and
Parks, and funding for projects that engage youth in the natural
sciences and climate resiliency initiatives. We urge the subcommittee
to support this funding and include it in the final bill.
Contract Support Costs.--In regards to Contract Support Costs, we
fully support the administration's proposal to fully fund Contract
Support Costs.
justification for crrc's budget requests
The importance of adequate funding for these programs is based on
the following.
Chugach Regional Resource Commission History and Purpose.--CRRC is
a non-profit coalition of Alaska Native Villages, organized in 1987 by
the seven Native Villages located in Prince William Sound and Lower
Cook Inlet in south-central Alaska: Tatitlek Village IRA Council,
Chenega IRA Council, Port Graham Village Council, Nanwalek IRA Council,
Native Village of Eyak, Qutekcak Native Tribe, and Valdez Native Tribe.
CRRC was created to address environmental and natural resources issues
and to develop culturally sensitive economic projects at the community
level to support the sustainable development of the region's natural
resources. The Native Villages' action to create a separate entity
demonstrates the level of concern and importance they hold for
environmental and natural resource management and protection--the
creation of CRRC ensured that natural resource and environmental issues
received sufficient attention and focused funding. The BIA, in its
Budget Justification, summarizes CRRC's work, stating
Initially, the emphasis of the CRRC natural resource program
was on the development of fisheries projects that would provide
either an economic base for a village or create economic
opportunities for tribal members. In fiscal year 1996, CRRC
initiated a natural resource management program with the
objective of establishing natural resource management
capabilities in the villages to facilitate their active
participation in resource use and allocation issues that affect
the tribes and their members. The success of these programs
from both an economic and a social standpoint have made them an
integral part of overall tribal development.
Through its many important programs, CRRC has provided employment
for up to 35 Native people in the Chugach Region annually--an area that
faces high levels of unemployment--through programs that conserve and
restore our natural resources.
An investment in CRRC has been translated into real economic
opportunities, savings and community investments that have a great
impact on the Chugach region. Our employees are able to earn a living
to support their families, thereby removing them from the rolls of
people needing State and Federal support. In turn, they are able to
reinvest in the community, supporting the employment of and
opportunities for other families. Our programs also support future
economic and commercial opportunities for the region--protecting and
developing our shellfish and other natural resources.
Programs.--CRRC has leveraged its BIA funding into almost $2
million annually to support its several community-based programs.
Specifically, the base funding provided through BIA appropriation has
allowed CRRC to maintain core administrative operations, and seek
specific projects funding from other sources such as the Administration
for Native Americans, the State of Alaska, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department
of Education, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, the North
Pacific Research Board and various foundations. This diverse funding
pool has enabled CRRC to develop and operate several important programs
that provide vital services, valuable products, and necessary
employment and commercial opportunities. These programs include:
Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery.--The Alutiiq Pride Shellfish
Hatchery is the only shellfish hatchery in the State of Alaska. The
20,000 square foot shellfish hatchery is located in Seward, Alaska, and
houses shellfish seed, brood stock and algae production facilities.
Alutiiq Pride is undertaking a hatchery nursery operation, as well as
grow-out operation research to adapt mariculture techniques for the
Alaskan Shellfish industry. The Hatchery is also conducting scientific
research on blue and red king crab as part of a larger federally
sponsored program. Alutiiq Pride has already been successful in
culturing geoduck, oyster, littleneck clam, and razor clam species and
is currently working on sea cucumbers. This research has the potential
to dramatically increase commercial opportunities for the region in the
future. The activities of Alutiiq Pride are especially important for
this region considering it is the only shellfish hatchery in the State,
and therefore the only organization in Alaska that can carry out this
research and production.
Natural resource curriculum development.--Partnering with the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, CRRC has developed and implemented a model
curriculum in natural resource management for Alaska Native students.
This curriculum integrates traditional knowledge with Western science.
The goal of the program is to encourage more Native students to pursue
careers in the sciences. In addition, we are working with the Native
American Fish & Wildlife Society and tribes across the country
(including Alaska) to develop a university level textbook to accompany
these courses.
In addition, we have completed a K-12 Science Curriculum for Alaska
students that integrates Indigenous knowledge with western science.
This curriculum is being piloted in various villages in Alaska and a
thorough evaluation process will ensure its success and mobility to
other schools in Alaska.
Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council.--CRRC is a member of
the Council responsible for setting regulations governing the spring
harvest of migratory birds for Alaska Natives, as well as conducting
harvest surveys and various research projects on migratory birds of
conservation concern. Our participation in this statewide body ensures
the legal harvest of migratory birds by Indigenous subsistence hunters
in the Chugach Region.
Statewide Subsistence Halibut Working Group.--CRRC participates in
this working group, ensuring the halibut resources are secured for
subsistence purposes, and to conduct harvest surveys in the Chugach
Region.
conclusion
At the very least, we urge Congress to sustain the current level of
funding of $410,000 included in the BIA's fiscal year 2016 budget for
CRRC, but a modest increase in our funding will permit us to leverage
those dollars to do more for the Alaska Native villages located in
Prince William Sound and Lower Cook Inlet. With a five-to-one return on
every Federal dollar invested in CRRC, we believe this to be a terrific
return for the Federal Government and our communities.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this important testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the City Parks Alliance
Dear Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Mikulski:
City Parks Alliance, the only independent national organization
solely dedicated to urban parks, representing hundreds of park agencies
and supporting nonprofit organizations, has great interest in the Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and its equitable distribution to
Federal, State, and urban parks. We are writing to you today to bring
your attention to the lack of LWCF funds that reach urban communities.
While 98 percent of our counties in the Nation have a park project
funded by LWCF, what is often overlooked is that over the past 50 years
urban parks have received less than 3 percent of the overall funds
distributed through LWCF.
Eighty percent of Americans live in cities and cities generate 85
percent of our GDP. More than any other time in our history, cities are
the engines generating our Nation's wealth. Strong cities are the key
to keeping America competitive in the rapidly changing global economy.
One of the most important but least recognized essentials to an
attractive and healthy urban environment is a well-designed and well-
maintained network of city parks--a vital component of any city's
infrastructure. Parks support public health, workforce development,
local economies, the environment, education, and community cohesion.
They are critical to creating resilient, livable, and vibrant cities.
LWCF funding is an essential resource for cities as they seek to
develop new or revitalize existing urban parks, green spaces, and
recreation opportunities.
However, many cities continue to have deteriorated parks and
recreation facilities and greatly need the additional funding to
achieve demonstrated benefits. We support the recent grants to cities
for park improvements provided by the National Park Service through the
``competitive grants'' component of the fiscal year 2014
Appropriations. In the first year of this new program, approved by your
subcommittee, $3 million was awarded to eight cities, including:
Mobile, Alabama; Denver, Colorado; Bridgeport, Connecticut; Atlanta,
Georgia; Detroit, Michigan; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Portland, Oregon;
and Madison, Wisconsin. However, much more funding is needed.
City Parks Alliance asks the subcommittee for a more equitable and
robust distribution of LWCF to urban communities. When cities receive
LWCF grants, those grants are matched and often leverage millions more
in public and private investments. For example, LWCF's $1.2 million in
grants for the South Platte River in Denver galvanized more than $2.5
billion in local public and private funding, an investment that has
revitalized Denver's downtown and continues to drive economic
development and job creation. Greenville, South Carolina transformed
its downtown by restoring Reedy River Falls Park, which was originally
protected by a $16,000 LWCF grant. This park has now generated about
$100 million in private investment in the adjacent area. There are many
other examples across the country in cities large and small that show
the true economic and health benefits that LWCF grants can have on
communities.
Indeed, the bipartisan Mayors for Parks Coalition, managed by City
Parks Alliance, brings together mayors from around the country who have
seen the success of LWCF-funded projects in their cities and are urging
Congress to reauthorize and fully fund LWCF. Co-chairs of the 43-member
coalition are Mayor Michael B. Hancock (D) of Denver, Colorado, and
Mayor Betsy Price (R) of Fort Worth, Texas.
In addition to urban parks, LWCF improves access to America's vast
network of public lands, providing city dwellers greater opportunities
to enjoy the mountains, deserts, and streams that are a day trip or
less away. Proximity to public lands has shown to be an economic asset
for cities across the country. The LWCF bolsters this asset for
businesses and residents alike.
City Parks Alliance praises the President's fiscal year 2016
request of $5 million for the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership
Program (ORLPP) and recognizes the transformative impact it will have
in the few cities selected to benefit from this competitive pilot
program. However, much more is needed to strengthen the health and
future growth of our urban communities.
We also praise the President's request of $25 million from LWCF by
reestablishing the Urban Parks Recreation and Recovery (UPARR) program
within the National Park Service.
City Parks Alliance is conscious and respectful of the Federal
budget challenges. But LWCF has been proven as a smart investment where
funds can be leveraged effectively through public private partnerships.
We look forward to working with you to provide more funding to urban
communities where this public investment is critically needed.
Thank you for your consideration.
[This statement was submitted by Catherine Nagel, Executive
Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Civil War Trust
introduction
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide written testimony. My name is James Lighthizer,
and I am the president of the Civil War Trust. I respectfully request
that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies fund the National Park Service's American
Battlefield Protection 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, Revolutionary War and War
of 1812 battlefields. Thanks to the generosity of our 200,000 members
and supporters, the Civil War Trust has protected more than 41,000
acres of critically important battlefield land in 20 States.
The American Battlefield Protection Program's land acquisition
grants 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
battlegrounds outside National Park Service boundaries.
battlefield lands are our shared american heritage
America's battlefields are an irreplaceable part of our shared
national heritage. When preserved, these battlefields serve as outdoor
classrooms to educate current and future generations about the defining
moments in our country's history. They are living monuments, not just
to the men who fought and sacrificed 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.
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 grant program to encourage the private sector to
invest in battlefield preservation. The Commission's proposal for
Federal matching grants was the genesis of today's American Battlefield
Protection Program land acquisition grants program.
The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) reauthorized the battlefield acquisition grants program
and expanded its eligibility to include Revolutionary War and War of
1812 battlefields, in addition to Civil War battlefields. Similar to
the Civil War grants, which are awarded for priority battlefield land
identified in the CWSAC report, funding for Revolutionary War and War
of 1812 battlefields will target sites listed in a 2007 study by the
National Park Service. Among the battlefields that could potentially
benefit from the expanded program are: Bennington, New York and
Vermont; Brandywine, Pennsylvania; Cowpens, South Carolina; Caulk's
Field, Maryland; Guilford Courthouse, North Carolina; Princeton, New
Jersey; River Raisin, Michigan; Saratoga, New York; and Yorktown,
Virginia.
Since the program was first funded in fiscal year 1999, grants have
been used to protect 24,000 acres of hallowed ground in 17 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 not--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
challenging economic times and appreciate the constraints on this
subcommittee. However, we must point out that the clock is ticking on
the remaining battlefields of the Revolutionary War, War of 1812 and
Civil War. The Civil War Trust estimates that, in the next decade, most
unprotected battlefield land will be either developed or preserved.
Full funding for the American Battlefield Protection 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.
conclusion
The Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 and the Civil War were
defining moments in our country's history. Our forebears secured our
independence from Great Britain and forged our democratic ideals during
the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. During the Civil War, the great
armies of the North and South clashed in hundreds of battles that
reunited the Union and sounded the death knell for slavery. Preserved
battlefields help ensure that the sacrifices of these turbulent periods
in our Nation's history are never forgotten.
Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall, I sincerely hope that
you and the subcommittee will consider our request to provide funding
of the American Battlefield Protection Program's land acquisition
grants program at its authorized level of $10 million. We look forward
to working closely with you as we continue our important work to
preserve America's sacred battlefield lands. Thank you for the
opportunity to address the subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition Against Forest Pests
Our organizations write to express strong support for the Forest
Health Management programs--both Federal and cooperative lands--and the
Forest and Rangeland Research programs at the USDA Forest Service
(USFS). We respectfully request your support in funding the Forest
Health Management programs at $111 million--$63 million Federal Lands
and $48 million Cooperative Lands--and the Forest and Rangeland
Research program at $303 million in fiscal year 2016.
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 also support 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.
The myriad benefits our forests produce are at risk. The ability of
forests to continue providing 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 USFS Forest Health Management Program is a critical resource
supporting efforts to prevent, contain, and eradicate these costly and
dangerous pests and pathogens affecting trees and forests. In fiscal
year 2014, the Program helped combat native and invasive pests on over
327,000 acres of Federal lands and over 486,000 acres of Cooperative
lands.\1\ While these numbers represent a vital component of our
efforts to protect the Nation's forests and trees, they also represent
the real consequences of reductions in funding over the past 5 years,
which have resulted in fewer acres treated. Any further cuts to this
program will necessitate deeper reductions in support for communities
already facing outbreaks and expose more of the Nation's forests and
trees to the devastating and costly effects of the forest pests. With
this in mind, we are concerned with the President's budget proposal to
reduce funding for the Cooperative Lands program and corresponding
reductions for work to address Sudden Oak Death, Asian Longhorned
Beetle, goldspotted oak borer, and other serious threats to our
forests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA Forest Service fiscal year 2016 President's Budget
Justification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. As forests face increasing pressure from the growing number of
non-native pests support for research programs is critical. New
pathways of introduction and spread have required analysis, e.g., wood
packaging and firewood. We are concerned that the President's budget
request for Forest and Rangeland Research would further limit our
ability to prevent, contain, and eradicate damaging forest pests. We
respectfully request your support in funding the USFS Forest and
Rangeland Research program at $303 million in fiscal year 2016.
In a time when America's forests and trees faces significant
threats to their current and long-term health, the USFS needs adequate
funding for the Forest Health Management and Forest and Rangeland
Research programs to address current and emerging pests and keep their
already staggering costs to a minimum. Accordingly, we urge the
subcommittee to restore funding for these critical programs in fiscal
year 2016. We request that you support the Forest Health Management
programs at a total funding level of $111 million--with $63 million for
Federal Lands and $48 million for Cooperative Lands--and the Forest and
Rangeland Research program at $303 million.
We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you
for your time and consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
American Forest Foundation, American Forests,
American Public Gardens Association,
California Forest Pest Council, Center for
Invasive Species Prevention, National
Alliance of Forest Owners, National
Association of Conservation Districts,
National Association of State Foresters,
National Network of Forest Practitioners,
National Wild Turkey Federation, National
Woodland Owners Association, Society of
American Foresters, The Nature Conservancy,
Tree Care Industry Association, and Vermont
Woodlands Association.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition for Healthier Schools
Dear Senator/Representative:
On behalf of more than 150 participating parent, public health,
environment, and education groups in the Coalition, we urge you to make
healthy children and healthy indoor environments a priority in the
final fiscal year 2016 appropriations for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). EPA has more than a 15 year history in working with Prek-
12 schools, child care centers, and communities to advance healthier
indoor environments with voluntary grants and annual symposiums.
Specifically, we request $21.1 million for EPA's Indoor
Environments Division/Indoor Air-Reducing the Risks to educate non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), local schools and communities on how
to prevent risks and promote healthy indoor environments in PreK-12
schools and child care centers. The $21.1 million is the average of its
enacted budget from 2004-2009 in the Bush Administration. In that
period, it educated thousands of school personnel and hosted annual
symposiums that highlighted best practices by schools. We support and
ask that you ensure that EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection
has $8 million as in the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request,
allowing it to offer grants to encourage work by State agencies to
address children's health at school.
Some 55 million children attend public and private schools every
day, yet our Nation's schools--places where 20 percent of Americans (95
percent of whom are women and children) learn and work every day--are
woefully unaware or under-prepared to manage their facilities, as
numerous facility studies have shown. Research also shows that
environmentally healthy learning places that are clean, dry and quiet,
and have good indoor air, have better attendance and higher test
scores. Poor indoor environments in schools decrease test scores, and
increase absenteeism, asthma, and healthcare costs.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) 2012
School Health Policy Survey found far too few States and districts
adopting environmental management policies that promote attendance and
achievement. CDC found for example:
--only 42.9 percent of States helping districts with Indoor Air
Quality; and
--36.3 percent of districts having a policy to purchase low-emitting
products which can help reduce contaminants of indoor air.
Thank you for your attention and we look forward to working with
you on this critical public health and education issue.
Sincerely,
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
American Public Health Association
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
Association of School Business Officials International
Center for Cities + Schools (California)
Clean and Healthy New York
Coalition for Environmentally Safe Schools (Washington)
Connecticut Foundation for Environmentally Safe Schools
Earth Day Network
Empire State Consumer Project (New York)
Green & Healthy Homes Initiative
Green Schools Initiative (California)
Green Schools National Network
Health Promotion Consultants (Virginia)
Health Resources in Action (Massachusetts)
Healthy Schools Network
IPM Institute of North America
Learning Disability Association of New York State
Maine PTA
Maryland Children's Environmental Health Coalition
Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health
Massachusetts Healthy Schools Network
National Center for Environmental Health Strategies
National Education Association--Healthy Schools Caucus
NEA Healthy Futures
New York State PTA
Northwest Clean Air Agency (Washington)
OHIAS--Our Health Is At Stake (California)
PCBsInSchools
Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units--West
Physicians for Social Responsibility--Florida
Sheet Metal Occupational Health Institute Trust (SMOHIT)
Southwest Environmental Health Sciences Center (Arizona)
Take Care of Your Classroom Air (Texas)
Toxics Information Project (Rhode Island)
U.S. Green Building Council
Washington Asthma Initiative
West Harlem Environmental Action (WEACT)
Women for a Healthy Environment/Healthy Schools PA
Zinner Consultants (California)
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
Waters from the Colorado River are used by nearly 40 million people
for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate
approximately 5.5 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 $382 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 $614 million by the year 2035 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 $1.5 million for salinity specific
projects in 2016 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.
BLM is now working on creating a comprehensive Colorado River Basin
salinity control program as directed by Congress and will be seeking a
line-item appropriation in its 2017 budget request. 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
$382 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 is a cost effective method of controlling the salinity of the
Colorado River and is an essential component to the overall Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program. Continuation of adequate funding
levels for salinity within the Soil, Water and Air Program will assist
in preventing the water quality of the Colorado River from further
degradation and significant increases in economic damages to municipal,
industrial and irrigation users. A modest investment in source control
pays huge dividends in improved drinking water quality to nearly 40
million Americans.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2016 funding for the
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) associated
with the sub-activity that assists Title II of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-320). This long-standing
successful and cost-effective salinity control program in the Colorado
River Basin is being carried out pursuant to the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act and the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500).
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
$1.5 million for salinity specific projects in 2016 is requested to
prevent further degradation of the quality of the Colorado River and
increased downstream economic damages.
The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
the State agency charged with protecting California's interests and
rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system.
In this capacity, California participates along with the other six
Colorado River Basin States through the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Forum (Forum), the interstate organization responsible for
coordinating the Basin States' salinity control efforts. In close
cooperation with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Forum is charged
with reviewing the Colorado River water quality standards every 3
years. The Forum adopts a Plan of Implementation consistent with these
water quality standards. The level of appropriation being supported in
this testimony is consistent with the Forum's 2014 Plan of
Implementation. The Forum's 2014 Plan of Implementation can be found on
this Web site: http://coloradoriversalinity.org/docs/
2014%20Final%20REVIEW%20-%20complete.pdf. If adequate funds are not
appropriated, significant damages associated with increasing salinity
concentrations of Colorado River water will become more widespread in
the United States and Mexico.
The EPA has determined that more than 60 percent of the salt load
of the Colorado River comes from natural sources. The majority of land
within the Colorado River Basin is federally owned, much of which is
administered by BLM. Through passage of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act in 1974, Congress recognized that much of the
salts in the Colorado River originate on federally owned lands. Title I
of the Salinity Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to efforts
related to maintaining the quality of waters being delivered to Mexico
pursuant to the 1944 Water Treaty. Title II of the Act deals with
improving the quality of the water delivered to U.S. users. In 1984,
Congress amended the Salinity Control Act and directed that the
Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive program for
minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands
administered by BLM. In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the
Secretary and requested a report on the implementation of BLM's program
(Public Law 106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to
coordinate BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin States to pursue
salinity control studies and to implement specific salinity control
practices. BLM is now working on creating a comprehensive Colorado
River Basin salinity control program as directed by Congress and will
be seeking a line-item appropriation in its 2017 budget request. With a
significant portion of the salt load of the Colorado River coming from
BLM-administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall program is
essential to the success of the entire effort. Inadequate BLM salinity
control efforts will result in significant additional economic damages
to water users downstream.
Over the 31 years since the passage of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act, much has been learned about the impact of salts
in the Colorado River system. Currently, the salinity concentration of
Colorado River water causes about $382 million in quantifiable damages
in the United States annually. Economic and hydrologic modeling by
Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages could rise to more
than $614 million by the year 2035 without the continuation of the
Salinity Control Program. For example, damages can be incurred related
to the following activities:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector,
--an increase in the amount of imported water,
--an increased 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.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water resource to the nearly 20 million residents of southern
California, including municipal, industrial, and agricultural water
users in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego, and Ventura Counties. The protection and improvement of Colorado
River water quality through an effective salinity control program will
avoid the additional economic damages to users in California and the
other States that rely on Colorado River water resources.
______
Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is pleased to share its view on
the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) fiscal year
2016 budget. We have specifically identified the following funding
needs and one request for review:
(1) $8.95 million for Columbia River Fisheries Management under
Rights Protection Implementation, ($4.4 million above fiscal year
2015), to meet the base program funding needs of the Commission and the
fisheries programs of our member tribes;
(2) $4.8 million for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty, ($520,000
above fiscal year 2015) to implement obligations under the recent
agreements adopted by the U.S. and Canada;
(3) $4.5 million in Rights Protection Implementation to assist
tribes in climate change adaptation and planning; and
(4) $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.
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 U.S. In
return, the U.S. pledged to honor our ancestral rights, including the
right to fish in all Usual and Accustomed locations. 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 have arrived as globally-recognized 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 increases in complexity,
requiring greater data collection and enforcement. 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 $4.4 million over fiscal year
2015 for a new program base of $8.95 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. Rights Protection Implementation
funding takes on even greater importance as funding for State co-
management agencies has become inconsistent or decreased. Below are
priority need areas for CRITFC and our member tribes.
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, intern
and externship opportunities and a summer Salmon Camp.
columbia river treaty modernization
The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission's member tribes are
part of a coalition of 15 Columbia Basin 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.
tribal climate resilience
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 $4.7 million to implement Tribal
Climate Resilience. 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 need 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.
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 2016 recommended level for
this program is an increase of $520,000 above the fiscal year 2015
enacted level. Our request correlates to the U.S. Section's
recommendation.
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 the 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.
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, regional expertise
and supported by adequate, efficient budgets. A congressional
requirement, delivered through prior appropriations language, to
visibly mark all salmon produced in federally funded hatcheries
circumvents local decisionmaking and 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,
International Association of Fire Chiefs, and National Volunteer Fire
Council
Dear Senators Cochran, Mikuiski, Murkowski and Udall:
Our organizations request that you include a minimum of $16 million
in funding for the Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) grant program in
fiscal year 2016 appropriations. VFA provides matching funds to
volunteer fire departments protecting communities with 10,000 or fewer
residents to purchase equipment and training for use in wildland fire
suppression.
Volunteer fire departments provide nearly 80 percent of initial
attack on wildland fires in the U.S. 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 ail 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 to
more than one billion dollars 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). Unfortunately, in recent years,
Federal funding for volunteer fire departments to prepare for wildland
fire suppression has dwindled. 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 2012-2015. Additionally, the
Rural Fire Assistance program, which had historically been funded at
$7-10 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 million in fiscal year 2015, 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 2016.
______
Prepared Statement of The Conservation Fund
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, 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). TCF supports full
funding of the President's budget request of $900 million in fiscal
year 2016 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 ($93.397 million), National
Park Service ($171.037 million), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
($164.772 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 ($100.2 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); and the Department of
Interior (DOI)--Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration
Program ($9.2 million). TCF requests funding for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)--Great Lakes Restoration Initiative ($300
million); EPA--Clean Water State Revolving Funds ($1.449 million) and
EPA--Drinking Water State Revolving Funds ($1.186 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 proposal for a
fiscally responsible funding strategy that considers catastrophic
wildland fires as disasters (i.e. in line with the Wildland Disaster
Fund Act).
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 7.5 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.
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: Island Forests at Risk, Upper Rio
Grande, High Divide, Rivers of the Chesapeake, National Trails System,
Florida-Georgia Long Leaf Pine, Pathways to the Pacific, and Northern
California Coastal. 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.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land Acquisition at $93.397
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 ancient petroglyphs in the
canyon at Agua Fria National Monument in Arizona, we request full
funding of the agency's discretionary and mandatory project lists.
National Park Service (NPS) Federal Land Acquisition at $171.037
million.--Hosting more than 292 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 at Little River Canyon National
Preserve in Alabama and Olympic National Park in Washington. We
respectfully request full funding of the agency's discretionary and
mandatory project lists.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Land Acquisition at $164.772
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 2016 FWS LWCF will help protect
water quality in the Chesapeake Bay area, critical wildlife habitat at
Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in Utah, Idaho and Wyoming, and
many other important places. We respectfully request full funding of
the agency's discretionary and mandatory project lists.
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 North Carolina
Threatened Treasures to the Missouri Ozarks, we are working with
willing landowners at priority project areas and respectfully request
full funding of the agency's discretionary and mandatory project lists.
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 2016 President's
budget request for:
--FWS.--Section 6 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund:
$100 million.
--NPS.--State Conservation Grants: $100.2 million.
--USFS.--Forest Legacy Program: $100 million.
2. DOI and USFS Land Acquisition Programs
TCF encourages the subcommittee to fund:
--FWS.--North American Wetlands Conservation Fund: $34.145 million.
--USFS.--Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program: $5
million.
3. Department of Interior--Natural Resource Damage Assessment and
Restoration Program at $9.2 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 one
hundred 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 2016 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.
4. Environmental Protection Agency--Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
(GRLI) at $300 million
TCF urges funding of GLRI at $300 million. The Initiative provides
critical support for on-the-ground restoration programs and projects
targeted at the most significant environmental problems in the Great
Lakes ecosystem. Over the past 5 years, the Initiative has opened up
fish access to more than 3,400 miles of rivers, expanding recreational
opportunities. It has also accelerated the cleanup of toxic hotspots,
resulting in the delisting of three formerly contaminated sites.
5. Environmental Protection Agency--State Revolving Funds
TCF encourages the subcommittee to fund:
--Clean Water State Revolving Fund: $1.449 million.
--Drinking Water State Revolving Fund: $1.186 million.
6. Reauthorization of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act
We support the fiscal year 2016 President's budget request to
reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA).
FLTFA is a western Federal lands program that facilitates strategic
Federal land sales by the BLM in order to provide funding for high-
priority land conservation within or adjacent to Federal lands in the
11 contiguous western States and Alaska. Over 150 groups are working
together to support Congress' efforts to reauthorize FLTFA. FLTFA
expired in 2011, and reauthorization will enhance the lands and economy
by facilitating Federal land sales and conservation transactions, at no
cost to the taxpayer.
7. Wildlife Disaster Funding Act (S. 235 and H.R. 167) 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. 235 and H.R. 167), which
is needed to prevent future transfers and ensure that the USFS and DOI
can achieve their land management objectives by implementing activities
needed to address the growing buildup of hazardous fuels on Federal
lands. 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. The funding structure is similar to that used by other
agencies who respond to natural disaster emergencies. We additionally
request that the subcommittee appropriate the modeled levels of
suppression through the Interior bill and the wildfire budget cap
adjustment to meet suppression needs in fiscal year 2016.
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
Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year
2016 Interior Appropriations bill. The National Wildlife Refuge System
stands alone as the only land and water conservation system with a
mission that prioritizes wildlife and habitat conservation 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.
We thank you for the desperately needed funding increase for fiscal
year 2015 and respectfully request a funding level of $508.2 million
for the Operations and Maintenance accounts of the National Wildlife
Refuge System for fiscal year 2016.
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.
Increased visitors and pressures on these lands from nearby
development, a changing climate, and other impacts, combined with
declining budgets have caused a steep decline in staffing levels within
the Refuge System. The Refuge System is now $72 million below what it
needs to keep pace with inflation, relative to the fiscal year 2010
budget of $503.2 million. Workforce has declined in that time by over
500 employees, who provided services such as administration,
maintenance, fire management, and science support. That is a loss of
\1/7\ of the workforce, and the refuges simply cannot be maintained or
provide the adequate visitor services, environmental education, access
for hunting, and law enforcement that will ensure these lands are used
as intended.
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: filtering storm water before it is carried downstream to
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.
Budget cuts are impacting rural communities in Alaska--this year,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) office in McGrath was closed
and management of Innoko National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was complexed
with Nowitna and Koyukuk NWRs in Galena. At its height in 2010, the
McGrath office had 12 staff; now, only one outreach staffer is being
maintained in the village. The office had direct connections with the
rural villages in the area, and the Refuge System is now struggling to
maintain those connections with one staffer. And perhaps more
importantly, the economic impact and loss of the $1 million to the
village it took to run the office could have dire impacts to
communities that surrounded it.
In New Mexico, Bosque NWR brings in hundreds of thousands of
visitors every year to see the abundant bird populations that migrate
through the refuge--particularly sandhill cranes. This summer, the
visitor's center will close 2 days a week due to budget shortfalls. And
over the last two decades, refuge staff has battled the invasive and
water-hungry salt cedar. Staff no longer has the funding to continue to
fight this fast-spreading tree at the levels they were, and it starting
to spread again--at times in areas where the invasive plant had
previously been completely removed. With the current drought conditions
in the southwest, it is critical that refuge staff are provided the
resources necessary to remove this species from the landscape and
taxpayer dollars already spent on removal is not wasted.
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 to fiscal year 2014.
Measures for which performance declined from fiscal year 2010 to
fiscal year 2014:
--Open water acres restored (-89 percent)
--Wetland acres restored (-69 percent)
--Acres of non-native, invasive plants controlled (-63 percent)
--Number of invasive animal populations controlled during the year
(-59 percent)
--Acres of forest/shrubland improvement (-56 percent)
--Acres treated for non-native, invasive plants (-41 percent)
--Riparian miles restored (-37 percent)
--Acres of farming (-22 percent)
--Number of Inventory and Monitoring surveys accomplished (-20
percent)
--Total refuge acres receiving needed management (-9 percent)
--Number of volunteers (-15 percent)
--Volunteer hours (down 6 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal
year 2014)
--Fishing visits (-7 percent)
--Hunting visits (-5 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year
2014)
--Waterfowl hunt visits (-1 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal
year 2014)
--Big game hunt visits (-9 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal
year 2014)
--Total ``other'' recreational participants (-13 percent)
However, many measures increase for the Refuge System over this
same timeframe:
--Photography participants (+45%)
--Number of boat trail visits (+21 percent)
--Acres of prescribed grazing (+11 percent)
--Number of auto tour visits (+11 percent)
--Wildlife observation visits (+8 percent)
--Number of visitors (+2.6 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 2014, the System treated 41 percent less acreage for
invasive plants and, sadly, saw a 63 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.
CARE thanks the subcommittee and Congress for the much needed
increase in funding for fiscal year 2015. 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, the increase of $4 million was in
actuality a decrease. 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.
Understanding the constraints of the budget process, CARE is
supporting the President's request of $508.2 million for fiscal year
2016, although it is substantially less than what the System needs.
Albeit roughly half the optimal funding amount, $508.2 million is a $34
million increase, and we hope it may help the System maintain its
ability to manage refuge lands as intended in their purpose. 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 2014, the Refuge System welcomed
2.7 percent more visitors. However, refuges are losing valuable staff
committed to visitors and volunteers. The number of volunteers dropped
by 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 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 $508.2 m in fiscal
year 2016--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 2016 Interior Appropriations bill, and we look forward to
meeting with you to discuss our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the The Corps Network
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
subcommittee:
My name is Mary Ellen Sprenkel and I am the President and CEO of
The Corps Network; the national association of Service and Conservation
Corps. The Corps Network has over 100 member organizations that operate
in all 50 States and enroll over 23,000 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 respectfully requests that in fiscal year 2016
the subcommittee fund the following accounts:
--$2,515,131,000 for ``Operation of the National Parks.''
--$50,000,000 for the ``Centennial Challenge'' for the National Park
Service.
--$107,200,000 for youth programming across the DOI Bureaus.
--$37,500,000 for the National Park Service
--$28,200,000 for the U.S. Geological Survey
--$18,500,000 for the Fish and Wildlife Service
--$12,600,000 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
--$6,000,000 for the Bureau of Land Management
--$3,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation
--$1,000,000 for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement
--Increased funding for operational accounts of DOI Bureaus and USFS.
These programs will allow public land and water management agencies
to engage young adults and veterans in meeting our Nation's backlogged
maintenance needs; address record youth unemployment levels; prepare a
diverse group of youth to be the next generation of natural resource
employees and stewards.
Corps are comprehensive youth development programs that engage
diverse young people in service projects that address important
community and environmental needs. Through their service, Corpsmembers
develop job and leadership skills. Corps also provide members with
access to academic programming, counseling and additional support.
Corps are a direct descendant of the Depression-era Civilian
Conservation Corps, which mobilized about three million young men to
dramatically improve the Nation's public lands in exchange for food,
shelter, education, and a precious $30-a-month stipend.
the impact in numbers
In 2015 alone, the Corpsmembers of the 100-plus member
organizations of The Corps Network collectively:
--Restored and improved 125,000 acres of ecological habitat
--Maintained and improved 4,700 parks, gardens, and urban greenspaces
--Built and maintained 8,700 miles of trails
--Removed over 450,000 acres of invasive and exotic plant species
--Planted 2.3 million trees
corps enroll participants reflective of america's diversity
At present, our member Corps enroll over 23,000 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.
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 when they
entered the Corps 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. 68 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 Corps. Virtually all Federal project partners
(99.6 percent) say they would work with Corps again.
Types of Corps projects include, but are not limited to:
--Protecting wildlife and improving access to public lands and waters
--Preparing communities for disasters and responding to disasters
when needed
--Enhancing recreation on public lands
--Protecting communities and public lands from the devastating
effects of wildfire
--Preserving historic structures
--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 2016 request justification
The Corps Network requests the committee's support for fiscal year
2016 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 become the next generation of natural
resource employees.
The first two accounts that we request funding for fall under
National Park Service and the third account is under the Department of
the Interior. National Park ``Operations'' is a preexisting account
governing operation of our national parks. The ``Centennial Challenge''
is an effective program launched during the George W. Bush
Administration that would leverage private funds with matching Federal
dollars for park projects throughout the country to restore facilities
and improve the visitor experience. These funds will allow thousands of
veterans, youth, and others to work on upgrading the National Park
System for its 100th anniversary in 2016.
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.
The Department's funding for youth programming would also provide
work and training opportunities for young people and veterans during
2015 and 2016. The goal of these programs is to build the next
generation of conservation and community leaders by supporting youth
engagement and employment on public lands. A key component of the
Department's efforts will be partnering with youth organizations
through the 21st Century Conservation Corps. The Department proposes
that these programs provide work and training opportunities to 100,000
individuals ages 15 to 35 through 2017. We also support increased
funding for the operational accounts at the U.S. Forest Service that
could fund partnerships with Conservation Corps.
In addition, we appreciate the subcommittee's support of the
bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (WDFA--H.R. 167; S. 235) and
respectfully request the language be highlighted in the fiscal year
2016 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. We
additionally request that the subcommittee appropriate the modeled
levels of suppression through the Interior bill and the wildfire budget
cap adjustment to meet fire suppression needs in fiscal year 2016. The
current wildfire suppression funding model and cycle of transfers and
repayments has negatively impacted the ability to implement forest
management activities. The Wildfire Disaster Funding bill would provide
the USFS and DOI flexibility to reinvest in core land and water
management activities which have been reduced in recent years due to a
continued shift of limited resources to fund wildfire suppression.
engaging the next generation in service to public lands
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
Anchorage Park Foundation's Youth Employment in Parks program, Rocky
Mountain Youth Corps in Taos, and Southeast Conservation in
Chattanooga, 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 depends 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 Lake Committees
Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Udall:
I write on behalf of the Council of Lake Committees (CLC),
comprised of senior-level fishery resource managers from State, tribal,
and provincial agencies surrounding the Great Lakes. The CLC
appreciates the subcommittees' ongoing support for programs that
sustain and restore the Great Lakes. I am writing to request $17.5
million in fiscal 2016 appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey's
Great Lakes Science Center (GLSC). The GLSC conducts critical science
activities essential to Federal, State, tribal, and provincial
management programs throughout all five Great Lakes and in all eight
Great Lakes States.
The Great Lakes are a vast natural resource, larger in area than
the U.S. States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined. They are an
international resource representing a massive economic engine. Nearly
$35 billion/year and 75,000 jobs are generated in fishing, tourism and
related industries. Several independent sources estimate $7.0 billion/
year is directly attributable to Great Lakes fisheries. The highest
quality science possible is required to inform wise fisheries,
ecosystem and water resources management decisions in the Great Lakes.
Currently, the GLSC receives approximately $8.5 million in
appropriated funding to support science programs critical to management
of these incredibly valuable resources. This funding level represents
approximately 1.2 percent of the annual fisheries related revenue and
less than 0.03 percent of the revenue attributable to closely related
industries. Our request for $17.5 million in fiscal 2016 appropriations
represents an $8.75 million increase above the President's fiscal year
2016 request, and reflects long-standing, well recognized needs for
this chronically under-funded science program.
The CLC has a long history of support for the GLSC program. We
strongly support the GLSC because the science they produce is essential
to the day-to-day and long-term management of Great Lakes fisheries and
ecosystems. Great Lakes management jurisdictions depend on the GLSC
Deepwater and Invasive species programs to provide key data about long-
term condition of fish communities, and for the development of tools
and technologies needed to combat invasive species that threaten
valuable sport and commercial fisheries. Despite our strong, ongoing
support, we are frustrated that the funding deficiency for this program
has only widened, and sequestration made a very tough budget situation
considerably worse for GLSC programs. The GLSC's research capabilities,
critical to Great Lakes management agencies, have been devastated by
years of budget erosion, and worsened by a 6 percent cut from
sequestration in 2013. None of the budget erosion or impacts of
sequestration have been restored.
Now, for the first time since the President was elected, his 2016
budget highlights two areas where the USGS GLSC programs would
experience relatively small budget increases. The President proposes:
(1) a $250,000 increase for the Great Lakes Deepwater Assessments; and
(2) a $2.0 million increase for Invasive Species (Bureau-wide). The
language for the proposed add in the Fisheries Program for Great Lakes
Fisheries Assessments (+$250,000) is found on Page C-52 of the fiscal
year 2016 USGS Budget Justification. Also important is a proposed
initiative on New and Emerging Invasive Species (+$2.0 million) in the
Invasive Species Program found on Page C-26 of the fiscal year 2016
USGS Budget Justification.
The CLC believes that, in the current budget climate, it is
important to carefully prioritize essential programs. The CLC believes
strongly that the USGS GLSC plays a central role in supporting near and
long-term initiatives of importance to the Federal Government, its
State, tribal, and Canadian partners, and in maintaining the
significant economic benefits derived from Great Lakes fisheries and
associated industries. We request that you join the CLC and support at
least $17.5 million in fiscal year 2016 for the USGS GLSC activities
which represents an $8.75 million increase above the President's
request.
[This statement was submitted by Steven R. LaPan, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Chair.]
______
Prepared Statement of the The Creative Coalition
Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony
regarding the fiscal year 2016 funding level for the National Endowment
for the Arts (NEA). I am writing on behalf of The Creative Coalition,
the 501(c)3, non-profit, non-partisan public advocacy organization of
the arts and entertainment community, to urge Congress to provide $155
million for NEA in the fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
In 1989, actors Ron Silver, Christopher Reeve, Susan Sarandon, Alec
Baldwin and others established The Creative Coalition to galvanize
support for the arts and arts education. The Creative Coalition's
membership includes actors, directors, producers, writers,
entertainment industry executives, and others who make their living in
theater, film, arts, letters and television. We take our roles as
citizens very seriously and appreciate the opportunity to express our
views on the importance of sufficient funding for the arts.
For the last 4 years, Congress has funded NEA at $146 million,
which, in real dollars, is less than the $162 million provided for the
Agency 20 years ago. Adjusted for inflation, NEA's funding is more than
$100 million lower each year than it was two decades ago, providing
less than 50 cents per capita currently versus 70 cents per capita in
1992. While we recognize the fiscal year 2016 request of $155 million
for NEA is a slight increase over President Obama's proposed level of
funding of $148 million, $155 million is a level that has been
supported in recent fiscal years by both the President and at the
Committee level. The requested level of funding would better leverage
growing State, local and private arts funding and help to restore
critical Federal arts programming--which supports creativity and
innovation, and provides measured cultural, educational and economic
benefits.
Federal funding of the arts is a wise investment and should be
viewed as a genuine public-private partnership due to the significant
private philanthropic support that Federal funds are leveraged against.
Without Federal support, we would struggle to share the richness of our
culture, our history and our legacy, which is a national treasure and
should be buoyed with Federal resources so that all may enjoy it. The
$155 million request for NEA is a small investment when compared to the
enormous impact it will have on the programs it supports and in the
communities where it makes the arts come to life.
I speak from the heart and from my own experience. I grew up in a
small, rural town in South Carolina. The arts were the lifeblood of the
community both economically, culturally and spiritually. I grew up in a
town where the prom was in the high school gym; folks bought their
clothes in a general store; and the newspaper came out once a week. I
also grew up in a town that invested in and revered the arts; world
history came alive in high school plays and in community theatre
productions; learning discipline, team work and strategic planning were
the offshoot lessons of the school band; and mathematical skills were
honed in design classes.
Speak to anyone of note in the areas of politics, business, media,
community leadership and the entertainment industry, and you will find
individuals who were drawn into the arts as young people. They were
acting in community theater productions and school plays, playing in
bands, spending their afternoons and weekends at local dance companies.
The non-profit arts ecosystem nurtured them into the thought and idea
leaders we know today.
i. the positive impact of arts on the american economy
Entertainment is a national commodity with international reach and
revenue. Our Nation's entertainment industry and non-profit arts
pipeline are American success stories in productivity and innovation.
To maintain the Nation's leadership, we must sustain strong support for
the arts as an industry, and as an educational investment.
According to statistics compiled by the Motion Picture Association
of America, in 2013, the motion picture and television industry
supported 1.9 million jobs and $113 billion in total wages. In 2013, we
had $15.8 billion in film and television exports, with a trade surplus
of $13.4 billion, equal to 6 percent of the total U.S. private-sector
trade surplus in services. This trade surplus for the industry is
greater than the surpluses in the advertising, mining,
telecommunications, management consulting, legal, computer, health
related and insurance services sectors.
The economic impact of the entertainment industry extends far
beyond those who appear in front of the camera. A single television
series or a movie is a vast and profitable enterprise. A series can
employ hundreds of people in high quality, high paying jobs. In
addition, filming provides huge support to local businesses (i.e.
caterers, dry cleaners, hotels, florists, hardware, lumberyards,
software, and digital equipment suppliers) as well as jobs in other
companies doing business with consumers, such as DVD and Blu-ray
retailers, theme parks and tourist attractions. And, this economic
activity takes place all across the country, not just in Hollywood or
New York. Those who make their livings from the entertainment industry
can just as likely be found shooting in New Mexico, North Carolina, or
Michigan.
Statistics show that non-profit arts and culture organizations
generate $135 billion in annual economic activity, support more than
four million full-time jobs and return nearly $10 billion in Federal
taxes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Americans for the Arts, AEP IV study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, arts and
cultural production contributed $699 billion, or 4.3 percent, to the
Nation's economy in 2012. This percentage represents a larger share of
the economy than transportation, tourism and agriculture, and is larger
than 45 States' individual contributions to the GDP. While the economy
grew at a rate of 2.3 percent per year from 2007-2012, the category
identified as Independent Artists, Writers and Performers' contribution
to the economy was almost double at 4.4 percent.
With this rate of return, it should be clear that increasing
Federal funding for non-profit arts organizations and events like those
the National Endowment for the Arts supports, is a sound, positive
investment. Community theaters, children's theaters, symphonies, arts
centers, dance troupes, etc. are the R&D of America's vibrant arts
economy. In 2014, the Sundance Film Festival, which started with the
support of an NEA grant, generated over $86 million for the State of
Utah over an 11 day period. The NEA historically supports significant
artistic outlets such as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial design
competition, Spoleto Festival USA and PBS' ``Great Performances.''
These are just a few examples which demonstrate how the arts empower
our veterans and support our military, and establish the U.S. as an
incubator for globally acclaimed performing artists. In the case of
``Great Performances'', a television program originally initiated with
Federal funding, it is now sustained by private funding and continues
to expose the American television audience to the finest in performing
arts to which they may otherwise lack access.
The National Endowment for the Arts also provides desperately
needed funding to smaller community arts efforts in cities and towns
across America. NEA grants are intrinsic to communities building strong
enterprise zones. Communities that are fortunate enough to receive a
grant award from the NEA often see increased business activity as
companies are able to offer employees and clients creative climates and
more vibrant opportunities, which attracts and--most importantly--
retains talent. Arts is indisputably revitalizing both rural and urban
areas.
ii. fostering americans' access to the arts
Every American, young and old, deserves to have access to the arts.
It is the Federal investment in the National Endowment for the Arts
that brings the arts into so many of our communities. According to its
most recent annual report, the NEA awarded 2,276 grants in nearly
16,000 communities across the country. More than 38 million Americans,
including seven million children and youth, attended a live arts event
supported by the NEA. These events included approximately 70,000
concerts, readings, and performances and 1,600 exhibitions. As a
recipient of a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts,
organizations are able to leverage these dollars from a wide variety of
private sources. For every grant dollar awarded, the recipient
leverages at least $9 dollars from other sources greatly multiplying
the impact of the Federal Government's investment.
In addition to these live arts events, NEA grants support school-
based arts programs that illustrate how arts education and arts in
schools benefits students and prepares them for future success. Data
shows that students with 4 years of arts education score roughly 100
points higher on their SATs. Despite the academic benefits of exposure
to the arts, we are seeing a rising trend of eliminating arts programs
when local school districts are forced to make cuts.
Bottom line: Without the support of NEA grants for arts education,
fewer students would have the opportunity to participate in the arts
and develop the creative skills that often lead to future success.
As a strong supporter of military families, The Creative Coalition
is proud to be a partner with Blue Star Families to bring awareness to
challenges facing our active-duty military families. Through our
partnership with this outstanding organization, we have learned that
military families often struggle to establish roots and make
connections in their community as they move from base to base. As a
result of a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, our
Nation's active-duty military personnel and their families, including
National Guard and Reserve, are able to access more than 2,000 museums
across America for free. Not only are these families able to access
some of America's great cultural institutions, this program often
allows them to better connect with their new communities by learning
about local history, local artists and local traditions.
Federal funding for the NEA is critical to sustain many of the
programs providing access to the arts for so many Americans. When
public dollars for the arts are cut, we often see reductions in private
funding as well. During the most recent economic downturn, we saw
significant cuts in funding from philanthropic, corporate and private
sources of funding for the arts. Sadly, when we reduce funding for the
arts, the programs hardest hit are often ones for lower-income
populations, rural communities and at-risk populations. Sufficient
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts is the best way to
ensure that all Americans will continue to have access to the arts in
their communities.
conclusion
The evidence is strong that the arts play an important role in our
economy, our schools and our overall quality of life. The contributions
of painters, musicians, poets and actors have greatly enriched our
American culture and American artists have been a driving force in the
world's largest economy. If we are to maintain our vital arts economy
and ensure continued American competitiveness in a global market that
increasingly values creativity, today, we must adequately invest in the
arts and in the development of future American artists. As a result,
The Creative Coalition urges the subcommittee to increase the funding
level for the National Endowment of the Arts to $155 million in fiscal
year 2016.
Thank you for your consideration.
[This statement was submitted by Robin Bronk, CEO.]
______
Prepared Statement of Dance/USA
Ms. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am
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 in the
Committee on Appropriations to designate a total of $155 million to the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2016. 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 2014, totaling more than $100 million in appropriated
funds. These grants 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 4.3 percent (or $699 billion) of current-
dollar GDP in 2012. Additionally, the nonprofit performing arts
industry generates $135.2 billion annually in economic activity,
supports more than 4.13 million full-time equivalent jobs in the arts,
and returns $9.59 billion in Federal taxes.
On average each NEA grant leverages at least $9 from other State,
local, and private sources. 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 dollars. In 2012,
2.2 million people volunteered 210 million hours with arts and cultural
organizations, totaling an estimated value of $5.2 billion--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 2015, the NEA awarded 88 grants to
the dance field through the first round of Art Works, totaling
$2,525,000.
Ballet Memphis
$10,000
Memphis, Tennessee
To support the presentation of a new work titled, ``I Am.'' The
work will include four original pieces titled ``I Am Woman,'' ``I Am
Man,'' ``I Am Child,'' and ``I Am.'' ``I AM will explore themes of
self-definition, equality, and human value that have roots in the Civil
Rights Movement and are still relevant today. ``I AM Woman'' will be
choreographed by Gabrielle Lamb; ``I Am Man'' will be choreographed by
Reggie Wilson; ``I Am Child'' will be choreographed by Julia Adam; and
``I Am'' will be choreographed by Ballet Memphis dancer Steven McMahon.
Dance St. Louis
$30,000
St. Louis, Missouri
To support dance presentation and related activities. Companies to
be presented include Tango Buenos Aires, Aspen Santa Fe Ballet,
Compagnie Kafig, Nashville Ballet, as well as local companies. The
project will include New Dance Horizons IV, a program where national
choreographers create new works on St. Louis dance companies and the
Spring Dance Festival, a presentation of Midwest dance companies. The
project is also includes the Dance Education Residency Program, which
will offer local dance students and companies master classed taught by
professional dance company members as well as the expansion of the
Dance Career Award program, which prepares high school dance students
for college and careers in dance.
New Orleans Ballet Association
$40,000
New Orleans, Louisiana
To support the presentation of dance companies and related
educational and outreach programs. Presentations include Black Grace
(New Zealand) and Union Tanguera (France). U.S. Companies include Limon
Dance Company and Ballet West. Through dance activities that reflect
the diversity of the community and the diversity of the art form, NOBA
strives to infuse the arts of dance into the cultural fabric of New
Orleans and the surrounding communities. Dance is presented on the
concert stage and in community settings in large, intermediate, and
small venues, with activities in theaters, art centers, university
halls, recreation centers, and schools.
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. Project
activities may include dance classes, school assemblies, a dance camp
for youth, teacher training, a dance apprentice program, workshops for
emerging choreographers and professional dancers, community workshops,
lecture demonstrations, and presentations.
White Bird
$40,000
Portland, OR
To support the presentation of dance companies in the White Bird
Uncaged series. New Israeli Voices in Dance: Hillel Kogan and Danielle
Agami, Urban Bush Women, and other companies will be presented at
Portland State University's Lincoln Performance Hall or at the Newark
Theatre/Portland Center for the Performing Arts. Each visiting company
will hold community activities that will include master classes for
local students and dancers, mini-performances or workshops at a
community center or school, and post-show discussions.
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 almost $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 2016.
On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request.
[This statement was submitted by Amy Fitterer, Executive Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of the 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\ Budget cuts since fiscal year 2010 to Federal programs
that conserve wildlife and habitat have severely undermined sound
management. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defenders also strongly opposed the inclusion of the sage-grouse
rider in the final fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill. We ask that
the subcommittee keep the fiscal year 2016 bill free of this rider and
any others that would undermine science-based decisionmaking under the
Endangered Species Act.
fish and wildlife service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is our Nation's premier
wildlife conservation agency. FWS needs adequate 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. After
adjusting for inflation, appropriations for Ecological Services have
steadily declined after 2010, despite the addition of almost 280 listed
species since then.
Cooperative Recovery.--Defenders supports the President's requested
increases of $2.5 million in Conservation and Restoration under
Ecological Services, $2 million in National Wildlife Refuge System
Operations and Maintenance, 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 $1.2 million in Planning and Consultation under Ecological
Services to support approvals of renewable energy projects while
ensuring they comply with relevant environmental laws, 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 again proposes a major
restructuring of the Ecological Services Activity, which includes the
Endangered Species program. Defenders continues to be 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 supports the requested increases for the endangered
species portion of Ecological Services, $23.2 million, which includes:
--A $4 million increase to support the unprecedented effort to
conserve the greater sage-grouse and its sagebrush habitat,
part of a new sagebrush steppe initiative for fiscal year 2016.
--A $2.5 million increase for listing that will support progress in
listing decisions for approximately 145 candidate species, many
of which have awaited Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection
for years.
--An $11 million increase to support the recovery of the more than
1,500 listed U.S. species so that ESA protection is no longer
necessary.
--A $5.5 million increase for consultation so that development
projects can move forward in compliance with section 7 of the
ESA.
--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. Defenders supports the $34 million increase in the request
which includes funding for inventory and monitoring and for Challenge
Cost Share projects to build resiliency in the face of climate change.
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.
Science Support.--The requested $14.7 million increase will help to
answer pressing questions about climate adaptation and other landscape
level ecological changes as well as about energy development impacts
and mitigation for sensitive species, 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. Defenders supports the $7.1
million requested increase which includes funding for building
resilience of bird species and their habitats through the Joint Venture
partnerships.
Environmental Contaminants.--Under Ecological Services, a requested
$1.2 million increase in Planning and Consultation will help to support
the process for national consultations related to pesticide
registrations and a requested $2 million increase in Conservation and
Restoration will help increase capacity to respond to impacts of
contaminant releases.
Office of Law Enforcement.--An $8.7 million increase requested by
the President will support needed wildlife science forensics experts,
intelligence agents, and special agents to combat the unprecedented
level of illegal trade in wildlife.
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) and for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. 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 their habitat in
the United States, yet their allocated funding is inadequate to address
significant challenges to sustain these resources. A top priority for
Defenders is ensuring that development on these lands proceeds in a
sustainable 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 and in low
conflict areas. Given their large land ownerships it is imperative that
both participate fully in landscape level conservation and management
efforts. We are encouraged by BLM's innovative efforts in the Western
Solar Program and consider it an example of how land management
agencies can improve landscape level decisionmaking for energy
development.
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 2015 level of $140.5 million and continuing
IRR as a pilot until the agency demonstrates its ability to adequately
protect habitat for fish and wildlife under the consolidated program.
Defenders continues to be concerned that wildlife program activities
may be marginalized under IRR and that hard timber targets may detract
from integrated restoration.
FS Land Management Planning/Inventory and Monitoring.--The request
again proposes merging these two programs into a single line item. As
with IRR, Defenders is concerned about consolidating these functions
unless and until the agency can demonstrate its ability to carry out
its responsibilities under each program independently. We urge
continued discrete funding as separate programs at no less than the
fiscal year 2015 level.
FS Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.--We support
the requested increase of $20 million for this proven cost-effective
program established specifically to stabilize employment, offer a
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
$4 million cut in the request for FS R&D, which includes a cut of $2
million for Wildlife and Fish R&D. We urge funding at no less than the
fiscal year 2015 level of $296 million which included $27.1 million for
Wildlife and Fish R&D. 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 both in R&D and the National
Forest System to implement critical planning and management actions,
including the 2012 Planning Rule.
BLM Wildlife and Fisheries Management.--Defenders supports the
requested $37 million increase for the new sagebrush steppe initiative
as long as it is paired with strong science-based conservation measures
to protect and restore the sage-grouse and 350 sagebrush-dependent
species of conservation concern. We continue to be concerned that
Federal plans being developed under the National Greater Sage-Grouse
Planning Strategy will be inadequate to conserve the species as we
reported in our analysis of the draft plans in In the Red: How Proposed
Conservation Plans Fail to Protect Greater Sage-Grouse. 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 species.
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 administration's request includes just a
$109,000 increase fiscal year 2015. 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 $29.4 million request
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, Assessment and Monitoring.--The
$21.2 million increase in the President's request will support the
sagebrush steppe initiative, data collection and monitoring and the
development of a new geospatial initiative to better monitor ecological
conditions and trends on the landscape.
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.--A $10.6 million increase in the request will support
scientific needs in planning for climate change adaptation and building
resiliency of ecosystems.
Ecosystems.--A $19.3 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 U.S.\4\ Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/coop_across_boudaries.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society
In recent years the annual operations and maintenance budget for
the National Wildlife Refuge System has significantly failed to keep
track with its needs. At the J. N. ``Ding'' Darling National Wildlife
Refuge on Sanibel Island, Florida, the result has been a decline in
staff levels, unfilled job openings, delayed maintenance, postponed
research, and deferred projects. The refuge simply cannot fulfill its
commitment to our visitors and to the American public in general
without a remedy to this situation. On behalf of the ``Ding'' Darling
Wildlife Society, I earnestly request your support for the
recommendations of the National Wildlife Refuge Association, which asks
that the Federal budget for the National Wildlife Refuge System be
fully funded at $900 million, with appropriation of $508.2 million for
fiscal 2016.
The ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society is a non-profit friends
organization that supports environmental education, research, land
acquisition, special projects and services at the refuge. The refuge is
the second most popular attraction for visitors to Southwest Florida
(after our beaches) with over eight hundred thousand annual visits.
Many visitors identify the refuge as their primary reason for visiting
this part of Florida. As a result, the refuge has a dramatic positive
impact on the local economy returning some $34 to the local economy for
every Federal dollar appropriated to the refuge, an impact directly
threatened by inadequate Federal refuge funding.
We also request your support for the remaining legislative
priorities of the National Wildlife Refuge Association. We particularly
emphasize the need to appropriate funding in fiscal year 2016 from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund which will permit the acquisition of
key land areas to enhance the ecological integrity of the National
Wildlife Refuge System. Additionally, we view the funding of proactive
public-private partnerships as a vital and cost-effective way to secure
those species at risk from listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Thank you for your consideration.
[This statement was submitted by Doris Hardy, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society--Friends of
the Refuge
Madame Chair and members of the subcommittee:
With 563 Refuges in our country encompassing more than half a
billion acres of land and water our National Wildlife Refuges need
increased financial support. This is imperative if we are to continue
to protect and conserve our wildlife while at the same time providing
opportunities for all Americans to enjoy the benefits of conservation
and wildlife protection. It is now more important than ever that we all
come together and become stewards of habitat protection and protectors
of our wildlife.
I am starting my 11th year as a volunteer at the J.N. ``Ding''
Darling National Wildlife Refuge on Sanibel Island, Florida. As such I
have witnessed the recreational and educational activities for visitors
and the conservation and wildlife protection that is provided for the
variety of refuge inhabitants.
Recently the ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society--Friends of the
Refuge produced an informational rack card entitled: ``Banking on
Nature''. Here are a few of the facts that were included:
--Our ecotourism includes a variety of activities such as wildlife
observation and birding, biking, boating, fishing, paddling,
hiking, education, and others, many of which are free to the
public.
--Florida ranks second behind California in the number of people
participating in wildlife viewing recreation.
--816,000 annual visitors come to our Refuge.
--$30. Is the amount generated in the local economy for every Federal
dollar invested in our Refuge.
There can be no doubt that wildlife refuges have a tremendous
impact on the economy as well as on the well being of both wildlife and
our citizens. Therefore I respectfully request for fiscal year 16
$508.2 million for the National Wildlife System, ask that $73.8 million
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund be provided and that all 2015
Conservation Funding Priorities as set forth by the National Wildlife
Refuge Association be supported.
We need your help to continue to provide the opportunity to educate
and inspire visitors and to offer a safe home for refuge inhabitants
whether it is for a season, a week or a lifetime.
Thank you.
[This statement was submitted by Doris D. Hardy, Ed.D, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of David M. ``Lefty'' Durando
As a rancher and a member of the Northern Everglades Alliance, I
thank you for your past support of the Everglades Headwaters National
Wildlife Refuge (EHNWR). The Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife
Refuge and Conservation Area was established in 2012 as a result of
unprecedented cooperation among Federal agencies, State agencies,
cattle ranchers, sportsmen, and conservation groups. We respectfully
request that you fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to
specifically sustain funding for the refuge at the level of $10 million
for fiscal year 2016. The monies from the LWCF fund are needed to
purchase 100,000 acres of conservation easements over working ranch
lands and to purchase 50,000 acres of fee simple lands within the
headwaters of the Everglades.
The Northern Everglades Alliance has 25 ranchers, farmers and
landowners that own one million acres in the area. The NEA will
continue to work with the administration and Congress to secure the
necessary funding to maintain Florida's ranches and farms, water supply
and wildlife. The request for $10 million for fiscal year 2016 is
needed for the Everglades Headwaters in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) land acquisition program because land values are rising
fast and development pressure has returned to Florida. Individual
landowners are working closely with the FWS to complete easements on
ranches and farmers in the Everglades Headwaters.
There are additional Federal and State funding sources that will be
used for the Everglades Headwaters project. The State of Florida has
provided funding for easements and land acquisition programs. The
Florida Forever program, operated by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, provides conservation easement monies for
lands and the Rural and Family Lands program, operated by the Florida
Department of Agriculture, provides easement funds for working
agricultural lands. Both programs are partnering with FWS to protect
high priority lands within the EHNWR. The State and Federal partnership
is critical to the success. The Water and Land Legacy amendment (ballot
initiative) was approved last November; this amendment will provide for
dedicated revenue for land conservation annually for the next 20 years.
The EHNWR leverages existing efforts by the Natural Resource
Conservation Service and the Department of Defense. Over the past 4
years, NRCS has provided over $300 million through the Wetlands Reserve
Easement Program for Florida projects. The Department of Defense,
through the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative buffer
program, has spent $2 million to create buffers and easements
surrounding the Avon Park Air Force Range. NRCS and DOD have signaled
their interest in prioritizing additional funding for the Everglades
Headwaters and are important partners.
By protecting agricultural lands in the Kissimmee River basin and
their ability to store and filter water, we are protecting the future
of the State. Cattle ranching is one of Florida's most important
agricultural industries and with drought conditions in the west,
Florida ranchers are making a significant contribution to American beef
production at a crucial time.
Agriculture is second only to tourism as an economic driver in
Florida. Through this plan, agricultural communities are able to
preserve the way of life that makes these landscapes so special, while
achieving conservation goals, watershed protection, military readiness
and increasing opportunities for recreation, such as hunting and
fishing, proven economic drivers to local communities. Existing Florida
refuges return huge rates of economic output in relation to what is
appropriated to run them; A.R.M Loxahatchee NWR returns $6.81 annually
for every $1 appropriated; Hobe Sound NWR returns $9.88; Merritt Island
NWR returns $17.61; Santee NWR returns $14.54; and St. Marks returns
$10.62.
The Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation
Area will help maintain open land north of Lake Okeechobee, which is
the most efficient and cost effective method of enhancing water quality
and increasing water storage to help satisfy Florida's water needs. It
will also help preserve agriculture in this region, safeguarding a
vital industry that employs thousands and helps secure our Nation's
food supply. Sportsmen, birdwatchers, and wildlife tourism participants
generate enormous economic return for every one-dollar invested. An
investment in the Everglades NWR and Conservation Area makes good
conservation sense, good national security sense for both military
preparedness and food production and good economic sense.
We appreciate your leadership and ongoing support for the
Everglades Headwaters. We look forward to working with you and your
staff in the coming year. Thank you for your consideration of this
request.
[This statement was submitted by David M. ``Lefty'' Durando,
Durando Ranches, Member, Northern Everglades Alliance.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School
(DCGS)
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community School (DCGS) on the Navajo Reservation
in Bloomfield, New Mexico. Our school, which has been in continuous
service since 1968, operates a K-8 educational program and a dormitory
program for students in grades 1-12, serving around 250 students in
both programs. DCGS is a tribally controlled grant school is located
approximately 170 miles northwest of Albuquerque. DCGS is primarily
funded through appropriations received from the BIE, and pass-through
funding from the Department of Education.
Our all-Navajo Board operates the DCGS through a Grant issued by
the BIE under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act. The DCGS goal is to
make a difference in the educational progress of our students and we
believe that all of our students are capable of achieving academic
success. However, we struggle with underfunding of practically every
one of our educational and related programs that impacts our ability to
fully meet our school goals and our ability to successfully operate our
programs under the Indian Self-Determination policy.
Our recommendations can be summarized as follows:
--Protect school funding from the proposed Federal bureaucratic
expansion.
--Increase ISEP funding to $431 million in fiscal year 2016.
--Fund Student Transportation at $73 million, and BIA road
maintenance at $40 million.
--Fully fund Tribal Grant Support Costs in line with the
administration's proposal.
--Provide $109 million for facilities operation and $76 for
facilities maintenance.
--Embark on a comprehensive 60-year plan for school replacement and
upkeep.
1. protecting school funding and programs from federal expansion
You have heard over the last year from us and other schools about
our concerns with the BIE's ``Blueprint for Reform'' and its ``One-
Grant Initiative.'' We do not doubt the administration's commitment--
even the President himself has commented on the issue. This new level
of visibility and attention, along with the strong commitment of this
subcommittee signal we have entered a new era for Indian education.
However, coming from the local reservation community, we have a
different perspective on what will be the best strategies to use to
reach the goals of improvement. We fear that our perspectives are not
being heard.
Without delving into the detail of the Blueprint for Reform and the
Secretarial Order that accompanied it in June of last year, we want to
express our concern that the efforts will serve to centralize authority
and decisionmaking in BIE headquarters, instead of at the local level
as Congress intended and required by enacting the Tribally Controlled
Schools Act. Proposed reforms in the Blueprint and Order that would
direct the limited amounts of new funding to the Federal bureaucracy
rather than to the schools are missteps. Successful reform must be
carried out from the ground up, not the top down--something BIE has
ignored given the poor outreach when drafting the Blueprint and
practically no opportunity for consultation on its proposals.
Additionally, the expansion of funding ``incentives'' is less of an
attempt to encourage best practices, and more of a stick with which to
prod schools that resist bureaucrats seeking to dictate how their
schools function.
The Navajo Nation was the recipient of one of the ``Sovereignty in
Indian Education'' grants from the BIE last year, funding from which
was used to produce a ``feasibility study'' by the Nation's education
department on whether it could consolidate all education funding due to
the Nation into a single grant under the BIE's ``One-Grant
Initiative.'' Through this process it has become clear that the BIE is
pushing the Nation to sign on to the initiative before the Nation and
its communities have had a chance to adequately evaluate the issue. The
feasibility study suffered from the same defects as the Blueprint did:
it was put together without local or school input, and was pushed
forward without consultation with those it affects. Fortunately, the
schools and Navajo Nation leaders have begun to more carefully examine
the One-Grant process, and have engaged our schools in the process.
Despite this, the BIE is still pressuring adoption before the Navajo
Nation's internal process is completed.
The one-grant prospect may work for a tribe with a few schools, but
the Navajo Nation has 64 schools spread over an area bigger than many
States. Partly because of this, our communities make local decisions
for our schools. Yet the BIE wants to add another layer of bureaucracy
between it and schools like ours, and have used its grant funding as a
way to pressure tribes to agree. Not only is this contrary to the idea
of self-determination, it is contrary to the tenets of local control
under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act (TCSA).
BIE officials have said that none of the proposed reforms in the
Blueprint are mandatory, and that it is up to the tribe to choose to
participate. The choice to participate might be meaningful if we were
in a situation of full-funding and with abundant alternative funding
sources. However, the programs in the Blueprint are tied to funding
resources--no BIE funded school has the luxury of bypassing funding
opportunities. Accordingly, we request that the subcommittee reprogram
funds intended for the reforms (like some of those contained in the
``Enhancement'' line item of the budget) to ISEP and Facilities
Operations. Any funding for the BIE's reforms or experiments must come
from outside the Indian education budget--our funds are scarce as is,
and must not be diverted away from students.
2. increase funding for indian school equalization programs
The most critical stream of funding for community grant schools
like ours is increased funding in the Indian School Equalization
Program (ISEP). The ISEP funds are those that schools use for the day
to day operation, whether that is paying teachers and staff, purchasing
curriculum and supplies, or running student programs. Today, our ISEP
funds are often put under pressure by unfunded needs elsewhere in our
schools, which could be paying utilities or repairing one of our school
buses. We also need increases in this funding to attract teachers to
our school, since we are remote and some teachers find a small school
environment challenging. We do not want to be in the situation where we
are left only with those teachers that cannot find a job elsewhere.
This hardship also makes the job of administrators, counselors, and
support staff more challenging, meaning it is increasingly difficult to
hire the all-star teachers our students deserve. Our wages and benefits
must be sufficient to make up for the competitive disadvantage.
This year, we are gratified to see the administration has requested
$391.8 million for ISEP funding, an increase of $5 million to the
program. However, the need in our schools is much greater. The National
Congress of American Indians has recommended that Congress appropriate
$431 million for ISEP funding, which we think should be this
subcommittee's baseline for funding this budget year. ISEP is our
schools' lifeblood, and we are still struggling to make up for losses
in past years.
3. increase funding for student transportation
One of our school's largest challenges is getting our children to
school and back home. Maintenance costs for our vehicles are higher
than normal for several reasons, including the fact that they travel
more miles per day than the average school bus, those miles are often
very rough, and the cost of maintaining our buses includes long
transport time to garages or parts stores. This is not to mention the
cost of fuel to cover those extra miles! Our funds are stretched so
much that we struggle to get our students to extracurricular activities
like sports or field trips that students at non-Indian schools enjoy as
an everyday convenience.
The administration has requested $53.14 million for student
transportation, but that is simply not enough given the challenges of
our roads and equipment. We request at least $73 million for student
transportation in the BIE system. Such funding will enable us to
maintain our six school buses, and will protect other funds that would
otherwise be used for this purpose.
We request that this subcommittee fund BIA road maintenance at a
sustainable level. The condition of our roads is directly affecting our
students' ability to learn. The administration has only requested an
increase of $232,000 to the already meager $26.5 million budget for
road maintenance. We echo NCAI's recommendation that the subommittee
appropriate at least $40 million for road maintenance in fiscal year
2016.
4. we support the president's proposal to fully fund tribal grant
support costs.
Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC) (formerly known as Administrative
Cost Grants) are the BIE analogue to Contract Support Costs, and are
necessary for schools like DCGS to operate our schools. Not only do the
TGSC funds pay for the administration of the school, but also fund all
indirect costs like payroll, accounting, insurance, background checks
and other legal, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. TGSC also
enables schools to comply with the increasingly burdensome reporting
requirements imposed by BIE or to comply with grant funding.
This year, the administration has proposed to fully fund TGSC, and
to include in the budget funding for schools transitioning from BIE-
operated status to local control and grant funding. Up to last year,
schools had only received, at most, two-thirds of the TGSC needed to
cover overhead costs. DCGS welcomes this long overdue change, and
applauds this subcommittee's and the administration's decision to treat
schools' support costs the same as contractors with the BIA and the
Indian Health Service. We support the administration's proposal that
TGSC and startup costs be funded at $75.34 million.
5. our schools need full funding for facilities operation and
maintenance.
The condition of BIE-funded schools is a national disgrace, and has
been the subject of national news attention for years. Some schools in
the country are forced to teach their students in converted bus barns
or go without hot water. We do the best we can with our facilities at
Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle, but constantly struggle with the fact that we do
not have enough funding for maintenance of our buildings, utilities,
and everyday repairs.
The operation of our facilities is an important one, not only for
the comfort of our students, but one that affects their health and
safety. It is hard to learn and progress if you're too cold, or if
you're too hot due to radiator problems. Additionally, our cafeteria
can only serve sack lunches because of water line leaks that make our
kitchen inoperable. In the last year it was reviewed, the BIA listed
our school condition as ``poor'' with a deferred maintenance backlog of
over $7.7 million dollars. Our backlog has only grown in the
intervening 4 years, and our students are the ones who suffer as a
result.
We appreciate that the administration has finally moved to complete
the replacement of schools on a list dated from 2004, but we need to
stress that these needs are ongoing. Further, it is critical for our
schools to have the funds to maintain and thus lengthen the useful life
of our facilities. We support the BIE's request for school
construction, but request that funding for facilities operation and
maintenance be increased to $109 million for operations and $76 million
for maintenance. This will help us meet our ongoing needs, and will set
us on the path to catching up with deferred maintenance from past
years.
We also note that the completion of the 2004 school replacement
list means that a new round of replacements will begin. We want to
stress that this subcommittee and BIE must work together, with schools
and tribes, to put together a comprehensive, long-term plan for school
construction and maintenance. We call on the subcommittee to embark on
a 60-year schools replacement plan with adequate funding to maintain
buildings throughout their life. Recent testimony from the Governmental
Accountability Office reported that even new construction is starting
to fail because of inappropriate maintenance or poor construction
oversight. Our schools want to protect the Federal investment in our
students' education, and we ask the subcommittee to empower local
communities to do so by removing bureaucratic hurdles inherent in the
BIE facilities system. As school boards, we are the best decision
makers.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.
[This statement was submitted by Ervin Chavez, School Board
President and Faye BlueEyes, Assistant Executive Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Ecological Society of America
Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
On behalf the Ecological Society of America, the world's largest
society of professional ecologists, we urge you to support $1.6 billion
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in fiscal year 2016, a 9
percent increase over fiscal year 2015.
The Service's provides important work in habitat conservation and
endangered species protection through its 551 National Wildlife
Refuges, 70 National Fish Hatcheries, 65 fishery resource offices and
86 ecological services field stations. A study from the FWS Division of
Economics found that recreational visits to the agency's wildlife
refuges generated $2.4 billion in sales to regional economies.
The Service also plays a vital role in interagency efforts monitor
and control the spread of invasive plant and animal species. The agency
reports that invasive species cost the United States over $120 billion
in damages every year. The Burmese python, Asian carp, Asian tiger
mosquito, emerald ash borer, cheat grass, quagga mussel and the brown
marmorated stink bug are among the most notorious of the 6,500 invasive
species established in the United States.
In addition to hindering efforts to protect threatened and
endangered wildlife, these invasive species pose a costly threat to
agriculture, recreational activities and human health. It is important
that the Service's Wildlife and Habitat Management program has
sufficient funding to provide national wildlife refuges the early
detection and rapid response necessary to pinpoint nonnative species
before have an opportunity to disrupt habitats and neighboring
communities.
The agency's Fish and Aquatic Conservation program is among key
agency programs that work to prevent new aquatic invasions, which are
uniquely difficult to detect, track and eradicate. Within this program,
FWS is proposing an increase of $669,000 over fiscal year 2015 for
Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention, which the Society supports.
The Society is also supportive of the Service's efforts to connect
Americans to the great outdoors as well as its youth and education
programs that provide education and job training for careers and
opportunities that promote greater understanding of the environment.
We hope that Congress can continue to sufficiently invest in the
agency's efforts to preserve and protect our Nation's diverse
ecosystems while furthering our understanding and appreciation of the
natural world.
[This statement was submitted by Dr. David W. Inouye, President.]
______
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 two major fiscal year
2016 activities that are underway at the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA): the Waters of the U.S. proposed rule published April 24,
2014, and the proposed guidelines to regulate greenhouse gas emissions
under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. We also would like to
briefly review the recently finalized Section 316(b) cooling water
intake structures rule and coal ash regulation, both of which pose
implementation issues for States and our industry and warrant continued
attention by the subcommittee.
waters of the united states
Last April, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps)
released a proposed rule to revise the definition of ``Waters of the
United States'' (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The proposed
WOTUS rule would broadly expand Federal control over both land and
water resources, triggering substantial new regulatory requirements for
electric utility facilities and projects. Critical utility operations--
including generation, transmission, and distribution--as well as the
siting and construction of renewable energy resources would be
adversely impacted if the rule were to be finalized as proposed.
The proposed WOTUS rule fails to achieve EPA's stated goals of
providing greater certainty, predictability, and clarity, and it would
violate recent Supreme Court decisions limiting Federal jurisdiction.
Despite claims to the contrary, the rule--if adopted substantially as
proposed--would significantly expand CWA jurisdiction and, therefore,
require more CWA permits, resulting in greater costs, more delays, and
greater uncertainty around all facets of power generation and supply.
In November, EEI submitted comments urging that the proposed rule
be withdrawn. Additionally, we recommended that EPA and the Corps
should engage in a dialogue with the regulated community and the States
and localities that are responsible for managing water quality
nationwide to develop more precise changes to the existing regulations.
Overall, more than 1 million comments were submitted to EPA and the
Corps on the WOTUS proposal. More than 30 States weighed in, as did
numerous congressional and local officials, opposing the rule because
it would intrusively extend Federal jurisdiction to many land and water
features never previously regulated under the CWA. Still, EPA and the
Corps are moving aggressively to finalize a rule by this summer.
Therefore, as a vital step toward a more reasonable outcome, EEI urges
the subcommittee to adopt a legislative amendment in its fiscal year
2016 legislation that would ban EPA from implementing a final WOTUS
rule and instead, direct EPA and the Corps to issue a revised proposed
rule for further input by States and the regulated community.
proposed guidelines to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under section
111(d) of the clean air act
Last June, EPA issued its proposed 111(d) guidelines, which contain
State-specific emission reduction goals for carbon. For each State, an
interim and final emission reduction goal is proposed. The final goal
must be reached by 2030. The Agency determined the goals by using four
sets of measures--or ``building blocks''--to help all States achieve
their goals.
EPA is expected to finalize the 111(d) guidelines this summer, and
States then will be required to submit compliance plans for Agency
approval that demonstrate how they will achieve these goals. EPA is
expected to complete approvals of State implementation plans by mid-
2018.
The proposed 111(d) guidelines would require dramatic changes in
how electricity is produced, transmitted and consumed. As such, EEI
worked closely with our members to thoroughly review EPA's guidelines
and to assess the impacts of the proposal on the electric power sector.
On December 1, we delivered more than 300 pages of comments to EPA; 3
million comments were submitted in total. EEI's comments provide EPA
with suggestions for improvements based on many of the concerns that
our companies have with the proposed guidelines.
Of greatest concern is the fact that EPA has not taken into account
the amount of infrastructure development, time and planning that the
transition to a cleaner generating fleet will require. In fact, by
setting stringent interim goals, EPA effectively has turned the
proposed rule's 2030 goal into a 2020 goal. Eighty percent of the
States would have to achieve 50 percent or more of their final 2030
goals by 2020. Eleven of those States would be required to achieve 75
percent or more of their 2030 goals by 2020.
Achieving the goals envisioned in EPA's proposed 111(d) guidelines
will require major changes to the electric system. New natural gas
pipelines and electric transmission lines will be needed. Given the
stringency of the interim goals, there is simply not enough time
between now and 2020 for utilities and States to develop, plan, design,
and complete the infrastructure needed to meet them as proposed,
particularly since State implementation plans will not be finalized and
approved until 2017-2018.
A number of stakeholders--including State public utility
commissions, State environmental agencies and reliability
organizations--also have raised serious concerns with the 2020 interim
goals. In fact, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation has
cautioned, ``The proposed timeline does not provide enough time to
develop sufficient resources to ensure continued reliable operation of
the electric grid by 2020.''
The 2020 interim goals must be substantially revised, if not
eliminated entirely. This will give States flexibility to determine the
most cost-effective actions and measures they need to take to achieve
the 2030 goals. It also will allow States to establish a reasonable
schedule for implementing such measures in a way that protects electric
sources.
Also of concern, the guidelines do not recognize the value of
nuclear and hydro power generation as zero-emissions resources. Nuclear
and hydropower are critical baseload generating sources that do not
emit carbon, and EPA should incentivize the continued development of
nuclear and hydropower sources.
The Nation cannot achieve its carbon-reduction goals without the
building of new nuclear plants and the continued operation of the
existing nuclear fleet. The States and operators that are making the
investments necessary to bring these zero-emissions resources online
should be allowed to count their clean output, once operational, toward
compliance. The final rules must also find a better way to incent
keeping existing nuclear units online. Doing so will send a positive
signal to States to build new nuclear plants and maintain existing
plants.
Similarly, the proposed 111(d) guidelines do not recognize the
value of new and imported hydropower, particularly hydropower imported
from Canada, in helping to provide affordable zero-emissions power in
certain regions of the country. EPA should allow States to include
generation from new hydro plants, increased generation at existing
hydro plants, and hydro facilities that are relicensed in complying
with the goals.
EPA also failed to consider the electric system as a whole when
setting standards and compliance goals. In fact, the four building
blocks that EPA has proposed for achieving compliance create serious
concerns and raise questions about whether the State emission rate
goals are achievable. For example, increasing the use of variable wind
and solar power reduces the efficiency of generation units that back up
these systems when weather conditions change.
EPA's four sets of measures do not take into account the
interconnected nature of the integrated power system. Electric
utilities and States engage in complex planning to maintain the
reliability of this interconnected power system. Actions and measures
to achieve gains under one building block may result in unintended
consequences under the other building blocks when implemented
simultaneously.
EPA should modify the 2030 State-specific emission rate goals in
the final guidelines to recognize that the building blocks affect each
other in the context of the interconnected power system and to ensure
that accurate data are used to determine a particular State's goal.
EPA's proposed 111(d) guidelines must be improved before they are
finalized. The Agency must provide States the compliance flexibility to
choose the most cost-effective reductions in order to ensure the
overall reliability of the electric system and to minimize costs for
electricity customers.
section 316(b) cooling water intake structures rule
Last May, EPA finalized its cooling water intake structures rule
under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. This rule was in
development for years, and EEI worked throughout the rulemaking process
to educate policymakers of the potential impacts of this regulation on
electric generation facilities and our customers, and on the need for a
flexible and cost-effective final rule.
Importantly, EPA's final 316(b) rule does not impose a categorical
one-size-fits-all cooling tower mandate. The Agency acknowledged the
importance of weighing costs with environmental protection and also
included a significant degree of compliance flexibility in the final
rule.
Still, the final rule will present significant operational and
compliance challenges, and EEI is focused now on helping our members
with implementation, including individual permits. Just before the
final rule was issued, important new requirements related to endangered
and threatened species listed under the Endangered Species Act were
included. These requirements are likely to significantly complicate
implementation of the rule, giving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a
new and influential role in Clean Water Act permitting. Consequently,
implementation of the rule remains an area that may warrant the
subcommittee's attention, especially when considered together with
current or pending air, water, and waste rules EPA may promulgate.
coal ash regulation
In December, EPA finalized another long-awaited rule on coal ash
regulation. The Agency's final rule made the proper determination that
coal ash should be regulated as a non-hazardous waste in a way that
will protect human health and the environment. EEI has long advocated
for a final rule that establishes a non-hazardous regulatory framework
with a workable timetable for implementation.
Despite the non-hazardous waste determination, we still have
concerns with the self-implementing nature of the final rule, the legal
authority of EPA to regulate inactive coal ash impoundments, and the
way in which EPA has left the door open to one day regulate coal ash as
a hazardous waste, creating additional uncertainty for electric
utilities.
While we are working closely with States, member companies and
other stakeholders during the rule's implementation phase, EEI also
continues to advocate for legislation that will establish State-
enforced Federal requirements for the disposal of coal ash. Legislation
offers a more effective way to address the safe management of coal ash
sites that are no longer receiving coal ash, and would help to preserve
jobs in industries that recycle coal ash, while safeguarding the
environment and protecting the reliability and affordability of
electricity for all consumers.
conclusion
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to discuss these
environmental activities which are, without a doubt, the most
significant EPA actions ever to impact our industry. EEI truly values
the partnership that we share with your subcommittee, and we look
forward to continuing our dialogue with you on these and other issues
that have the potential to impact electric generation, siting,
permitting and construction efforts.
______
Prepared Statement of the Testimony of 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 fiscal year 2016 appropriation of $6.489 billion 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 2015
enacted amount of $296 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 2016. In addition, ESA recommends an fiscal year
2016 funding level of $8.6 billion for EPA, including support for
Pesticides Licensing Program Area activities within its Science &
Technology and Environmental Program & Management budgets, and
continued support for State & Tribal Assistance Grants for Pesticide
Program Implementation. Finally, ESA strongly supports EPA's commitment
to work with other Federal agencies to develop a strategy to improve
pollinator health, including involvement by EPA to examine the
potential impact of pesticides on 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 series of artificial
traps for these pests. These traps will help the Forest Service detect
the early presence of emerald ash borer and be able to implement a
rapid response to lessen damage.\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 2016 budget request, especially
the 8.0 percent reduction directed at invasive species research and
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Forest Service fiscal year 2016 Budget Justification: http://
www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/2015/06/2015-fy2016-
budgetjustification-update-three.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 averages $1.5 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 2016 Budget Overview: http://
www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/2015/06/2015-fy2016-
budgetjustification-update-three.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To support these important functions, ESA requests that the
subcommittee oppose proposed cuts to the Forest Health Management
Program in fiscal year 2016.
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 continues to
support work to protect children from pesticide exposure used in and
around schools, 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\ 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 support the
proposed modest increase 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 has previously 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 multi-
agency efforts 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/.
[This statement was submitted by Phil Mulder, Ph.D., President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Florida Sportsman's Conservation Association,
Sportsman's Trust Group, and Everglades Headwater's National Wildlife
Refuge
My name is Bishop Wright Jr.; I am the Secretary of the Florida
Sportsman's Conservation Association and Chairman of the Sportsman's
Trust Group. These groups respectfully request that Congress to fund
the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million per year. We
specifically request that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
be provided with 10 million to fund conservation easements and fee-
simple acquisitions within the Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife
Refuge. The monies from the LWCF fund are needed to purchase 100,000
acres of conservation easements over working ranch lands and to
purchase 50,000 acres of fee simple lands within the headwaters of the
Everglades.
The Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation
Area is very important to all Floridians and wildlife in the State. It
will also conserve one of the last remaining grassland and longleaf
pine savanna landscapes in eastern North America. It will provide
cattle ranchers a way to preserve their lands and their way of life for
future generations. And importantly, it will provide access to hunters,
fishermen, hikers, and bird watchers and a beautiful outdoors for
anyone wanting to use and enjoy this refuge for whatever appropriate
type of recreation they choose. It will also provide a landscape to
hold and clean water before it travels south down to Lake Okeechobee.
Today the South Florida Water Management Board spends millions and
millions of dollars building storm water treatment areas to clean water
before it is dispersed to the Everglades. Why not use this Everglades
Headwaters project to do the same in a natural way and still help the
ranchers, hunters, and recreationalists and provide opportunity for
generations to enjoy what we have to share now?
The sportsmen of Florida have not always been supportive of this
project because of the way the Federal Government (USFWS, NPS) has
treated sportsmen in the past. USFWS has had very limited hunting on
refuges in Florida. When this project was shown at 4 scoping meetings
throughout the State, sportsmen showed up to voice their opinions. With
the room filled at all 4 meetings by about 95 percent of sportsmen, at
the time not one wanted to give one more acre of land to the Federal
Government. That was 5 years ago.
The Sportsmen Trust Group has worked hard with USFWS to have our
issues addressed and we feel like our voice is being heard.. We
understand that no individual USFWS employee can fulfill these
promises, but they are working hard to do consider hunting and fishing
opportunities when management plans are up for review. The Sportsmen's
Trust Group and the Northern Everglades Alliance (ranchers) are now
partners in the campaign and fight to make this Everglades Headwaters
project a success.
The Sportsmen's Trust Group and others are still working to resolve
issues with the National Park Service, specifically in the Big Cypress
Preserve. An additional 147,000 acres were added to the Preserve in
1988 known as the ``Addition Lands''. The Addition Lands legislation
called for these lands to be opened to the public for ``traditional
cultural activities'' within 3 years of the 1988 acquisition.
Unfortunately, 23 years later, the National Park Service produced a
``Final Alternative'' which would turn 80 percent of the Addition Lands
into Wilderness and/or Back Country Primitive, both of which would not
allow future off-road vehicle trails, something sportsmen felt they
were promised.
During the creation of the Preserve in 1974, it was clearly stated
by Senator Lawton Chiles and others that no part of the Preserve was
intended then or now to be Wilderness or Back Country Primitive areas.
The Park Service allowed the Addition Lands to sit idle for 20+ years
allowing the area to somewhat grow over. When the facts are exposed
regarding the activities over the past 60+ years in the Addition Lands
it will become clear that none of the Addition Lands qualify for
Wilderness consideration. We have people prepared to verify ongoing
activities in the Addition Lands over the past 60+ years including
farming, ranching, timber removal, oil exploration, air strips, tram
roads, private homes, private hunting cabins, existing off-road vehicle
trails etc. etc. etc. to say nothing of the area being divided by I-75,
a four lane interstate divided highway.
In closing I would like to say, you can see why, at the start of
the Everglades Headwaters Project the sportsmen of Florida had a lot of
trouble buying into this. We did not trust the Federal Government and
met the initiative to create a new national wildlife refuge with
skepticism. However, with hard work and good communication between The
Sportsmen Trust Group, USFWS, FWC, NEA and the National Wildlife Refuge
Association, our hesitance and anger turned to commitment and trust. We
are all committed to this project; now all we need is your commitment
to fund the LWCF and this project can come true and help Florida be
saved for generations to come.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
I would like to thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to
submit testimony on fiscal year 2016 Appropriations for Indian programs
funded through the Interior Department, Indian Health Service and
Environmental Protection Agency. I am Karen R. Diver, Chairwoman of the
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. The Band occupies a small
reservation in northeastern Minnesota. We have approximately 4,200
members, and provide health, education, social services, public safety
and other governmental services to more than 6,700 Indian people who
live on or near our Reservation. We strive to find solutions that will
break the cycle of poverty that has long-plagued our community. We have
looked for and implemented innovative measures, including partnerships
with the public and private sectors, to improve the lives of our
members. But while we are beginning to make some inroads on the
problems, considerable work remains to address the extensive unmet
need. Adequate Federal funding continues to be essential to our ability
to educate our children, care for our elderly and infirm, prevent
crime, and protect and manage natural resources.
Bureau of Indian Education.--We rely on BIE funding to operate the
Fond du Lac Ojibwe School. This school serves approximately 340
students in pre-K through grade 12. Most of our students come from very
low income households; more than 90 percent of our students qualify for
free or reduced rate lunches. We are making progress in improving the
educational attainment of our students. But our progress is slow and
very much handicapped by limited resources. There continues to be an
urgent need for the Federal Government to help improve educational
opportunities for America Indian students. In Minnesota alone, we
continue to see a significant disparity between American Indians and
the population statewide on education --one that directly correlates
with poverty levels. Data compiled for Minnesota in 2013 illustrates
this:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High School High School
Living below Grads Grads High School
Poverty \1\ Proficient in Proficient in Grads Enrolling
(percent) Reading \2\ Math \2\ in College \2\
(percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statewide................................... 11.50 67 55 69
MN Indian................................... 39.70 56 40 49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: \1\ Minnesota Compass, http://www.mncompass.org/disparities/.
\2\ Minnesota SLEDS, Statewide Longitudinal Education Data Systems, http://sleds.mn.gov.
Despite the well-documented and longstanding need, funding for
Indian schools has been stagnant for many years. We support the
President's proposed budget which would increase overall education
funding by $93.9 million over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level,
including increases in funding for: Johnson O'Malley, which allows us
to assist Indian children in public schools, as well as Early Childhood
Development funds (FACE), which is critical to providing preschoolers
with skills to be school-ready. As to other elements of the budget for
education funding, we urge the following:
--ISEP.--Increase ISEP to $565.5 million as requested in the
President's budget. ISEP is the primary source of school
funding, covering salaries for teachers, teacher aides, and
administrative personnel. ISEP is critical to our ability to
recruit and retain qualified teachers and to cover shortfalls
in other budget areas, such as transportation, facilities and
maintenance.
--Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC).--The President's proposed budget
seeks $75 million for TGSC. While we very much support this
increase (+$12.9 million) from fiscal year 2015 levels, we urge
Congress to appropriate more, $76.2 million for TGSC, as these
funds are critical to our ability to cover the costs of
accounting, insurance, background checks, legal and record-
keeping requirements. Inadequate funding for TGSC forces us to
use ISEP to meet these needs.
--School Facility Operations and School Facility Maintenance.--
Increase School Facility Operations to $66,098,000 (as
requested in the President's budget), and School Facility
Maintenance to $79,137,000 (above that requested in the
President's budget). Such funds keep our building in safe
condition, pay for preventative and unscheduled maintenance,
and cover insurance and increasing utility costs.
--Student Transportation.--Increase Student Transportation to
$56,212,000. While the President's budget includes a modest
increase in Student Transportation funding, more is needed if
we are to cover the costs to maintain, repair, and replace
buses. Otherwise we are compelled to pay those costs from
education program funds which are already over-obligated.
--School Construction and Repair.--We fully support the President's
request for $133 million for School Construction and Repair.
Such an increase is long overdue and essential if any progress
is to be made on the deterioration of these facilities. Not
addressing these critical infrastructure needs will only
jeopardize student and staff safety.
--Tribal Education Departments (TEDs).--We support the President's
request for funding for the development and operation of Tribal
Departments of Education in order to strengthen the management
and oversight of the education programs serving Indian
children. But we urge Congress, in appropriating these funds,
not to limit their use to only those tribes having more than
one school on the tribe's reservation (as proposed in the
budget). Many tribes, like Fond du Lac, operate a single school
on-reservation but would greatly benefit from TEDs.
BIA: Public Safety and Justice.--We support the President's
proposal to increase BIA funding for law enforcement. Although we are a
small community in rural Minnesota, we are combating major crimes.
Methamphetamine, alcohol, illegal prescription drug use, and gang-
related activity create huge demands on our law enforcement. In
addition, we are now facing a significant increase in heroin use. For
example, in a recent drug bust, our officers seized heroin that had a
street value of over $60,000. Many of our elders and others are the
victims of assaults and robberies that are drug-related. Our officers
must respond to a large number of drug overdoses and deaths, as well as
juvenile offenses involving drugs, alcohol, thefts, assaults and
burglaries. They also respond to a wide range of other matters,
including domestic disputes, disturbances, disorderly conduct, property
damage, theft, medical emergencies, fire, neglected children, runaways,
suicide threats, as well as numerous traffic-related matters. In 2014
alone, our Law Enforcement Department responded to more than 6,000
incidents and requests for assistance. This is a substantial increase
from past years, where incidents and requests for assistance from our
Department were: 5,342 in 2013; 5,100 in 2012; and 4,900 in 2011.
We rely on a combination of tribal and available Federal funds and
cooperative agreements with local law enforcement agencies to meet law
enforcement needs. To ensure effective law enforcement coverage 24/7,
we need to have sufficient law enforcement staff, as well as sufficient
equipment for that staff. We are very fortunate that as a result of a
COPS grant, we are now able to employ 20 sworn officers--the number we
need to effectively patrol the Reservation. But our officers still need
equipment to do this work. We do not yet have a sufficient number of
patrol cars. We also need to replace our outdated analog radios with
new digital radio equipment--both in-squad radios and portable radios
that officers carry. The equipment is very expensive but necessary to
meet FCC requirements. And we regularly need to acquire and replace
other basic law enforcement equipment, like binoculars, video cameras
and other surveillance tools. Federal funding is essential to meet
those needs.
BIA Construction.--We urge Congress to increase funding for BIA
Construction. Fond du Lac needs a new facility for our law enforcement
department. The Department is still housed in a 6-room building, which
it shares with the Band's housing program. We have no room for
investigative interviews. The evidence room and reception area are
inadequate for law enforcement purposes. A new building with a garage,
large evidence room, records storage room, and a training room for
officers, is essential.
BIA: Trust-Natural Resources Management.--We support the
President's budget proposal, to fund BIA Natural Resources Management
at $232.79 million in fiscal year 2016, including funding for Tribal
Climate Resilience. I was privileged to serve on the President's State,
Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and
Resilience, and, based on the extensive work done by that Task Force,
understand the serious threat that climate change poses, especially in
Indian country, where the basic subsistence needs of Indian people
often depend on natural resources. This is certainly true at Fond du
Lac. Our treaties with the United States reserved our right to access
natural resources within and outside our Reservation. Many of our
members hunt, fish and gather wild rice and other natural resources to
put food on the table. The stewardship of those natural resources--
through scientific study and resource management, and enforcement of
Band conservation laws that regulate tribal members who hunt, fish and
gather those resources--are an important source of employment for many
of our members. And those natural resources serve as the foundation for
our culture.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.--The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
is a valued partner of the Fond du Lac Band in wildlife and fisheries
research and restoration programs. We request that the overall budget
of the Fish and Wildlife Service be increased, with a particular
increase to the Native American Liaison program. We support the
President's requested increase to the Tribal Wildlife Grant Program,
but urge that this program be funded at 5 times its current level,
since current funding levels allow few grants to be awarded.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).--The drastic funding cuts to
EPA in past years threaten long-term damage to the Nation. We support,
at a minimum, the $8.6 billion in funding recommended in the
President's budget, as well the President's recommended increase in
State and Tribal Assistance Grants, but urge that more be appropriated
for these important programs.
--Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.--The Band fully supports this
initiative, and asks that it be funded at $500 million, two
times what is requested in the President's budget. This
initiative has broad-reaching benefits to resources of
importance for all stakeholders (State, tribal and private) in
the Great Lakes region.
--Water Quality.--The Fond du Lac Band has a federally approved water
quality standards program which has seen annual funding
declines while the Band's responsibilities have increased.
Given the current threats to water resources in our region from
the expansion of iron and copper mining, we urge that tribal
section 106 funding be doubled.
--Air.--In conjunction with our water quality monitoring
responsibilities, the Band has a long-standing air monitoring
program that has also faced a steady decline in Federal
funding. We request that air quality program funding for tribes
be increased.
--Wetlands.--One half of our reservation is made up of wetlands.
Proper management and restoration of this valuable resource is
impossible without adequate Federal funding.
Indian Health Service.--We fully support the President's proposed
increase in funding for IHS and appreciate the commitment that the
administration and Congress have made to address the funding needs for
healthcare in Indian country. The President's proposed increase is
essential to address the high rates of medical inflation and the
substantial unmet need for healthcare among Indian people. Indians at
Fond du Lac, like Indians throughout the Nation, continue to face
disproportionately higher rates of diabetes and its associated
complications, than the rest of the population. Heart disease, cancer,
obesity, chemical dependency and mental health problems are also
prevalent among our people. All Indian tribes should receive 100
percent of the Level of Need Formula, which is absolutely critical for
tribes to address the serious and persistent health issues that
confront our communities. The Band serves over 7,000 Indian people at
our clinics, but the current funding level meets only 42 percent of our
healthcare funding needs.
As the epidemic of prescription drug abuse grows across the
country, the IHS needs resources to expand its treatment and community
education capacity. We are especially disappointed with the Pharma-
driven position SAMHSA has followed for the past several years
regarding Methadone Assisted Therapy (MAT). Many poorly administered
MAT programs are pouring unprecedented amounts of cheap, liquid
Methadone into Indian communities with very destructive results. In
2012, nearly 40 percent of the babies delivered by Fond du Lac Nurse-
midwives were born to Methadone dependent mothers. Although those
numbers improved in 2013, nearly 35 percent of all pregnant women seen
by Fond du Lac primary care providers use illicit drugs, mainly
opiates. Research shows that methadone users are cognitively impaired,
and more recent research has shown that children born to methadone
users are more likely to have low birth weight, neural tube defects,
spina bifida, congenital heart defects and gastroschisis . Meanwhile,
thousands of American Indians are falling victim to the chemical
slavery now sponsored by SAMHSA. Additional funding for the
Methamphetamine, Suicide Prevention Initiative should be made available
to tribes and the IHS so that this ``new sickness'' can be addressed.
Best practices in pharmacy inventory and prescription monitoring need
to be modeled and replicated throughout Indian Country. The need is
compounded by the fact that more government agencies expect local units
of government, including tribes, to address these problems and the
increasing number of individuals who become homeless as a result of
them, through the operation of supportive housing. But Fond du Lac's
ability to establish new program initiatives, like supportive housing,
depends on assistance from the Federal Government. We urge Congress to
support programs that would fund supportive housing for tribes in every
area of the country. Miigwech. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Bon Secour National Wildlife
Refuge
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments on the proposed
fiscal year 2016 Interior Appropriations bill. The Friends of Bon
Secour National Wildlife Refuge (FBSNWR) support the funding of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency that administers the
National Wildlife Refuge System. We concur with the priorities
documented by the National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) that are
listed as follows:
1. Request $508.2 million for the National Wildlife Refuge
System's operations and maintenance account for fiscal year 2016.
2. Reauthorize and fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) at $900 million per year and provide $173.9 million in fiscal
year 2016 LWCF funding for conservation easements and refuge in-
holdings.
3. Appropriate $60 million for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund
in fiscal year 2016, which offsets losses in local government tax
revenue because lands owned by the Refuge System are exempt from
taxation.
4. Pass a clean appropriation bill that is free from policy riders
such as removing the Service's authority to establish new refuges
administratively even though 90 percent of all refuges were created
this way.
The Bon Secour NWR provides vital habitat for neotropical migratory
birds and nesting habitat for endangered sea turtles. In addition, the
refuge is a component of 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.
We will briefly elaborate how the NWRA priorities support our
efforts to maintain viable refuges that play key roles in sustaining
coastal wildlife resources and our economy.
1. Request $508.2 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System's
operations and maintenance account for fiscal year 2016.
Inadequate operational funding for our coastal refuges could result
in lost opportunities to leverage funds generated by criminal and civil
penalties associated with the 2010 oil spill to improve refuge
infrastructure. Our refuges already depend on volunteers just to keep
the doors open to our visitors, and the maintenance backlog for
equipment and facilities continues to grow.
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. Reauthorize and fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) at $900 million per year and provide $173.9 million in
fiscal year 2016 LWCF funding for conservation easements and
refuge in-holdings.
Again, Gulf Coast wildlife refuges may lose opportunities to
leverage oil spill funds into acquisition of in-holdings and sensitive
habitats if LWCF funds are 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 $60 million for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund in
fiscal year 2016, which offsets losses in local government tax
revenue because lands owned by the Refuge System are exempt
from taxation.
Lands within the Refuge System are removed from local tax rolls
because the U.S. Government, like any other local or State government,
is exempt from taxation. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act allows a
National Wildlife Refuge to offset these tax losses by annually paying
the local unit of government an amount that could equal or exceed that
which would have been collected from taxes if the lands were in private
ownership. These revenues are derived from activities including timber
sales and grazing leases that occur on refuges when these uses are
compatible with refuge purposes.
According to the NWRA, declining revenues and appropriations have
resulted in the refuge system unable to pay even 50 percent of its tax-
offset obligations. Our local governments need the funds to operate
fundamental infrastructure that include roads and schools, and our
refuges need to be viewed by our neighbors as contributors to their
communities.
We strongly concur with the NWRA that a policy adjustment is
ultimately needed to link the Refuge Fund to Payment in Lieu of Taxes
consistent with other land management agencies.
4. Pass a clean appropriation bill that is free from policy riders such
as removing the Service's authority to establish new refuges
administratively.
The Bon Secour NWR is one of three refuges within the Gulf Coast
National Wildlife Refuge Complex that also includes the Mississippi
Sandhill Crane NWR (Jackson County, Mississippi) and the Grand Bay NWR
(Jackson County, Mississippi and Mobile County, Alabama). The Grand Bay
NWR was established in 1992 under the authority of the Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, so this refuge would likely not exist
if legislation interfered with the agency's ability to utilize legal
existing authorities. Moreover, we believe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has developed a good record of careful consultation with local
and State governments when exercising these authorities.
I will conclude with a reminder that our National Wildlife Refuges
are a vital component for the stewardship of coastal 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.
We need to support these refuges so that they can be engaged
partners in the coastal natural resource stewardship and resilience.
Our culture and economy depend on 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 Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge
Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee:
On behalf of the Friends of Hagerman NWR, thank you for your
support for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), particularly
for the funding increase for fiscal year 2015. We appreciate the
opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2016 Interior
Appropriations bill.
Our Friends organization supports Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge
in Sherman, Texas. The Refuge, located on the southern tip of Lake
Texoma, provides wildlife dependent recreation to residents of both
southern Oklahoma and north Texas, including those from the Dallas/Fort
Worth Metroplex. Visitors are constantly amazed and awed by the
opportunity to see and learn about wildlife at the Refuge in its
natural habitat, so close-by to urban and suburban development. In
conjunction with Refuge staff the Friends provide educational
experiences for both children and adults and the opportunity to connect
with the great outdoors. Such experiences are essential to
understanding and appreciation for our world and our place in it. The
Refuge System cannot fulfill its obligation to the American public, our
wildlife, and visitors without increases in maintenance and operation
funds.
We believe that with sound conservation policy, adequate funding,
and the power of more than 40,000 dedicated volunteers, the Refuge
System can fulfill its mission to provide wildlife dependent recreation
for Americans and protect the habitat for more than 700 species of
birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species and
more than 1,000 species of fish. We look forward to working with
Congress in 2015 to accomplish this goal.
[This statement was submitted by Sue Malnory, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife
Refuge
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I am Bill
Durkin, President of the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife
Refuge in Biddeford, Maine.
First off, Happy Earth Day, we have come a long way since 1970, the
first Earth Day. I have been a member of the Friends of Rachel Carson
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) for the past 26 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 National
Wildlife Refuge System of $508.2 million. This year we ask to
appropriate $60 million in the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. I also
urge the subcommittee to fund the Land, Water and Conservation Fund at
full funding at $900 million with a $178.8 million of that request for
the National Wildlife Refuge Systems purchase of easements and in
holdings. I thank you all for your consideration.
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, in combination with her other
writings, ``The Edge of the Sea'' and ``Silent Spring'', led Rachel
Carson to become an advocate on behalf of this Nation's vast coastal
habitat and the wildlife that depends on it. With the recent 50th
anniversary of the publication of ``Silent Spring'', her legacy lives
on today at the refuge that bears her name and is dedicated to the
permanent protection of the salt marshes and estuaries of the southern
Maine coast. The refuge was established in 1966 to preserve migratory
bird habitat and waterfowl migration along southern Maine's coastal
estuaries. It consists of 11 refuge divisions in 12 municipalities
protecting approximately 5,600 acres within a 14,800 acre acquisition
zone.
Consisting of meandering tidal creeks, coastal upland, sandy dunes,
salt ponds, marsh, and productive wetlands, the Rachel Carson NWR
provides critical nesting and feeding habitat for the threatened piping
plover and a variety of migratory waterfowl, and serves as a nursery
for many shellfish and finfish. The salt marsh habitat found at Rachel
Carson NWR is relatively rare in Maine, which is better known for its
dramatic, rocky coastline. Upland portions of the landscape in and
around the refuge host a unique, unusually dense concentration of
vernal pools that provide habitat for several rare plant and animal
species. Located along the Atlantic flyway, the refuge serves as an
important stopover point for migratory birds, highlighted by shorebird
migration in the spring and summer, waterfowl concentrations in the
winter and early spring, and raptor migrations in the early fall. In
fact, southern Maine contains a greater diversity of terrestrial
vertebrates, threatened and endangered species, and woody plants than
any other part of the State.
Previous years' appropriations have allowed the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to conserve several properties within the
refuge at Biddeford Pool, Parson's Beach, the newly created York River
Division and most recently at Timber Point. All of these purchases
provide an important buffer between the intense development pressure
along the southern Maine coast and its fragile coastal estuaries. With
towns in the area growing rapidly--at rates ranging between 11 percent
and 32 percent over the next 10 years--development pressures continue
to spiral upwards and additional coastal properties are under threat.
It is said that Rachel Carson NWR has the most neighbors/abutters than
any other refuge in the system, thus demand for available land is high
and the market value expensive.
In fiscal year 2010, Rachel Carson NWR was appropriated $3 million
from the LWCF toward the acquisition of a majestic 157 acres of coastal
land: Timber Point. Located in the Little River Division of the refuge
on the Biddeford/Kennebunkport town line, Timber Point is comprised of
a large peninsula and a small island that is effectively connected to
the peninsula at low tide. All told, the property includes over 2.25
miles of undeveloped coastline, an enormous amount for southern Maine.
The Timber Point parcel enhances the refuge's ability to protect water
quality in the estuary and important wildlife habitat by linking it to
already conserved refuge lands in the Little River Division of the
refuge. This is a Success story. Your subcommittee supported this
project in 2009 and we acquired the land in December, 2011. The total
purchase price was $5.2 million. We privately fundraised $2.2 million
with the help of collaborative working partners. A classic story of
using Federal funds and local private donations toward the purchase of
an iconic parcel of land. Since then, we have built a National
Recreational Trail (NRT) for public use and recently completed an
Environmental Assessment for future use of the property. Protecting
Timber Point was a priority for the refuge for decades, and we thank
you. The process does work and I support all Refuges requests for
fiscal year 2016. You can make it happen.
1. We are requesting an overall funding level of $508.2 million in
fiscal year 2016 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.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is responsible for 568 million
acres of lands and waters, but currently receives less than a $1 per
acre for management costs. The refuges cannot fulfill its obligation to
the American public, our wildlife and 47 million annual visitors
without adequate funding. In the Northeast, Region 5, needs an
additional $1.5 million for fiscal year 2016 to keep even in their
operating budget. Refuges provide unparalleled opportunities to hunt,
fish, watch wildlife and educate children about the environment. An
investment in the Nation's Refuge System is an excellent investment in
the American economy, generating $2.4 billion and creating about 35,000
jobs in local economies. 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
$508.2 million for Operation and Management for the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
2. Appropriate $60 million in the National Wildlife Refuge Fund in
fiscal year 2016 which offsets losses in local government tax revenue
because lands owned by the Refuge System are exempt from taxation.
3. We are requesting $173.8 million in LWCF funding for Refuge land
acquisitions/conservation easements and we call for full funding of
LWCF at $900 million. 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 active recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to
climate change. The quality of place is greatly enhanced. As you know,
LWCF uses no tax payer dollars. Instead, LWCF funds are primarily
derived from oil and gas receipts paid to the Federal Government by oil
companies that extract publicly owned resources from the Outer
Continental Shelf. Congress created LWCF as a bi-partisan promise to
return precious resources back to the American public by using these
funds specifically for conservation and recreational purposes.
Unfortunately over the 50 year history of LWCF, over $18 billion has
been diverted from the original conservation fund purpose. For all
these reasons, LWCF needs to be funded at the $900 million level in
fiscal year 2016. 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. In the
President's budget, he has included full funding for LWCF programs at
the $900 million level, and I support the administration's commitment
to fully funding the program. I urge a minimal commitment of $173.8
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.
The Land, Water and Conservation Fund has provided incredible
benefit to the State of Maine. We have six National Wildlife Refuges
and our only National Park, Acadia, attracts a huge amount of tourist
each year and offers great recreational activities to the local
citizens of the State. LWCF and the Forest Legacy program have
conserved tens of thousands of acres in our interior forestlands and
ensures that forestry and recreational access for all will be a huge
part of our economy for generations to come. As a Mainer, I also wanted
to highlight the importance of LWCF funding to other parts of the State
beyond Rachel Carson NWR. We have a Crown Jewel of the national park
system at Acadia National Park, which will celebrate its centennial in
2016 and has continuing LWCF acquisition needs. Millions visit Acadia
every year. And we have incredibly valuable private forests whose
permanent protection through Forest Legacy Program funding means that
our tourist and timber industries--our two largest--can thrive
together. I just visited the rural town of Phillips, Maine where I
enjoyed cross country skiing on a trail on a just-completed Forest
Legacy project, and I spent my money locally on lodging, food and
equipment. So, LWCF funding for conservation in Maine is critical to
the rural economy and National Wildlife Refuges. And it is matched by
other funding, and enjoys broad support from forest landowners,
snowmobilers hikers and birdwatchers alike. I cannot emphasize enough
how important LWCF funding is to Maine and the remaining 49 United
States.
I again extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing
commitment to our National Wildlife Refuge System and respectfully
request the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations
Subcommittee allocate $508.2 million for the Refuge System's fiscal
year 2016 Operations & Maintenance Budget, $60 million in the National
Wildlife Refuge Fund and $178.8 million in Refuge LWCF monies. We need
Congress to standby their commitment that was made in 1964: stabilize
the LWCF at $900 million.
Thank you again, Ms. 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 Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee
National Wildlife Refuge
Our Friends organization would like to submit testimony in support
of the budget requests made by the National Wildlife Refuge Association
(NWRA) on behalf of the National Wildlife Refuge System and Refuges
such as ours. In particular, we would like to emphasize the importance
of their requests for:
--$508.2 million for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of
the NWRS
--$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with
$173.8 million allocated for the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS)
--$60 million for the Refuge Fund
--$75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
--$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
--$50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund
--$5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund
In addition to echoing these requests made by NWRA, I would like to
make to make one additional request for our Refuge:
--$5 million for removal and treatment of invasive exotics
At 143,874 acres, our Refuge is the largest remaining remnant of
the once vast northern Everglades. While restoration of the hydrology
of the greater Everglades system has gotten a lot of attention and
deservedly so, the problem of invasive exotics such as Melaleuca,
Brazilian Pepper and the most insidious of all, Lygodium (Old World
Climbing Fern), has been under-reported.
As a member of our Friends board of directors for the past 9 years
and president for the last 2 years, I have watched an ever-diminishing
number of Refuge staff members struggle to maintain visitor access and
keep our small public use program going, while trying to protect and
restore the resource, but I see it becoming a losing battle. We are
actually lucky when the fires out West and in other parts of the
country call our fire crew away, so they can be paid out of someone
else's budget. When Refuge staff have to make tradeoffs as they do now
between treating more areas for invasives, or re-treating areas that
are now under maintenance control, we see from aerial maps that we are
losing ground. Restoring water to the Everglades will save our water
supply, but when Lygodium envelops and smothers tree island after tree
island, the iconic wildlife of the Everglades may be no better off.
As someone who cares about the Everglades and our Refuge and their
importance to the people and wildlife of south Florida, I hope you will
appreciate the need and take these requests seriously. Our organization
represents approximately 300 concerned citizens who are just a small
portion of the 300,000 visitors our Refuge receives annually. Whether
they appreciate our Refuge for its wildlife or its recreational
opportunities or its importance to our water supply, I think every one
of them would tell you that this is a special place that deserves our
attention.
Thank you for your consideration of these budget requests.
[This statement was submitted by Elinor R. Williams, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Little Pend Oreille National
Wildlife Refuge
Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee:
The Friends of the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge
(FLPONWR) and its members would like to thank you for this opportunity
to testify before the subcommittee concerning the funding of National
Wildlife Refuge system for fiscal year 2016. We ask you to support the
Presidents funding proposal of $508.2 million for the refuge system. We
feel that any less funding could have negative impacts on the refuges
ability to protect and enhance the environment and wildlife within the
refuge system. Less funding would also impact local economies, jobs,
recreation and environmental education. The Little Pend Oreille NWR
(LPONWR) is a unique refuge that needs your support.
A budget item that is critical to the Little Pend Oreille and to
indeed critical to all the forests in the west is funding for Hazardous
Fuels Reduction. So we would ask for your support to appropriate $60
million dedicated to the support the refuge system's fire program
through the Department of Interior's Hazardous Fuels Reduction program.
Not only does this program help to elevate catastrophic fires it is
also a vital tool in wildlife management. I will have more details of
how this program directly effects the Little Pend Oreille NWR later.
We are also asking for you support to provide 173.8 million from
the land and Water Conservation fund for the purchasing of in-holdings
that are of vital ecological importance and also the purchase of in-
holding leads to better wildlife connectivity and allows for more
cohesive management of the ecosystem.
the little pend oreille wildlife refuge
The LPONWR is located in the northeast part of Washington State
near the small city of Colville. The LPONWR is just over 40,000 acres
and is the only mountainous mixed conifer refuge in the lower 48.
It also has several small lakes, ponds, streams, marshes and the
Little Pend Oreille river that support a wide variety of wildlife from
songbirds, every woodpecker native to the Rockies, and waterfowl to
bears, bobcats, cougars, elk, moose and white-tailed deer.
Interestingly the protection of the white-tailed deer and song birds
were the main reasons for the establishment of the refuge. The refuge
is considered critical winter habitat for the deer. Small amphibians,
small reptiles, butterflies, dragonflies are also important parts of
the refuges ecosystem.
The refuge also comprises large stands of ponderosa pine which have
very little protection outside of the refuge. The protection of the
pine habitat is of critical importance to the future of the white
tailed deer, elk and the other species, such as the threatened Columbia
ground squire that are connected to this habitat.
visitation and economics
The LPONWR has about 60,000 visitors per year who enjoy activities
such as bird watching, hiking, camping, mountain biking, hunting,
horseback riding and hunting. Not only do people enjoy these activities
but they are also a positive contribution to the local economies.
According to the 2004 ``Banking on Nature'' economic study the refuge
visitors had a ``final economic demand,'' to the local economy, of
almost $3.7 million and helped to generated 42 jobs (a significant
number in this rural community). If you compare this to the refuge
budget there was ``$3.82 of recreational benefits for every $1 of
refuge expenditures.'' All in all a very good investment.
If we compare this to the 2011 Banking on nature study the final
demand totaled $3.9 million with associated employment of 30 jobs. The
big number here is the loss of 12 jobs. With a loss a staff projects
such as mechanical and hand thinning cannot be set up and managed thus
leading to a loss in private sector jobs in an area that is already
economically depressed.
habitat protection and enhancemet
Over the past 20 years the refuge has been hard at work restoring a
healthy forest and habitat at the refuge after about 30 years of
management by the State. While always a federally owned wildlife refuge
there was a management agreement between the State and the National
Fish and Wildlife Service starting in the 1960's and ended in the early
1990's after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found it to not
be in the best interest of the refuges in question (the LPONWR).
Many illegal roads have been closed, lakes rehabilitated, and the
health of the forest has also been greatly improved providing a much
better habitat for the native wildlife. But the is still much work left
to be done.
One of the most important roles the refuge staff has been forest
rehabilitation through prescribed burns and thinning operations (which
provide jobs to local loggers and bring wood to local mills) which have
helped to open up overcrowded forests, reduce the chance of
catastrophic fires. These operations also help neighboring property
owners from the chance of fire spreading to there property. These burns
and thinning operations also help to keep meadows open and productive
providing a food source for deer, elk, moose and other wildlife.
It is important to know that the Little Pend Oreille NWR, along
with a large percentage of western forests, are in a fire ecology.
Meaning that these forest rely on fires to keep them health and
productive. We know that because of past management policies and our
lack of understanding of the importance of fire to these ecosystems our
forest have become overcrowded which is contributing to large
catastrophic fires and the reduction of habitat for animals such as elk
and deer whom rely on open forests and meadows. To keep up the pace of
keeping our forest health I respectfully ask for your support in
appropriating $60 million in dedicated funding to the refuge system.
What does this mean for the Little Pend Oreille NWR. The refuge has
about 10,000 acres that are open pine and mixed forests that are
reliant on fire. The goal was and is to keep these acres on a 10 year
fire rotation. The years from 2000-2010 the refuge was able to complete
about 1000 acres of prescribed burns per year to keep on target. The
last 4 years, because of reduction of staff, the refuge is down to
around 100 acres per year. The reduction in staff also leads to less
commercial thinning project, as part of fuels reduction, as the refuge
is lacking the staff to lay out and manage the thinning. This leads to
a loss of private sector logging jobs as well as less logs going to the
local mills.
If the refuge does not have the resources for Fire and Fuels
Reduction to keep up pace we risk the loss of habitat and we increase
the chance of a large catastrophic fire. Interestingly the refuge as a
good example of the importance of fuels Reduction. A few years ago a
fire (Slide Creek) was started by a lighting strike off the refuge in
private timber land. This land had not gone through and fuels reduction
or thinning. The fire ``crowned'' a took off toward the refuge in an
area that the refuge had recently had a thinning project to reduce
fuels. When the fire hit the refuge land instead of staying a
``crowning'' fire going through the trees it sat down and became a
ground fire which is much easier to control and is what mother nature
would have done in the past. By this fire sitting down the refuge
showed that it is a good neighbor and the Fuels Reduction possibly
saved many acres of not only refuge but also private, State and other
Federal lands.
The staff has also worked to rehabilitate the lakes, ponds,
marshes, streams and the river. One examples is the removal of tench
and Eurasian milfoil from Lake McDowell which is still may always be an
ongoing battle. This year another invasive was introduced to the lake
(Sun Fish). This fall the refuge and the State worked together to
hopefully rid the lake of these invasive species. But as the past shows
it will be a continuing battle.
revenue sharing program
Being in a rural area with a high poverty rate the Revenue Sharing
Program is of vital importance to our communities. It help to pay for
schools, libraries, fire protection, roads, law enforcement and the
list goes on. However the currant system and it formula for calculating
these payments is out of date and insufficient. Along these lines we
are asking for your support in moving the Refuge Revenue Sharing
Program to the PILT program as it is a more adequate system. In the
mean time we ask for you to appropriate $60 million to the Refuge Fund
to insure that local communities receive proper compensation. It is
also just part of being a good neighbor and part of the community.
friends and the refuge
Our organization (FLPONWR) was established in 2001 and has work
tirelessly with the refuge to make many improvements at the refuge and
help to reach out to the public about the importance of the refuge. Our
public outreach also points out to people all of the recreational
opportunities that the refuge offers.
One of our concerns is if budget cuts lead to cut in staff this
could harm our collaborative efforts. Being a small organization (80-90
members) and in an area with a small population there is no dedicated
staff member to coordinate volunteers. The staff has done an
outstanding job working with us and we feel that any staff cut could
make collaboration with staff more difficult as individual staff
members would have more work and less time to help the volunteers. You
must know that the volunteers in the refuge system as a whole play a
vital role in helping out and improving the refuge system. But
volunteers can only do so much.
final appropriatins requests
I respectively request your support for the full funding of the
National Wildlife Refuge Systems at $508.2 million for fiscal year
2016, provide 173.8 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
appropriate $60 million to the Refuge Fund to ensure compliance with
the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program to help compensate local communities
who this funding is critical for, fully fund the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program at $75 million, increase the Coastal Grant Program to
$14 million in fiscal year 16, appropriate $70 million for State
Wildlife Grants, appropriate $11 million for the Multinational Species
Conservation Fund, $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund, allocate $50 million for the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund and lastly the appropriate $60 million in funding to
the refuge systems fire program through the Department of Interior's
Hazardous Fuels Reduction Program.
In closing I cannot stress enough how important it is to fully fund
the refuge system. Further cuts will hurt the environment and wildlife.
Local economies will also be hurt by less employment and tax revenues.
By fully funding the refuge system we help to ensure that we protect
these special places for future generations.
On behalf of the Friends of the Little Pend Oreille, thanks for
listening.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys
National Wildlife Refuges
On behalf of over 200 Friends members, we strongly urge the
increased funding for the National Refuge System. Since 2006, the
National system has grown from 500 to 560+ refuges. The funding support
has not kept pace with the increase. During this time, the Lower
Suwannee and Cedar Keys NWR has dropped from 14 to 9 staff members. By
June of this year, we will be down to 7 members unless funding is
available to replace two positions being vacated. As if that is not
enough to worry about, our manager also has a title of Deputy Complex
Manager of the North Florida Complex with responsibilities extending
from Tampa Bay to St. Vincent in the Big Bend area of Florida. He
spends most of his time dealing with manatee issues in Crystal River.
It appears that, this ``complex'' title is just another way of not
fully supporting the refuge system.
We would also urge you to reauthorize the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) to the $900 million per year originally
proposed funding. In our area, there have been excellent opportunities
for both land acquisition, as well as, conservation easements.
We would also urge you to provide special funding to be used to
help compensate local governments for their lose of property tax
revenue.
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 in the refuge system, there had
been a $4.87 return to the local communities. Over 70 percent of this
revenue 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 3-4 thousand folks visit on 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 NWR comprises over 52,000 acres that is 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.
--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, and 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 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 floral and fauna in the refuges.
Thank you for considering these requests.
[This statement was submitted by Dr. Jay Bushnell, Advocacy Chair.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Savannah Coastal Wildlife
Refuges
Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee:
On behalf of Friends of the Savannah Coastal Wildlife Refuges and
its membership of concerned citizens of coastal Georgia and South
Carolina, thank you for your support for the National Wildlife Refuge
System (NWRS), particularly for the funding increase for fiscal year
2015. We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal
year 2016 Interior Appropriations bill and join with the National
Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) in respectfully requesting:
--$508.2 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
$173.8 million allocated for the FWS, including $10 million for
Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area (Florida); $3
million for Silvio O. Conte NFWR (Connecticut, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts); $3 million for Cache River NWR
(Arizona); $3 million for Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area
(Kansas); $2 million for Bear River Watershed Conservation Area
(Wyoming, Idaho, Utah); $3.4 million for Blackwater NWR
(Maryland); and $1 million for the Clarks River NWR (Kentucky);
--$60 million for the Refuge Fund;
--$75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
--$14 million for the FWS Coastal Program;
--$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
(under the Department of the Interior (DOI));
--$70 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
--$50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
--$5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund;
--$11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund.
We understand our Nation's challenging fiscal constraints but
cutting funding to programs that are economic drivers and job creators
in local communities only exacerbates an 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. Unfortunately, just when
these public lands and programs could return economic output to
communities and help them through the recession, funding fell
dramatically. The refuge system is approximately $72 million below what
would be needed to keep pace with inflation relative to the fiscal year
2010 level ($545.8 million inflation-adjusted).
To begin bridging that gap, we join with NWRS in urging that
Congress fund these critical programs that leverage Federal dollars and
serve as economic drivers.
national wildlife refuge system--operations and maintenance
The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) is 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 of land and over
400 million acres of national marine monuments, yet it is currently
funded at roughly half that amount--at less than $1 per acre. The
refuge system cannot fulfill its obligation to the American public, our
wildlife, wildlife habitat, and 47 million annual visitors without
increases in maintenance and operation funds.
Funding for the refuge system has declined substantially from a
funding level of $503 million in fiscal year 2010 to its current $474.2
million--$72 million below what it needs to keep pace with inflation.
This has forced the Service to cut back on programs and create
efficiencies whenever possible. Because of these hard decisions, the
Service has cut their maintenance backlog in half from $2.7 billion to
$1.3 billion. But budget cuts also led to the loss of 430 positions
since fiscal year 2011 and thus an increase in the operations backlog,
now at $735 million. Because most refuge lands and waters are highly
managed, this deterioration in staffing has had a dramatic impact
resulting in significant declines in habitat preservation and
management, hunting, fishing, volunteerism and scientific research. We
have seen first-hand what staff reductions have done to the ability of
the staff of the Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex to carry out their
mission on the seven Refuges in our area, at a time when they are
receiving increasing requests for educational programs and increased
visitation.
For instance, visitor services staff has declined by 15 percent,
forcing a reduction in public programs and hours of operation. Hunting
visits are down by 5 percent since fiscal year 2011 and fishing visits
are down 7 percent. Overall, there are fewer opportunities for the
public to recreate, yet the desire for such programs is still high and
visitation to all refuges since fiscal year 2011 has actually increased
by 2.6 percent.
Reductions in visitor services can be extremely troubling to
constituencies who want to visit. Take the Midway Atoll NWR in the
Hawaiian Islands. In November of 2013, due to sequestration cuts, the
Service suspended the visitor services program at Midway. Although in
the 5 years prior to this suspension, the refuge saw only about 300
annual visitors, those visitors were passionate about their reasons for
visiting. Whatever their reasons, they wanted to have one of the most
unique refuge experiences in the entire System. Congress has asked for
a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation on why the
Service suspended its program; yet it's clear that when you cut the
budget and loose several positions including a permanent Wildlife
Biologist, Park Ranger, and Law Enforcement Officer, there will be
ramifications.
Equally troubling is the 15 percent drop in the number of
volunteers since fiscal year 2011. At a time when record numbers of
Americans are retiring and have the capability to give back, the
Service's ability to oversee their efforts has been curtailed.
Volunteers provide up to 20 percent of work done on our national
wildlife refuges, yet they are being turned away when the System needs
them the most.
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 U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) in 2013, shows that even during the worst
recession since the Great Depression, 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.
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.
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 Friends call on Congress to fund LWCF at $900 million per year,
with $173.8 million provided in fiscal year 2016 to the FWS for
conservation easements and refuge in-holdings, including the following
projects and those advocated by other refuge Friends groups:
--Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area (Florida)--$10
million;
--Cache River NWR (Arizona)--$3 million;
--Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut)--$3 million;
--Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas)--$3 million;
--Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah)--$2
million;
--Blackwater NWR (Maryland)--$3.4 million;
--Clarks River NWR (Kentucky)--$1 million.
commitment to refuge communities--refuge fund
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
Fund 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. The Friends request $60 million for the
Refuge Fund and thanks Chairman Calvert for his leadership in fiscal
year 2015 to pursue a much-needed increase. We also call for a review
of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 as amended, and consideration
of conversion to a Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program to be
consistent with other Federal land management agencies and to provide
Refuge communities with more equitable payments.
partnerships
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 Friends join with the landowner-led
Partners for Conservation in requesting $75 million for fiscal year
2016. Such a funding level would result in an additional $400 million
worth of conservation across the Nation.
The Partners Program provides a bridge between private and public
conservation efforts that has been instrumental in the success of large
landscape partnerships from Montana to Florida, and is playing a key
role in conserving greater sage-grouse habitat in the intermountain
west. To this end, we request an additional $78 million for the
Interior agencies to implement sagebrush steppe habitat conservation
and monitoring efforts that will leverage $300 million in Department of
Agriculture investments across the west.
sharing lessons and protecting global species
Wildlife species know no international boundaries, therefore
conservation must happen globally to ensure populations survive. Many
international wildlife agencies look to the refuge system as the world
leader in wildlife and fish conservation. The Service's Wildlife
Without Borders Program and Multinational Species Conservation Funds
together support global partnerships to protect marine turtles, tigers
and rhinos, great apes and elephants and other iconic species. These
programs are particularly important as wildlife face a poaching crisis
that is leading species such as rhinos to the brink of extinction. The
Friends join the student-led Tigers 4 Tigers Coalition in requesting
$11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund in fiscal
year 2016.
in conclusion
We believe that with sound conservation policy, adequate funding,
and the power of more than 40,000 dedicated volunteers, the refuge
system can fulfill its mission to provide wildlife dependent recreation
for Americans and protect the habitat for more than 700 species of
birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species and
more than 1,000 species of fish. Friends of the Savannah Coastal
Wildlife Refuges Complex urges you to build on your past support for
the refuge system by allocating the funds detailed above for fiscal
year 2016.
Thank you for your consideration.
[This statement was submitted by Richard O. Shields, Jr., MD,
President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
Refuges, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
On behalf of the 225 members of the Friends of the Tampa Bay
National Wildlife Refuges (FTBNWR), (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)
and the funding increase that you passed for fiscal year 2015. We
realize that in this time of tight budgets, it may be difficult to
justify increasing the NWRS funding, but once the refuges start to
decline it will cost many times more than these small increases to
return them to a condition that will fulfill their mandates. We
respectfully request that you consider the following in your
appropriations for fiscal year 2016:
--Fund $508.2 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System
including $5 million for the Pacific Marine Monuments.
--Fund $900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),
including a minimal commitment of $173.8 million for the NWRS,
including $10 million for Everglades Headwaters NWR and
Conservation Area in Florida, $3 million for Silvio O. Conte
NWR, $3 million for Cache River NWR, $3 million for Flint Hills
Legacy Conservation Area, $2 million for Bear River Watershed
Conservation Area, $3.4 million for Blackwater NWR, and $1
million for Clarks River NWR.
--Fund $50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
(NAWCA).
--Fund $70 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.
--Fund $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Fund (NMBCF).
--Fund $14 million for FWS Coastal Grants.
--Fund $60 million for the Department of Interior's Fire Management
Program.
--Fund $11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund
--Fund $75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program.
--Fund $60 million for the Refuge Fund.
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 and over 400 million acres of national marine
monuments. The refuge system cannot fulfill its obligation to the
Refuge Improvement Act, American public, our wildlife, and
approximately 47 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. The refuge system is currently funded at $474 million. Taking
inflationary needs into account, they are about $72 million below where
they were in fiscal year 2010. Fiscal year 2010's appropriation of
$503.3 million was cut significantly in the following years and by
fiscal year 2013 was down to $452.6 million. These cuts were
devastating to refuge operations and staffing. We respectfully request
that you increase the NWRS budget to $508.2 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 an average
of $5 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 2016 with a minimal commitment of $173.8
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 recovering 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 2016 with $173.8
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 $50 million in fiscal year 2016 for the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). 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 and Tribal Wildlife Grants
Program at $70 million to fulfill the shared Federal-State
responsibility for keeping our Nation's wildlife from becoming
endangered.
--The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 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 NMBCF at $5 million for fiscal year 2016.
--The Coastal Grants 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 $14
million for fiscal year 2016.
--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.
--Lastly we ask that you fund the Multinational Species Conservation
Fund at $11 million.
Funding for the Refuge Fund (Refuge Revenue Sharing Program)
ensures that local communities receive proper compensation for having
Federal lands that are not on the tax rolls. Federal lands are exempt
from real estate taxes. These taxes are the major revenue source for
most local governments across the country, funding services such as
schools, libraries, sanitation, law enforcement and fire protection. In
1935 Congress acknowledged the relationship between local communities
and the refuge system and enabled the refuges to give back to their
local communities. The Refuge Revenue Sharing Program offsets lost
local tax revenue by providing payments to local governments from net
income derived from permits and wildlife refuge activities. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pays localities using a formula
created by Congress. However, declining revenues and appropriation
short-falls have resulted in the Service paying less than 50 percent of
its tax-offset obligations since 2001. It's important that the National
Wildlife Refuge System is a good neighbor and makes good on its
obligations. Please fund the Refuge Fund at $60 million in fiscal year
2016.
The Tampa Bay Refuges are located at the mouth of Tampa Bay on the
west central Gulf coast of Florida. The budget increases prior to 2011
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 did 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 budget decreases and the sequestration
have hurt our refuges.
--The Tampa Bay Refuges have not had a full time manager for the past
1.5 years.
--We are coming into the summer nesting season on the Egmont Key NWR.
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. This leaves the
nesting birds open to more intrusions by refuge visitors and
nesting failures. Pinellas and Passage Key NWR's are not open
to the public but the refuges do not have the budget necessary
to patrol these islands to prevent the public from causing
unintentional harm as the birds nest.
--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 budget shortfalls.
--The refuge was able to begin 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. Birds
have returned to nest on 2 more of the Pinellas Refuge islands
because of these efforts. Without continued maintenance the
birds may fail.
--Fire management budgets have been cut and prescribed fires have not
been conducted Egmont Key as needed. This opens the island, its
historic buildings, and visitor center up to a much higher
catastrophic wildfire risk.
--The Ft. Dade Guardhouse on Egmont Key NWR has been restored and is
now the visitor center. The refuge had grant money and
installed the first phase of the displays, but with the budgets
the way they are the refuge staff does not have time to keep
this important environmental education center open to the
public.
--Egmont Key NWR has a huge erosion problem and can possibly be lost.
Because it is in an urban setting, the approximately 32,000
pairs of birds who nest there yearly don't have another
location to go to. Passage Key NWR is starting to come back
above water. Last year the colonial nesting birds including
endangered Least Terns began to nest on the island. There is
not enough funding to have law enforcement attending to that
refuge to protect the birds from human intrusion and the
nesting failed. Increased funding would go a long way in
providing these birds the protection they need during the
nesting season.
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 $508.2 million for the fiscal year 2016
Operations and Management budget.
Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges (FTBNWR) was
incorporated as a 501c3 in 2008 to better assist the Tampa Bay Refuges
with volunteers and fundraising. In 2014 FTBNWR was able to provide
over 2300 volunteer hours to assist the refuge staff with exotic
invasive control, refuge cleanups, and education. Volunteers donated
time as bird stewards and visitor center docents on Egmont Key NWR as
well as running youth education programs for grades K-5. Our refuges do
not have enough staff to provide these education programs so Friends
volunteers have filled that gap. FTBNWR has been able to raise money to
fund further removal of invasive plants on the Pinellas Refuges that
degrade the habitat for the wildlife and contributed funding for the
local storage of the FWS boat. Our volunteers are passionate about the
refuge system and donate their time, money, and expertise to protect
them.
We again extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its
ongoing commitment to our NWRS.
[This statement was submitted by Barbara Howard, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the White River National Wildlife
Refuge Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:
On behalf of the Friends of White River National Wildlife Refuge
Inc., (St. Charles, Arkansas) its members, our 15,000 plus Facebook
fans and refuge users let me say thanks for the opportunity to provide
input into the appropriations process.
Adequately funding our Nation's wildlife refuges isn't just about
protecting natural areas and wildlife habitat. It is about protecting
the economy, the communities and people whose livelihood depends on
them. As a native of southeast Arkansas I grew up hunting and fishing
on White River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). I have witnessed first
hand the direct benefits to our rural communities from the large influx
of hunters, fisherman and other outdoor tourist the refuge brings in
each season.
Our refuge has the proud distinction of protecting one of the
largest remaining contiguous tracts of bottomland forest in the
Mississippi River Valley. Each year 450,000 resident and nonresident
hunters, fisherman, wildlife watchers, nature photographers and
tourists visit and pump more than $11.2 million in expenditures into
our economically distressed Delta communities.
A 2013 report from Southwick Associates shows us that economic
activity from outdoor recreation generates $788.0 billion in revenue
and generates $197.4 billion in Federal, State and local tax revenue.
That's a larger part of our U.S. economy than pharmaceutical, or motor
vehicles.\1\ Solid evidence that supporting our Nation's parks, refuges
and increasing outdoor recreation opportunities is not just good for
the environment, and a health boon to people, but is also a critical
piece of the American economy. Twelve million Americans have jobs
thanks to outdoor recreational opportunities like hunting and fishing
within our National wildlife refuges.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Burke, Monte. Forbes Magazine: Why We Need More Not Less
Conservation Funding in the Federal Budget.
\2\ The Economic Contributions of Outdoor Recreation: Technical
Report on Methods and Findings/For: Outdoor Industry Association/By:
Southwick Associates August 30, 2012 (Rev. January 3, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the outdoor recreational industry has demonstrated its
ability to pay its own way . . . budgets supporting conservation
continue to shrink. Conservation funding has shrunk from 2.75 percent
in 1977 to less than 1 percent of the Federal budget today.
The benefits of funding our refuge system are well documented and
we should support them accordingly. Therefore we fully support the
budget recommendations put forth by the National Wildlife Refuge
Association:
--$508.2 million for operations and maintenance in fiscal year 2016.
--Appropriate $173.8 million in fiscal year 2016 from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to acquire conservation
easements and to purchase in-holdings and vital habitat for the
National Wildlife Refuge System and reauthorize LWCF at $900
million annually.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee. And thank you for your leadership and support for
conservation. As you deliberate appropriate funding levels for our
refuge system, please consider the important implications these choices
entail to not only the wildlife and the environment, but also the joy
of use by its citizens as well as the economic benefits the refuges
bring to mostly rural communities.
[This statement was submitted by Jim L. Taylor.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America
summary
The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges Congress to support
the fiscal year 2016 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 that
underpin economic growth; researching and monitoring potential natural
hazards that threaten U.S. and international security; and determining
and assessing water quality and availability. 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. The requested
level would permit the USGS to add to its functions in these important
areas. 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 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 destructive landslides in Washington, Colorado, and
Kentucky; earthquakes in California; and lava flows in Hawaii,
provide unmistakable evidence that the United States remains
vulnerable to staggering losses. Landslides alone, which occur
in every State, cause more than $1 billion in damage each year.
An improved scientific understanding of geologic hazards will
reduce future losses through better forecasts of their
occurrence, which allows for effective 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, including
additional 3-D elevation mapping and earthquake early warning
systems.
--A 2013 report by the National Research Council, Emerging Workforce
Trends in the Energy and Mining Industries: A Call to Action,
found, ``Energy and mineral resources are essential for the
Nation's fundamental functions, its economy, and its
security.'' In addition, many emerging energy technologies--
such as wind turbines and solar cells--depend upon rare earth
elements and critical minerals that currently lack diversified
sources of supply. China accounts for 95 percent of world
production of rare earth elements (USGS, 2010). 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. We support the increase proposed for
these important programs that will allow for more economic and
environmental management and utilization of minerals. In
addition, GSA supports increases in research to better
understand domestic sources of energy, including conventional
and unconventional oil and gas and renewables.
--The ongoing drought in the western United States 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 by the USGS
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, allowing communities to
make smart, cost-effective decisions.
--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. GSA supports
interagency efforts for future support of Landsat.
The Core System Sciences, Facilities, and Science Support programs
support many activities in these important areas. These programs and
services, such as geologic mapping and data preservation, provide
critical information, data, and infrastructure that make possible the
research that will stimulate innovations that fuel the economy, provide
security, and enhance the quality of life.
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.''
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.
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission (GLIFWC)
1. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Operation Of
Indian Programs
a. Trust-Natural Resources Management, Rights Protection
Implementation (RPI)--At least the administration's proposed
$40,138,000 and a proportionate share for Great Lakes Area Resource
Management (the overall need for which is at least $10,688,000).
b. Trust-Natural Resources Management, Tribal Management/
Development Program (TM/DP): At least the administration's proposed
$14,263,000 and the TM/DP requests of GLIFWC's member tribes.
c. Trust-Natural Resources Management, Tribal Climate Resilience:
At least the administration's proposed $30,355,000.
d. Trust-Natural Resources Management, Invasive Species: At least
the administration's proposed $6,769,000.
e. Tribal Government, Contract Support: At least the
administration's proposed $272,000,000.
Funding Authorizations.--Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 13; Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, (Public Law 93-638),
25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 450f and 450h; and the treaties between the United
States and GLIFWC's member Ojibwe Tribes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Specifically, the Treaty of 1836, 7 Stat. 491, Treaty of 1837,
7 Stat. 536, Treaty of 1842, 7 Stat. 591, and Treaty of 1854, 10 Stat.
1109. The rights guaranteed by these treaties have been affirmed by
various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Environmental Protection Agency
a. Environmental Programs and Management, Geographic Programs,
Great Lakes Restoration: At least the administration's proposed
$250,000,000 out of which there is an overall tribal need of at least
$25,000,000. GLIFWC's Need: $1,200,000.
b. State and Tribal Assistance Grants, Categorical Grants, Tribal
General Assistance Program: At least the administration's proposed
$96,375,000.
Funding Authorizations.--Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1268(c);
and treaties cited above.
glifwc's fiscal year 2016 funding request highlights
1. GLIFWC would be pleased to accept an allocation of appropriated
RPI funding that is in the same proportion to overall RPI funding as
has been regularly provided in previous years when funding for the RPI
line item was increased. This amount for Great Lakes Area Resource
Management would be approximately $7,153,000, based on the
administration's fiscal year 2016 proposal for the RPI line item.
2. A total tribal set-aside of $25,000,000 and GLIFWC's request of
$1,200,000 under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to be
distributed through the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance (ISDEA) Act.
3. Full funding for Contract Support Costs, as required by the
ISDEA Act.
4. Sufficient funding in the Tribal Management and Development
line item for GLIFWC's member tribes to fulfill their needs for
reservation-based natural resource programs.
glifwc's goal--a secure funding base to fulfill treaty purposes
For more than 30 years, Congress has funded GLIFWC to implement
comprehensive conservation, natural resource protection, and law
enforcement programs that: (1) ensure member tribes are able to
implement their treaty reserved rights to hunt, fish, and gather
throughout the ceded territories; (2) ensure a healthy and sustainable
natural resource base to support those rights; and (3) promote healthy,
safe communities. These programs also provide a wide range of public
benefits, and facilitate participation in management partnerships in
Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota.
glifwc's programs--promoting healthy communities and educating tribal
members through treaty rights exercise
Established in 1984, GLIFWC is a natural resources management
agency of 11 member Ojibwe Tribes with resource management
responsibilities over their ceded territory (off-reservation) hunting,
fishing and gathering treaty rights. These ceded territories extend
over a 60,000 square mile area in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan.\2\ GLIFWC employs 75 full-time staff, including natural
resource scientists, technicians, conservation enforcement officers,
policy specialists, and public information specialists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GLIFWC's programs do not duplicate those of the Chippewa-Ottawa
Resource Authority or the 1854 Treaty Authority. GLIFWC also
coordinates with its member tribes with respect to tribal treaty
fishing that extends beyond reservation boundaries by virtue of the
Treaty of 1854 and the reservations' locations on Lake Superior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLIFWC strives to implement its programs in a holistic, integrated
manner that is consistent with the culture and values of its member
tribes, especially in light of the tribal lifeway that the exercise of
treaty rights supports. This means not only ensuring that tribal
members can legally exercise their rights, but supporting community
efforts to educate them about the benefits (physical, spiritual, and
cultural) of harvesting and consuming a more traditional diet, as well
as promoting intergenerational learning and the transmission of
traditional cultural and management practices. These programs, in turn,
promote healthy, strong communities.
GLIFWC and its member tribes thank Congress, and particularly this
subcommittee, for its continuing support of these treaty obligations
and its recognition of the ongoing success of these programs. There are
two main elements of this fiscal year 2016 funding request:
1. BIA Great Lakes Area Management (Within the RPI Line Item).--A
proportionate share of the $40,138,000 proposed by the administration
for the RPI line item. The administration's proposed increase for RPI
in fiscal year 2016 is greatly appreciated as well as greatly needed.
The demand for GLIFWC's services continues to increase, as does the
need to address the impacts of climate change on natural resources and
the tribal communities those resources support.
GLIFWC has testified about the fact that the need is consistently
greater than RPI funding, and the impacts that underfunding has on
treaty rights programs. Increased funding in fiscal year 2015 allowed
GLIFWC to restore some cuts it made to its programs due to previous
unmet needs. The increase proposed in fiscal year 2016 will continue
that trend and allow GLIFWC to better understand the physical, chemical
and biological changes occurring in ceded territory ecosystems, and
develop and implement adaptive management strategies to address those
changes.
Tribes can only protect the resources that support their rights if
they undertake relevant scientific and technical analyses that inform
the design and implementation of adaptive natural resource management
activities. To this end, maximum flexibility should be provided to
GLIFWC and its tribes to define for themselves the science and research
activities best suited to the needs of their member tribes and the
particular issues within their region. GLIFWC would gladly accept funds
in proportion to overall RPI funding, as provided in fiscal year 2015.
2. EPA Environmental Programs and Management.--$250,000,000.
GLIFWC: $1,200,000. GLIFWC supports continued funding for the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) as an important non-regulatory
program that enhances and ensures coordinated governance in the Great
Lakes, as well as substantive natural resource protection and
restoration projects. GLIFWC supports funding of no less than $250
million, but recognizes that this amount does not fulfill all of the
protection and restoration needs that have been identified. GLIFWC also
recommends that at least $25 million be provided to the BIA for tribes,
to ensure that they: (i) are able to hire and support staff that
provide the requisite capacity to participate in intergovernmental
protection and restoration initiatives, and (ii) can undertake projects
that contribute to the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes.
At a minimum, current funding for tribal ``capacity'' must be
maintained, and the amount of GLRI funding that has been provided to
the BIA for projects must be restored to its historic proportion--over
the past 5 years, that amount has been cut by 40 percent, while overall
GLRI funding has remained steady.
Sustained funding for GLIFWC at approximately $1.2 million will
enable GLIFWC to augment its current natural resource protection and
enhancement activities. It will also allow GLIFWC to maintain its
participation in interjurisdictional governance structures, including
the implementation of the revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA). With GLRI funding, GLIFWC has been able to help create a team
to seek out and use Traditional Ecological Knowledge in the
implementation of commitments made in the Science Annex of the GLWQA.
Without GLIFWC's participation, this team would likely not have been
created and the cultural perspectives retained by generations of
Anishinaabe residing in the Great Lakes would not be shared with those
working to protect Great Lakes ecosystems.
Tribal GLRI funding should be provided through the BIA and
distributed under the ISDEA Act. This funding mechanism delivers
funding to the field faster and has resulted in the earlier achievement
of on-the-ground results. It also fulfills the Federal Government's
long-standing policy of fostering tribal self-determination in the
implementation of tribal programs.
results and benefits of glifwc's programs
1. Maintain the Requisite Capability To Meet Legal Obligations, To
Conserve Natural Resources and To Regulate Treaty Harvests.--While more
funding would increase program comprehensiveness, sustained funding at
the fiscal year 2016 level supports tribal compliance with various
court decrees and intergovernmental agreements that govern the tribes'
treaty-reserved hunting, fishing and gathering rights. Funding for
science and research enhances GLIFWC's capability to undertake work and
participate in relevant partnerships to address ecosystem threats that
harm treaty natural resources.
2. Remain a Trusted Management and Law Enforcement Partner, and
Scientific Contributor in the Great Lakes Region.--GLIFWC has become a
respected and integral part of management and law enforcement
partnerships that conserve natural resources and protect public safety.
It brings a tribal perspective to interjurisdictional Great Lakes
management fora and would use its scientific expertise to study issues
and geographic areas that are important to its member tribes but that
others may not be examining.
3. Maintain the Overall Public Benefits That Derive From Its
Programs.--Over the years, GLIFWC has become a recognized and valued
partner in natural resource management. Because of its institutional
experience and staff expertise, GLIFWC has built and maintained
numerous partnerships that: (i) provide accurate information and data
to counter social misconceptions about tribal treaty harvests and the
status of ceded territory natural resources; (ii) maximize each
partner's financial resources and avoid duplication of effort and
costs; (iii) engender cooperation rather than competition; and (iv)
undertake projects that achieve public benefits that no one partner
could accomplish alone.
4. Encourage and Contribute to Healthy Tribal Communities.--GLIFWC
works with its member tribes' communities to promote the benefits of
treaty rights exercise. These include the health benefits associated
with a more traditional diet and the intergenerational learning that
takes place when elders teach youth. In addition, GLIFWC sponsors a
camp each summer where tribal youth build leadership skills, strengthen
connections to the outdoors, and learn about treaty rights and careers
in natural resource fields.
______
Prepared Statement of the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition
Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
On behalf of the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, we write
to ask that you to support funding for Great Lakes restoration
priorities in fiscal year 2016. The Great Lakes region has received
much-needed support, and we are seeing on-the-ground results in
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania
and Wisconsin.
First, we ask you to support $300 million for the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative. Restoration efforts are improving the lives of
millions of people and work is underway on over 2,000 restoration
projects throughout the region that will restore the Great Lakes and
address the most urgent problems facing them. These projects are
cleaning up drinking water flowing to millions of homes and thousands
of industries and improving infrastructure important for future
economic growth in the eight-State region. These projects are
delivering results, including:
--Two Areas of Concern--Deer Lake, Michigan and White Lake,
Michigan--were delisted last year. The Presque Isle,
Pennsylvania Area of Concern was delisted in 2013. The
management actions necessary for delisting Waukegan Harbor,
Illinois, Sheboygan Harbor. Wisconsin, and the Ashtabula River,
Ohio, have also been completed. The GLRI has accelerated the
cleanup of toxic hotspots by delisting three formerly
contaminated sites--in the previous two decades before the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, only one site had been
delisted.
--Between 2010 and 2014, 52 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.
--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 FWS, NPS, NRCS, and NOAA (among
others) have restored, protected, or enhanced over 115,000
acres of wetlands and other habitat.
--3,400 river-miles were cleared of over 250 barriers resulting in
fish swimming into stretches of river where they have been
absent for decades.
--Based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service monitoring, GLRI-sponsored
actions are increasing self-sustaining populations of 13 non-
endangered and non-threatened native species important to the
Great Lakes. For example, efforts in the Saginaw River
watershed have contributed to the now self-sustaining walleye
population in Saginaw Bay, Michigan.
Second, the GLRI does not address aging sewers that discharge
billions of gallons of sewage into the Great Lakes, closing beaches,
threatening public health, and damaging local economies. Communities
depend on the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) for low-interest
loans to implement costly wastewater infrastructure projects that seek
to stop overflows from happening. Based on a fixed formula, maintaining
level funding for the Clean Water SRF will provide approximately $500
million for the eight Great Lakes States in 2015. We request that you
maintain current funding ($1.45 billion) for this important Great Lakes
restoration program.
Investments in Great Lakes restoration create short-term jobs and
lead 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 $2 in return, making Great Lakes
restoration one of the best investments for the Federal dollar in the
budget. More recent research from Grand Valley State University
suggests that the return for certain projects may be closer to 6-to-1.
The University of Michigan has also demonstrated that over 1.5 million
jobs are dependent on clean and healthy Great Lakes, accounting for
more than $60 billion in wages annually. 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.
However, there is still much work that needs to be done. Aging
sewers, invasive species, and toxic pollutants are just a few of the
pervasive threats that impact the region, endangering human and
wildlife health, lowering property values, and hurting the region's
economy. Cutting funding will slow restoration efforts, allowing
problems to get worse and making them more expensive to solve.
Ultimately, cutting spending on the Great Lakes won't save money--it
will cost the Nation more. As the source of drinking water for 30
million people, the Nation cannot afford to not protect and restore the
Great Lakes.
Progress is being made. Now is not the time to scale back our
Nation's commitment to restore the Great Lakes environment and economy.
If we wait and allow restoration efforts to slow, these serious
problems will only get worse and the price we pay will be much higher.
For the economy and the environment, please make sure that the fiscal
year 2016 budget provides at least $300 million for the GLRI, SRF
funding is maintained, and that all agency Great Lakes restoration base
budgets are preserved.
Sincerely,
Joel Brammeier, President & CEO, Alliance for the
Great Lakes; Gary Belan, Senior Director,
Clean Water Supply Program, American
Rivers; Erin Crotty, Executive Director,
Audubon New York; Loren H. Smith, Executive
Director, Buffalo Aububon Society; Jill
Jedlicka, Executive Director & Riverkeeper,
Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper; Mary Smith,
Communications Coordinator, Church Women
United in New York State; Brian Smith,
Associate Executive Director, Citizens
Campaign for the Environment; Deanna White,
State Director, Clean Water Action of
Minnesota; Mark Redsten, CEO, Clean
Wisconsin; Anne M. Vaara, Executive
Director, Clinton River Watershed Council;
Deb Yandala, CEO, The Conservancy for
Cuyahoga Valley National Park; and Jean
Pogge, CEO, Delta Institute.
Suzanne Moynihan, Director, The EDGE; Ally Fields,
Clean Water Advocate, Environment America;
Chuck Godfrey, President, Erie County
Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs; Jill Ryan,
Executive Director, Freshwater Future;
Kerry Kelly, Chairman of Board, Friends of
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore;
Matt Meersman, President, Friends of the
St. Joe River Association; Mike Strigel,
Executive Director, Gathering Waters:
Wisconsin's Alliance for Land Trusts; June
Summers, President, Genesee Valley Audubon
Society; Jonathan Jarosz, Executive
Director, Heart of the Lakes Center for
Land Conservation Policy; Sr. Rose Therese
Nolta, SSpS, Justice and Peace Coordinator,
Holy Spirit Missionary Sisters, USA, JPIC;
Laura Rubin, Executive Director, Huron
River Watershed Council; and Darwin Adams,
Chairman, Illinois Council of Trout
Unlimited.
Mike Leahy, Conservation Director, Izaak Walton
League of America; John Stegmeier,
Conservation Chair, Dwight Lydell Chapter
of the Izaak Walton, League of America;
Ivan J. Hack, Jr., President, Headwaters
Chapter IWLA; Tim Russell, Division
President, Indiana Division Izaak Walton
League; Robert Stegmier, National Director,
Michigan, Izaak Walton League of America;
Les Monostory, President, New York State
Division, Izaak Walton League of America;
Jim Sweeney, President, Porter County
Chapter of the Izaak Walton, League of
America; Michelle Parker, Vice President,
Great Lakes and Sustainability, Daniel P.
Haerther Center for Conservation and
Research, John G. Shedd Aquarium; Alan J.
Weener, President, Kalamazoo River Sturgeon
for Tomorrow; Tom Fuhrman, President, Lake
Erie Region Convervancy; and Sandy Bihn,
Executive Director, Lake Erie Waterkeeper
Inc.
Gordon Morlan, Environmental Chairman, League of
Women Voters Grosse Pointe; Betsy Lawson,
Senior Lobbyest, League of Women Voters of
the United States; Nic Clark, Director,
Michigan Clean Water Action; Daniel
Eichinger, Executive Director, Michigan
United Conservation Clubs; John J. Ropp,
President/CEO, Michigan Wildlife
Conservancy; Cheryl Nenn, Riverkeeper,
Milwaukee Riverkeeper; Scott Strand,
Executive Director, Minnesota Center for
Environmental Advocacy; Gary Botzek,
Executive Director, Minnesota Conservation
Federation; Steve Morse, Executive
Director, Minnesota Environmental
Partnership; Lynn McClure, Senior Midwest
Director, National Parks Conservation
Association; Karen Hobbs, Senior Policy
Analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council;
Mike Shriberg, Regional Executive Director,
Great Lakes, National Wildlife Federation;
and Melinda Hughes-Wert, President, Nature
Abounds.
Marc Hudon, Chair, Water Commission, Nature Quebec;
Vincent Agnello, Executive Secretary,
Niagara Watershed Alliance; Dennis West,
President, Northern Initiatives; Dan Plath,
President, Northwest Indiana Paddling
Association; Michael Ryan, President,
Northwest Indiana Steelheaders; Ron Urban,
Chairman, NYS Council Trout Unlimited;
Kristy Meyer, Managing Director,
Agricultural, Health & Clean Water
Programs, Ohio Environmental Council; Ray
Stewart, President, Ohio Wetlands
Association; Kris Patterson, Executive
Director, Partners for Clean Streams; David
Masur, Director, PennEnvironment; Irene
Senn, Coordinator, Religious Coalition for
the Great Lakes; and Denny Caneff,
Executive Director, River Alliance of
Wisconsin.
Nicole Silk, President, River Network; Nicole
Barker, Executive Director, Save the Dunes;
Lee Willbanks, Upper St. Lawrence
Riverkeeper, Executive Director, Save The
River; Robin Schachat, President, Shaker
Lakes Garden Club; Melissa Damaschke, Great
Lakes Program Director, Sierra Club; Karen
Donahue, Sisters of Mercy West Midwest
Community, Justice Team; Sister Phyllis
Tierney, Coordinator, SSJ Justice & Peace
Ministry, Sisters of St. Joseph of
Rochester; Rafael Rosa, Regional Vice
President, Student Conservation
Association; Jennifer McKay, Policy
Specialist, Tip of the Mitt Watershed
Council; Carol A. Stepien, Director of the
Lake Erie Center, University of Toledo;
Christine Crissman, Executive Director, The
Watershed Center Grand Traverse Bay;
Antoinette Grote, President, Western NY
Trout Unlimited, Chapter #068; Ellen
Satterlee, President and Executive
Director, The Wege Foundation; Rich
Cochran, President and CEO, Western Reserve
Land Conservancy; Kerry Schumann, Executive
Director, Wisconsin League of Conservation
Voters; and Tracy Hames, Executive
Director, Wisconsin Wetlands Association.
______
Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS),
Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), and Doris Day Animal League
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on items of importance
to our organizations. We urge the subcommittee to address these
priority issues in the fiscal year 2016 Department of Interior
appropriation.
rock creek park deer
We request that funds made available in this Act give preference to
non-lethal deer management programs over lethal techniques 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 in the long run will use
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.
environmental protection agency
Thousands of chemicals are currently used and hundreds of new ones
are introduced each year for which toxicity assessments need to be
conducted. To answer this need, EPA established the National Center for
Computational Toxicity to predict hazard and prioritize chemicals for
further screening and testing, developing and using high-throughput
assays and predictive tools which are less expensive and time consuming
and more predictive of relevant biological pathways.
Through EPA's CompTox program, EPA has screened more than 2,000
chemicals (industrial, food additives, and consumer products) and
evaluated them in more than 700 high-throughput assays. Additionally,
EPA is using ToxCast data to prioritize chemicals for evaluation in the
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Tox21, a collaboration between
EPA, NIEHS, NCATS and the FDA is currently screening 10,000 chemicals
to improve the effectiveness of drug development.
However, even as the need increases for this data, the program's
budget has stagnated. An increase of $12,366 million to the NCCT budget
is essential to achieving the goals presented in the CompTox program
and assure a more predictable and relevant chemicals safety assessment.
multinational species conservation fund
The administration's fiscal year 2016 budget requests $11.1 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
support the fiscal year 2016 budget justification request from the
USFWS Office of International Affairs of approximately $14.7 million
but request that at least $13 million of these funds be allocated to
the Wildlife Without Borders and International Wildlife Trade programs.
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 3 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. 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 U.S., the use of PZP could
result in a cost-savings of tens of millions of dollars if applied
broadly across all HMAs.
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 Review Team
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and to address the
serious funding needs that have limited and continue to hinder the
operations of tribal judicial systems in Indian Country. I am the Lead
Judge representing the Independent Tribal Court Review Team. The Indian
Tribal Justice Act was enacted in 1993 which authorized $58.4 million
per year for 7 years for tribal courts base funding. For more than two
decades Congress has reauthorized the Act but funds have never been
appropriated. In 2015 nothing has changed because the lack of funds to
implement both the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) and the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA) have not been appropriated. Without funding to
support these measures the intent and goals of Congress will never be
achieved and tribal communities, tribal citizens and tribal women will
never be safe. Tribal courts remain underfunded and the result is
negatively impacting law enforcement operations which also was not the
intent or goal when these bills were enacted. It is the strong
recommendation of the Independent Tribal Courts Review Team that the
Federal tribal courts budget be substantially increased in fiscal year
2016 to support the needs of tribal judicial systems.
budget priorities, requests and recommendations
1. +$82 million/year (fiscal year 2015 equivalent to $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).
2. +$15 million increase for tribal courts above the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.
3. Support the requests and recommendations of the National Congress
of American.
The increase will support:
1. Hiring and training of court personnel.
2. Compliance with the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010.
3. Compliance/implementation of 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 $5.0
million increase in the fiscal year 2016 President's budget for tribal
courts. The fight against crime and drugs has led to more arrests which
is increasing the caseload in the tribal court system. Provisions in
both the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) and the Violence Against Women
Act (VAWA) will have a significant impact on tribal courts. Both
requires that attorneys be provided to represent non-Indian defendants
to further strain the capacity of the tribal judicial systems 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
and needs.
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
seven Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) courts.
Since 1999, the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Department of
Justice has administered the Tribal Courts Assistance Program, designed
to provide funds for tribes to plan, operate, and enhance tribal
judicial systems. They have made attempts to evaluate tribal courts but
discovered their means of doing so was insensitive to American Indian
and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people and unrealistic in the absence of
elements that were key to Indian Country, such as: (1) the importance
of tribal culture and traditions; (2) the inability to apply State and
local criminal justice initiatives to tribal settings; (3) the lack of
cooperation from non-tribal entities; and, (4) the lack of available
data on tribal justice.
The Independent Court Review Team has had more hands on success in
reviewing tribal court systems. For approximately 7 years, we have
travelled throughout Indian Country assessing how tribal courts are
operating. During this time, we completed 84 court reviews. We also
completed 28 Corrective Actions. There is no one with more hands-on
experience and knowledge regarding the current status of tribal courts
than our review team.
justification for request
1. Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.--Tribal courts make do
with underpaid staff, under-experienced staff and minimal training. (We
have determined that hiring tribal members limits the inclination of
staff to move away; a poor excuse to underpay staff.)
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/implementation of the 2013 VAWA Act.--To provide
tribal courts with the ability to provide non-Indians with all the
rights under the U.S. Constitution in domestic violence actions in
tribal courts (12 person juries, provide attorneys for non-Indians,
provide attorneys in court personnel in domestic violence cases as in
TLOA, etc.)
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.)
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.
about 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.
Nationwide, there are 185 tribes with courts that received $23.28
million in Federal funding in 2015. The Review Team's Assessments have
indicated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs only funds tribal courts at
26 percent of the funding needed to operate. Now BIA faces the
challenges in the new provisions of TLOA and VAWA with no
appropriations. On the flip side, tribes who cannot afford to assist in
the financial operations of the court are tasked with doing the best
they can with what they have even at the expense of decreasing or
eliminating services elsewhere. This while operating at a disadvantage
with already overstrained resources and underserved needs of the tribal
citizens. The assessment suggests that the smaller courts are both the
busiest and most underfunded.
The grant funding in the DOJ is intended to be temporary, but
instead it is used for permanent needs; such as funding a Drug Court
Clerk who then is used as a Court Clerk with Drug Court duties. When
the funding runs out, so does the permanent position. We have witnessed
many failed Drug Courts, failed court management software projects (due
to training costs) and incomplete code development projects. When the
justice funding runs out, so does the project.
As a directive from the Office of Management and Budget in fiscal
year 2005, our reviews specifically examined how tribes were using
Federal funding. In the seven fiscal years through September of fiscal
year 2011 there were only two isolated incidents of a questionable
expenditure of Federal funds. It has been speculated that because of
our limited resources, we compromise a person's due process and invoke
``speedy trials'' violations to save tribal courts money. Everyone who
is processed through the tribal judicial system is afforded their
Constitutional civil liberties and civil rights.
We do not wish to leave an entirely negative impression about
tribal courts. Tribal courts need an immediate, sustained and increased
level of funding. True. However, there are strong indications that the
courts will put such funding to good use.
Tribal courts have other serious needs. Tribal appellate court
judges are mostly attorneys who dedicate their services for modest fees
that barely cover costs for copying and transcription fees. Tribal
courts do offer jury trials. In many courts, one sustained jury trial
will deplete the available budget. The only place to minimize expenses
is to fire staff. Many tribal courts have defense advocates. These
advocates are generally not law trained and do a good job protecting an
individual's rights (including assuring speedy trial limitations are
not violated.) However, this is a large item in court budgets and if
the defense advocate, or prosecutor, should leave, the replacement
process is slow.
This Congress and this administration can do something great. Put
your money where your promises have been and support the Acts you have
passed. Thank You.
______
Prepared Statement of the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME)
interest of ime
IME is a nonprofit association founded in 1913 to provide accurate
information and comprehensive recommendations concerning the safety and
security of commercial explosive materials. Our mission is to promote
safety and the protection of employees, users, the public and the
environment, and to encourage the adoption of uniform rules and
regulations in the manufacture, transportation, storage, handling, use
and disposal of explosive materials used in blasting and other
essential operations.
IME represents U.S. manufacturers and distributors of commercial
explosive materials and oxidizers as well as other companies that
provide related services. Millions of metric tons of high explosives,
blasting agents, and oxidizers are consumed annually in the United
States. Of this, IME member companies produce over 98 percent of the
high explosives and a great majority of the blasting agents and
oxidizers.
Commercial explosives are pervasively regulated by a myriad of
Federal and State agencies. Explosives manufacturing, storage and
transportation facilities comply with Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA'') regulations implementing various Federal environmental
statutes such as the Clean Air Act (``CAA''), including the Risk
Management Program (``RMP''), and the Emergency Planning and Community
Right To Know Act (``EPCRA''). EPA participates in the Chemical
Facility Safety and Security Working Group, or Interagency Working
Group (``IWG''), which is engaged in satisfying the requirements of
Executive Order (``EO'') 13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and
Security. The IWG's June 6, 2014 status report, Actions to Improve
Chemical Facility Safety and Security--A Shared Commitment, includes
actions that have the potential to significantly impact the commercial
explosives industry.
We offer the following comments on the need to provide EPA
sufficient funds to address and improve chemical facility safety, and
the concurrent need to ensure that the agency's actions complement the
regulatory requirements of other Federal agencies while avoiding
unnecessary regulation and/or redundancy within and between agency
programs.
fiscal year 2016 activities and performance plan--rmp and epcra
The administration's fiscal year 2016 budget request includes funds
that would allow EPA to identify and focus its enforcement efforts on
significant vulnerabilities at the Nation's chemical facilities. The
request would also be aimed at enhancing oversight, inspections and
enforcement at high-risk facilities subject to the RMP. Activities
would include, among other things, RMP and EPCRA compliance
inspections; national coordination for chemical accident prevention and
emergency response planning program policy, inspections, compliance and
enforcement; program oversight, monitoring, and support for the
Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations (``CAMEO'') system;
training for inspectors; and communication/cooperation with State and
local governments to provide outreach and training on RMP and EPCRA.
IME supports the agency's efforts to expand and enhance its current
training, inspection and enforcement programs. In particular, EPA
should be provided with sufficient resources to ensure that it has an
adequately trained cadre of inspectors and is capable, at least, of
inspecting all facilities designated by the agency as ``high risk.''
According to EPA, the number of facilities is currently 1,900. We
expect, however, that this number may grow as the agency identifies and
scrutinizes additional facilities through its improved coordination
with the Department of Homeland Security and its other IWG partners.
The subcommittee should take this into consideration as it examines the
budget request.
Enhanced communication and coordination with State and local
governments and organizations is critical if EPA is to identify high
risk and other ``outlier'' facilities that are operating in violation
of current regulatory requirements. As part of this effort, the IWG
envisions improvements in the Local Emergency Planning Committee
(``LEPC'') program established under EPCRA. Although EPA administers
the program, it does not control the distribution of funds to LEPCs.
Rather, incongruously, the LEPC program is funded through the issuance
of Hazardous Materials Emergency Program (``HMEP'') grants administered
by the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (``PHMSA''), as authorized by the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act.
This bifurcated administrative and funding arrangement is awkward
at best. In addition, PHMSA's management of the HMEP grant program is
ineffective and is, in large part, responsible for the failure of the
LEPC program in many areas of the country.\1\ If the LEPC program is to
be improved, a necessary first step would be to place the funding of
the program under the control of the agency that is actually
responsible for overseeing and administering it. The need to support
LEPCs is highlighted in the IWG status report as essential to community
engagement in properly planning for public safety and the safeguarding
of property and the environment in the event of a chemical emergency.
The LEPC system, if it is to be made workable, must be administered
wholly by EPA in both its financial and programmatic elements. We ask
the subcommittee to support EPA's request for funds to support this
program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PHMSA's Inadequate Management and Oversight of Hazardous
Materials Emergency Preparedness Grants Limited the Program's
Effectiveness, DOT-OIG, AV-2012-040, January 12, 2012.
\2\ Fiscal Year 2016 USEPA Budget Justification, EPA-190-R-15-001
(Feb. 2015), at p. 360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2016 activities and performance plan--eo 13650
The administration's fiscal year 2016 budget request also includes
funding for EPA's activities in support of EO 13650. As part of its
effort to implement the requirements of the EO, EPA published a Request
for Information (``RFI'') on the RMP in 2014. Among other things, EPA
inquired whether explosives and/or ammonium nitrate (``AN'') should be
included on an expanded RMP list of substances. We do not believe that
any resources appropriated to support the RMP program should be used to
fund an expansion of the program to include explosives or AN.
Explosives
As we stated in our comments on the RFI, an expansion of the RMP to
include explosives would unnecessarily duplicate extant Federal
regulatory programs including EPA's EPCRA program, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (``OSHA'') Process Safety Management
Standard (``PSM'') and Explosives and Blasting Agents Standard, and
quantity/distance requirements administered by the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (``ATF''). This existing suite of
controls already delivers the three key protections provided by the
RMP, i.e.; (i) emergency response planning and communication (EPCRA),
(ii) accident prevention (PSM), and (iii) protection against offsite
consequences (ATF).
In short, there is no need for EPA to expend valuable resources
reexamining the exclusion of explosives from the RMP. As noted,
existing regulations administered by a variety of agencies, including
EPA, already sufficiently cover the ground that RMP is intended to
safeguard. Coverage under OSHA's PSM and Explosives and Blasting Agents
Standards provide accident prevention at the same level that would be
provided by the RMP. Compliance with PSM, EPCRA, and ATF rules furnish
local responders with the information necessary to respond to an
emergency. ATF and OSHA regulations incorporating the American Table of
Distances (i.e., quantity/distance requirements) ensure that the
effects of an accidental explosion would be confined to facility
property, thus obviating the need for RMP rules aimed at estimating and
responding to offsite consequences. Moreover, independent industry
efforts to guarantee safety through the use of IMESAFR, a widely
accepted quantitative risk assessment program developed by IME, and
industry best practices and standards published in IME's Safety Library
Publications and guidance documents operate as additional safeguards of
worker and public safety. No further regulation is necessary.
Ammonium Nitrate
EPA's RFI also inquires whether there are safety gaps in current
regulations covering AN that could be addressed under the RMP. We
believe that no gaps exist and that the agency's resources would be
better spent in addressing problematic but improvable areas such as the
LEPC program and coordination between Federal agency programs.
As we also noted in our response to the RFI, we believe that
existing regulatory requirements, with recommended enhancements, are
adequate to safely regulate the management of AN. AN can present a
hazard if managed or stored improperly, but it does not warrant
inclusion in a complex regulatory program like the RMP. The proper
management of AN is not only straightforward, but, done correctly,
effectively eliminates any potential hazard. AN is not a volatile or
self-reactive chemical requiring constant diligence in its handling.
The proper management of AN is simple, well understood, and easily
accomplished. IME's Safety and Security Guidelines for Ammonium Nitrate
\3\ describe appropriate management parameters: AN must be stored in
non-combustible bins or storage buildings, isolated from potential
contaminants, and protected from substantial and sustained heat sources
(e.g., fire) and shock. Where these uncomplicated tenets are followed,
the reactive hazard associated with AN is negligible if not
nonexistent.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ IME Safety and Security Guidelines for Ammonium Nitrate (2013).
\4\ This can be substantiated through quantitative risk assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IME would oppose any appropriation that could be used to expand the
RMP to include AN (whether on its own or as a ``reactive chemical'').
Existing OSHA rules at 29 CFR 1910.109(i) are adequate to ensure the
safe storage and handling of this material and the inclusion of AN in
the RMP would do nothing to enhance the safety of workers or the
public.\5\ IME recommends that specific language be included in
appropriations legislation prohibiting the expansion of the RMP to
include AN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ IME has recommended, however, that 29 CFR 1910.109(i) be
updated consistent with our Guidelines. IME is also a member of the
National Fire Protection Association (``NFPA'') 400 Committee and has
made similar recommendations as part of the ongoing review of NFPA 400,
Chapter 11, Ammonium Nitrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
toxic substances control act (``tsca'')
In EPA's Congressional Justification the agency has indicated that
it plans to submit legislative language that would allow it to assess
fees to manage chemical manufacturers' requests that the agency protect
designated information as confidential business information
(``CBI'').\6\ The legislative language would establish a revolving fund
in the U.S. Treasury known as the TSCA CBI Management Fund that would
be used by the agency to manage CBI claims, support its specialized CBI
communications and database, and fund physical security and CBI
reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Fiscal Year 2016 USEPA Budget Justification, EPA-190-R-15-001
(Feb. 2015), at p. 1014-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IME does not support this request. Chemical manufacturers,
including the commercial explosives industry, expend hundreds of
millions of dollars in researching and developing unique and innovative
products that help fuel the U.S. economy. Manufacturers should not, in
addition, have to pay fees to the Federal Government in order to
safeguard the confidentiality of their own work product.
conclusion
IME supports EPA's request for funding to support improvements in
chemical facility safety and local and regional emergency preparedness
planning. We oppose, however, any effort to expand the RMP to include
explosives or AN, and we oppose the imposition of fees to safeguard CBI
under TSCA.
______
Prepared Statement of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission
My name is John Stefanko and I serve as Deputy Secretary of the
Office of Active and Abandoned Mine Operations within the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection. I appreciate the opportunity to
present this statement to the subcommittee regarding the views of the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission's 26 member States on the fiscal
year 2016 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 $63.5 million to fund title V
grants to States for the implementation of their regulatory programs, a
reduction of $5.1 million or 7.4 percent below the fiscal year 2015
enacted level. OSM also proposes to reduce mandatory spending for the
abandoned mine lands (AML) program by $24.4 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 $63.5 million for title V grants to
States in fiscal year 2016, an amount which is matched by the States.
These grants support the implementation of State 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 2015, Congress approved $68.6 million for State and
tribal 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. The States are greatly encouraged by the amount 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
2015, Congress noted that: ``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 recent budget requests, OSM displayed a pattern of proposing
woefully inadequate funding for State title V regulatory programs.
Congress consistently rejected the proposed reductions and funded the
programs at amounts that more closely aligned with the States'
projected needs. OSM's fiscal year 2016 budget proposal reflects a
better understanding of the importance of adequately funding State
regulatory programs and thus represents a welcome departure from
previous years.
While the States are appreciative of OSM's apparent change of
direction, the amounts proposed will still inhibit the States' ability
to operate at the optimal level. The title V grant amount proposed by
OSM is $5.1 million less than the 2015 enacted level. As a rationale
for the reductions, OSM asserts that any shortfalls in fiscal year 2016
can be covered by the carryover from previous fiscal years. While the
States understand OSM's position, we believe this plan to be
shortsighted in that it fails to consider the improving fiscal
conditions in many States and the damaging precedent set by
appropriating suboptimal grant amounts. Furthermore, there is no
guarantee that these carryover funds will be available into the future
or that they would not be reprogrammed for other purposes.
It should be kept in mind that, 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 the States' ability to spend all of their Federal grant money
in years past. With many States now recovering enough to utilize their
full grant amount, it is imperative that funding be maintained at the
current level of $68.6 million. Any supplemental increases for tribal
primacy programs would need to be in addition to that amount.
Clear indications from Congress that reliable, consistent funding
will continue into the future has done much to stimulate support for
these programs by State legislatures and budget officers who, in the
face of difficult fiscal climates and constraints, have had to deal
with the challenge of matching Federal grant dollars with State funds.
Recall that any cut in Federal funding generally translates to an
additional cut of an equal amount 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.
At the same time that OSM is proposing cuts for State programs, the
agency is proposing sizeable increases for its own program operations
(almost $4 million), including an increase of 12 full time employees.
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.'' 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'' (pg. 58). 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.
Without more to justify the need for additional 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.\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Congress agreed with this assessment when it commented as
follows on OSM's proposed increase in fiscal year 2015: ``The [Omnibus
Appropriations] agreement does not provide funds to expand and enhance
Federal oversight activities of State programs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent that OSM seeks to enhance State primacy, we would
support a renewed focus on processing State program amendments.
Additionally, if OSM is looking for ways to improve and enhance the
overall implementation of SMCRA at both the State and Federal level, we
would urge the agency to move forward with the findings and
recommendations of the Government Efficiency Work Groups that spent
considerable time and effort throughout 2014 to, among other things,
address the continuing fiscal impacts on program implementation and
develop workable solutions. While OSM mentions the work of this State/
Federal initiative in its Budget Justification document (pg. 10), there
has been little movement to follow up on this excellent work since the
submission of the Work Group reports last July.
For all the above reasons, we urge Congress to approve not less
than $68.6 million for State and tribal title V regulatory grants, the
same amount enacted by Congress over the past few fiscal years. In
doing so, Congress will continue its commitment to ensuring the States
have the resources they need to continue their work on the forefront of
environmental protection and preservation of public health and safety.
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. 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 $209 million in fiscal year 2016. In its
fiscal year 2016 proposed budget, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) is
requesting $385 million for State and tribal AML grants, an increase of
$176 million. OSM's budget also includes five 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 (a reduction of $24.4 million in fiscal year 2016);
the second of which would return the AML reclamation fee paid by coal
operators to pre-2006 levels; the third of which would establish a
hardrock AML fee and accompanying program; the fourth of which would
provide enhanced payouts to the United Mine Workers Retirement Funds,
and the fifth of which would accelerate the distribution of grant funds
for a portion of the remaining unappropriated balance in the AML Trust
Fund to ``facilitate sustainable revitalization'' in addition to
cleanup and redevelopment of eligible lands and waters (an additional
$200 million in fiscal year 2016).
With regard to this latter proposal, while the States are
supportive of the spirit of the proposal and have in fact designed many
projects around these types of purposes using local contractors
whenever the opportunities and partnerships exist, we cannot support a
programmatic change of this magnitude without a better understanding of
the specifics of how it will be implemented. The success of such an
endeavor, as well as the States' support for it, is highly dependent on
robust consultation between OSM and State AML Program Managers. At this
juncture, the States are concerned that the proposal could have
negative ramifications for the overall remediation of AML hazards and
thus public health and safety. Depending on how the proposal is
implemented, the addition of ``economic eligibility factors'' to
existing site selection criteria could potentially divert some amount
of funding away from the highest priority AML sites. Please keep in
mind that the $1 billion of AML Fund money which would be repurposed by
the proposal is already slated for dispersal to the States under the
allocation system and site prioritization method ordained by Congress
in the 2006 amendments to SMCRA.
With regard to the proposal contained in OSM's budget to establish
a hardrock AML program, the States are well aware of the need 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.
OSM's budget proposal also includes a legislative proposal which
would require a massive transfer of $363.4 million from the Treasury to
various components of the UMWA Health and Retirement Funds. The States
recognize the importance of this issue and are supportive of efforts to
ensure the long-term solvency of the UMWA Pension Funds. However, the
States believe that this issue should be pursued as part of a more
comprehensive reauthorization package given the overall implications
for the AML program. Furthermore, the States are concerned that this
significant dispersal of Treasury funds could impact the application of
the $490 million cap on transfers from the Treasury vis-a-vis mandatory
Treasury payments to the States for AML work.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement on the
Office of Surface Mining's proposed budget for fiscal year 2016. 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 funding and legislative proposals for the
States and tribes. We would be happy to answer any questions.
______
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 submits the
following recommendations for fiscal year 2016 Indian forestry-related
activities in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Department of
Interior (DOI) Office of Wildland Fire Management (OWF), and the
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (USFS):
Bureau of Indian Affairs
(1) Increase BIA Forestry by $25 million, to $76.9 million, as a
first step to providing the $100 million needed for funding parity with
other Federal forestry programs, as recommended by the IFMAT III
report. Require tribal participation in allocation of this increase.
(2) Separately, increase BIA Forestry Projects by $12.7 million
to initiate a BIA Forestry Workforce Development program, as
recommended by IFMAT III.
(3) Support BIA's Tribal Climate Resilience program request of
$30.355 million.
(4) Increase the BIA Endangered Species funding to $10 million.
Interior Office of Wildland Fire Management
(5) Support the Preparedness request of $323.7 million, with
transparency for tribal Contract Support Costs (CSCs).
(6) Increase Fuels Management funding to $206 million; allow RTRL
funds on tribal lands.
(7) Support the Disaster Fire Funding legislative proposal.
(8) Support the $30 million Resilient Landscapes initiative.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
(9) Encourage expanded support for the ITC Anchor Forest
initiative.
(10) Encourage the USFS to improve implementation of the Tribal
Forest Protection Act.
ifmat 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). The IFMAT
III report (in two volumes plus an executive summary) was completed in
and dated 2013, and was printed and distributed the spring of 2014,
including a copy to the subcommittee.
The IFMAT III report examines tribal forests using a ``FIT''
framework: Fire, Investment and Transformation: ``Fire'' for the large
role wildland fire and other threats present to tribal forest health
and productivity; ``Investment'' for the Federal funding and trust
support needed for meeting the Federal trust and ensuring a sustainable
future for Indian forests; and ``Transformation'' for the role of
Indian forestry as a model for sustainable land management.
IFMAT III examines eight specific review areas required by the
statute, including staffing and funding, and looks at additional issues
including Indian forest benefits, climate change, and the Anchor
Forests initiative and implementation of the Tribal Forest Protection
Act.
IFMAT III found that chronically insufficient funding and worsening
staff shortages are threatening tribal forests and communities from
foregone economic opportunities, inadequate management, 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 in base
funding is needed to bring Indian forestry and wildfire management to
parity. Staffing shortfalls are jeopardizing the capacity to care for
forest resources: 800 additional positions are needed for adequate
staffing and $12.7 million is needed annually for staff recruitment,
training and retention.
Against this background, the ITC makes the following comments and
requests for fiscal year 2016.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
(1) Increase BIA Forestry by $25 million, to $76.9 million, as a first
step to providing the $100 million needed for funding parity
with other Federal forestry programs, as recommended by IFMAT
III. Require tribal participation in allocation of this
increase.
Within the total 56 million Indian acres in Federal trust, 18.6
million acres are forested, of which 7.3 million acres are designated
as commercial forest capable of supporting an annual allowable cut
(AAC) of 723 million board feet per year. We request that the fiscal
year 2016 BIA Forestry budget be increased by $25 million, to $76.9
million, to begin to reduce the glaring $100 million funding disparity
with other Federal forestry programs as discussed in the IFMAT III
report. The ITC also asks the subcommittee to require tribal
participation in the allocation of these additional funds to help
assure appropriate allocation among various BIA Forestry and Wildland
Fire programs.
BIA Forestry's chronic underfunding contributes to the failure to
harvest the full AAC, with serious repercussions for tribal economies
and the health of the trust corpus. The AAC reflects tribal policy
decisions on balancing multiple use considerations involving economy,
ecology, and cultural values. The difference between the AAC and the
actual harvest level funded and overseen by the BIA is a key metric
that can be used to help measure the degree to which the U.S. is
fulfilling its fiduciary duties for managing the Indian trust forests.
In fiscal year 2014, the 437 million board feet of timber harvested
from Indian forests generated $62 million in stumpage income and
supported over 22,000 jobs (tribal and non-tribal communities
combined), but these benefits were 40 percent below the levels that
would have been received had the full AAC been harvested. The failure
to harvest the full AAC in fiscal year 2014 reduced stumpage revenue by
over $41 million and represented a loss of over 15,000 jobs (tribal and
non-tribal combined). Since IFMAT I was issued in1991, the failure to
harvest the full AAC has resulted in the loss of $727 million in
stumpage income and 272,000 jobs in Indian Country.
The chronic underfunding of Indian trust forests also impacts and
potentially jeopardizes non-timber forest products, with an estimated
national annual value of $10 million, and places these forests and all
their benefits at risk of catastrophic loss from wildfire, climate
change, insects, disease, trespass, and invasive species. A $25 million
funding increase is an essential first step toward providing Indian
trust forests with funding equal to that provided other Federal
forests, improving tribal economies, sustaining the health and
productivity of the trust forests, and avoiding the prospects of future
trust mismanagement lawsuits.
(2) Separately, 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 essential for the
sustainable trust management of our forests, including timber for
tribal economies and healthy forests for tribal communities. As an
example, on my reservation--the Yakama Nation--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. Nationally, 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) Support BIA's Tribal Climate Resilience program request of $30.355
million.
ITC supports the BIA $30.355 million request for the Tribal Climate
Resilience program. This provides a useful amount needed for evaluating
climate change on our homelands, and to plan and conduct actual on-the-
ground projects to begin addressing its consequences. America's 566
Indian tribes are a segment of the population most closely tied to and
reliant upon our lands, which are our history, our culture, our
livelihoods, and our future. We appreciate and support this request to
help protect our homes from the impacts of climate change.
(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 $3.7 million request for ESA is an improvement over past years,
but the proposal is less than the ESA per-acre funding for BLM and
still only slightly above the $3 million appropriated for BIA ESA in
fiscal year 2002. A further significant increase in BIA ESA to $10
million is fully warranted.
Department of the Interior Wildland Fire Management
(5) Support the Preparedness request of $323.7 million, with
transparency for tribal CSCs.
Within this requested amount, ITC supports designations for tribal
contract support costs (CSCs) and for BIA and tribal fire workforce
development. However, we ask that the Department be directed to
dialogue transparently with tribes on the allocation of these
designated funds, particularly CSCs, which are being siphoned off by
the administering agency, leaving only a fraction of the designated
amount to help tribes cover the costs of contracting preparedness
functions on the ground.
(6) Increase Fuels Management funding to $206 million; allow RTRL
funds on tribal lands.
For fiscal year 2016, ITC again urges Fuels Management funding at
its fiscal year 2010 $206 million level. The Department's fuels
reduction backlog remains huge, funding has never come close to need,
and prevention is more cost effective than suppression. Within the
fiscal year 2016 Fuels Management appropriation, ITC strongly supports
the designation of $10 million for Reserved Treaty Rights Lands (RTRL)
landscape restoration, to allow tribes to engage in proactive fuels and
forest health projects to protect tribal trust assets on treaty lands.
However, we ask that these funds be allowed on tribal lands, and not
just off-reservation. The ITC also wishes to note again our
appreciation of OWF for its efforts to engage tribes in its policy and
funding considerations.
(7) Support the Disaster Fire Funding legislative proposal.
ITC supports the legislative proposal to address extreme fire
suppression costs (above 70 percent of the 10 year average) as the
natural disasters that they are, reducing the adverse impacts of these
large costs on both DOI's operations and budgets.
(8) Support the $30 million Resilient Landscape initiative.
With this initiative, fuels and health projects can be more broadly
and cooperatively applied across landscapes and beyond the wildland-
urban interface (WUI).
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
(9) 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, in
which tribes play a key role, works across forest landscape boundaries
and diverse stakeholders to foster long-term collaboration to maintain
ecological functions and sustain economically viable infrastructure for
management, harvesting, transportation, and processing of forest
products. Currently, the ITC is engaged in a pilot project involving
three Anchor Forest study areas in Washington and Idaho (involving
Yakama, Colville, and the Spokane and Coeur d'Alene Tribes), with
participation and support from USFS, BIA, Washington State, the
conservation community, and local forestland owners and businesses that
are affected by forest health and productivity. Tribes in the Lakes
States, the Plains States, Alaska, and the Southwest are beginning to
express interest in the Anchor Forest concept, so we ask the
subcommittee to encourage continued and expanded USFS support of the
initiative.
(10) Encourage the USFS to improve implementation of the Tribal Forest
Protection Act.
Finally, we ask the subcommittee to encourage DoAg and DOI to make
wider use of Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA, Public Law 108-278)
agreements, in which tribes are authorized to conduct address fuels and
health projects on adjacent Federal forests to help address threats
like fire, disease and insect infestations. The USFS has been very slow
in implementing the TFPA, but some progress is being made: this spring,
the USFS and ITC are conducting regional workshops for USFS and other
Federal personnel, tribes, and other interested parties to learn about
TFPA and to actually start forging TFPA agreements. But there is still
a dearth of active or new TFPA projects, and we urge the subcommittee
to actively support and urge increased TFPA projects.
intertribal timber council background
The ITC is a 39 year old association of forest owning tribes and
Alaska Native organizations that collectively manage more than 90
percent of the 18.6 million acres of BIA trust timberland and woodland
that provide thousands of jobs and significant economic activity in and
around Indian Country. In addition, our forests store and filter the
water and air, sustain habitats, and produce foods, medicines, fuel,
and materials for shelter, transportation, and artistic expression. We
invite you to come visit.
That concludes my statement. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
On behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, I am pleased to submit
this written testimony on our funding priorities and requests for the
fiscal year 2016 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health
Service (IHS) budgets. Funding for Indian country is appropriated in
the non-defense discretionary portion of the Federal budget. We,
therefore, renew our request that Congress work together to achieve a
balanced approach to the budget deficit that includes raising new
revenue sources and that doesn't rely solely on cuts to discretionary
spending.
We strongly support the administration's fiscal year 2016 budget
proposal as it reflects an improved commitment on behalf of the Federal
Government to uphold treaty and trust obligations with an investment in
Indian programs that includes a 12 percent increase for the BIA over
the fiscal year 2015 enacted level, a 9 percent increase for the IHS,
and mandatory funding for contract support costs. These proposed
increases are extremely important to tribes because we rely on this
funding to support our core governmental programs and critical services
that promote the safety and well-being of our tribal citizens and
Indian community. We also advocate for the expansion of Self-Governance
so that tribes can continue to have the flexibility to redesign
programs and services throughout the Federal Government to better
address their community needs.
In addition to the items detailed below, our tribe would like to
reiterate that we are a direct beneficiary of the collective 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.
TRIBAL SPECIFIC BUDGET PRIORITIES--Indian Health Service and Bureau of
Indian Affairs:
1. $737,000--Five Quarter Funding to Move the Jamestown Self-
Governance Funding Agreements from Fiscal Year to Calendar Year
REGIONAL BUDGET PRIORITY--Bureau of Indian Affairs:
2. Increase Rights Protection Implementation to $52 million
NATIONAL BUDGET PRIORITIES:
3. Exempt Tribes from Sequestration and Rescissions and Restore
2013 Sequestration Cuts
4. Full Funding/Mandatory Funding for CSC which is included in
President's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE:
5. Increased Funding for Purchased and Referred Care to $198.2
million
6. Maintain Current Services $166.1 million
7. Special Diabetes Program for Indians $200 million a year for 5
years
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:
8. Economic Development: $15 million Loan Guarantee/$9 million
Surety Bonds
9. Support for Tribal Governments Fixed Costs/Paycosts
10. Roads Maintenance $40 million
TRIBAL SPECIFIC BUDGET REQUEST JUSTIFICATION--$737,000 to extend our
fiscal year 2015 Jamestown Self-Governance Funding Agreements
in the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) from fiscal year to calendar year funding:
Estimate of funds needed to extend our fiscal year 2015 Funding
Agreement to December 31, 2015: Indian Health Service (based on fiscal
year 2015 total funds and AFA) $352,560.14 (92 days of funding)
Department of Interior (based on fiscal year 2015 AFA and fiscal year
2014 Contract Support Costs actual) Direct Funding $435,467.26/CSC
Funding $301,120.79/Total = $736,588.05
We are requesting this change in the funding cycle of our Annual
Funding Agreements to minimize the impact the tribe has incurred
because of Continuing Resolutions (CR) have on our programs and
services for the nearly two decades. Since fiscal year 1998, there has
only been 1 year (2006) in which the Interior, Environment and Related
Agencies Appropriations Bill has been enacted before the beginning of
the new fiscal year. Delayed appropriations undermines Tribal Self-
Governance because it creates budgetary uncertainty, disrupts programs
and service delivery which impedes the tribes' ability to efficiently
and effectively utilize our Federal funds. We currently operate our
programs and services under a fiscal year annual funding agreement that
is consistently not available to us until half-way or later in the
fiscal year due to CRs. This year, we received our final allocation for
IHS facilities money on February 11, 2015, or, 4\1/2\ months into the
fiscal year. On the BIA side, we are still waiting for almost $1
million dollars of contract support costs (CSC). When we do not receive
our funding in a timely manner it interrupts our government operations
in the following ways: we are forced to borrow money from our tribal
businesses to supplement our programs and services; we have to work out
deals with our vendors to extend payments which costs us additional
money in finance costs; projects are postponed; our ability to invest
in economic development and job creation is limited; and the amount of
money we can leverage to enhance programs and services is not realized.
Program performance is a significant factor that influences budgetary
decision-makers. Yet, we cannot demonstrate program success or the
effective and efficient use of Federal funds when we do not receive our
funding at the beginning of the fiscal year. Self-Governance was
designed to allow tribes flexibility to redesign programs, services,
functions and actions to meet the needs of our tribal citizens. We
therefore respectfully request five quarter funding to allow us to
transition from fiscal year to calendar year funding.
REGIONAL BUDGET REQUEST--Rights Protection Implementation: Increase to
$52 Million (BIA):
Rights Protection Implementation funds important court ordered
management activities which support off reservation treaty rights of 49
tribes and other intertribal management efforts. This funding is
essential for the protection of tribal economic, subsistence, cultural
and medicinal practices as well as the sustenance of healthy productive
tribal nations and their surrounding States, local governments and
neighboring communities.
NATIONAL BUDGET REQUESTS
3. Exempt Tribes from Sequestration and Further Rescissions and
Restore 2013 Sequestration Cuts (BIA and IHS):
Budgetary reductions undermine Indian Treaty Rights and Federal
obligations. The Federal trust obligation must be honored and vital
programs and services for tribes must be sustained despite the budget
deficit. In fiscal year 2013, the Budget Control Act imposed a $228
million reduction for the Indian Health Service which translated into a
reduction of 3,000 inpatient admissions and 804,000 outpatient visits
for American Indian/Alaska Natives to IHS and tribal hospitals and
clinics. In addition, the BIA endured a $119 million reduction which
directly impacted public safety, education, housing, roads, Indian
child welfare and social services for Tribal citizens and Indian
communities. Sequestration and rescissions further exasperate an
already precarious budgetary situation undermining the tribes abilities
to maximize their unfunded operations and provide basic services to our
tribal citizens. We urge Congress to exempt tribes from any further
reductions imposed by the Budget Control Act and to restore funding
cuts due to the 2013 sequestration and rescissions.
4. Full Funding/Mandatory Funding for Contract Support Costs (BIA and
IHS):
--BIA $277 million, an increase of $26 million above the fiscal year
2015 enacted level
--IHS $718 million, an increase of $55 million above the fiscal year
2015 enacted level
Although we are pleased that the Federal Government has provided
full funding for contract support costs under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) in fiscal year 2014
and 2015, tribal programs should not be subjected to programmatic
decreases in order to fulfill the Federal Government's contractual
obligations. CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory entitlement.
Under the ISDEAA, the full payment of CSC is not discretionary, but is
a legal obligation of the United States to pay tribes for services. We
strongly urge Congress to fund CSC on a mandatory basis as included in
the fiscal year 2016 President's budget proposal.
5. Increase Funding for Purchased/Referred Care (formally called
Contract Health Services)--$198.2 million:
Purchased and Referred Care (PR/C) is important to tribes in the
Northwest because we do not have any hospitals to address emergency and
specialty care services. Much of the secondary care, and nearly all of
the tertiary care needed must be purchased from the private sector. PR/
C funds are used to purchase essential healthcare services, including
inpatient and outpatient care, routine emergency ambulatory care, and
transportation and medical support services. These funds are critical
to securing the care needed to address many of the diseases which are
among the leading causes of death for American Indian and Alaska
Natives (AI/AN). Tribes have been forced to rely on 3rd party revenue
(Medicare, Medicaid and Private Insurance) when PR/C funds have been
depleted. The IHS has established medical priorities because PR/C
funding is inadequate to fund all needed medical services. Most tribal
facilities are only able to address Priority 1 life and limb and
catastrophic healthcare emergency cases. We request an increase of
$198.2 million for Purchased/Referred Care in the fiscal year 2016
budget to meet this critical need.
6. IHS Mandatory Funding (maintaining current services--+$368.9
million over the fiscal year 2015 President's proposed budget:
Current Services include mandatory costs that are required to
maintain health services to include population growth, medical and non-
medical inflation, paycosts and CSC. When these mandatory costs are not
funded, Tribes are faced with having to cut programs and services for
our tribal citizens. Tribes cannot continue to absorb these costs and
maintain the level of quality care our tribal communities deserve.
7. Special Diabetes Program for Indians--$200 million a year for 5
years (Special Appropriations administered by IHS)):
American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) are two to four times as
likely to develop diabetes compared to other races. The SDPI program
has proven effective in combatting diabetes and enhancing care and
education in AI/AN communities. As a result, the program has
successfully reduced costly health complications and the incidence of
the disease itself.
8. Economic Development/Loan Guarantee/Surety Bonds--$15 million Loan
Guarantee/$9 million Surety Bonds (BIA):
Tribal governmental revenues depend entirely on effective economic
development to support nearly every aspect of reservation life and
government operations. Chronic underfunding of Indian programs and the
severe lack of private investment has left the economic potential of
Indian country unrealized. The Loan Guarantee Program provides eligible
tribal and individual Native borrowers a mechanism to obtain
conventional lender financing for businesses and economic development
projects. Funding the Surety Bonding component of the Loan Guarantee
Program would create an avenue for tribes to compete for Federal
contracts. In order for tribes to attain economic self-sufficiency,
they need access to capital, investment in infrastructure, parity in
funding and tax incentives and resources for technical assistance and
training to develop tribal capacity.
9. Support for Tribal Government TPA/Fixed Costs Paycosts--+$139
Million Increase (BIA):
The BIA tribal base funding allows tribes to exercise their
inherent right to Self-Governance and is used to support core
governmental programs. These funds pay the wages of our cops,
firefighters, social workers, child welfare workers, and resource
managers. Since 1996, tribal government core services are operating
with over a 30 percent reduction in base funds. While base funding has
decreased, there has been an increase of grant funding. Allocating new
funding for BIA via grant opportunities marginalizes and impedes the
exercise of tribal self-determination because grants limit the
flexibility and local control available to tribes under the ISDEAA.
Tribes advocate for an increase to base funding instead of funding
tribes with grants. Tribal paycosts represent the only TPA base
increase most tribal service programs receive. Most Federal agencies
receive annual increases to their fixed costs rates each year to
address inflationary costs associated with fringe benefits and pay
costs. Partially funding or failing to fund paycosts devastates tribal
communities by causing critical job losses.
10. Road Maintenance $40 million:
The Road Maintenance Program is frequently identified as one of the
tribes top budget priorities, and yet, it is frequently targeted for
funding reductions and remains one the BIA's most underfunded programs.
Tribes often have to use their maintenance dollars for day to day
activities to maintain public safety such as snow and ice removal on
tribal roads. Currently the deferred maintenance backlog is about $75
million but road maintenance is currently funded at less than $25
million.
Thank you on behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. I
respectfully request that these recommendations be included in the
fiscal year 2016 budget in order to honor the trust responsibility and
support tribal prosperity and well-being.
______
Prepared Statement of the JMS Naval Architects
Dear Senators:
The Great Lakes is a vast international natural resource which
represents a massive economic engine generating nearly $35 billion/year
and is responsible for 75,000 jobs in fishing, tourism and related
industries. Several independent sources estimate $7.0 billion/year is
attributable to Great Lakes fisheries alone. To make wise management
decisions regarding conservation, water management and fisheries
resources throughout the Great Lakes basin, the highest quality science
possible is required. The U.S. Geological Survey's Great Lakes Science
Center (USGS GLSC) relies on a fleet of state-of-the-art fisheries
research vessels to perform its critical science mission requirements.
For over 20 years, JMS Naval Architects has supported GLSC by providing
engineering and design services to assist in the management of their
fleet. We are proud to play a role in maintaining the fleet with an
outstanding record for safety, mission readiness and cost effective
operations.
Due to the mobile nature of research vessels, the fleet of vessels
and the science performed on them contribute to local economies
throughout the Great Lakes and beyond. Small towns across the Great
Lakes provide the necessary logistics and provisioning support for
science missions. Shipyards provide critical maintenance and
construction services. Just in the past few years, shipyards in
Manitowoc and Cleveland have benefitted from new vessel construction
projects valued at $5.6 million and $9.4 million respectively. The need
for routine shipyard maintenance also provides recurring work and
stable jobs for many private sector interests. JMS Naval Architects has
provided the engineering and design support to help manage the fleet's
operations, maintenance and new construction. Our longstanding
partnership with USGS has enabled us to recruit employees to Mystic,
Connecticut and expand our business. Although our engineers are based
in Connecticut, the work is often performed at USGS home port locations
and private shipyards throughout the Great Lakes region casting a wide
net of economic impact.
JMS Naval Architects strongly supports USGS GLSC fisheries science
as the products they develop are foundational to management
decisionmaking on Great Lakes fisheries. The USGS GLSC conducts
impartial, high quality science essential to Federal, State, Tribal,
and Provincial management programs throughout all five Great Lakes and
in all eight Great Lakes States. Great Lakes management jurisdictions
depend on USGS GLSC Deepwater and Invasive Species Programs to provide
data critical to understanding the long-term condition of the fish
communities and to develop tools and technologies needed to combat
invasive species like the sea lamprey that threaten the valuable sport
and commercial fisheries.
USGS GLSC scientific research capabilities have been hard hit by
back-to-back years of budget erosion and worsened by a 6 percent cut
from sequestration in 2013. Their 2014 budget was back to the level it
was in 2009. The ongoing budget impacts have led to an accumulation of
more than 15 unfilled scientific/technical positions distributed
throughout the Great Lakes Region. The USGS has been improvising for
several years to address the unfilled positions, but their capacity to
deliver the critical and high quality scientific information in a
timely manner is in jeopardy. This high quality, impartial scientific
information is absolutely essential for wise management of the
fisheries and protection from invasive species.
For the first time since the President was elected, his 2016 budget
highlights two areas where the USGS GLSC programs would experience
relatively small budget increases. The President proposes: (1) $250,000
increase for the Great Lakes Deepwater Assessments; and (2) bureau-wide
$2.0 million increase for Invasive Species, which would likely result
in a portion of those funds being directed to USGS GLSC. The language
for the proposed funds for Great Lakes Fisheries Assessments (pg. C-52)
and for New and Emerging Invasive Species (pg. C-26) can be found in
the fiscal year 2016 USGS Budget Justification at: http://www.doi.gov/
budget/appropriations/2016/upload/FY2016_USGS_Greenbook.pdf.
JMS Naval Architects greatly appreciates the subcommittees' ongoing
support for programs that sustain and restore the Great Lakes. We join
with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Council of Lake Committees in
supporting $17.5 million in fiscal year 2016 appropriations for the
U.S. Geological Survey's Great Lakes Science Center. Currently the USGS
GLSC receives approximately $8.5 million in appropriated funding to
support science programs critical to the management of these incredibly
valuable resources. Compared to economic returns generated from the
Great Lakes, this funding level only represents about 1.2 percent of
the annual fisheries related revenue and less than 0.03 percent of the
revenue attributable to closely related industries.
These needs were previously detailed in a March 2010 bi-partisan
letter, authored by nine U.S. Senators and 21 U.S. House members,
written to their congressional appropriation leadership to request a
total science budget of $15.0 million; and again 2 years later in April
2012, by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies describing the
importance of the USGS programs to regional management decisions and
recommending an appropriated science budget of $15.0 million. The
current requested increase to $17.5 million will address uncontrollable
costs over the past 5 years and boost investments in advanced
technology. Investments in technologies to assess the fishery have
fallen well behind marine programs. GLSC scientists need to have access
to 21st Century innovations like autonomous samplers that can provide
critical resource information with greater spatial and seasonal
coverage and less overall cost than traditional hands-on measurements.
The importance of the USGS information and the risks posed by
budget cuts to their science has been well documented. We urge you to
embrace these requests in the President's budget and respectfully ask
you to increase these additions by $8.75 million for a total increase
of $9.0 million for the USGS GLSC Deepwater Assessments.
[This statement was submitted by T. Blake Powell, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians
My name is Eric Chapman, I am a councilman for the Lac du Flambeau
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, located in Wisconsin. I am
pleased to submit this testimony, which reflects the needs and concerns
of our tribal members for fiscal year 2016. My testimony addresses the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and Indian Health Service (IHS) programs that are vital to my people.
The President's fiscal year 2016 budget has some important and
positive initiatives for tribes. For example, fully funding contract
support costs and requesting that Congress reclassify this funding as
mandatory. Doing so would implement what two Supreme Court cases have
already stated is the law. This funding must be paid, it is time that
Congress make the necessary changes in the statute to implement the
Court's decisions.
i. generation indigenous initiative
I call on you to fully support the administration's emphasis on our
youth. The Generation Indigenous Initiative is the first time this
Nation has taken a comprehensive approach to improving the lives of
Indian children. The administration called on all agencies including
those outside of the Department of the Interior and the Indian Health
Service to do their part to fulfill the trust responsibility to Indian
children. Based the Federal trust responsibility, the Federal
Government should be committed to providing fundamental fairness to
tribes, not just in selected areas but across the board--and
appropriations for all programs affecting Indians should provide
funding levels based on this fundamental principle.
BIA Tiwahe (Family) Initiative.--The tribe strongly supports the
continuation of the administration's Tiwahe initiative, a broad-based,
interdisciplinary, and culturally appropriate program for addressing
the needs of Indian families and communities--including child welfare
and family services, housing and job training. This program fills an
immediate and critical need.
At Lac du Flambeau, over the last few years we have faced a crisis
in our community arising from a growing epidemic of drug abuse. The
problem has been far-reaching--as we find widespread abuse of
prescription drugs, synthetic marijuana, and heroin on our reservation.
The impact on our community has been devastating in terms of the health
and well-being of our families. This is why the tribe supports the
administration's request for $22 million to increase the number of
behavioral health providers focused on Indian youth through the Indian
Health Care System. We also support the complementing request within
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
including the $15 million for Tribal Behavioral Health Grants, which is
targeted at reducing substance use and the incidence of suicide
attempts among Native youth.
The rise in drug abuse often leaves our children caught in unsafe
situations at home. This has led to an increase in the need for foster
care and other temporary placements for our children. The
administration's $47 million requested for tribal social service
programs and the $15.6 million requested for Indian Child Welfare
programs will help meet this need. In addition the $28 million
requested for tribal courts ($5 million for tribal family courts) will
also ensure that our children are safer as these institutions will have
additional resources to supervise and monitor the children in their
care.
ii. department of the interior
A. Natural Resource Programs
As we address our communities' social services needs, we are
mindful that one of the cornerstones of a healthy community is a
healthy environment. Clean air, water and land are vital for the
physical and emotional health of our people, and provide both a
foundation for our tribal culture and the basis for economic
opportunity on our reservation. That is our obligation to future
generations--to ensure that our lands, air and waters are adequately
protected.
B. Bureau of Indian Affairs Climate Resiliency
The tribe endorses the requested $20 million increase to address
the impact of the changing climate on our natural resources. Our
community is reliant on our natural resources to survive. If people
cannot fish the lakes we have been fishing since the beginning of time
or hunt wild game because these resources are not there, who we are as
a people will be forever changed.
C. Tribal Natural Resource Management and Development; Tribal Fish
Hatchery Operations and Maintenance
Tribes are leaders in natural resource protection and BIA natural
resource funding is essential to maintain our programs. Lac du Flambeau
has a comprehensive Natural Resources Department and dedicated staff
with considerable expertise in natural resource and land management.
Among our many programs, the tribe operates a fish hatchery that stocks
many of our lakes. Along with our other natural resource programs, our
fish production activities are essential to protect our natural
resources and to foster economic activity on our reservation. We
support full funding for these programs. According the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, this year's request for fish hatchery maintenance should
support 40 new projects to address climate change impact on hatcheries.
This is important work, but we ask the subcommittee to be mindful that
the operations funding has not received an increase in a number of
years. If we do not have the resources to operate these facilities,
there is no point in maintaining them.
D. Circle of Flight: Wetlands Waterfowl Program
We urge the subcommittee to continue to provide support for the BIA
Circle of Flight Program. This program supports tribal efforts
throughout the Great Lakes Region to restore and preserve wetlands and
waterfowl habitat within tribal territories.
E. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
The tribe strongly supports the work of the Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wildlife Commission (``GLIFWC''). GLIFWC assists in protecting and
implementing its treaty-guaranteed hunting, fishing and gathering
rights. We urge the subcommittee to fully support the programmatic
funding for GLIFWC from both BIA and EPA. GLIFWC has played an
invaluable role in providing science and sound management practices for
our off-reservation resources. This role could not be filled by any
other agency.
F. Conservation Law Enforcement Officers
Related to our responsibilities to maintaining our environmental is
the need for funding for Conservation Law Enforcement Officers.
Conservation Law Enforcement Officers are responsible for enforcing
hunting and fishing regulations related to the exercise of treaty
rights, but they also are often the first to respond to emergency
situations. These officers play an integral part in protecting our
cultural and economic resources, as well as assisting with protecting
public safety. We urge the subcommittee to provide funding for
Conservation Law Enforcement as an acknowledgement of the importance of
tribal conservation law enforcement officers to the Federal law
enforcement family.
G. Transportation
Proper road maintenance on the reservation is essential for the
safety and health of our community, and for promoting economic
opportunities. We urge the subcommittee to increase funding for the BIA
road maintenance program. Please augment the $2 million increase you
saw was justified last year for this important safety programs.
H. Tribal Historic Preservation Offices
The Tribe supports the $15 million requested by the National Tribal
Historic Officers Association to fund tribal Historic Preservation Act
compliance. While more tribes have assumed the responsibility under the
Historic Preservation Act Federal appropriations have not kept pace.
iii. environmental protection agency
A. EPA Tribal General Assistance Program
The tribe strongly supports the proposed $31 million increase in
the EPA Tribal General Assistance Program, known as ``Tribal GAP.''
This program provides base environmental funding to assist tribes in
building their environmental capacity to assess environmental
conditions, utilize available data and build their environmental
programs to meet their local needs. This is a foundational program for
tribes to address the broad range of challenging circumstances we face
regarding our reservation environment.
B. Clean Water Programs
The tribe also supports the proposed funding for the pollution
control program under section 106, and for non-point source pollution
under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. At Lac du Flambeau, the tribe
has obtained Treatment as a State status under the Clean Water Act for
establishing water quality standards, and we have an active program to
monitor, maintain and improve water quality, as well as a program to
address non-point source pollution. Water is basically everywhere on
our reservation, as we have 260 lakes covering over 17,000 acres, as
well as 71 miles of streams and 24,000 acres of wetlands. The section
106 and section 319 programs should be funded at the recommended levels
to enable tribes to protect their water resources.
C. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
The tribe strongly supports funding for the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative. For the indigenous people of Wisconsin, the Great Lakes
represent the lifeblood of our culture and the foundation of our
economies. The protection and preservation of the Great Lakes are
necessary to preserve the tribal communities that have made the Great
Lakes area their home since time immemorial. The funding needs for
tribal initiatives under this program is $5.2 million; notwithstanding
this need tribal initiatives were only awarded $3.8 million. The tribe
asks the subcommittee to consider a tribal set-aside of this funding to
ensure there is parity funding for all tribal needs.
D. Brownfields
The Brownfields program provides funding for tribes and others to
assess and clean up lands that have been contaminated. Brownfields
funding is divided among those seeking funding--so the more tribes that
participate in efforts to clean up their contaminated lands, the less
money is available for each tribe. While the number of tribes needing
these funds has been increasing in recent years, the funding has not.
We urge the subcommittee to provide greater funding so tribes can
properly protect their homelands and clean up Brownfields.
iv. education programs
Education remains a critical investment in the future of the
tribes. The Johnson-O'Malley Program provides vital support for Indian
students in public schools. We support the $17.3 million requested for
this program, and the subcommittee's continuing oversight to obtain an
accurate JOM student count. We must do more for our students in public
schools. Likewise, we are proud to see an increasing number of our
students attending and graduating from colleges and other post-
secondary institutions. But the cost of such education is staggering
and funds must be available for our students to succeed in higher
education. More scholarship funding is needed. The tribe also supports
the administration's proposed increase in BIA funding for fellowship
and training opportunities for post graduate study.
We also support the $52.9 million requested for the Department of
Education Native Youth Community Projects to support community driven
strategies to improve college and career readiness of Native youth in
public schools. Empowering tribal communities to meet the needs of
their children is at the heart of the Self-Determination policy and is
what will lead to a brighter future for our children.
v. indian health service programs
The administration's $5.1 billion request for the Indian Health
Service is a 10 percent increase in funding above the fiscal year 2015
level. Importantly, some of this increase is dedicated to population
growth and medical inflation so that our healthcare programs can keep
pace with the growing need and costs. This increase will allow for a
significant investment in Purchased and Referred Care with a $70
million increase. This increased level of funding should provide for
980 additional hospital admissions, 19,800 additional outpatient
visits, and finally, an additional 1,210 patient transports.
Research has clearly demonstrated that our overall health is tied
to our oral health. The Lac du Flambeau Tribe recognized this and that
is why in 2013 we opened a state-of-the-art dental clinic to serve the
needs of our people. No longer are dental visits done by an occasional
dental visit at our schools. We are now seeing our members in our
facility early and often and are preventing dental disease before it
can happen. We fully support the requested $7 million increase for the
dental health services program. This increase will address the not only
medical inflation, but also the population increase our community has
experienced.
______
Prepared Statement of the League of American Orchestras
The League of American Orchestras urges the Senate Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee to
support fiscal year 2016 funding for the National Endowment for the
Arts (NEA) at a level of $155 million. We ask Congress to continue
recognizing the important work of this agency to increase public access
to and engagement with the arts, promote the creation of new artistic
works, and cultivate a sense of cultural, community, 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 is 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 2014, the NEA's Grants to Organizations included 116 direct
grants to orchestras in the Art Works and Challenge America categories.
The following ten highlighted awards from fiscal year 2015 total
$220,000 in NEA support.
NEA Funding Enables Orchestras to Innovate and Collaborate Across
Disciplines
Grant support from the NEA helps make it possible for orchestras to
collaborate with partners in other artistic disciplines to offer
innovative programming. An Art Works grant supported a concert opera
production by the Lexington Philharmonic of composer Osvaldo Golijov's
``Ainadamar (Fountain of Tears).'' This Spanish work combines singing,
visual arts, flamenco dance, and orchestral music in its exploration of
the life of playwright Federico Garcia Lorca. In addition to the main
performance, the grant supports lecture-demonstrations and school
performances. The orchestra's 100 full- and part-time employees work
with area public schools, colleges and universities, providing music
education and cross-curricular learning. Moreover, the orchestra
partners with more than 60 area nonprofit, educational, and arts
organizations per year. This particular NEA-supported project is
especially meaningful because it fully exercises each of the
orchestra's core values of artistic excellence, innovation,
collaboration, and accessibility.
The St. Louis Symphony Orchestra also received Art Works support
for a cross-disciplinary opera program, presenting Giuseppe Verdi's
opera ``Aida,'' incorporating multi-sensory video and lighting
installations designed by visual artist S. Katy Tucker to supplement
the music and story line of the opera and give concertgoers an enhanced
environment in which to hear and see the music at historic Powell Hall.
Each concert will be preceded by engaging, interactive conversations
led by acclaimed music director David Robertson. The Nation's second-
oldest orchestra founded in 1880, the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra
employs 93 musicians and 61 full-time staff and serves upward of
300,000 individuals each season through an average of 120 orchestral
concerts, 250 free education/community activities in a 125-mile radius
of the City of St. Louis, and weekly radio broadcasts and tours and
recordings--their latest winning the 2015 GRAMMY Award for ``Best
Orchestral Performance.''
NEA Funding Supports Orchestral Commemoration of Key Historical Moments
The Kansas City Symphony, with 80 full-time musicians and 35 full-
time staff members, is presenting Upheaval and Transformation, a
season-long exploration of the music leading up to World War I.
Featuring works by Debussy, Mahler, Nielsen, Ravel, Schoenberg, Richard
Strauss, and Stravinsky, the Art Works-supported project commemorates
the start of World War I, combining with several other community arts
events including exhibits, concerts, and performances in Kansas City by
the Nelson-Atkins Museum, Lyric Opera of Kansas City, Harriman-Jewell
Series, Kansas City Repertory Theatre, and Friends of Chamber Music.
This community-wide artistic exploration is especially important to the
city due to the presence of the National World War I Museum in Kansas
City. Music Director Michael Stern, who holds a degree in American
history from Harvard University, has written special program notes and
discusses the project at pre-concert talks with audience members. In
June, a Symphony ensemble will perform Stravinsky's L'Histoire du
soldat (The Soldier's Tale) at the National World War I Museum followed
by a panel discussion about the cataclysmic impact of the Great War on
the arts and our society.
Reflecting upon more recent events, the Detroit Symphony Orchestra
(DSO) will utilize its NEA grant for a performance of New Orleans-born
jazz trumpeter and composer Terence Blanchard's ``A Tale of God's Will
(A Requiem for Katrina),'' along with related educational activities.
In commemoration of the tenth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the
suite of 13 original pieces will be performed by Blanchard and members
of his band along with symphony musicians as the centerpiece of three-
day festival A Musical Tale of Two Cities: Motown Meets the Big Easy.
Additional activities include: pre- and post-concert performances by
student groups from the DSO's Civic program and the New Orleans Center
for Creative Arts, a concert by a funk jazz group from New Orleans, a
pre-concert talk by Blanchard and other special guests, a jazz
community forum, a masterclass with Blanchard, and a screening of the
documentary ``When the Levees Broke'' along with a Q&A session. The
orchestra, which employs 76 musicians, 201 part- and full-time staff,
received NEA support for this project, along with a substantial grant
from the Knight Foundation's Knight Arts Challenge, which is a powerful
illustration of the public/private partnership that makes projects such
as this possible.
NEA Funding Broadens Access for Underserved Communities and Young
Students
Together with the organizations it supports, the NEA is dedicated
to improving public access to the arts. An Art Works grant enabled the
Spartanburg Philharmonic Orchestra to present a new concerto written
for percussionist Dame Evelyn Glennie, a master class, and a lecture-
demonstration exploring the importance of listening skills with
Glennie, who is profoundly deaf. The orchestra sent its co-principal
percussionists to the South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind to
work with music students for 2 days preceding Glennie's visit, teaching
the students about rhythm and creating sounds. When Glennie arrived in
Spartanburg, the students performed on stage for her alongside the co-
principal percussionists, and then learned directly from Glennie
afterward. With just two full-time staff and 60 musicians, the
Spartanburg Philharmonic Orchestra was thrilled and excited to bring
such a meaningful project to its community and to students who could
learn from such a uniquely accomplished artist.
The Central Ohio Symphony received a Challenge America grant to
bring The Great Animal Orchestra project to residents of the rural
Buckeye Valley East community, including elementary students of Title I
schools. This presentation, involving more than 10 partnerships, will
provide students of Buckeye Valley East Elementary an opportunity to
learn to create and write music with a guest artist composer, and their
compositions will be played by Symphony musicians. The NEA grant is a
first for the orchestra and it has been matched by a corporate grant
and has prompted the city government to support the orchestra's yearly
operations for the first time. Thanks to these partnerships and
support, the orchestra will fund a week long residency with composer
Richard Blackford, who will work with high school students, senior
citizens, and the community at large to share his expertise and skills.
With an administrative staff of two, the Central Ohio Symphony employs
more than 100 musicians during the year and plays a significant role in
economic development in the downtown area of Delaware, Ohio.
Another Challenge America recipient is the Burlington Chamber
Orchestra (BCO), whose Music for Minors program brings professional
musicians into Vermont classrooms. The Music for Minors program helps
realize the orchestra's vision of reaching students who have not had an
opportunity to extensively study music--whether due to geography,
cultural differences, or economic limitations. Students first learn
about music in the classroom from BCO musicians and then are invited to
attend, free of charge, a May concert to solidify the classroom
learning. This year's ``Annual Celebration of Youth'' concert will
feature a young student composer from North Country High School in
Newport and this year's winner of the BCO's Young Artist Solo
Competition--a saxophonist from Bellows Free Academy in St. Albans.
An Art Works grant to the Eugene Symphony, which employs six full-
time staff, four part-time staff, and 83 part-time musicians, made
possible a concert and weeklong residency by NEA Jazz Master and Grammy
Award-winning saxophonist Branford Marsalis. In addition to drawing a
near-capacity audience to his Eugene Symphony debut, 300 of whom were
first-time attendees at a Eugene Symphony event--Mr. Marsalis took part
in related community programs which included free lectures for the
general public and artistic development programs for young musicians at
the middle-school, high-school, and collegiate levels. One example of
Mr. Marsalis' numerous activities included master classes for two high-
school jazz bands and one middle-school jazz band, during which he
provided critical feedback on how to improve their performance. In all,
Mr. Marsalis' concert and residency activities engaged over 4,000
students and adults throughout the greater Eugene community.
Focusing its NEA grant entirely on young musicians, the Tucson
Symphony Orchestra's (TSO) Young Composers Project teaches elementary
through high school students to compose original works for orchestra.
Saturday sessions begin with basic theory, ear training, and score
reading as students learn about clefs, keys, modes, notation, chords,
rhythm, form, ranges, and transposition. Each session includes a
listening component with score study focused on orchestral repertoire,
and students learn to use Finale music notation software in the project
lab, working closely with TSO musicians to create their own works. The
project culminates in public reading sessions and recording of their
work by the Tucson Symphony Orchestra and TSO String Quartet.
The New York Youth Symphony also focuses its NEA grant in support
of its Youth Symphony Composition Program. Student composers
participate in a series of interactive seminars, workshops, and guest
lectures on composition and participants hear performances of their
work by guest musicians. Drawing from the classical repertoire and
range of musical traditions throughout the world, students explore a
variety of composers, study scores, instrumentation, recordings, and
orchestration books. Through class discussion, written exercises, and
composition, students will cultivate their own musical voices in this
tuition-free program led by professional composers and musicians. The
New York Youth Symphony has four full-time and 12 part-time staff and
engages numerous professional chamber coaches and professional
orchestral musicians to provide compositional and orchestral coaching.
Thank you for this opportunity to convey the tremendous value of
NEA support for the communities served by orchestras across the Nation.
These are but a small sampling of the innovative collaborations,
thoughtful programming for underserved communities, 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 Little River Band of Ottawa Indians
Chairwoman Murkowski, respected members of the subcommittee:
I am Jessica Burger, Tribal Manager of the Little River Band of
Ottawa Indians (LRBOI). I am honored to present this testimony on
behalf of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, regarding our views
and priorities for the fiscal year 2016 President's annual budget
request. Our Ogema (Chief), Mr. Larry Romanelli, regrets that he was
unable to travel here from Manistee, Michigan, our homelands, to
deliver this testimony himself.
LRBOI is pleased with the ongoing commitment of the administration,
to ``do right by (our) nations,'' through appropriations requests for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) at $2.9 billion, and the Indian
Health Services (IHS) of $5.1 billion; fully $323 million and $461
million above the fiscal year 2015 enacted levels. The increases are
positive steps in the United States' efforts to live up to its promises
to honor treaty and trust responsibilities, support nation building,
and restore our unique governance and self-determination. LRBOI
believes that tribal consultation works. This subcommittees'
willingness to hear the concerns of tribal leadership and our views
regarding the impact of the administration's budget requests derives
informed appropriations language that facilitates the outcomes we are
all wishing to achieve--successful, safer and prospering Native
Nations.
Since Reaffirmation in 1994, LRBOI has prioritized its economic
development efforts, programs, and service delivery to enhance the
standard of living of its members. Assisting LRBOI members to achieve a
middle class economic standard has been an overarching goal since
reaffirmation, and while gains are being made, persistent issues
remain:
--over half (56 percent) of tribal member households earn less than
$30,000 annually, compared to a mean household income of just
over $64,500 for Michigan residents;
--less than 40 percent of LRBOI tribal members adults have achieved
education beyond a high school diploma, compared to nearly 60
percent of Michigan adults reporting some degree of higher
education;
--\1/3\ of tribal members access one or more tribal assistance
programs annually--current enrollment stands at just over 4200
persons.
Our Tribe is a ``young tribe''--the majority are working age adults
(2,652) with a large female overall population (2,228). As the overall
demographic suggests, the focus of planning for our future needs will
require addressing the issues facing a majority-female population,
significantly less than retirement age, lacking higher education, and
with annual incomes below Federal poverty level. These factors make
achieving ``middle class'' living standards less likely for many of our
people. As the population ages into ``elder status'' (age 55 and
older)--affordable housing, medical and long term healthcare services
for a population that has less opportunity in the workforce and less
earning potential due to gender--adds to the potential of instability
for our community.
Unfortunately, this is happening now, not someday in the future.
Increased need resulting in greater requests and access of our
assistance programs, along with diminished revenue sources in fiscal
year 2014 (both tribal generated supports and Federal program
reductions), left unmet obligations in all service categories,
adversely impacting our families. Initiatives that were rolled out to
Indian Country, specifically the Tiwahe Initiative, did little to
assist our efforts. LRBOI implemented our community-specific model
targeting the dire impact of poverty on LRBOI families in 2014. We call
it ``Zoongaadiziwin,'' and it includes many of the same service
targets, with an end goal to strengthen the family unit. Zoongaadiziwin
engages general welfare, counseling supports, education, and employment
training opportunities under a case-managed, client-centered process,
including client-identified milestones that promote and enhance family
stability, ultimately strengthening our community. As our overall
numbers are smaller than other tribes, it is difficult to write an
effective competitive proposal for this program. LRBOI recommends this
initiative be funded as a formula-based tribal priority allocation to
put all tribes within reach of this needed assistance.
LRBOI is encouraged by the potential described in the ``All of
Government'' approach to addressing unmet obligations in Indian
Country. As suggested, DOI and BIA have historically been the point of
contact for tribes to access resources necessary to address the needs
of tribal communities. We are intrigued by the Generation Indigenous
Initiative. Creating government-wide collaboration placing priority on
``all of the Federal Government'' to assist in the preservation of our
most precious resource, Native American Youth, seems very achievable.
LRBOI suggests taking this one step further: allow the program dollars
to be accessed under a new cross-cutting self-governance line item
called ``Gen-I Native Youth'' in non-BIA agreements, as well as BIA and
IHS self-governance agreements.
All tribes are facing record numbers of youth committing suicide,
facing homelessness and not achieving high school diplomas, let alone
seeking higher education degrees. To illustrate the need for the
subcommittee, I provide two examples:
First, we have a youth in our community that served as Tribal
Princess; her story is not typical in Indian Country. She comes from a
stable family unit that is affluent by most standards. She has achieved
exceptional SAT and ACT scores and is in her junior year in the public
school system. Yet, she is failing classes, contributed in part to the
medical challenge of being a type 1 diabetic, which takes her out of
class with missed school days, and a diagnosis of acute depression and
anxiety disorder. This perfect storm has culminated in 3 suicide
attempts in the past 18 months of her life. In addition, her family is
faced with inadequate mental and medical specialty practice
availability. Juvenile psychiatric services are non-existent, and the
closest medical specialty services are over an hour and a half drive
away. Both have limited openings. I know her well; she is my daughter.
She has so many gifts, and simply cannot climb out of the mire that is
her world--depression, self-image issues, and chronic illness. In my
role as the administrator for our tribe, I am unable to secure the
professionals my community needs to address her issues. She is not the
only one. I am sad to report, we also had a ``successful suicide
attempt'' on March 15th of this year and lost a promising young woman.
We will never realize her potential. Her family is devastated.
These are just two examples. We have many for our small population.
In 2014, our Behavioral Health Department addressed 12 suicide
attempts. Our local referral system is overloaded. We simply cannot
recruit and retain mental health service providers or specialty medical
practice needs with short-term granting initiatives. LRBOI asks the
committee to place the funds in the hands of the tribes under self-
governing authorities to allow the flexibility to address community-
specific priorities. Create a true ``all of government'' approach and
dedicate funds to a ``Gen-I Native Youth'' tribal share and priority
allocation. Allow the tribes to align the funds to the priority areas
the tribes determine, on a recurring funding basis, to ensure that the
issues facing youth and their families are addressed with sustainable,
successful interventions and services.
Sustainable programs require stable base funding inclusive of
adjustments for inflation, population and in an ideal scenario,
utilization. All of those factors should converge to create realistic
support that enhances the potential of addressing the challenges faced
in Indian Country: health status, employment and training, child
welfare, and education. LRBOI appreciates the administration's proposal
to create a three-year mandatory appropriation for contract support
costs. This proposal presents an opportunity for the Federal Government
to comply at long last with the decisions in the Cherokee, Arctic Slope
and Ramah Supreme Court cases. LRBOI would like the subcommittee to
consider a permanent mandatory appropriation for contact support costs,
removing them from the discretionary budget scenario to permanent
appropriation. To enact this would eliminate the risk of untoward
program reductions in discretionary budgets and protect the
congressional intent of those funds--to provide needed services to
American Indian/Alaska Native peoples.
A permanent mandatory appropriation for contact support costs would
have an immediate impact on the following ongoing challenges:
--Services are vulnerable during times when short-term mandatory
spending measures enacted by Congress expire and require
reauthorization. The uncertainty of renewal results in roll-
back of program delivery at the local level, and redirection of
funds that support services to meet the costs of service
provision. Or, in some cases, the uncertainty of renewal
results in elimination of services altogether.
--The amounts necessary for contract support costs are often in
dispute. Establishment of ``such amounts as may be necessary''
to pay full contract support costs places the onus on the
agencies and tribes to work together to determine the actual
costs to ensure accurate appropriations of only the total
dollars needed. LRBOI urges the subcommittee to consider adding
the establishment of a permanent contract support cost
workgroup that will provide ongoing technical assistance and
convene quarterly to assist with the determination of those
``necessary amounts'' from year to year.
--Contract support cost shortfalls are not determined in a timely
fashion. A mandatory appropriations scheme that carries funding
forward in each fiscal year could require the IHS and BIA to
consult with and share shortfall information with tribes though
the establishment of deadlines in the appropriations language,
with the goal of appropriations year-to-year being only those
funds ``necessary'' to achieve full payment. LRBOI asks the
subcommittee to compel the agencies to produce the shortfall
reports for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 and to engage now to
finalize information for fiscal year 2015.
As the President's proposal suggests, mandatory full funding of
contract support costs will enhance healthcare delivery by stabilizing
the cost base year-to-year. Tribes will be able to plan on a long-term
basis the types of services that can be delivered. LRBOI encourages the
subcommittee to support permanent mandatory appropriations. It is a
clean deal. LRBOI does not support the transition to mandatory
appropriations with a ``special appropriations'' creating a
demonstration project that is aimed at establishing the funding
formulas. The shortfall reports are already in the hands of Congress.
Build from those documents the permanent appropriations mechanisms,
with immediate implementation in fiscal year 2016. It is doable and
necessary.
LRBOI appreciates many of the proposed increases in the President's
fiscal year 2016 budget. The increases are necessary and promising. We
see the positive impact of ongoing meaningful consultation that is
occurring through the Tribal Interior Budget Council and National
Budget Formulation Workgroup as it relates to the recommendations of
those groups in the translation of budget priorities. We urge the
subcommittee to continue to support the efforts of these tribally
driven bodies to inform the work of the administration and, ultimately,
Congress. We also believe in the partnership that continues to evolve
out of the Federal Indian trust relationship. The United States and
Native Nations truly do share a ``sacred bond'' borne from treaties--a
mutual exchange for the benefit of both ``nations.'' LRBOI urges the
subcommittee to do right by our Nations; help us ensure the future of
our children, our families, and the seven generations to come.
Little River Band appreciates the opportunity to present this
testimony to the subcommittee on these important matters. I am happy to
answer any questions the members of the subcommittee may have.
KchiMiigwech (Many Thanks)
Gdagaanaagaanik (All Our Relations)
______
Prepared Statement of the Maniilaq Association
Summary.--The Maniilaq Association is an Alaska Native tribal
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 2016 IHS and BIA
funding.
--Increase funding for the Village Built Clinic leases in Alaska by
at least $12.5 million and make it a line item in the IHS
budget;
--Make Contract Support Costs funding for the IHS and BIA mandatory;
--Fund the IHS budget on an advanced appropriations basis;
--Support the proposed increase in behavioral health spending in the
IHS and BIA budgets.
Village Built Clinics
Our Village Built Clinic (VBC) facilities continue to face a
significant funding crisis. The VBCs are essential for maintaining our
Community Health Aide/Practitioner (CHAP) programs in our villages. The
CHAP program provides the only local source of healthcare for our
Alaska Native people.
Because the CHAPs could not operate in most of rural Alaska without
clinic facilities in the Alaska Native villages, the IHS established
the VBC leasing program in the 1970s, but the leases have been
chronically underfunded. Moreover, IHS has taken the position that
VBCs--unlike comparable facilities in the lower 48--are not eligible
for maintenance and improvement funding, for which Congress
appropriated over $53.6 million in fiscal year 2015 and for which the
administration has requested a $35 million increase. Current funding
for the VBCs is not sufficient to cover the cost of repair and
renovation as necessary to maintain the facilities in a safe condition.
Many have been closed due to the hazards to the health service
employees and patients, leaving villages without a clinic or access to
CHAP services. Lease rental amounts for VBCs have failed to keep pace
with costs; the majority of leases have not increased since 1989.
A very recent estimate is that $12.5 million more per year, in
addition to the current VBC allocation from IHS of about $4 million,
would be needed to maintain and operate Alaska VBCs on a par with
similar tribal health facilities elsewhere. Congress typically has not
appropriated VBC funding as a separate line item. Instead, IHS
allocates VBC lease funds from the Hospitals and Clinics line in its
multi-billion-dollar lump-sum appropriation. This leaves IHS the
discretion, in its view, to allocate however much--or little--it wishes
to VBCs. Congress, of course, can override this discretion. We
respectfully request that you direct IHS to (1) identify the amount
needed to fully fund all Alaska VBCs, (2) request that amount in a
separate line in the IHS budget, and (3) allocate that amount to the
VBC lease program.
An alternative way to secure full funding for VBC facilities that
they own is through mandatory leases under Section 105(l) of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). Maniilaq
Association has submitted two such lease proposals, which has resulted
in litigation with the IHS that is still ongoing. IHS has refused to
provide full payment under the Section 105(l) leasing regulations or to
incorporate the leases into Maniilaq Association's ISDEAA Funding
Agreement. The IHS's rejection of Maniilaq's first lease proposal, for
its VBC facility in Ambler, Alaska, was overturned by a Federal
district court in August, 2014, on the grounds that the IHS failed to
respond to the proposal within the statutorily-mandated timeframe.
Maniilaq Association v. Burwell, Civ. No. 13-380 (D.D.C. Aug. 22,
2014). The district court ruled that Section 105(l) leases may be
incorporated into an ISDEAA funding agreement, but did not reach the
question of whether or not full funding under the Section 105(l)
regulations is mandatory or discretionary. That question will likely be
litigated in Maniilaq's appeal of its second lease proposal, for its
VBC facility in Kivalina, Alaska, which was filed in the same district
court on January 30, 2015.
IHS Advance Appropriations
The Maniilaq Association has been working for several years on the
issue of transitioning the IHS budget to an advance appropriations
basis. We know you are sympathetic to our frustrations caused by the
funding of IHS and other Federal agencies via a series of start and
stop Continuing Resolutions. We are grateful to Representative Don
Young for introducing legislation (H.R. 395) to authorize IHS advance
appropriations and for our entire Alaska delegation in the 113th
Congress for introducing the same legislation.
The current (fiscal year 2015) fiscal year funding was enacted 2\1/
2\ months after the beginning of the fiscal year; in fiscal years 2013
and 2014 it was 6 months and 3\1/2\ months, respectively, after the
beginning of the fiscal year. Following enactment, there is a couple
month process of clearance through the agency and the OMB and then
allotment to the Area Offices and finally to the tribes. Both the
tribal and IHS programs suffer under this situation. We want to do the
best job possible in planning, decisionmaking and administering
programs but are limited by not knowing how much funding will be
available or when it will be available. It also requires constant re-
working of our budget, time we would much rather devote to providing
healthcare services. Especially affected are recruiting and hiring
decisions and our ability to buy things in bulk and thus at a cheaper
cost, notably for us, heating fuel.
Congress has provided the authority for the Veterans Administration
(VA) medical accounts funding to be appropriated on an advance basis
and the Budget and Appropriations Committees have provided the
necessary support for that authority. We are struck by the
justification in the proposed fiscal year 2016 budget (fiscal year 2017
advance appropriations) for the VA. The term ``Indian and Alaska
Natives'' could be appropriately be used each time it says
``veterans''. We ask for parity.
For 2017, the Budget requests $63.3 billion in advance
appropriations for the three medical care appropriations:
Medical Services, Medical Support and Compliance, and Medical
Facilities. This request for advance appropriations fulfills
the Administration's commitment to provide reliable and timely
resources to support the delivery of accessible and high-
quality medical services for veterans. This funding enables
timely and predictable funding for VA's medical care to prevent
our Nation's veterans from being adversely affected by budget
delays, and provides opportunities to more effectively use
resources in a constrained fiscal environment. (Appendix,
Budget of the U.S. Government, 2016, p.1058)
Contract Support Costs Mandatory Funding
We and all of Indian Country appreciate the bipartisan support of
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittees for full funding of Contract
Support Costs (CSC). We support the administration's proposal to move
CSC funding to a mandatory funding basis although we and others in
Indian Country would like it to begin in fiscal year 2016 rather than
waiting until fiscal year 2017. It differs from our and others proposal
that CSC be funded indefinitely and not capped, but we gratefully
acknowledge this proposal as a huge step for the IHS, BIA and OMB. We
are hopeful that the $718 million proposed for CSC funds for IHS and
$277 million for the BIA will be sufficient for full funding for fiscal
year 2016--a lot of work has gone into the estimated calculations and
that should bode well for future estimates as well.
We ask for this subcommittee's help in working with the Budget
Committee and any others that may want to weigh in on this proposal for
mandatory CSC funding. You have had a great deal of experience in
talking with Indian and Alaska Native leaders about the frustrations
and the inequity of tribes and tribal organizations who contract to
assume administration of Federal programs not being paid for the costs
to administer them. It was helpful that the Joint Explanatory Statement
for fiscal year 2014 Appropriations included the statement that the
Committees on Appropriations were in the ``untenable position of
appropriating discretionary funds for the payment of any legally
obligated contract support costs.'' You have much to offer others in
Congress who will weigh in on this issue. Indian Country will continue
to do its part as well.
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. 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. Compounding and
complicating the suicide epidemic is alcohol and substance abuse, 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.
Thus we urge you to support the administration's Generations
Indigeneous (or ``Gen-I'') proposal for increased resources for tribes
to address youth behavioral, mental health and substance abuse and
auxiliary issues. For the IHS, the Gen-I proposal would include a $25
million increase ($10 million increase in Mental Health and $15 million
increase in Substance Abuse Prevention accounts), plus the $5 million
from last year for a total of $30 million for tribal behavioral health
grants. For the BIA the proposal is an increase of $15 million to
expand the Tiwahe Initiative designed to address the inter-related
problems of poverty, violence and substance abuse faced by Native
communities. Of note, but not under this subcommittee's jurisdiction,
is the request for a $25 million increase of SAMHSA as part of Gen-I--
$10 million from the Mental Health account and $15 million from the
Substance Abuse Prevention account.
Oftentimes, tribes in Alaska have a difficult time working through
the State of Alaska to provide social services, which adds layers of
guidelines, regulations, and reduced funding. We have found that tribes
and tribal organizations can provide better services if they receive
the funding directly, utilizing their local knowledge and cultural
values.
Other
We cannot in four pages comment on everything of interest to us but
want you to know that we join others in support of extending the
Special Diabetes Program for Indians, for establishment of Medicare-
like Rates for non-hospital services thus stretching our Purchased/
Referred Care dollars, and stopping the drain on tribal and IHS
healthcare programs caused by the lack of sufficient funding for annual
built-in costs for medical and non-medical inflation, pay increases,
and population growth.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metlakatla Indian Community
Summary.--The requests of the Metlakatla Indian Community for
fiscal year 2016 are:
--Support the administration's request to make Contract Support Costs
funding mandatory, with a preference that such a change occur
beginning in fiscal year 2016.
--Exempt the IHS from any future sequestration, as Congress has done
for the Veterans Health Administration programs.
--Extend the Special Diabetes Program for Indians.
--Substantially increase funding for BIA Natural Resources; the
administration requested a $48 million increase but given the
wide array of programs for which the Metlakatla Indian
Community has historically received far less funding than
necessary, the need is much more than that.
The Metlakatla Indian Community (Community) is located on the
Annette Island Reserve in southeast Alaska, a land base of 87,000
acres. Through our Annette Island Service Unit we provide primary
health services at our outpatient facility through funding from the IHS
as a co-signer to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact under the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. We have significant
fish and forestry resources but as noted elsewhere in this testimony,
we require more resources to fully manage them.
Contract Support Costs (CSC) Mandatory Funding.--We are encouraged
by the administration's policy proposal changes with regard to contract
support costs and the widespread recognition that these costs are
mandatory in nature. In our testimony of just 2 years ago we were
fighting against the administration's proposals to not only underfund
CSC but to cap each BIA and IHS individual contract. Now we are
testifying in support of an administration proposal to move IHS and BIA
contract support costs to a mandatory funding basis and in amounts that
appear to be sufficient for full funding.
We support the administration's proposal to make IHS and BIA
contract support costs funding mandatory although we and other tribes
and tribal organizations would like this designation to begin with
fiscal year 2016. It differs from our and others in Indian Country
proposal that CSC be funded indefinitely and not capped, but we
acknowledge the administration's proposal as a huge step for the
Federal agencies directly involved and the Office of Management and
Budget. We are hopeful that the $718 million proposed for CSC funds for
IHS and $277 million for the BIA will be sufficient for full funding
for fiscal year 2016--a lot of work has gone into the estimated
calculations and that should bode well for future estimates as well.
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. Funding of CSC on a discretionary
basis has placed the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, in
their own words, of being in the ``untenable position of appropriating
discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract
support costs.''
We ask for this subcommittee's intervention with the Budget
Committee and any others that may influence this proposal for mandatory
CSC funding. You have had a great deal of experience in talking with
Alaska Native and Indian leaders over the years about the frustrations
and the inequity of tribes and tribal organizations who contract to
assume administration of Federal programs not being paid for the true
costs to administer them. You have much to offer others in Congress who
will weigh in on this issue.
Sequestration.--We ask that IHS funding be exempt from
sequestration, as is the Veterans Health Administration programs. We
understand that a number of Members of Congress, including some on this
subcommittee, have indicated that it was an oversight that IHS was not
exempted from sequestration and that it should be corrected. We are
grateful for this and trust it will be done this year. That oversight
that resulted in a $220 million cut in funding IHS for fiscal year
2013, made worse by the fact that it had to be absorbed in a matter of
a few months. Those sequestered levels then become the base for future
funding.
The Veterans Health Administration (VA) was made fully exempt from
the sequestration for all programs administered by the VA. See Sec. 255
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA), as
amended by Public Law 111-139 (2010). Also exempt are State Medicaid
grants, and Medicare payments are held harmless except for a 2 percent
reduction for administration of the program. We thus strongly urge the
subcommittee to support an amendment to the BBEDCA to fully exempt the
IHS from any future sequestration, just as the VA's health programs are
exempt.
Special Diabetes Program for Indians.--The authorization and
funding for the Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) expires at
the end of fiscal year 2015. The SDPI provides crucial funding for
diabetes treatment and prevention programs for Alaska Natives and
American Indians, among whom diabetes is an epidemic. The SDPI is
showing significant outcomes--both in terms of dramatically increased
access to treatment and prevention services and for improved blood
sugar control and blood lipid levels. The President's fiscal year 2016
budget proposal recommends extending SDPI for 3 years at its current
level of $150 million per year, and we appreciate their advocacy.
However, we join with others in Indian Country in recommending a 5-year
extension at $200 million per year. We ask for your support of the
efforts to pass such a multi-year extension of the SDPI and that the
extension be accomplished as quickly as possible--well in advance of
its expiration in September, 2015--so that these indispensable programs
can continue to provide uninterrupted care and contracts can be renewed
without disruption and loss of expertise.
BIA Natural Resources Funding.--The Metlakatla Indian Community has
the only reservation (Annette Island Reserve) within the State of
Alaska--87,000 acres, plus the marine waters 3,000 feet out from the
shorelines of Annette Islands. We did not participate in the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), though were given the opportunity
to do so. Instead we communicated to the congressional drafters of
ANCSA the need for the reservation to stay intact. As a result, section
19 of ANCSA excludes the Metlakatla Indian Community, thus preserving
the Community's trust land and reservation intact.
Today I want to bring to your attention a terrible injustice: the
BIA has, for decades, underfunded our natural resource programs. We
recently conducted a detailed analysis of not only the funding we
currently receive to carry out BIA natural resource programs
($957,205), but an analysis of the funding necessary to adequately
protect the trust assets (our lands, waters, habitat, minerals, and
fish and wildlife), and also to steward those trust assets to meeting
tribal needs on an ongoing basis. We determined that our BIA natural
resource programs require a total funding of $4,274,731 on an annual
basis, which means additional appropriations in the amount of
$3,317,526.
This breaks down as additional funds needed for the Community in
the following budgetary accounts: BIA Hatchery Operations (+$500,000);
Fisheries Management and Development & Wildlife Management and
Development (+$1,006,068); Forestry (+$464,545); Natural Resources
General/Administration (+$533,369); Other Rights Protection (including
water) (+$191,709); Mineral Development (+$304,372); and Invasive
Species Management (+$317,463).
We urge the subcommittee to fully fund these needs to that the
Community can adequately carry out responsibilities that are critical
to ensure that the Community's natural resources programs are
adequately funded. I discuss below two of these program areas--
Fisheries and Forestry--to greater illustrate all that is involved in
carrying out these natural resource programs, the existing inequitable
share of these funds that the Community receives in comparison with
other tribes in the Northwest, and why this funding is so critical to
the Community.
Fisheries.--Because State-managed waters surround the reservation's
waters, and because there is no court-ordered co-management
relationship between the Community and the State, Tribal fisheries must
be managed in a way that accounts for the Community's fishing effort,
as well as the State's. This must be done without having any influence
over the State's management strategies, which, at times, have been
preemptive of our subsistence and harvest rights. In order to properly
manage our fishery resources, we need to bring our own scientists and
resource managers to the table, but have insufficient funding to do so.
We manage the following commercial fisheries (subject to
Secretarial approval): Salmon--The Community's fishery is the largest
tribally managed salmon fishery in the Nation. In fact, the Community
annually harvests more salmon than the five top fishing tribes in
western Washington combined; Herring--we manage the second largest
herring stock in southeast Alaska (second only to the Sitka fishery),
the largest (almost certainly the only) tribally managed herring
fishery in the Nation; Halibut--our halibut fishery is comparable to
the tribal halibut fisheries in western Washington; and Dive Fisheries
for Sea Cucumber and Geoduck--Comparable to tribal fisheries in western
Washington.
The tribes of western Washington, which conduct fisheries that are
most similar to the Community's, also have complex managerial,
technical and scientific needs. Yet, their funding, although
substantially greater than the Community's, is still inadequate to
cover the costs of retaining staff in each of the individual
disciplines that, in combination, make up a legitimate fishery
management program. However, Congress, through the BIA, makes millions
of dollars available to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
(NWIFC) for that very purpose. The NWIFC, like the Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, is able to draw on economies of scale and
consortia staff, so that when tribes meet with the State, or other
management authorities, they are supported by expertise that the State
cannot ignore. By contrast, the Community not only does not have the
funds necessary to hire its own experts, we are also not able to draw
upon the expertise of an inter-tribal consortium. Our Tamgas Creek
Hatchery is possibly the largest tribally operated hatchery in the
Nation, but it inexplicably receives $0 in the Hatchery Operations line
item in the BIA budget, while Oregon and Washington tribes receive
substantial funding. Our Community is very much on its own. When
considered in this light, the disparity between the fishery management
support available to western Washington tribes and the support
available to the Metlakatla Indian Community is enormous. As a result,
we are severely handicapped in efforts to protect our fishing rights
and conserve our fishery resources.
Forestry.--A second example of critically needed funding to meet
tribal natural resource program needs is in the forestry program. We
receive $62,000 for our forestry program. This is insufficient funding
to hire even one position in the program, let alone plan, design, and
implement silvicultural prescriptions, forest harvest, conservation,
and wildfire prevention and control strategies on the 21,172 acres of
commercial forestland, and 54,197 acres of non-commercial forestland
and associated muskeg habitat. Using the formula developed by the IFMAT
III team in 2011, the Community's forestry program should receive a
minimum of $646,223.32 in Federal funding in order to ensure forest
health and Federal trust obligations are met. We have requested less
than this full amount, or only an additional $464,545.
We are glad to provide any additional information you may request.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and needs.
[This statement was submitted by Audrey Hudson, Mayor and Tribal
Chair.]
______
Prepared Statement of the the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
Chairperson Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, 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. This Subactivity includes Colorado River Salinity Control
as a primary focus area. For fiscal year 2016, a funding level of $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 about $382
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.
Metropolitan encourages the subcommittee's support for sufficient
funding in the Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management to allow
for general water quality improvement efforts in the Colorado River
Basin and $1.5 million for salinity specific projects in 2016. This
amount is needed to prevent further degradation of the quality of the
Colorado River and increased downstream economic damages.
______
Prepared Statement of the Minerals Science and Information Coalition
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the
importance of minerals science and statistical information to the
economy and national security. The Minerals Science and Information
Coalition (MSIC), an ad hoc group representing both upstream and
downstream minerals interests, respectfully submits this testimony in
favor of increased funding for the Mineral Resources Program in the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
MSIC and its members are united in support of minerals science and
information functions in the Federal Government. Minerals and their
materials form the basis of critical infrastructure and advanced
technologies upon which we rely. The United States is the world's
largest user of mineral commodities. Aggregates for bridges and roads,
metals for pipelines and transportation, and elements for computers and
defense systems contribute to our national security, economy, and
overall global competitiveness. Despite our dependence on these
materials, the U.S. has not invested the necessary funds in programs to
identify and characterize our mineral wealth and quantify the domestic
and global supply of, demand for, and flow of minerals and mineral
materials. The Nation lacks the infrastructure necessary to support
advanced mineral forecasting, leaving important supply chains
susceptible to disruptions. Increased Federal investments in minerals
science and research are necessary to overcome this liability. MSIC
supports the President's request of $47.7 million for the USGS Mineral
Resources Program, but suggests that new investments be made in the
USMIN Project to continue development of a comprehensive minerals
database and the National Minerals Information Center (NMIC) to create
minerals forecasting capabilities.
NMIC is the world's premier source of statistical information on
current production and consumption of mineral commodities for more than
180 countries. U.S. manufacturers and financial firms, as well as
Federal, State, and local agencies, such as the Department of Defense,
the Department of State, and the Department of Transportation use this
information as a guide to economic and strategic decisionmaking. The
ability to accurately forecast minerals' availability ahead of supply
disruptions for these vital organizations is currently nonexistent. By
comparison, in fiscal year 2015, the Energy Information Administration
(EIA) received $117 million for energy information and forecasting,
whereas the budget for minerals information at USGS was $15 million
with no provision for minerals forecasting. NMIC's information
gathering and analysis functions must be strengthened in fiscal year
2016, and it is essential that new money be provided to fund minerals
forecasting.
MSIC notes the success of the Critical Materials Institute (CMI) at
the Ames National Laboratory and suggests equal investments be made in
upstream minerals information and research. The CMI is tasked with
creating alternatives to and streamlining the efficiency of materials
that are vulnerable to supply disruptions, including rare earth
elements. This one-sided approach to supply chain management ignores
the critical upstream research and analysis necessary to identify these
high-risk resources in the first place. Additionally, there is little
point in developing new materials if we cannot supply the raw materials
to manufacture them. The USGS is uniquely positioned to provide the up-
to-date forecasts on potential mineral disruptions and to provide the
essential geological research and information to help locate and
characterize sources of critical minerals. MSIC suggests the creation
of a Critical Minerals initiative within the USGS to complement DOE's
Critical Materials Institute.
We support $25 million per year to fund a Critical Minerals
initiative at USGS. Federal investment in critical mineral resources
should, at a minimum, match Federal investment in critical materials.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee.
Sincerely,
Aluminum Association; American Exploration & Mining
Association; American Geosciences
Institute; American Physical Society;
Associated Equipment Distributors;
Industrial Minerals Association--North
America; Materials Research Society; Mining
& Metallurgical Society of America;
National Electrical Manufacturers
Association; National Mining Association;
National Stone, Sand and Gravel
Association; The Pennsylvania Bureau of
Topographic and Geologic Survey; Society of
Economic Geologists; and Society for
Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Patty Murray
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, April 27, 2015.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, Senate
Appropriations Committee, Senate Dirksen Office Building, Room
131, Washington, DC, 20150
Hon. Tom Udall, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, Senate
Appropriations Committee, Senate Hart Office Building, Room
125, Washington, DC, 20510
Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
I thank you for your support of important projects that have made a
real difference in the lives of millions of people in Washington State,
the Pacific Northwest, and the United States. As the subcommittee
prepares to write the fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies Appropriations bill, I ask for your support of
projects important to Washington State and the Nation. I have outlined
my requests for fiscal year 2016 in priority order, and provide brief
descriptions below.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Account: Environmental Programs and
Management
Program: Geographic Programs
Activity: Puget Sound
FY2016 Request: $30 million with an increase
above the President's Budget as
possible
FY2016 PB: $30 million
Rationale: This funding is requested to
provide continued Federal
leadership while supplementing
State and local efforts to
implement Washington State's
Puget Sound Action Agenda. The
President's Budget Request
provides a slight increase from
funding provided by the fiscal
year 2015 Consolidated and
Further Continuing
Appropriations Act; however,
additional investment is still
required to return Puget Sound
funding to historical levels,
and I respectfully request
additional funding as may be
available. Puget Sound recovery
and restoration is critical to
my State, to the Pacific
Northwest region, and to the
country as a whole. A healthy
Puget Sound plays an essential
role in the region's economy and
is important to the
environmental and economic
future of my State. Healthy
waters and tributaries are
essential to the recovery of
several Endangered Species Act-
listed salmon populations and
the protection of tribal treaty
rights. This request is my
highest priority in the
Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations
bill.
Agency: USDA U.S. Forest Service
Account: Capital Improvement and
Maintenance
Program/Activity: Legacy Roads and Trails
FY2016 Request: $40 million
FY2016 PB: $0 (Consolidated into Integrated
Resource Restoration)
Rationale: The Legacy Roads and Trails
program provides funding for
maintenance and decommissioning
work on Forest Service roads in
the Pacific Northwest and across
the Nation. This program funds
projects to combat water quality
issues. It is critical to my
home State of Washington, where
it plays an important role
enhancing and improving habitat
for salmon, steelhead, and bull
trout species while supporting
good paying jobs in rural areas.
The Forest Service's road system
vastly outstrips the available
funding for maintenance and
repair, and Legacy Roads and
Trails has successfully
decommissioned no longer needed
roads that otherwise result in
habitat blockages and water
quality issues.
Agency: USDA U.S. Forest Service
Account: State and Private Forestry
Program/Activity: Forest Legacy
FY2016 Request: Highest level possible
FY2016 PB: $61 million
Rationale: The Forest Legacy program is an
important, voluntary tool
helping individuals protect some
of America's unique landscapes.
Forest Legacy provides Federal
support to preserve private
forests as working timber lands,
thereby supporting jobs in rural
communities, wildlife habitat,
recreation opportunities, and
water quality. Funding the
Forest Legacy program at the
highest level possible will
allow adequate funds to be made
available for important projects
in my home State, including the
Mount St. Helens Forest Project
Phase 2. Without the support of
the Forest Legacy program, these
lands could be at risk of
development, resulting in long-
term impacts to future
generations.
Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs
Account: Operation of Indian Programs
Program: Trust--Natural Resources
Management
Activity: Rights Protection Implementation
FY2016 Request: Highest level possible
FY2016 PB: $40.1 million
Rationale: Rights Protection Implementation
funding supports the off-
reservation hunting, fishing,
and gathering rights of 49
federally-recognized tribes,
including several in Washington
State. This funding also
supports the implementation of
court orders and the co-
management of treaty-protected
fishing rights by intertribal
organizations, which is
especially important to
Washington State tribes who have
taken on increasing
responsibilities in fisheries
management without a
corresponding increase in
funding. Within this activity, I
especially support the
President's request for Western
Washington Fisheries Management,
the Washington State Timber Fish
and Wildlife Project, Columbia
River Fisheries Management, the
U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon
Treaty Implementation, Salmon
Marking, and Youth Initiatives.
Agency: National Park Service
Account: Land Acquisition and State
Assistance
FY2016 Request: Highest level possible
FY2016 PB: $153.7 million
Rationale: The Land and Water Conservation
Fund's (LWCF) land acquisition
funding is an important tool to
protect some of America's most
treasured landscapes. LWCF
projects preserve land and
enhance recreational activities
including hiking, hunting, and
angling, which stimulate rural
economies and support thriving
outdoor recreation industries in
Washington, Alaska, New Mexico,
and other States. This account
has previously supported
important projects in Washington
State and robust funding this
year would support the purchase
of land within Ebey's Landing
National Historical Reserve. I
am a cosponsor of legislation to
permanently reauthorize LWCF and
expect Congress will address
this reauthorization effort. I
commend the President for
advocating a switch to mandatory
funding of LWCF, and as
authorizing committees consider
reauthorization, I support any
additional funding the
subcommittee can provide to all
LWCF streams in this constrained
fiscal environment.
Agency: USDA U.S. Forest Service
Account: Land Acquisition
Program/Activity: Land and Water Conservation Fund
FY2016 Request: Highest level possible
FY2016 PB: $63 million
Rationale: The Land and Water Conservation
Fund's (LWCF) land acquisition
funding is an important tool to
protect some of America's most
treasured landscapes. LWCF
projects preserve land and
enhance recreational activities
including hiking, hunting, and
angling, which stimulate rural
economies and support thriving
outdoor recreation industries in
Washington, Alaska, New Mexico,
and other States. This account
previously supported critical
projects in Washington State and
the President's request this
year includes efforts in my
State to consolidate ownership
of the Okanogan-Wenatchee
National Forest checkerboard
lands. I am a cosponsor of
legislation to permanently
reauthorize LWCF and expect
Congress will address this
reauthorization effort. I
commend the President for
advocating a switch to mandatory
funding of LWCF, and as
authorizing committees consider
reauthorization, I support any
additional funding the
subcommittee can provide to all
LWCF streams in this constrained
fiscal environment.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Account: Environmental Programs Management
Program/Activity: National Estuary Program
FY2016 Request: Highest level possible, with
language specifying $600,000 per
NEP
FY2016 PB: $27.3 million
Rationale: The Clean Water Act of 1987
authorized 28 local National
Estuary Programs (NEPs), two of
which are in Washington State--
Puget Sound and the Lower
Columbia River Estuary
Partnership. These NEPs protect
nationally significant estuaries
by bringing together diverse
parties to identify problems,
define actionable steps, and
implement actions. NEP funds are
critical to my home State and
enhance opportunities to secure
additional project-specific
grants in areas including
habitat restoration, toxics
reduction, and environmental
education. I am particularly
supportive of language to
specify the direction of
$600,000 per NEP.
Agency: USDA U.S. Forest Service
Account: National Forest System
Program/Activity: Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program
FY2016 Request: $60 million
FY2016 PB: $60 million
Rationale: The Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Program
supports forest and watershed
restoration projects that
ultimately reduce wildfire
suppression costs, create jobs,
improve forest and watershed
health, and leverage non-Federal
investments. In my home State of
Washington, Collaborative
efforts have been successful in
bringing together diverse
parties to support, restore, and
enhance habitat, reduce risk to
communities, and support the
local economy. Robust funding
will enable the Forest Service
to select and implement
additional high-priority
projects across the country,
thereby making communities and
forests safer, healthier, and
more resistant to climate
change.
Agency: United States Geological Survey
Activity: Natural Hazards
Subactivity: Earthquake Hazards
FY2016 Request: $70 million
FY2016 PB: $57.5 million
Rationale: Millions of Americans live within
fault zones and are therefore
subject to the potentially
devastating impacts of an
earthquake, from loss of life to
economic losses and building
damage. Unfortunately,
earthquakes come with little
advance notice and therefore put
millions of dollars of economic
activity, as well as millions of
lives, at risk. An increase in
this account would help fund
earthquake early warning
research and development, which
is important for natural
disasters such as these with
mere minutes for response.
Robust funding is essential to
support the construction,
operation, and maintenance costs
of an early warning system to
benefit millions of Americans,
particularly along the entire
West Coast where many major
fault lines exist, without
leaving one region of the
coastline at greater risk than
other parts.
Bill Language Request--Earthquake Hazards
``[overall USGS funding for fiscal year 2016], of which $70,000,000
shall be available for the Earthquake Hazards Program: Provided,
$16,100,000 shall be available for initiating implementation of an
earthquake early warning system in regions at greatest risk.''
Report Language Request--Earthquake Hazards
``Earthquake Hazards.--The Committee supports efforts to continue
developing an earthquake early warning prototype system on the West
Coast. The Committee is concerned about the lack of knowledge and real-
time instrumentation available for the Cascadia subduction zone. Our
scientific understanding of earthquakes and the ocean environment will
benefit from the wealth of offshore data collected and the continued
development of an early earthquake warning system for the Cascadia
system to help prepare for and mitigate the negative human and economic
impacts to the Pacific Northwest like those felt by Japan in 2011.''
Problem.--Earthquakes have enormous potential to cause catastrophic
casualties, damage, economic loss, and disruption. Many urbanized areas
across the country, including in the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, and
California, are at particular risk of significant damage to human
health and property should a significant earthquake hit. Research is
ongoing to develop earthquake early warning systems in order to provide
seconds to minutes of advance notice before an earthquake or
earthquake-triggered tsunami hits, which could play an important role
in human health and property protection, resulting in significant
benefits to hospitals, transportation systems, manufacturing
activities, and potentially limiting loss of life or damage. Increased
funding is necessary to improve the Advanced National Seismic System
and implement earthquake early warning systems for regions at greatest
risk. The bill and report language provided above would address these
issues and support this activity.
Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs
Account: Operation of Indian Programs
Program: Tribal Management Development
Program
FY 2016 Request: Highest funding possible
FY2016 PB: $14.3 million
Rationale: Funding through the Tribal
Management Development Program
helps tribes fulfill Federal
mandates in natural resource
management on trust land and
supports tribal self-
determination in deciding which
priority projects to fund. With
this funding, tribes employ law
enforcement officers on
Washington State's Lake
Roosevelt and its shoreline to
enforce Federal laws and tribal
health and safety laws. This
funding also supports the
protection, restoration, and
management of fish and wildlife
and their habitats. Without this
funding, tribal participation in
processes and activities
including permitting, hydropower
operations, and fish and
wildlife program implementation
would be hamstrung. I am
particularly supportive of
robust funding for Tribal
Management Development Program
funding for Lake Roosevelt,
Yakama, and the Upper Columbia
United Tribes.
USGS Natural Hazards Report Language
``Natural Hazards.--The Committee is concerned that the lahar
warning system on Mount Rainier, Washington, monitors only two of the
six river valleys off the mountain and that the technology has reached
its `end of life.' A population of nearly 3 million and associated
property lives within the drainages of Mount Rainier's six river
valleys and the Committee applauds the joint efforts to protect life
and property that begun in 1998 by the United States Geological
Survey's Cascades Volcanic Observatory and the Pierce County Management
Department. These efforts should continue until all six impacted river
valleys achieve the same level of coverage. Recognizing Mount Rainier
as the most dangerous active volcano in North America, and the real
possibility of a lahar event, the Committee urges the Survey to replace
and expand the lahar warning system. This update must cover all six
river valleys off Mount Rainier and employ the necessary up-to-date
technology and systems to adequately monitor, detect, alert, and warn
of a lahar event. Such a project will greatly complement the near and
long term plans of the Survey for providing natural hazard detection
and warning systems on the West Coast.''
Problem.--In 1998, the Pierce County Department of Emergency
Management and United States Geological Survey Cascades Volcanic
Observatory began a pilot project for a Mount Rainier lahar warning
system. The existing system currently monitors only two of the six
river valleys potentially impacted by a Mount Rainier lahar event.
According to USGS, Mount Rainier is the most dangerous active volcano
in North America. Approximately 3 million people, as well as
approximately $13 billion in buildings and land value, could be
impacted by a catastrophic lahar flow in Mount Rainier's six river
valleys. Pierce County, in partnership with USGS, other Federal
agencies, the State of Washington, and impacted counties King, Lewis,
and Thurston, seek to replace the outdated and limited lahar warning
system with the installation of technology to monitor, detect, alert,
and warn of lahar events in any of the six river valleys.
Agency: Department of Health and Human
Services
Account: Indian Health Service
Program: Urban Indian Health
FY2016 Request: Highest level possible, with
dedicated facility needs funding
FY2016 PB: $44 million
Rationale: The Indian Health Service (IHS)
was created in 1979, and funding
for urban Indian health has
consistently represented
approximately 1 percent of the
overall IHS appropriation. Since
that time, however, the
population of Indians moving to
cities has steadily increased,
with the 2010 census finding
that approximately 70 percent of
the 5.2 million Americans self-
identifying as American Indian
or Alaska Native (either alone
or in combination with another
race) living in cities. There
are 34 Urban Indian Health
Centers across the country,
including one in my home State
of Washington. These centers
provide culturally appropriate
health services such as primary
care, outreach, and referral
services to many Native
Americans. Many of these
facilities are in need of
repairs and renovations but have
been hamstrung by limited
resources. I support additional
funding as available for
facility needs.
Legacy Roads and Trails Report Language
``Legacy Roads and Trails.--The Committee retains the Legacy Roads
and Trails Remediation program as a separate budget line item for
fiscal year 2016 in order to ensure these funds are targeted to support
Forest Service road improvements and decommissioning in locations with
the greatest need. This program has improved the Forest Service's
ability to address problems associated with its extensive and aging
road system, but the Committee is concerned that the funds are not
being allocated in a manner proportionate to the distribution of roads
in need of attention across the system and directs the Forest Service
to direct funds to regions most in need of road remediation.''
Problem.--The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) road system was built
decades ago to support large-scale timber harvest, and the USFS is now
burdened with a road system larger than can effectively be managed.
This expansive system negatively impacts water quality and wildlife
habitat across the country. The Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation
(LRT) program was created in fiscal year 2008 to help the USFS make
targeted progress in addressing problems associated with this aging
infrastructure. In addition to improved habitat and better water
quality for downstream communities, LRT supports good-paying jobs in
rural areas that have been impacted by decreased timber harvests. LRT
funds have successfully been used to maintain and improve roads still
needed for resource extraction or recreation, while decommissioning
those that are no longer needed. Right-sizing the USFS road system
helps reduce the fiscal and environmental burden of roads while
allowing better, more reliable access to the Forest system for
recreators. USFS Region 6 (Oregon and Washington) contain approximately
a quarter of the Nation's USFS road miles, but the Region received only
16 percent of appropriated LRT dollars in fiscal year 2014. The
inclusion of this language in the fiscal year 2015 Appropriations bill
helped direct proportional funds to Region 6, and retaining this
language will ensure continued targeting of funds to regions of
greatest need.
Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Account: Land Acquisition
FY2016 Request: Highest level possible
FY2016 PB: $58.5 million
Rationale: The Land and Water Conservation
Fund's (LWCF) land acquisition
funding is an important tool to
protect some of America's most
treasured landscapes. LWCF
projects preserve land and
enhance recreational activities
including hiking, hunting, and
angling, which stimulate rural
economies and support thriving
outdoor recreation industries in
Washington, Alaska, New Mexico,
and other States. This account
has previously supported
important projects in Washington
State. I am a cosponsor of
legislation to permanently
reauthorize LWCF and expect
Congress will address this
reauthorization effort. I
commend the President for
advocating a switch to mandatory
funding of LWCF, and as
authorizing committees consider
reauthorization, I support any
additional funding the
subcommittee can provide to all
LWCF streams in this constrained
fiscal environment.
Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Account: Resource Management
Activity: Habitat Conservation
Subactivity: Partners for Fish and Wildlife
FY2016 Request: $52.4 million
FY2016 PB: $52.4 million
Rationale: Partners for Fish and Wildlife
supports voluntary and community-
based efforts to improve fish
and wildlife conservation on
private land. In Washington
State, these funds support
collaborative partnerships with
Federal, State, and local
agencies, tribes, businesses,
citizen groups, and landowners
to enhance, restore, assess,
educate, and conduct monitoring
projects on many important
efforts, including salmon
recovery. With a relatively
small Federal investment,
Partners for Fish and Wildlife
recipients are able to leverage
impressive sums to make
significant habitat improvements
and support good-paying jobs. I
support the President's funding
request, with particular focus
on existing programs proven to
be effective.
Agency: USDA U.S. Forest Service
Account: Wildland Fire Management
FY2016 Request: $2.354 billion
FY2016 PB: $2.354 billion
Rationale: In 2014, the Carlton Complex Fire
burned over 256,000 acres,
making it the largest fire by
acres burned in Washington State
history. Washington State,
particularly east of the Cascade
mountain range, is consistently
under threat of devastating
wildland fires, and given the
increasing risk, regularity, and
severity of wildland fires, I am
supportive of the President's
Request for Wildland Fire
Management. Within this account,
I am particularly supportive of
the request of $78 million for
State Fire Assistance, which is
an important tool to help State,
local, and private landowners
prepare for and respond to
wildfires. I am especially
concerned with the President's
request to reduce the Hazardous
Fuels account, and encourage the
Committee to retain funding at
the fiscal year 2015 enacted
level of $361.749 million.
Reduction of hazardous fuel
loads, paid for by this funding,
plays an important role in
reducing the risk of wildland
fires, and therefore warrants
sustained funding as we grapple
with massive fires across the
West.
Agency: USDA U.S. Forest Service
Account: State and Private Forestry
Program/Activity: International Forestry
FY2016 Request: Highest level possible
FY2016 PB: $4.004 million
Rationale: Illegal logging activities result
in an annual loss of
approximately $1 billion to U.S.
forestry industries as American
businesses are undersold by
cheaper illegal supply. The U.S.
Forest Service Office of
International Programs (FSIP)
represents the U.S. forest
products industry in
international trade agreements,
while also providing expertise
to the U.S. Department of State
and the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative. FSIP plays an
important role working to level
the international playing field
for U.S. timber producers,
advancing U.S. forestry
interests, protecting the U.S.
from invasive species that could
damage our forests, and
providing unique perspective
pertaining to our national
security. I appreciate the
subcommittee's commitment to
FSIP and was pleased the
President returned this
important program to his budget
request this year, and I support
continued funding for
International Forestry at the
highest level possible.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Account: Operation of the National Park
System
Program/Activity: Manhattan Project National
Historical Park
FY2016 Request: $180,000
FY2016 PB: $180,000
Rationale: The Manhattan Project National
Historical Park tells an
important story in our Nation's
history: the development and
production of the technology and
materials necessary to create
the world's first atomic bomb.
The facilities and stories of
the Manhattan Project will keep
the history alive of millions of
Americans whose work was
essential to the World War II
effort. Creation of the
Manhattan Project National
Historical Park was a bipartisan
effort over several Congresses,
with final passage secured as
part of the fiscal year 2015
National Defense Authorization
Act. The new Park will have
locations in Hanford,
Washington, Los Alamos, New
Mexico, and Oak Ridge,
Tennessee. It will be
administered and operated in
conjunction with the Department
of Energy, which has primary
Federal responsibility for the
cleanup of these sites. As we
prepare for the National Park
Service centenary year and this
new Park Unit becomes
operational, I support funding
at the highest level possible
for this and other Park units.
Additionally, I support funding at the highest possible level for
the following programs:
--National Park Service
--EPA--State and Tribal Assistance Grants--Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund
--EPA--State and Tribal Assistance Grants--Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
--BIA--Public Safety and Justice--Law Enforcement
--BIA--Trust--Natural Resources Management--Cooperative Landscape
Conservation
--FWS--Ecological Services Habitat Conservation--Coastal Programs
--USFS--State and Private Forestry--Economic Action Program: Economic
Development Grant Program
--Capital Improvements and Maintenance (U.S. Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management)
--FWS--Fish and Aquatic Conservation--Aquatic Invasive Species
--National Park Service--Historic Preservation Fund
--BIA--Contract Support
--EPA--General Assistance Program
--EPA--Diesel Emissions Reduction Grants Program
--EPA--Environmental Programs and Management--Technical Assistance
Competitive Grant Program
--FWS--Resource Management--Fish and Aquatic Conservation--National
Fish Hatchery Operations
--USFS--Research and Development--USDA Forest Products Laboratory--
Forest Products Advanced Utilization
--BIE--Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities
--USGS--Natural Hazards--Global Seismographic Network
--Multinational Species Conservation Fund
--North American Wetlands Conservation Act
--EPA--Environmental Education Grants
--National Endowment for the Arts
--National Endowment for the Humanities
--FWS--National Wildlife Refuge System
--USGS--Surveys, Investigations and Research, Water Resources--Water
Resources Research Act Program
I encourage you to oppose the inclusion of policy riders related to
activities by the agencies under your jurisdiction in the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. I thank you and
the subcommittee in advance for your assistance and look forward to
working with you as we begin the fiscal year 2016 appropriations
process.
I understand and appreciate the subcommittee's previous efforts to
use the Appropriations process as a vehicle to provide a long-term
solution to wildfire disaster funding and I support continued efforts,
through the Appropriations process or other vehicles, to complete this
goal. The long-term practice of fire-borrowing is unsustainable and I
support the equitable treatment of wildland fire disasters with other
forms of natural disaster funding.
Sincerely,
Patty Murray,
United States Senator.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
Programs
My name is Eric Cavazza and I serve as the Director of the Bureau
of Abandoned Mine Reclamation within the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection. I am providing 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, of which 28 implement federally approved abandoned mine
land reclamation (AML) programs authorized under Title IV of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). As you know, 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 $209 million in fiscal year 2016.
In its fiscal year 2016 proposed budget, the Office of Surface Mining
(OSM) is requesting $385 million for State and tribal AML grants (which
includes $200 million of new funding for the President's Power Plus
Plan), an increase of $176 million. OSM's budget also includes five
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 (a reduction of $24.4 million
in fiscal year 2016); the second of which would return the AML
reclamation fee paid by coal operators to pre-2006 levels; the third of
which would establish a hardrock AML fee and accompanying program; the
fourth of which would provide enhanced payouts to the United Mine
Workers pension funds; and the fifth of which would accelerate the
distribution of grant funds for a portion of the remaining
unappropriated balance in the AML Trust Fund to target the cleanup and
redevelopment of eligible lands and waters (an additional $200 million
in fiscal year 2016).
Over the past 35 years, the accomplishments of the States and
tribes under the AML program have resulted in tens of thousands of
acres of abandoned mine lands having been reclaimed, thousands of mine
openings having been closed, many streams having been restored from the
adverse impacts of acid mine drainage, hundreds of mine fires having
been extinguished, thousands of homes, schools and businesses having
been stabilized from the adverse impacts of mine subsidence and
landslides, and safeguards for people, property and the environment
having been put in place. Additionally, potable drinking water supplies
have been re-established for tens of thousands of citizens in areas
where groundwater and water wells have been contaminated or diminished
by mining. Be assured that States and tribes continue to be committed
to address the unabated hazards at both coal and non-coal 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 recently updated ``Safeguarding,
Reclaiming, Restoring'' accomplishments report prepared by State and
tribal administrators of AML programs under SMCRA is available on the
NAAMLP Web site (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 the ``State
Share'', would be returned for the uses described in Title IV of the
Act if the State or tribe assumed responsibility for regulating active
coal mining operations pursuant to Title V of SMCRA. The 2006
Amendments clarified the scope of what the State Share funds could be
used for and reaffirmed the promise made by Congress in 1977.
If a State or tribe was successful in completing reclamation of
abandoned coal mines and was able to ``certify'' under Section 411 of
SMCRA,\1\ then the State Share funds could be used to address a myriad
of other abandoned mine issues as authorized by SMCRA and as further
defined under each State's or tribe's Abandoned Mine Reclamation Plan,
each of which is approved by OSM. Like all abandoned mine reclamation,
the work of certified States and tribes eliminates health and safety
problems, cleans up the environment, and creates jobs in rural areas
impacted by mining. In this regard, the certified States and tribes
have been good stewards of the AML funds they receive, especially with
regard to addressing dangerous non-coal mines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While a certified State or tribe confirms at the time of
certification that it has completed all of the coal sites on its
current inventory, the certification contemplates that new, formerly
unidentified high priority coal AML sites may occur in the future and
the State/tribe commits to addressing these sites immediately. All AML
States and tribes, including those that are certified, have identified
additional previously unknown high priority coal sites as a result of
on-going field investigations, new information and features that have
been expressed to the surface. The State of Montana alone spent $8.5
million on coal projects (80 percent of the annual grant) in fiscal
year 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legislative proposal to eliminate 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 respectfully 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSM's budget includes several new discretionary funding requests
related to the AML program under Title IV of SMCRA. The first would
provide funding and additional FTE's to evaluate AML program
implementation, including ``identifying more effective and efficient
tools for AML site identification, contract management and program
oversight''. Part of this funding will be used to review the current
projects in the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (AMLIS) given the
date when they were originally entered into AMLIS. While we see this as
a potentially useful exercise, especially as we look toward
reauthorization of the program prior the expiration of fee collection
authority in 2021, we believe it is critical that OSM coordinate any
such efforts with State AML program managers given that much of the
inventory data and information resides with the States (and can often
be updated more effectively by syncing AMLIS with State AML inventories
which are generally more up to date and accurate). A portion of this
increased funding is also targeted at program oversight. Frankly, we
are unaware of any significant problems with the States' and tribes'
administration of their respective AML programs and therefore believe
OSM should spend this funding on more useful and productive initiatives
related to overall program improvements. For instance, we believe the
proposed increase in funding for applied science projects related to
AML work is justified.
One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML
restoration work is through leveraging or matching other grant
programs, such as EPA's 319 program. 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 that the
subcommittee once again include language in the fiscal year 2016
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 increased funding for
OSM's training program and TIPS, including moneys for State/tribal
travel. These programs are central to the effective implementation of
State and tribal AML programs as they provide necessary training and
continuing education for State/tribal agency personnel, as well as
critical technical assistance. We also strongly 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.
Among the legislative proposals contained in OSM's proposed budget,
two deserve special attention. The first is a proposal to ``Revitalize
Communities Impacted by Abandoned Mine Lands,'' which would be
accomplished by dispersing $1 billion from the AML Fund over 5 years
for the purpose of reclamation that ``facilitates sustainable
revitalization.'' While the States are supportive of the spirit of this
proposal and have in fact designed many projects around these types of
purposes using local contractors whenever the opportunities and
partnerships exist, we cannot support a programmatic change of this
magnitude without a better understanding of the specifics of how it
will be implemented. The success of such an endeavor, as well as the
States' support for it, is highly dependent on robust consultation
between OSM and State AML program managers. At this juncture, the
States are concerned that the proposal could have negative
ramifications for the overall remediation of AML hazards and thus
public health and safety. Additionally, such projects rely on a
combination of partnerships, infrastructure and other factors to
sustain them into the future once the AML reclamation is completed.
Depending on how the proposal is implemented, the addition of
``economic eligibility factors'' to existing site selection criteria
could potentially divert some amount of funding away from the highest
priority AML sites. In this regard, it should be kept in mind that the
$1 billion of AML Fund money which would be repurposed by the proposal
is already slated for dispersal to the States under the allocation
system and site prioritization method ordained by Congress in the 2006
amendments to SMCRA--and primarily for remaining high priority AML
projects.
With respect to this legislative proposal and as a further
expansion of it, OSM has proposed a new discretionary funding amount of
$2 million to support ``OSM technical assistance to States and
communities to plan coordinated reclamation projects of abandoned coal
mines and mine drainage, as well as area-wide planning to help target
reclamation projects that facilitate beneficial post-reclamation land
use and sustainable revitalization in economically depressed coalfield
communities''. While this funding justification gives us a bit more of
the picture about the $1 billion Power Plus proposal, it still leaves
many of our questions unanswered and as such we are uncertain of
exactly how OSM intends to actually spend this money. To the extent
that it can used to accelerate the completion of priority projects on
AMLIS and create jobs, we believe we can work cooperatively with OSM to
make that happen given the current structure of the AML program under
Title IV. To the extent it expands into untested waters that require
adjustments to the current statutory mandates, we must be more
circumspect in our support, as noted above. Until we learn more about
how AML moneys can appropriately be spent to ``help diversify the
economy of coal country'' without impinging on mandated high priority
reclamation, the jury is still out on the proposal's feasibility and
legality.
OSM's budget proposal also includes a legislative proposal that
would require a massive transfer of $363.4 million from the Treasury to
various components of the UMWA Health and Retirement Funds. The States
recognize the importance of this issue and are supportive of efforts to
ensure the long-term solvency of the UMWA Pension Funds. However, the
States believe that this issue should be pursued as part of a more
comprehensive AML reauthorization package given the overall
implications for the AML program. In this regard, the States are
concerned that this significant dispersal of Treasury funds would
trigger the application of the $490 million cap on transfers from the
Treasury vis-a-vis mandatory Treasury payments to the States for AML
work. An analysis of OSM's proposed budget demonstrates that the
combination of this transfer to the UMWA Funds along with the mandatory
AML program transfers to States, including funding for certified States
and tribes that we request be continued, would exceed the $490 million
cap.
With regard to the proposal contained in OSM's budget to establish
a hardrock AML program, the States and tribes are well aware of the
need to address historic hardrock AML problem areas, which initially
began 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 same type of 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 if such a program is developed 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 2016.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
On behalf of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
(NACAA), thank you for this opportunity to testify on the fiscal year
2016 proposed budget for the United States 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 supports the President's request for an increase of
$40 million over fiscal year 2015 levels, for a total of $268.2 million
for State and local air quality grants; recommends that State and local
air pollution control agencies be provided with the flexibility to
determine how best to use any additional resources, including the $40
million; and requests 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.
NACAA is a national, non-partisan, non-profit association of air
pollution control agencies in 41 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 our
Nation's clean air program. The air quality professionals in our member
agencies have vast experience dedicated to improving air quality in the
United States. These observations and recommendations are based upon
that experience. The views expressed in this testimony do not
necessarily represent the positions of every State and local air
pollution control agency in the country.
air pollution remains a significant threat to human health
While great strides have been made in addressing air pollution, and
the Clean Air Act's programs have been extremely successful in
providing significant health and welfare benefits throughout our
country, there is still a lot of work to be done. According to EPA,
``[e]ven 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.'' \1\ Additionally, EPA's
latest National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) data showed that everyone
living in 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 the hazardous air pollutants included in
EPA's analysis.\2\ Finally, global warming and climate change are
expected to cause a host of problems, including rising sea levels,
changing weather patterns and increases in diseases and other problems
that threaten human health and the environment.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal Year 2016 EPA Budget in Brief (February 2015), page 14.
\2\ National Air Toxics Assessment for 2005--Fact Sheet (February
17, 2011), http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
\3\ Fiscal Year 2016 EPA Budget in Brief (February 2015), page 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While this subcommittee addresses many critically important
problems, it is unlikely that any pose more of a threat to public
health than air pollution. In fact, tens of thousands of people die
prematurely each year \4\ and many others suffer serious health
problems as a result of exposure to air pollution. These include, among
other things, premature mortality; cancer; and cardiovascular,
respiratory, neurological and reproductive damage.\5\ This subcommittee
has the opportunity to help address these serious public health and
welfare problems by providing additional Federal funding to assist
State and local air agencies in their efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/.
\5\ Fiscal Year 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan (April 10, 2014), page
8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
state and local programs need significant increases for continuing and
new programs
For many years, State and local air pollution control agencies have
struggled with insufficient resources. A NACAA study revealed an annual
shortfall of $550 million in Federal grants for State and local air
programs,\6\ which has caused our agencies to make difficult 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 grants provided by the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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/reportneedssurvey042709.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While 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 and calls for States and localities to 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). To make matters worse, the purchasing power
of Federal grants has decreased by nearly 16 percent over the past 14
years due to inflation, during which time State and local
responsibilities have expanded almost exponentially.
We recognize that Congress must support many programs and that
providing full funding for any one effort is probably impossible.
Therefore, although it is not enough to fund all of our
responsibilities, NACAA appreciates and supports the administration's
proposed $40-million increase and hopes that Congress will provide that
level of funding. Federal funding for State and local air programs--
both continuing grants and the requested increase--would provide
resources for a host of essential activities, such as our ongoing core
programs and new efforts, including obligations under the Clean Power
Plan.
Core Program Funding
State and local air quality agencies are continuously required to
implement many essential programmatic responsibilities to obtain and
maintain healthful air quality. These include not only new efforts, but
also ongoing activities that constitute the ``core'' of our clean air
activities and the day-to-day responsibilities that are the foundation
of our programs. Just to list a few examples, in fiscal year 2016,
States must: develop and/or make revisions to their State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) for each of the health-based national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)--especially the ozone and
PM2.5 (fine particles) standards; continue implementing new
and updated Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) air toxics
standards; address regional haze problems; implement motor vehicle and
related fuels programs; etc. All of these tasks call for a variety of
activities that are resource- and labor-intensive. These include, among
other things, planning; compiling comprehensive emission inventories;
carrying out complex modeling; analyzing extensive data; expanding and
operating monitoring networks; adopting regulations; inspecting
facilities and enforcing regulations, as necessary; addressing
complicated transport issues; issuing minor source permits; and
informing and involving the public in air quality decisions and issues.
Clean Power Plan Funding
In June 2014, EPA proposed the Clean Power Plan, which is a
regulation under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act designed to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gas emissions from existing electric utility
power plants. It is expected to be issued as a final regulation this
summer. Regardless of one's opinions about the need for climate change
measures, the fact is that State and local air quality agencies are now
expected to begin developing State plans and carrying out other
activities to comply with the requirements that will shortly be in
place. Likewise, even though these regulations will be litigated, in
the meantime the requirements for State and local air agencies to move
ahead with the program will remain in force and require significant
resources.
Among the many activities State and local air agencies must
undertake to comply with these regulations are the development and
submission of State plans to meet the section 111(d) requirements.
According to EPA, these tasks include: ``compile and assess information
about energy and emissions; establish approaches to evaluating,
measuring, and verifying plans for energy savings across environmental
agencies and energy regulators, hold public meetings and conduct
outreach with interested parties, and prepare and submit State plans.''
\7\ Additionally, agencies will need to conduct modeling, technical
analysis and training. The activities will be in addition to the tasks
State and local air agencies are already performing to comply with
other requirements of the Clean Air Act and will call for additional
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Draft OAR National Program Manager Guidance, fiscal years 2016-
2017 (February 23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
nacaa recommends flexibility in the use of grant increases
As stated above, the proposed budget calls for an increase of $40
million in State and local air pollution control grants. The proposed
budget would divide the increase into $25 million to implement the
Clean Power Plan under section 111(d) and $15 million for other
continuing State and local air quality activities. While State and
local air agencies do need additional funds to implement the Clean
Power Plan, we are also in need of significant increases to operate our
essential core programs. In fact, State and local air pollution control
agencies would need amounts far greater than the $40-million proposed
increase whether or not the Clean Power Plan were in effect in fiscal
year 2016. Accordingly, we request that Congress provide the $40-
million increase but also allow full flexibility for State and local
air agencies to use the additional funds for the highest priority
activities in their areas. This could include the Clean Power Plan and/
or other essential elements of State and local air quality programs,
such as the core program activities noted above.
nacaa recommends that authority for monitoring grants remain under
section 103
EPA has proposed again this year to begin shifting funds for
PM2.5 monitoring from section 103 authority, where no State
or local matching funds are needed, to section 105, which would require
additional matching funds. We recommend that the funds remain under
section 103 authority. For individual agencies that have concerns about
the matching requirements, this will ensure that they do not have to
refuse essential monitoring funds because they do not have the
resources to provide the required match. In past years, Congress has
been very responsive to our requests on this issue, for which we are
very grateful, and we recommend that Congress again call for these
grants to be provided under section 103 authority.
nacaa supports diesel emission reduction act (dera) funds
NACAA is pleased that the proposed budget includes funding for the
Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) program ($10 million). This is an
important program to address emissions from the large legacy fleet of
diesel engines. We appreciate that the budget request did not fund DERA
at the expense of the section 103/105 grants and we strongly urge that
any future funding for DERA not be in lieu of increases to State and
local air grants. Additionally, since many of the DERA funds are not
provided to State and local governments, we recommend that future DERA
activities not be funded through the STAG account. Instead, we suggest
that the grants be provided through one of EPA's other accounts.
nacaa supports resources for additional state and local clean power
activities
NACAA supports the recommended $4-billion Clean Power State
Incentive Fund contained in the request because it will provide
significant support for States and localities to achieve reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions related to the Clean Power Plan.
conclusion
NACAA supports the administration's proposed increase of $40
million for grants to State and local air pollution control agencies
under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act for fiscal year 2016,
for a total of $268.2 million. We recommend that these increases be
provided to State and local air agencies with full flexibility to be
used for the programs that are the highest clean air priorities in each
area, rather than being earmarked for specific programs, such as EPA's
Clean Power Plan. We further request that grants for PM2.5
monitoring remain under section 103 authority, rather than being
shifted to section 105 authority.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important issue
and for your consideration of the funding needs of State and local air
quality programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
subcommittee, I am David Terry, Executive Director of the National
Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), which represents the 56
State and Territory Energy Offices. NASEO is submitting this testimony
in support of funding for the ENERGY STAR program (within the Climate
Protection Partnership 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 helps consumers and businesses control expenditures over the long
term. The program is strongly supported by product manufacturers, and
ENERGY STAR leverages the States' efficiency actions. Voluntary ENERGY
STAR activities are occurring, in conjunction with many States
including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
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 approximately 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 (e.g., residential, commercial, and industrial). 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.
A successful example of how State Energy Offices are 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.
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 Home Performance with ENERGY STAR activity allows us to
focus on whole-house improvements, not simply a single product or
service. This is extremely beneficial to homeowners. Over 30 States,
including Alabama, California, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, and New
Jersey, operate or support the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR
programs. The New York and Illinois energy offices were recently
honored with Partner of the Year awards by the program. We are also
working closely with EPA to support the ENERGY STAR Challenge, which
encourages commercial and industrial building owners to voluntarily
reduce energy use by 10 percent or more within 5 years or less, usually
through very simple actions.
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. Over the past few years, Kentucky has moved
aggressively to promote zero-net energy schools. Other States that have
over 100 ENERGY STAR rated schools include Alabama, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
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 uses Portfolio Manager to measure, track,
assess, and report energy and water consumption.
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 2016. 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 Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies regarding our fiscal year 2016 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 to deliver these services,
which contribute to the socioeconomic and environmental health of rural
and urban areas. The comprehensive process for delivering these
services is articulated in each State's Forest Resource Assessment and
Strategy (Forest Action Plan), authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill and
continued in the 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 Federal
and State governments continue to face financial challenges, State
foresters, in partnership with the S&PF mission area of the Forest
Service, are best positioned to maximize effectiveness of available
resources by focusing work on priority forest issues where resources
are needed most.
Your support of the following programs is critical to helping
States address the many and varied challenges outlined in Forest Action
Plans.
wildland fire and forest fuels
Wildland Fire Funding.--A relatively light fire season in several
geographic areas meant that no transfers from non-fire programs to fire
suppression were required in fiscal year 2014 at the Forest Service or
the Department of the Interior. Nonetheless, the Forest Service was
still forced to prepare for transfers, which meant stopping ongoing
work in the field and halting new contracts. These actions frustrate
and delay on-the-ground management that is critical to the prevention
and mitigation of future wildfire. We ask for your continued support of
the long-term solution to stop future transfers through the bi-partisan
Wildfire Disaster Funding Act.
State Fire Assistance.--More people living in fire-prone
landscapes, high fuel loads, drought, and unhealthy landscapes are
among the factors that led most State foresters to identify wildland
fire as a priority issue in their Forest Action Plans. We now grapple
with increasingly expensive and complex wildland fires--fires that
frequently threaten human life and property. In 2014, more than 63,600
wildland fires burned nearly 3.6 million acres.\1\ State and local
agencies respond to the majority of wildfires across the country; in
2014 State and local agencies were responsible for responding to 50,799
(80 percent) of 63,612 reported wildfires across all jurisdictions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Interagency Fire Center, Historical Wildland Fire
Summaries, pg. 9. Last accessed Feb. 24, 2015 at http://
www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2014_Statssumm/
2014Stats&Summ.html.
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Fire Assistance (SFA) is the fundamental Federal mechanism
for assisting States and local fire departments in responding to
wildland fires and in conducting management activities that mitigate
fire risk on non-Federal lands. SFA also helps train and equip local
first responders who are often first to arrive at a wildland fire
incident and who play a crucial role in keeping fires and their costs
as small as possible. A small investment of SFA funds supports State
forestry agencies in accessing and repurposing equipment from the
Federal Excess Personal Property and the Firefighter Property programs.
Between 2008 and 2012 these two programs have delivered more than $150
million annually in equipment for use by State and local first
responders.
The Fiscal Year 2016 Forest Service Budget Justification highlights
a successful wildfire mitigation project in Colorado where a $300,000
investment before the Waldo Canyon fire helped protect the community
and avoid more than $77 million in additional losses from that
destructive wildfire. 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 2014, SFA directly funded hazardous fuel treatments
on 111,002 acres (with another 120,241 acres treated with leveraged
funding) and provided assistance to communities around the country,
supporting 3,117 risk assessment and fire management planning projects
and 9,972 prevention and education programs.\3\ NASF supports funding
the State Fire Assistance program at $86 million in fiscal year 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ USDA Forest Service Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Justification at
pg. 270.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
forest pests and invasive plants
Also among the greatest threats identified in the Forest Action
Plans are native and non-native pests and diseases. These pests and
diseases 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. The growing number of damaging pests and diseases
are often introduced and spread by way of wooden shipping materials,
movement of firewood, and through various types of recreation. In 2010,
approximately 6.4 million acres suffered mortality from insects and
diseases \4\ and there is an estimated 81.3 million acres at risk of
attack by insects and disease over the next 15 years.\5\ These losses
threaten clean and abundant water availability, 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, 2015 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, 2015 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/
foresthealth/technology/pdfs/2012_RiskMap_
Exec_summary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cooperative Forest Health Management program supports
activities related to prevention, monitoring, suppression, and
eradication of insects, diseases, and plants through provision of
technical and financial assistance to States and territories to
maintain healthy, productive forest ecosystems on non-Federal forest
lands. The Cooperative Forest Health Management program plays a
critical part in protecting communities already facing outbreaks and in
preventing exposure of more 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 2016.
assisting landowners and maintaining working forest landscapes--forest
stewardship program
Working forest landscapes are a key part of the rural landscape,
providing an estimated 900,000 jobs, clean water, wood products, and
other essential services to millions of Americans. 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.\6\ However, 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.
Programs like the Forest Stewardship Program and Forest Legacy Program
are key tools identified in the Forest Action Plans for keeping working
forests intact and for providing a full suite of benefits to society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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. The program works to ensure that private
landowners have the best information to help them manage their land for
wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, timber production, and many other
goals. In fiscal year 2014, nearly 26 million acres of private forest
lands across the Nation were managed under Forest Stewardship Plans,
and FSP supported direct outreach to roughly 424,000 landowners.\7\ The
technical assistance provided through 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 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ USDA Forest Service Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Justification at
pg. 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
urban and community forest management challenges
Urban forests are important to achieving energy savings, improved
air quality, neighborhood stability, aesthetic value, reduced noise,
and improved quality of life in municipalities and communities around
the country. Urban trees and forests provide a wide array of social,
economic, and environmental benefits to people living in urban areas;
today, more than 83 percent of the Nation's population lives in urban
areas.\8\ Yet, urban and community forests face serious threats, such
as development and urbanization, invasive pests and diseases, and fire
in the wildland urban interface (WUI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. At 119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. In fiscal year 2014, the U&CF program
delivered technical, financial, educational, and research assistance to
7,100 communities across all 50 States, the District of Columbia, U.S.
territories and affiliated Pacific Island nations. NASF supports
funding the Urban and Community Forestry program at $31 million in
fiscal year 2016.
importance of forest inventory data in monitoring forest issues
The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, managed by Forest
Service, Forest and Rangeland Research, is the only comprehensive
inventory system in the United States for assessing the health and
sustainability of the Nation's forests across all ownerships. FIA
provides essential data related to forest species composition, forest
growth rates, and forest health data, and it delivers baseline
inventory estimates used in Forest Action Plans. Further, this data is
used by academics, researchers, industry, and others to understand
forest trends and support investments in forest products facilities
that provide jobs and products to society. The program provides
unbiased information used in monitoring of wildlife habitat, wildfire
risk, insect and disease threats, invasive species spread, and response
to priorities identified in the Forest Action Plans.
As the key partner in FIA program delivery via State contribution
of matching funds, State foresters look forward to carefully reviewing
the FIA Strategic Plan--called for in the 2014 Farm Bill--and to
working with the Forest Service to improve efficiency in delivery of
the program to meet the needs of the diverse user groups for FIA data.
NASF supports funding the Forest Inventory and Analysis program at $83
million in fiscal year 2016 and $220 million for other Research and
Development programs. NASF supports an increased investment in FIA with
the understanding that it will, at minimum, return to pre-fiscal year
2014 re-measurement cycles.
landscape scale restoration
State foresters look forward to working with members of the
subcommittee and the Forest Service to make sure that, through the
Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) program, 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 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 an opportunity to demonstrate the
value of providing States flexibility to meet 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 enhance implementation of each Forest
Action Plan.
NASF supports funding the Landscape Scale Restoration program at
$23.5 million in fiscal year 2016. NASF would also 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 State Forest Action Plans.
NASF appreciates the opportunity to share our fiscal year 2016
appropriations recommendations for the USDA Forest Service with the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Outdoor
Recreation Liaison Officers
Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
The National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison
Officers (NASORLO) members are gubernatorial appointed officials and
the primary administrators of the State Assistance Program of the LWCF
in each of the 56 States and Territories that receive LWCF
appropriations. We are writing to you to ask your support for the
fiscal year 2016 funding of LWCF and for restoration of fair and
equitable funding between the State and Federal uses of this program.
In the 50 year history of this program, the portion of LWCF funds
dedicated for State and local grants, when matched as required by the
LWCF Act, have resulted in parks and outdoor recreation facilities in
every State and nearly every city or town in America. We are concerned
that the intent of LWCF to provide close to home outdoor recreation
opportunities for our citizens has been hampered in recent years. The
original act dedicated 60 percent of the program for State Assistance
grants. Over the years various changes have been made to the Act and in
the appropriations process which have reduced the percentage for State
grants. In this year's Executive Budget only 13.1 percent is proposed
for State Assistance grants. We request that in this year's
appropriation process you seek to return the State share of the program
back to a more equitable split between State and Federal uses.
Even though State agencies and communities have been trying to
address infrastructure upgrades, meet new health and safety
requirements and address changing population trends, we still have
significant needs for a restoration of LWCF grants to previous levels.
In addition to addressing these issues and providing outdoor recreation
benefits to our residents, the economic impact of the construction,
development, attendance and sales of equipment generated by these local
projects is a significant incentive for local jobs creation. These
impacts are especially significant, when you double the value of the
project due to the matching requirement of LWCF.
NASORLO respectfully requests your support for adequate and
equitable funding for the State Assistance Program of the LWCF in
fiscal year 2016. Any action you can take in this regard would
certainly be appreciated.
NASORLO is an organization of appointed State and Territorial
officials working to provide outdoor recreation by investing proceeds
from the LWCF State assistance program in State and local projects.
[This statement was submitted by Tim Hogsett, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Dear Chairman Murkowski:
The Public Lands Council (PLC) represents an industry consisting of
more than 22,000 public lands ranchers across the West, many of whom
are members of PLC affiliates at both the State and national level. Our
national affiliates include the National Cattlemen's Beef Association
(NCBA), the American Sheep Industry Association and the Association of
National Grasslands.
Initiated in 1898, NCBA is the marketing organization and trade
association for America's cattle farmers and ranchers. NCBA is a
consumer-focused, producer-directed organization representing the
largest segment of the Nation's food and fiber industry. NCBA
represents 170,000 of America's farmers, ranchers and cattlemen who
provide much of the Nation's supply of food and are proud of their
tradition as stewards and conservators of America's land.
On behalf of our affiliates and members, we request that the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies make funds available for the accounts indicated below and
provide regulatory relief and efficiencies through the fiscal year 2016
appropriations bill. There are many important provisions that have been
included in past Interior and Environment appropriations bills which
our industry strongly supports and request the following provisions be
continued and/or included in the fiscal year 2016 bill. Please find,
listed in the appendix, a comprehensive summary of our requests.
We would like to start off by thanking the subcommittee for your
recognition, through level funding of the range management programs in
the Fiscal Year 2015 Omnibus Appropriations Act, of the importance of
livestock grazing both to the management of our Nation's Federal lands
and to rural economies in the West. Additionally, thank you for
recognizing the importance of reducing the regulatory burdens stemming
from Federal agencies that continue to hamper the productivity and
stability of our Nation's ranchers. Moving in to the final years of a
two-term administration is proving to show the negative impacts of
unchecked regulation and continued abuse of the legal system for
driving anti-multiple use agendas through the courts via outdated
environmental laws--we urge Congress to provide relief to the livestock
industry through the following requests.
Land Management BLM and USFS
PLC and NCBA support a stable business climate in which our members
can run economically viable and sustainable livestock businesses,
operating on a combination of private and public lands across the west.
Central to this goal is ensuring the land management agencies have
sufficient funding to administer their range programs, so that public
land ranchers may continue assisting them in managing the land and its
resources. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) continue to suffer significant setbacks in court because they
lack the personnel to collect the data needed to support the
conclusions of their environmental documentation. Without adequate
funding, the agencies are unable to keep up with their workload, and
producers face the severe disruption of having their permitted stocking
rates reduced due to lack of monitoring data. The funding is imperative
to enable the agencies to carry out a systematic program of range
monitoring, land health assessments, development and implementation of
allotment management plans, and adaptive management--including range
improvements, upon all of which sound stewardship of the public lands
depends.
We sincerely appreciate the support Congress has provided to the
BLM and USFS range programs in the past 3 fiscal years. In the fiscal
year 2016 discussions we ask that you consider increasing these funding
levels while also reviewing the line-items to decide whether changes
can be made to enhance the management of Federal grazing programs. The
additional resources would continue helping to stem the growing costs
of administering the grazing programs by preventing the process-based
lawsuits constantly being brought by special interest groups to achieve
their goal of ending grazing on public lands.
Bureau of Land Management
In recent history, BLM has eliminated hundreds of rangeland
management specialist positions, contributing to backlogs of
environmental documentation and monitoring--and the resulting
environmental litigation. We request that you appropriate funding to
the BLM Rangeland Management Program above the fiscal year 2015 levels
and reject the administration's proposal to cut the program by $2.55
million so that the agency can continue to make longer-term decisions
regarding staffing in order to break the cycle of backlogged
documentation and litigation.
Forest Service
The agency strives to fully implement National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) decisions on all allotments, which is required by regulation
and to an extent court precedent. To meet this objective, we
respectfully request that the grazing program (NFRG) be allocated funds
similar to the fiscal year 2015 amount and reject the administration's
proposal to cut the program by $5.65 million. Administering these acres
for grazing requires both permit administration and land management
through short and long-term monitoring, as well as compliance with a
variety of regulatory documents issued under the Endangered Species
Act, the National Forest Management Act, and other authorities. We
welcome a discussion on how to better arrange the line-items provided
in the appropriations bill with regard to forest system land
management. We remain concerned with the continued proposal by the
Forest Service to combine many line-items into an ``Integrated Resource
Restoration'' line-item --to date our industry has not seen results
from the initial pilot project authorized by Congress. Further,
including many programs in one vast spending account removes necessary
congressional oversight of how the USFS is expending tax dollars. There
continues to be increased costs for NEPA analysis for all uses taking
place on forest system lands, spread across many accounts--we support
the creation of a line-item that speaks directly to costs associated
with NEPA compliance.
Additionally, we support creation of a range management account and
an added line-item representing management costs for wild horses and
burros. Finally it remains imperative that the USFS continues the
statutory requirements to monitor range and forest conditions in order
to justify management decisions based on real and current data.
Grazing Permits and NEPA
The backlog in processing permits is projected to remain on the
books for both the BLM and the USFS; we request Congress continue to
support and make policies available that will help the agencies work
through this process so that family ranchers are not negatively
impacted.
We thank you for extending the statutory language on timing of
completion of NEPA through fiscal year 2016 to ensure that grazing
permits remain intact, without disruption, while the agencies work
through the backlog of grazing permits requiring renewal. Last session
Congress passed permanent language to require that permits are renewed
in spite of regulatory backlogs--we commend the appropriators that
supported this language throughout the years leading up to its
codification. This language is vital to the agencies in that it allows
them the flexibility they need to continue managing the resource and
processing permits.
We support efforts by Congress to ensure that the agencies are
making adequate progress on working through the permit processing
backlog, and that the agencies are using existing statutory authorities
to complete NEPA on expired grazing permits in both a timely and
legally appropriate manner.
Federal Grazing Fee
Our industry supports the Federal grazing fee put in place by the
1986 Executive Order requiring adherence to the Public Rangelands
Improvement Act (PRIA) formula. The formula is based on market criteria
and accurately reflects the cost of operating on public lands. The fee
is calculated according to three factors: current private grazing land
lease rates, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production.
In effect, the fee rises, falls, or stays the same based on market
conditions, with livestock operators paying more when conditions are
better and less when conditions have declined. In order to provide
stability to the industry, increases and decreases are limited to 25
percent in a given year. Further the Federal fee is in addition to
costs associated with operating under extensive Federal regulation and
red-tape, not something found on State and private land. The fee was
put in place by Congress to stabilize and benefit the western livestock
industry through reinvestment in the land and management and was never
intended to cover administration of the programs which continue to
divert increasing amounts toward administrative and legal challenges
brought by radical special interest groups. We strongly urge that you
reject and block any attempts, including the President's fiscal year
2016 proposed 148 percent increase, to arbitrarily change the Federal
grazing fee formula or do so effectively via taxes.
Sage-Grouse
Due to a closed-door settlement agreement between the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and radical environmental groups, arbitrary
deadlines have been set for making hundreds of decisions on species to
be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). One of those species
is the Greater Sage-Grouse, whose habitat covers 11 western States, an
area where ranchers are currently providing open space and improving
the bird's habitat. However, rather than embracing the research-backed
benefits of grazing, the agencies are continuing to make arbitrary
decisions to cut and reduce livestock grazing on public lands. We
applaud action by the appropriations committee to include language
blocking a final decision by the USFWS in fiscal year 2015 and request
that this language be continued through fiscal year 2016:
sage-grouse
Sec. 122. None of the funds made available by this or any
other Act may be used by the Secretary of the Interior to write
or issue pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533)--
(1) a proposed rule for Greater Sage-Grouse
(Centrocerrus urophasianus);
(2) a proposed rule for the Columbia basin distinct
population segment of Greater Sage-Grouse;
(3) a final rule for the bi-State distinct population
segment of Greater Sage-Grouse; or
(4) a final rule for Gunnison Sage-Grouse
(Centrocercia minimus).
Further, we encourage Congress to provide direction to the agencies
to defer to State sage-grouse management plans, so that land management
agencies cannot continue to make decisions negatively impacting
livestock grazing for an unlisted species. Through regulation the BLM
and USFS consider sage-grouse a ``sensitive species'' or a species of
``conservation concern'' respectively, effectively allowing them to
manage for a species that is not federally protected as if it were. The
livestock industry remains very concerned these agencies will
drastically reduce livestock grazing based on faulty science when
reputable research shows livestock grazing is one of the only tools
available to effectively manage for the benefit of sage-grouse.
Antiquities Act
Monument designations continue to have deleterious impacts on
ranchers where grazing is preserved on the areas designated but only if
other protections are first met. Monument designations overtime reduce
and remove livestock grazing from the landscape, when often times, the
very reason a landscape is in a condition that merits consideration for
designation is due to the management by ranchers. We request inclusion
of the following in the fiscal year 2016 bill:
protecting ranchers on monuments
The following shall be included in the purpose and as part of
the protections in any proclamation and/or designation of a
National Monument made under the Antiquities Act of 1906,
chapter 3203 of title 54, United States Code, on lands where
livestock grazing exists--``livestock grazing is compatible
with the purposes of the designation under this proclamation
and shall continue, Provided further, That livestock grazing
shall not be considered secondary to any other listed
protections.''
Water Rights
Our members remain concerned over actions by both the BLM and USFS
in the recent past regarding attempts to take control of private water
rights. The agency's, while publically distancing themselves recently,
in the past have attempted to require the forfeiture of water rights in
exchange for land use permits on Federal lands something we strongly
oppose. We request the following language be included in the fiscal
year 2016 bill:
protection of water rights
None of the funds made available in this or any other Act may
be used to require or request, as a condition of the issuance,
renewal, or extension of any Forest Service or Bureau of Land
Management permit, lease, allotment, easement, or other land
use and occupancy arrangement, the transfer or relinquishment
of any water right, in whole or in part, granted under State
law.
Department of the Interior Wildlands Order
We ask that you continue to block funding for implementation of
Secretarial Order No. 3310, the ``wild lands'' order, which creates de
facto wilderness and poses a threat to the continued multiple use of
BLM lands. Language blocking this Order has been in place since it was
signed by the Secretary and while we support the rider, we request it
be expanded to block inventory and planning for wilderness character
under sections 201 and 202 of FLPMA. The administration is using these
provisions to implement the ``wildiands'' idea in direct conflict with
the congressional rider. We request the following language be included:
wild lands funding prohibition
None of the funds made available in this Act or any other Act
may be used to implement, administer, or enforce Secretarial
Order No. 3310 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on
December 22, 2010, nor for inventory or planning for wilderness
character or wilderness characteristics under sections 201 and
202 of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act.
Department of the Interior Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
Secretarial Order
On September 14, 2009, Department of the Interior Secretary Ken
Salazar issued Secretarial Order 3289 establishing a system of 21
``Landscape Conservation Cooperatives'' or LCCs. While creation of the
LCCs under the guise of creating ``applied science and management
partnerships between the Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus and
other involved in natural resource management and conservation'' sounds
laudable, the livestock industry has become concerned with the
potential for extra-governmental entities driving climate change
agendas. It appears more and more likely that these LCCs will develop
position papers and ``science'' to fit pre-determined conclusions that
humans are causing climate change--ultimately heaping this ``science''
onto all land management decisions made by land management agencies.
While it is difficult to ascertain the cost to taxpayers for these
LCCs, some estimates suggest the Federal Government across many bureaus
within DOI is spending a minimum of tens if not a hundred million
dollars annually or more on this operation with little to show for it
(the President's budget request is for $18 million however we don't
believe this accounts for agency personnel time and travel across many
bureaus). We encourage Congress to consider blocking funds from being
expended on Secretarial Order 3289 and provide the following language
as a suggestion:
landscape conservation cooperatives funding prohibition
None of the funds made available in this Act or any other Act
may be used to implement, administer, or enforce Secretarial
Order No. 3289 issued by the Secretary of the Interior on
September 14, 2009.
Land Acquisition
We are strongly opposed to the use and funding of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for the acquisition of land. During a
time of strained budgets and already-inadequate Federal land
management, we find imprudent any proposal to expand the Federal
estate. Should the committee elect to appropriate funds for LWCF we
request those funds not be available for land acquisition. As LWCF is
due for reauthorization during fiscal year 2015, we encourage the
appropriations committee to work with the authorizing committee to
amend the structure to prohibit the use of funds for purchase of land.
Forest Service Annual Operating Instruction Appeals
In June 2014 the Forest Service issued new regulation concerning
livestock grazing, specifically dealing with the administrative appeal
process for Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs). The new regulation 36
C.F.R 214 replaced 36 C.F.R. 251 barring the appeal of AOIs for grazing
on forest system lands. While we understand and agree that AOIs cannot
include decisions which impact or change the terms of grazing permits,
in practice AOls have done just that and with the new regulations there
are no options for ranchers to appeal. We urge Congress to exempt
directly affected parties to AOls from this new regulation in order to
provide essential due process for ranchers that operate on forest
system lands.
grazing permittees ability to appeal
Ranchers holding permits or leases to graze livestock on
national forest system lands and national grasslands and those
organizations directly representing them shall be exempt from
36 C.F.R 214, provided further ranchers and organizations
directly representing them shall have the ability to appeal
Annual Operating Instructions.
Wild Horse and Burro Program
The Department of Interior's Wild Horse and Burro Program is broken
and unsustainable on its current path. There are more than 50,000
``excess'' horses in long-term holding pastures in the mid-west along
with more than 10,000 excess horses roaming across public, private and
State lands in the west. At a cost of nearly $80 million annually,
Congress cannot afford to stand by and do nothing. We encourage the
committee to introduce a draft fiscal year 2016 bill without language
limiting the title on the conveyance of excess horses from the BLM to
private entities. Without direction and solutions from Congress we will
soon see irreversible rangeland damage and potentially mass die offs
from starvation and dehydration take place. We request the fiscal year
2016 bill not contain the following provision as has been included for
multiple years nor anything similar:
Appropriations herein made shall not be available for the
destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in
the care of the Bureau or its contractors or for the sale of
wild horses and burros that results in their destruction for
processing into commercial products.
Alternative Grazing Allotments--Wildfire, Drought, Wildlife Conflicts
Over the past few years we have seen larger and more intense
wildfires and drought across the West, impacting communities and
livestock operations that rely on access to forage on public lands.
Additionally, we have seen drastic cuts to sheep permits due to
misguided management decisions by the USFS and potentially the BLM with
respect to wildlife conflicts. Due to extreme and redundant
environmental analysis requirements for offering alternative allotments
to ranchers when wildfire or drought impacts their operations, it is
necessary to provide flexibility in statute to allow access to
alternative forage. We thank you for inclusion of report language in
the fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 bill and request that the
committee include the language in the fiscal year 2016 bill as follows:
availability of vacant grazing allotments
The Secretary of the Interior, with respect to public lands
administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and the
Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National Forest
System lands, shall make vacant grazing allotments available to
a holder of a grazing permit or lease issued by either
Secretary if the lands covered by the permit or lease or other
grazing lands used by the holder of the permit or lease are
deemed unusable, in full or in part, by the Secretary concerned
because of drought, wildfire, or any reduction or elimination
of a domestic livestock permit or lease as a result of
determination of a potential conflict with bighorn sheep.
Provided, That the terms and conditions contained in a permit
or lease made available pursuant to this section shall be under
terms and conditions no less favorable to the permittee than
those applicable to the permittee on the allotment being
vacated. Provided further, That Section 102 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) shall not
apply with respect to any Federal agency action under this
section. Provided further, That the Secretaries of Agriculture
and Interior shall engage the respective States' wildlife
agencies, departments of agriculture, animal health
professionals, and the Agricultural Research Service prior to
any decision, based partially or in its entirety on the
determination of a potential conflict with bighorn sheep,
resulting in the reduction or elimination of a domestic
livestock permit or lease.
Bighorn Sheep Report Language
The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are basing
domestic sheep management decisions on flawed science and risk models
that do not accurately reflect reality, leading to drastic cuts in
sheep grazing in the west. We urge the committee to consider including
the following report language in the fiscal year 2016 funding bill to
provide direction to the agencies, specifically the USFS to work with
USDA's research entity ARS when studying domestic/bighorn sheep
interactions:
Bighorn Sheep Conservation.--The Committee directs the Forest
Service to take prompt action to seek and enact multiple use
solutions to ensure our Nation does not continue to lose
substantial portions of either our domestic sheep industry or
our bighorn sheep conservation legacy. The Service is further
directed to promptly complete Risk of Contact analyses using
the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' occupied
bighorn habitat maps, telemetry data, and recent bighorn
observations. The Service is further directed to transparently
and promptly share findings with other Federal land management
agencies, State and local governments, State wildlife agencies,
the and State and Federal animal health professionals,
including the Agricultural Research Service, permittees, and
stakeholders. The Committee directs the Forest Service to
specifically engage the Agricultural Research Service and the
aforementioned cooperating agencies and participants to ensure
the best professional scientific understanding of where risk of
disease transmission occurs, and the degree of that risk. The
Forest Service is further directed to use this base of
information to swiftly identify and implement actions to
resolve high-risk of disease transmission allotments, including
if agreeable to the permittee, the relocation of domestic sheep
to lower-risk allotments, with minimal disruption and
displacement of permittees. The Committee believes such
solutions will not be possible without genuine collaboration
among the most directly-affected stakeholders, all of whom are
committed to multiple-use solutions. The Forest Service is
directed to provide quarterly briefings to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, both in writing and in person, on
its progress and adherence to the directives contained herein.
Block Use of ``Viability'' by Agencies
In 2010, the USFS prohibited 13,000 sheep from grazing on their
historic grazing allotments within the Payette National Forest in
Idaho, driving one ranch out of business entirely and drastically
reducing the operations of three others. The supposed reason for this
reduction was an obscure regulation written in excess of the text found
in the National Forest Management Act allegedly requiring each national
forest to maintain ``minimum viable'' populations of all vertebrate
species found there. In 2012 the USFS doubled down, expanding the
viability of species regulation to all species (vertebrate and
invertebrate) through their new planning rule, effectively federalizing
all wildlife management on national forest system lands. The livestock
industry is extremely concerned that given the application of extra-
statutory regulation in the example provided above, it is only a matter
of time before all multiple uses are litigated off forest system lands
in deference to ``viable'' populations of wildlife. We urge Congress to
block the use of ``viability'' in managing national forest system lands
and restate that States have the sole authority over management of non-
federally listed wildlife under the ESA.
Range Improvement/Betterment Funds
We appreciate your continued support for BLM range improvement
funds and USFS Range Betterment funds (RBRB), which are critical to our
members' ability to implement practices that improve forage condition
and wildlife habitat. These funds represent the kind of investment the
public must make in order for multiple-use management of the public
lands to work. Without these improvements and their maintenance,
ranchers face challenges that threaten their ability to continue
operating, and livestock and wildlife alike suffer from lack of access
to water sources. We are concerned that the buying power of these funds
coupled with sequestration have diminished these important resources
and encourage the committee to look for ways to increase the amount of
funds for on-the-ground projects.
NEPA Climate Change Proposed Guidance
We adamantly oppose inclusion of climate change considerations in
NEPA analysis; we encourage you to block the abuse of this taw to push
an economically damaging agenda not supported by the general public.
The administration is continuing to advance an agenda not supported by
facts and science. Inclusion of climate change in NEPA analysis will
only further expand a process that is nearly impossible for agencies to
accomplish currently.
Economic Analysis of Grazing on Public Lands
There continues to be a gap in the analysis regarding the true
economic contributions, both direct and indirect, of livestock grazing
on public lands. We believe the figures currently being used by the BLM
and USFS greatly underestimate the actual jobs supported by and
economic impacts generated from public lands grazing. We request that
Congress provide the funding and resources necessary to adequately
analyze the full economic benefits provided by public land ranching.
Cheatgrass Research
As many as 60 million acres are either infested or susceptible to
take-over by highly-invasive Cheatgrass, which increases wildfire
frequency and intensity, adding millions to Federal emergency spending
in firefighting costs every year. Encouraging and promising research is
underway to study the use of livestock grazing to remove this invasive
species through fall grazing, an often useful forage source. We support
an increase in funding in the fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill to
continue this important research.
EPA Overreach
Our industry supports language that prevents the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) from endangering our Nation's food supply and
over-burdening our Nation's farmers and ranchers.
We appreciate your continued support of provisions that prevent the
EPA from requiring reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure
management systems, and we request that the committee continue to
support the language in the fiscal year 2015 bill, which follows below:
greenhouse gas reporting restrictions
Sec. 420. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of
the funds made available in this or any other Act may be used
to implement any provision in a rule, if that provision
requires mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from
manure management systems.
We support efforts to prevent EPA from requiring permits from
livestock operations for greenhouse gas emissions. We request that the
subcommittee continue to support the language in the fiscal year 2015
bill, which follows below:
prohibition on use of funds
Sec. 419. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of
the funds made available in this Act or any other Act may be
used to promulgate or implement any regulation requiring the
issuance of permits under title V of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7661 et seq.) for carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water
vapor, or methane emissions resulting from biological processes
associated with livestock production.
We also support preventing the EPA from unilaterally expanding its
authority under the Clean Water Act through regulatory fiat, and we
support maintaining the Federal/State partnership in the regulatory
process of the Clean Water Act. To that end, we request inclusion of
the following language from the draft fiscal year 2014 bill:
waters of the united states
Sec. 435. None of the funds made available in this Act or any
other Act making appropriations for the Environmental
Protection Agency may be used by the Environmental Protection
Agency to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce any
change to the regulations and guidance in effect on October 1,
2012, pertaining to the definition of waters under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. Sec. 1251, et seq.), including the provisions of the
rules dated November 13, 1986 and August 25, 1993, relating to
said jurisdiction, and the guidance documents dated January 15,
2003 and December 2, 2008, relating to said jurisdiction.
We support providing privacy protections for personal information
of our Nation's farmers and ranchers that is collected by the Federal
agencies. We recommend the subcommittee include language in the bill
that prevents use of funding by the EPA, and other Federal agencies, to
develop a clearinghouse of farm information including individual names,
phone numbers, email addresses. and GPS coordinates which could then be
released by the EPA, and other Federal agencies, in response to Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
We hope that you will consider these priorities for the stability
of public land management and the livestock industry for fiscal year
2016 appropriations. An attached appendix lists these priorities for
convenience.
Sincerely,
Dustin Van Liew Scott Yager
Executive Director, Environmental Counsel
Public Lands Council & National Cattlemen's Beef
National Cattlemen's Beef Association Association
APPENDIX--PLC/NCBA PRIORITIES
INTERIOR
(1) Range Program Funding.--We request the committee provide
funding similar to the fiscal year 2015 levels for the BLM and USFS
grazing programs.
(2) Support Current Market Based Grazing Fee.--We request the
committee oppose any attempt to change and/or assess an arbitrary tax
on top of the grazing fee.
(3) Sage-Grouse.--We request the subcommittee provide direction
to the agencies to defer to State management plans and further request
the subcommittee extend through September 2016 the ESA listing decision
timeline for USFWS's decision on the Greater Sage-Grouse.
(4) Antiquities Act.--We request that livestock ranchers are
protected from negative impacts brought about by monument designations.
(5) Protection of Water Rights.--Block the BLM and USFS from
taking water rights from ranchers.
(6) Block Wildlands Order.--We request the subcommittee continue
blocking funds to implement Secretarial Order No. 3310, the ``wild
lands'' order issued by Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar on December
23, 2010. The order creates de facto wilderness and poses a threat to
the continued multiple use of BLM lands.
(7) Block LCC Order.--The Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
created through Secretarial Order 3289 will not serve the West well and
will likely negatively impact ranching and other multiple uses on
public lands.
(8) Defund LWCF.--With the exception of an amount necessary to
complete current transactions, we request the subcommittee defund the
LWCF--at a minimum block its use for land acquisition.
(9) AOI Appeals.--We request the subcommittee exempt ranchers
from the ban on appealing Annual Operating Instructions for Forest
Service grazing administration.
(10) Remove Limits on Title of Excess Wild Horse Sales.--We
request that damaging language be removed from future appropriations
bills which blocks excess horses from being sold or adopted without
full title.
(11) Alternative Grazing Allotments.--We request the subcommittee
direct BLM and the Forest Service to provide alternative grazing
allotments to ranchers that are impacted by wildfire and drought.
(12) Direction on Bighorn Sheep Management.--We request Congress
to direct the USFS to work with ARS on development of accurate science
on the issue of potential disease transfer.
(13) Block the Use of Viability.--We urge Congress to block the
extra-legal use of viability to effectively make all wildlife Federal
species by the USFS.
(14) Funding Range Improvements.--We appreciate your continued
support for range improvement and betterment funds, which have been
critical to our members' ability to implement practices that improve
forage condition and wildlife habitat.
(15) Block Climate Change in NEPA.--We request that Congress block
all attempts to insert climate change into an already burdensome NEPA
process.
(16) Support Economic Research.--We encourage Congress to support
funding for economic impacts research for grazing on public lands.
(17) Support Cheatgrass Research.--We encourage Congress to
support funds for continuing promising research on using livestock
grazing as tool against invasive species.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(1) Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting for Manure Management
Systems.--We request the committee continue to include language
preventing EPA from requiring livestock operations to report their
emissions of greenhouse gases.
(2) Greenhouse Gas Regulations (Title V) for Livestock
Operations.--We request the subcommittee continue to include language
preventing EPA from requiring Clean Air Act permits from livestock
operations based on greenhouse gas emissions.
(3) Joint Rulemaking Identifying ``Waters of the U.S.''.--We
request the committee include language preventing EPA and the Army
Corps of Engineers from expanding their authority under the Clean Water
Act.
(4) Protection of Farm Information.--We recommend the subcommittee
include language in the bill to prevent use of funding by the EPA, and
other Federal agencies, to develop a clearinghouse of farm information
including individual names, phone numbers, email addresses, and GPS
coordinates of farms.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers
Fiscal Year 2016 Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) Total Request:
--$60 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs),
including $10 million for a competitive grant program for
finding and documenting America's historic places.
--$15 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs).
--$32.5 million for competitive grant programs related to Civil
Rights.
--$10 million for a bricks & mortar competitive rehabilitation 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.
unique and successful federal-state partnership
Congress, recognizing the importance of our heritage, enacted the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 16 U.S.C. 470) in 1966 which
established historic preservation as a priority of the Federal
Government. Recognizing that States are the experts of their own
history, the Act's authors directed the Federal entities charged with
its implementation--the Department of the Interior and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation--to partner with the States. Duties
delegated to the SHPOs include: (1) locating and recording historic
resources; (2) nominating significant historic resources to the
National Register of Historic Places; (3) cultivating historic
preservation programs at the local government level; (4) providing
funds for preservation activities; (5) commenting on Federal
rehabilitation tax credit projects; (6) review of all Federal projects
for their impact on historic properties; and (7) providing technical
assistance to Federal agencies, State and local governments and the
private sector. HPF grant awards help States carry out these duties and
require a 40 percent minimum match to the Federal appropriation.
jobs, economic development and community revitalization
Nationwide, communities have experienced how historic preservation
stimulates economic growth, promotes community education and pride, and
rescues and rehabilitates significant historic resources. In many
cases, historic preservation combats the effects of blight and vacancy
by using the historic built environment as a catalyst for community
change. These changes result in historic downtown districts and
neighborhoods that are dynamic destinations for visitors and residents
alike.
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 for economic development.
Since inception, the HTC has rehabilitated over 40,000 buildings,
created nearly 2.5 million jobs and leveraged $117 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.
One of the beneficiaries of the HTC in New Mexico was the town of
Las Vegas and the Charles Ilfeld Building. The Ilfeld Building,
completed in 1890, is a three-story sandstone faced building considered
one of the finest Italianate styled buildings in the southwest. The
building served as the headquarters and flagship store for the Charles
Ilfeld Company, which was one of the largest mercantile companies in
the southwest. After undergoing a nearly $7 million renovation using
the HTC, the building is now incorporated into the adjacent Plaza Hotel
where it provides much needed ballroom and conference space.
Historic preservation also stimulates economic development through
heritage tourism. Cultural and heritage travelers spend an average of
$994 per trip and contribute more than $192 billion annually to the
U.S. economy.\1\ SHPOs are essential, ground level partners in
identifying and interpreting the historic places that attracts these
visitors. A minimal $3 million increase in SHPO funding would allow
SHPOs to expand their public outreach and assistance efforts, enabling
communities to take greater advantage of heritage tourism opportunities
which lead to job creation, new business development and enhanced
community pride.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Nome, Alaska benefits from heritage tourism as annually
a thousand travelers flock to Nome to watch the finish of the Iditarod
Trail Sled Dog Race and take in the area's Gold Rush history, culture,
and heritage. The Discovery Saloon in Nome, the oldest surviving
building from the Alaska Gold Rush received help from the HPF. The
building owners had invested time, talent and money into rehabilitating
the property and the Alaska SHPO rewarded their efforts by assisting
with each phase of the rehabilitation. The SHPO awarded small HPF
grants to repair the walls, porch, windows, doors, and roof, bringing
the oldest continuously occupied building in Nome back to its original
glory.
finding and saving america's heritage
Historic preservation not only generates economic development and
community revitalization, it also saves historic buildings and
significant places. These sites represent the many people, places, and
events that have shaped our national identity. The first step in
preserving and protecting America's heritage is identifying it--which
requires survey, documentation and stewardship and sharing of digital
historic site data. Historic site survey data is the fundamental
building block of our Nation's historic preservation program; yet this
key program area is sorely lacking at the current level of
appropriation. The NCSHPO recently surveyed its membership and found
the following results to be very alarming:
--Only 55 percent of surveyed historic resources have been digitized.
--29.4 percent--Average percentage of each State surveyed for
historic buildings.
--5.8 percent--Average percentage of each State surveyed for historic
landscapes.
--9.9 percent--Average percentage of each State surveyed for
archaeological resources.
--71 percent of States have more than 10,000 legacy resources in need
of re-survey.
--66 percent of States report it would take 3+ years to complete
survey and digitization.
--76 percent of States report that their survey and digitization
programs are piecemealed.
--95 percent of States report lack of digital records hampers their
ability to conduct project reviews.
The NCSHPO requests a minimum of $10 million a year for the next 10
years for a competitive grant program for SHPOs to conduct historic
resource identification, documentation and digitization activities.
Having accurate, up-to-date, digitally accessible information on our
Nation's historic resources would dramatically 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 by
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 Government with the tools they need to identify, preserve,
and utilize the historic assets of importance to them.
In addition to the SHPO funding, the NCSHPO supports the Tribal
Historic Preservation Offices (THPO) request of $15 million. THPOs
assume the Federal compliance role of the SHPO on their respective
Tribal lands. In fiscal year 2013, 136 tribes received an average of
$60,000--more than $20,000 less than when the program first started.
With no funding increase and the continued growth of the program, the
average THPO grant will continue to decrease.
The NCSHPO also requests $3 million for grants to State and Tribal
Historic Preservation Offices for the survey and nomination of
properties associated with communities currently underrepresented in
the National Register and as National Historic Landmarks, as well as
$10 million for a nationally competitive rehabilitation grant program.
The NCSHPO also supports the administration's request of $30 million
for competitive grants to preserve the sites and stories related to the
Civil Rights movement and $2.5 million for a similar program for
Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
historic preservation fund (hpf) reauthorization
The current authorization of the HPF expires on September 30, 2015.
This testimony only touches on the invaluable economic and social value
that historic preservation stimulates throughout our Nation, all of
which would not be accomplished but for the HPF. The NCSHPO requests
that the subcommittee support a reauthorization of the HPF that
includes full and permanent funding, as intended at $150 million per
year.
2014 state historic preservation offices' accomplishments
SHPOs used their HPF allocations well in 2014. 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 2014 historic
preservation accomplishments include:
--Reviewing nearly 103,000 Federal undertakings within a 30-day
review period.
--Leveraging over $4.32 billion of private investment in the
rehabilitation of commercial historic properties under the HTC
program.
--An estimated 77,750 jobs created by the HTC program in 2014.
--Creating over 6,600 low and moderate income housing units through
the HTC.
--Surveying approximately 16.5 million acres for the presence or
absence of cultural resources.
--Adding 1,030 new listings to the National Register of Historic
Places.
--Issuing 82,200 National Register eligibility opinions.
--Assisting 39 new communities to become Certified Local Governments
(CLGs).
conclusion
On behalf of all 59 SHPOs, I'd like to thank you Chairman
Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the Senate and House
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 heritage. Thank you.
[This statement was submitted by Elizabeth Hughes, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), we
thank you for considering NCAI's testimony on Native American programs
in this subcommittee's jurisdiction. As the most representative
organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, NCAI serves
the broad interests of tribal governments across the Nation. This
testimony addresses tribal funding in the Department of the Interior,
Indian Health Service, and Environmental Protection Agency.
Effective tribal government, with all the necessary tools and
resources to address the public service needs of their people,
represents a key component for any balanced tribal nation. The leaders
and citizens in Indian Country carry the potential and insights to
address the reverberations of historical trauma, the lingering effects
of relocation, forced assimilation, broken treaties, and economic and
political injustices generally. The trust relationship in the 21st
Century must maintain the nation-to-nation treaty obligations, such as
the provision of education, public safety, healthcare and more, while
promoting tribal capacity and governance.
NCAI includes recommendations for Interior and Indian Health
Service, but the fiscal year 2016 Indian Country Budget Request
includes many more details of these recommendations.\1\ 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 2015). Fiscal
year 2016 Indian Country Budget Requests: Promoting Self-Determination,
Modernizing the Trust Relationship. Washington, DC: Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
department of the interior
In preparation for the President's budget, the Interior Department
consulted with tribes about programs in the budget, and some
recommendations from Indian Country are included in the fiscal year
2016 proposal. The budget proposes an overall increase of 12 percent
for BIA over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level, the largest increase
in more than a decade (excluding Recovery Act funding). The fiscal year
2016 budget for the Operation of Indian Programs (OIP) account is $2.7
billion, an increase of $231.4 million above the fiscal year 2015
level, an increase of about 9 percent. The fiscal year 2016 budget
request for Construction is $189.0 million, an increase of $60.1
million (or about 46.6 percent) above the fiscal year 2015 level. These
increases are desperately needed throughout Indian Country and NCAI
urges Congress to keep them in the fiscal year 2016 appropriations
bill.
Tribes at NCAI conferences continue to call the Federal funding of
treaty and trust obligations a Quiet Crisis.\2\ The increase of 12
percent in BIA overall is higher than the overall percentage increase
for the entire Interior budget, which would be nearly 8 percent over
the fiscal year 2015 enacted level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2003). A quiet crisis:
Federal funding and unmet needs in Indian Country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This request is very encouraging to tribal leaders who have been
struggling to meet urgent demands in their communities but with
inadequate resources to do so.
Mandatory Contract Support Costs.--The fiscal year 2016 budget
includes a proposal to reclassify contract support costs as permanent
funding beginning in fiscal year 2017. NCAI and tribes have called for
moving contract support costs to mandatory funding in resolutions
across Indian Country and in NCAI's tribal budget requests. The fiscal
year 2016 request also will fully fund contract support costs, based on
the most recent BIA and IHS analysis. If enacted, permanent funding for
Contract Support Costs (CSC) will help stabilize this vital funding as
called for in tribal consultation over many years. Consultation will be
held on the proposal, but tribes are looking forward to the
reclassification, if possible even in fiscal year 2016. Although NCAI
would prefer that all treaty obligations in the Federal budget were
classified as mandatory, the CSC proposal is a very strong expression
of support for Indian Self-Determination and we hope Congress will
support it.
One-Stop Tribal Support Center.--The budget request acknowledges
BIA's important role as a central Federal services provider and
coordinator in proposing $4 million to establish a One-Stop Tribal
Support Center. The proposal would support tribes in accessing services
across the Federal Government. NCAI considers this an important
proposal that could provide much needed technical support for tribal
governments. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has released a
Native American cross cut, which shows a large range of Federal funds
that are available to tribes. Tribal leaders have requested details on
the type of Federal resources, such as whether the funds are baseline
recurring funding streams, competitive grants, tribal set-asides, or
State pass through funds. While anticipating the outcome of the
Department of the Interior's (DOI) tribal consultation and work through
the White House Council on Native American Affairs to develop the
center, NCAI considers the concept overall beneficial for Indian
Country. While the goal of the center is to facilitate streamlined
communication and information exchange to help tribes easily access
Federal programs and opportunities, emphasis should be made on stable
base funding for tribal governments.
BIA Data Initiative.--The President's budget includes $12 million
to improve Evidence and Evaluation to Support Indian Affairs
Activities. The proposed funding will be used to improve Federal data
quality and availability, to work with the U.S. Census Bureau to
address data gaps for Indian Country, and create a capability within
DOI's Office of Policy Analysis to support effective, data-driven,
tribal policy making and program implementation. The goals include
improving program performance, delivering more effective services, and
helping deliver results to Indian Country. NCAI agrees that tribal
leaders and communities need access to quality data and information as
they make decisions, and has supported tribally driven efforts in the
past, such as the Tribal Data Exchange. The proposal includes $2
million for internal capacity building to study Indian Affairs policy,
evaluate programs, and develop tribal datasets to support tribal
decisionmaking. The proposal would offer staff to address statistical,
economic, and evaluation issues. A second element of the proposal is $9
million for agreements with the Census Bureau to improve tribal data
and address data gaps. The work would be to develop, test, and
implement additional tribal data collection, increase the sample sizes
for data collections on Indian lands, and develop protocols and
datasets to allow Federal agencies to present a more accurate
socioeconomic statistics for Indian Country. The third element is $1
million for outreach and consultation on data collection to address
data and evidence gaps. Tribal leaders and decision-makers need the
tools to define the contours of the modern Indian Country economy and
whether the Federal Government is meeting its trust responsibility.
The data initiative could help BIA address NCAI's resolution ATL-
14-084, ``Recommendations for Addressing the State of Emergency in
Federal Underfunding of the Trust Responsibility.'' Recommendations
include: (1) all agencies must be required to regularly assess unmet
obligations to tribes, comparing needs with available resources and
identifying gaps in service delivery; (2) an assessment similar to the
Indian Health Service's Federal Disparity Index should be replicated by
other agencies, with the results used to prioritize spending and assess
the status of programs; (3) a full-scale evaluation must analyze the
spending patterns of every Federal agency's funding of trust
responsibilities; (4) OMB must develop government-wide standards for
tracking spending on tribal programs.
Tiwahe.--The fiscal year 2016 budget would provide $15 million to
expand the Tiwahe Initiative, $6 million more for Social Services
(under BIA Human Services), $4 million more for law enforcement for
alternatives to incarceration and $5 million more for aid to tribal
family courts. NCAI strongly supported this initiative last year and
urges Congress to continue funding for this initiative.
The Social Services Program provides a wide array of family support
services filling many funding gaps for tribal programs and ensuring
Federal support for these programs. Importantly, the Social Services
Program provides the only BIA and tribal-specific funding available for
child protective services in Indian Country. It also funds BIA social
workers at regional and agency offices and technical assistance to
tribal social service programs. These funds are desperately needed. A
recent assessment of BIA social services found that, in large part due
to inadequate funding, tribes report frequent vacancies and staff
turnover.\3\ Tribes commend the $5 million fiscal year 2015 increase
and urge that the momentum be continued. Another $6 million must be
appropriated for this program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General.
(2012). Management of social services in BIA: Opportunity for action
(Report No. WR-EV-BIA-0001-2012). (pp. 5-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCAI also supports funding under the Indian Child Protection and
Family Violence Prevention Act: $10 million for the Indian Child Abuse
Treatment Grant Program, $30 million for the Indian Child Protection
and Family Violence Prevention Grant Program, and $3 million for the
Indian Child Resource and Family Service Centers Program. Increased
investments in ICWA funds and Welfare Assistance should also be
included.
The $5 million increase for tribal courts is also critical, which
will complement the additional resources in Law Enforcement Special
Initiatives, ensuring that the judicial branch of tribal public safety
systems can effectively meet family and community needs under the
Tiwahe initiative.
Education would see an increase of $138.4 million for BIE
activities and construction. Increases include: $45.5 million for
Elementary and Secondary Education; $12.9 million to fully fund Tribal
Grant Support Costs; $10 million for the Education Program Enhancement
program for incentive funding; $20 million for BIE maintenance and
operations; $34.2 million for education information technology to
enhance broadband and digital access; $4.6 million for scholarship and
adult education and an increase of $250,000 for Special Higher
Education Scholarships; $2.6 million for Johnson O'Malley. Education
Construction would receive a $58.7 million increase, for a total of
$133.2 million. The increase includes $25.3 million for replacement
school construction to complete construction on the final two schools
on the 2004 replacement school priority list. Tribal leaders have
strongly supported education in Indian Country, specifically
scholarships and adult education as well as Johnson O'Malley.
BIA Natural Resources would receive an important increase of $48
million over fiscal year 2015 for sustainable resource management and
preparing and responding to the impacts of climate change, such as
drought, wildfires, changes to plants and animals important to
subsistence and culture, rights protection, coastal erosion and rising
sea levels.
indian health service
The Indian Health Service budget (IHS) request for fiscal year 2016
of $5.1 billion in budget authority is an increase of $460.6 million
(9.9 percent) above the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. Tribes have
requested $5.4 billion for the agency in budget formulation. While the
IHS budget has made gains in the last several years, many of the
increases funded contract support costs obligations, inflation and
population growth.
environmental protection agency (epa)
NCAI supports EPA's requested an increase of $31 million for the
Tribal General Assistance Program. This increase in base funding will
increase the average size of grants made to eligible tribes and further
EPA's partnership with tribes to address a wider set of program
responsibilities. EPA acknowledges that tribal communities need
assistance to address sanitation and drinking water infrastructure. To
help address this situation, EPA is requesting a tribal funding floor
of 2 percent, or $30 million for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(SRF) or $20 million for the Drinking Water SRF, whichever is greater,
of the funds appropriated in fiscal year 2016. NCAI supports the
efforts to address sanitation and drinking water infrastructure in
Indian Country.
conclusion
Many factors contribute to restoring wellness to Indian Country:
developing sanitation systems,\4\ increasing tribal self-determination
and accountability, easing housing overcrowding,\5\ addressing
transportation needs, lowering poverty rates, eliminating food
insecurity,\6\ and strengthened tribal child welfare programs,\7\ for
instance, all support health and wellness. Tribal nations and leaders
often apply a holistic approach to healing, drawing on a sense of
connectedness with culture, place and land. The Federal Government, in
meeting its treaty and trust obligations, plays a key role in Indian
Country. Thank you for the opportunity to share these views with the
subcommittee. The needs in Indian Country are great and we thank this
subcommittee for working in a bipartisan manner to honor the treaties
and agreements made between our ancestors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Indian Health Service. (2000). The Sanitation Facilities
Construction Program of the Indian Health Service, Public Law 86-121
Report for 2000.
\5\ U.S. Centers for Disease Control. (2008) National Hospital
Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2006 Emergency Department Summary.
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr007.pdf.
\6\ Cook, J. T., Frank, D. A., Levenson, S. M., Neault, N. B.,
Heeren, T. C., Black, M. M., Berkowitz, C. Casey, P. H., Meyers, A. F.,
Cutts, D. B., & Chilton, M. (2006). Child Food Insecurity Increases
Risks Posed by Household Food Insecurity to Young Children's Health.
American Society for Nutrition.
\7\ U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2014). Attorney
General's Advisory Committee on American Indian/Alaska Native Children
Exposed to Violence: Ending violence so children can thrive (p. 51).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the National Environmental Services Center
Chairperson Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the
Subcommittee on Interior Environment and Related Agencies. We recommend
that within existing funding levels, the USEPA Office of Wastewater
Management (OWM) be directed to provide at least 20 percent of the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund annually to support the use of onsite
and decentralized wastewater treatment systems. We further recommend
that 20 percent of the EPA's OWM budget be dedicated to providing
staffing and resources for the Office of Decentralized Wastewater.
Implementing this recommendation will help address the lack of Federal
support for the 85 million people in the U.S. dependent on
decentralized wastewater treatment, many in small, rural and
disadvantaged communities.
Introduction
I am Gerald Iwan and I am the executive director of the National
Environmental Services Center (NESC), at West Virginia University.
Since 1976, NESC has been home to the National Small Flows
Clearinghouse (NSFC), National Drinking Water Clearinghouse (NDWC) and
National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities (NETCSC).
These centers have distributed comprehensive drinking water and
wastewater information and services nationally to small rural and
disadvantaged communities. Since their inception, they assisted
communities with developing and maintaining onsite septic or
decentralized wastewater treatment systems. In 1999, NESC began
administering the State Onsite Regulators Alliance (SORA), the only
national association of State onsite wastewater regulators in the
United States. SORA provides the resources and venues for State
regulators to share information among each other and the wastewater
industry on decentralized wastewater regulatory and technology issues.
SORA was instrumental in collaborating with the USEPA in developing
guidance for the management of decentralized wastewater systems
following EPA's 1997 report to Congress on the use of decentralized
wastewater treatment systems. It is currently, along with NESC, an
original member of the EPA Decentralized MOU Partnership, which advises
EPA on decentralized wastewater management.
NSFC, NETC and SORA were products of the 1977 Clean Water Act (CWA)
and its subsequent reauthorizations. CWA mandated the NSFC to collect,
distribute information, and provide training about wastewater treatment
to small and rural communities. Thousands benefited from our water and
wastewater technical assistance. EPA programs and management account
funding for these activities ceased in 2005 along with much of the
services previously provided.
Need
State regulators, technical assistance providers and the
decentralized wastewater industry have long recognized a number of
positive benefits provided by decentralized wastewater systems,
including: job creation, water quality protection, aquifer recharge,
affordability, low maintenance and the ability for people to live where
municipal wastewater treatment is not feasible or available. For
smaller communities, decentralized and onsite systems can usually be
built and maintained more economically then municipal wastewater
treatment plants and sewers. Larger utilities often consider
decentralized systems as an option to help offset the costly
replacement of aging wastewater infrastructure. Properly designed,
sited, constructed and maintained decentralized systems supported by
well-trained professionals and knowledgeable State regulators, is a
fiscally responsible approach to public health and environmental
protection.
A recent survey of SORA regulators, conservatively estimated that
approximately 27 percent of the U.S. population or 85 million people
are served by onsite systems. Onsite or decentralized systems are a
permanent and necessary part of the U.S. wastewater infrastructure for
over a quarter of our population. However, EPA provides relatively
little funding or support for decentralized wastewater compared to that
directed to municipal wastewater treatment. As examples, less than 1
percent of Clean Water State Revolving Loan funds is distributed to
decentralized projects annually, there is no direct Federal funding
available to States for decentralized wastewater regulatory programs,
and EPA's own decentralized wastewater program has only one full time
staff person.
Request
Having 35 years of expertise in decentralized wastewater treatment
and management, and from our daily interactions in providing water and
wastewater services to small, rural and often-disadvantaged
communities, we are recommending that:
1. At least 20 percent of EPA's annual contribution to the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund be designated to supporting the construction
and use of onsite and decentralized wastewater treatment systems. Those
funds should be distributed by the regulatory authority in each State
that directly oversees and enforces onsite wastewater treatment,
2. At least 20 percent of the Office of Wastewater's funding be
dedicated to increasing staffing and programmatic resources for the
Office of Decentralized Wastewater.
NESC believes that by redirecting OWM funding as recommended above,
positive results can be realized for the Nation's wastewater
infrastructure, economy and the population dependent on onsite systems
by:
--Significantly expanding EPA's training of industry professionals
through grants to entities, which exclusively specialize in
decentralized training.
--Providing the resources that assure homeowners, business owners and
industry professionals have an up-to-date source of information
on decentralized technology.
--Providing direct financial and staff support to State onsite
wastewater programs to increase training and support better
development and enforcement of State regulations.
--Expanding research grants and onsite wastewater training centers
and demonstration projects to help local decision-makers and
design engineers better understand the benefits of onsite and
decentralized wastewater treatment systems and technologies.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Ground Water Association
The National Ground Water Association (NGWA) requests that $3.6
million be allocated to the Department of Interior, United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Program account to continue
implementation and maintenance of a national groundwater monitoring
network (NGWMN). NGWA is the world's largest association of groundwater
professionals, representing public and private sector engineers,
scientists, water well professionals, manufacturers, and suppliers of
groundwater related products and services.
Water is one of the most critical natural resources to human,
ecosystem and economic survival. Nationally, more than 41 percent of
the drinking water supply comes from groundwater and in some locations
it is relied on by 80 percent of Americans. Groundwater also serves as
a key source of agricultural irrigation water, as well as for other
critical economic purposes.
While the Nation's people, food supply, economy and ecosystems
depend on groundwater, no systematic nationwide monitoring network is
in place to measure what is currently available and how groundwater
levels and quality may be changing over time.
As with any valuable natural resource, our groundwater reserves
must be monitored to assist in planning and minimizing potential
impacts from shortages or supply disruptions. Just as one cannot
effectively oversee the Nation's economy without key data, one cannot
adequately address the Nation's food, energy, economic, and drinking
water security without understanding the extent, availability and
sustainability of a critical input--groundwater.
Congress acknowledged the need for enhanced groundwater monitoring
by authorizing a national groundwater monitoring network with passage
of Public Law 111-11 (Omnibus Public Land Management Act) in 2009 and
viability of the network was proven through the completion of pilot
projects in six States--Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, New
Jersey, and Texas. These States voluntarily pilot tested concepts for a
national groundwater monitoring network as developed by the Federal
Advisory Committee on Water Information's (ACWI) Subcommittee on Ground
Water (SOGW).
$2.6 million in funding was provided in fiscal year 2015 through
Public Law 113-235 the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act,
which will help to begin implementation of the national network.
However, fiscal year 2015 funding will only allow implementation to
begin across a handful of States. Additional funding for fiscal year
2016 is requested to allow for implementation across more States.
Once implemented nationwide, the NGWMN would provide consistent,
comparable nationwide data accessible through a public web portal for
Federal, State, local government and private sector users. In these
tight fiscal times, the proposed network would build on existing State
and Federal investments, maximizing their usefulness and leveraging
current dollars to build toward systematic nationwide monitoring of the
groundwater resource.
Funding from the NGWMN will be used for two purposes:
1. Provide grants to regional, State, and tribal governments to
cost share increased expenses to upgrade monitoring networks for the 50
States to meet the standards necessary to understand the Nation's
groundwater resources.
2. Support the additional work necessary for USGS to manage a
national groundwater monitoring network and provide national data
access through an Internet web portal.
Though the amount requested is small in the context of the
Department of Interior's annual budget request, funding is vital when
we understand that for a small investment we can begin finally to put
in place adequate monitoring of the hidden resource that provides more
than 40 percent of the Nation's drinking water supply and serves as a
key driver for our agricultural economy. Thank you for your
consideration of this request.
The National Ground Water Association is a not-for-profit
professional society and trade association for the groundwater
industry. NGWA is the largest organization of groundwater professionals
in the world. Our more than 11,000 members from all 50 States and 72
countries include some of the leading public and private sector
groundwater scientists, engineers, water well contractors,
manufacturers, and suppliers of groundwater related products and
services. The Association's vision is to be the leading community of
groundwater professionals that promotes the responsible development,
use and management of water resources.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Horse & Burro Rangeland Management
Coalition
The National Horse & Burro Rangeland Management Coalition
appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the fiscal
year 2016 appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse &
Burro Program. The National Horse & Burro Rangeland Management
Coalition includes a wide range of sportsmen's, livestock, wildlife,
and land conservation organizations and professional societies.
Collectively, we represent millions of Americans and focus on
commonsense, ecologically sound approaches to managing horses and
burros to promote healthy wildlife and rangelands for future
generations.
Our coalition is concerned about the exponentially growing
population of wild horses and burros on our Nation's rangelands and the
lack of effort proposed in the President's fiscal year 2016 budget to
reduce the threat this poses to our Nation's rangelands.
As of March 1, 2014, wild horse and burro populations surpassed
49,000 animals on BLM-rangelands. This threshold exceeds the BLM
estimated ecologically sustainable level of 26,684 horses and burros by
more than 22,500. With the documented potential for 20 percent annual
population increase, there are likely more than 58,000 animals
currently on the range--that means horses and burros already exceed 215
percent of capacity for appropriate range management.
This extreme level of overpopulation by an invasive species
negatively impacts the country's rangelands, risking the future of the
ecosystem. By continuing to allow horses and burros to exceed
sustainable levels, the BLM is placing the future of wildlife,
rangelands, livestock operations, and the horses and burros themselves,
in jeopardy.
The focus of the BLM Wild Horse & Burro program should revert to
its original purpose and stated goal of achieving appropriate
management levels (AML). Direct removal of horses and burros from
impacted regions will aid in AMLs being achieved while simultaneously
reducing their impact on the supporting ecosystem.
The President's fiscal year 2016 budget proposal plans for the
removal of only 2,000 horses and burros from the country's rangelands.
Unfortunately, this limited number does very little to protect our
Nation's rangelands from the growing negative impacts of overpopulated
horses and burros.
Wild horse populations typically grow by 20 percent per year and
double in size every 4-5 years. At the current rate, the wild horse
population will likely grow by 9,000 animals in 2015, even with the
planned removal of 2,000 horses. As a result, we could see as many as
67,000 wild horses and burros degrading the country's rangelands by
2016--exceeding 250 percent of capacity for appropriate rangeland
management. This is an unacceptable rate of increase for a population
that already greatly exceeds AMLs. Such population numbers will
continue to cause an unacceptable level of damage to a valuable asset
for our country.
We appreciate the BLM's increased attention to fertility control
methods, as we believe that scientifically based use of fertility
control (e.g., proven to be effective and safe) can be an important
component to the solution to this problem. However, fertility control
alone does not solve the problem and should not be the primary
approach. There are currently Herd Management Areas (HMA) more than 500
percent over AML. Fertility control methods, if they are effective in
reducing pregnancies, will only help maintain population levels in the
short term, not reduce them. Direct removal of wild horses and burros
from the range is the only way to achieve AMLs in a reasonable amount
of time.
Without an increase in the rate of removal of horses and burros,
populations will continue to expand and our Nation will witness not
only growing degradation to its rangeland ecosystem, but also growing
costs to its taxpayers.
We urge this committee and other members of Congress to address
this increasing problem for our Nation's valuable rangelands by
directing the BLM to remove horses and burros at a rate substantial
enough to produce impactful results and protect our resources.
Thank you for considering the input of our coalition.
American Farm Bureau Federation, American Sheep
Industry Association, Masters of Foxhounds
Association, Mule Deer Foundation, National
Association of Conservation Districts,
National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
National Rifle Association, National
Wildlife Refuge Association, Public Lands
Council, Public Lands Foundation, Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club
International, Society for Range
Management, and The Wildlife Society.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Humanities Alliance
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:
My name is Tamara Mann and I am the John Strassburger Fellow at
Columbia University. I am writing to testify on behalf of the National
Humanities Alliance in support of the National Endowment for the
Humanities.
My first class as a college professor started at 9 a.m. It was only
7:30 and I was pacing the small seminar room, fretting about a course I
had long admired but never imagined I would actually teach. Every
summer for the past 6 years, 30, low-income, minority public high
school students, arrive on Columbia University's campus to take an
intensive Great Books course as part of the Freedom and Citizenship
Program. For a veteran teacher, the syllabus is challenging: one day
Plato, the next Aristotle, and then on to Locke, Jefferson, Lincoln,
and King. For a novice, it is completely terrifying.
My students arrived on time. They ambled into the seminar room,
some laughing, others stoic, all clutching their copies of The Trial
and Death of Socrates. As they sat down, I knew that they desperately,
achingly, wanted to be in this room. Their parents hadn't gone to
College and there they were, in high school, sitting around a Columbia
University seminar table. I recalled what Professor Roosevelt Montas
said to me when I agreed to take on the course, ``be quiet and be
curious.''
That first day of class I sat quietly for a minute or two and then
opened our time together with a question: what fills you with a sense
of wonder? Their answers were tender and earnest; they ranged from
observations about primary colors to the miracle of small acts of
kindness. And then came Quanisha. ``I'll tell you,'' she offered, ``but
don't laugh. I wonder what this guy Socrates is saying. I just don't
understand him. I have been up all night. I read this three times and I
don't know what he is saying and I wonder about it.'' So our class
really began.
It was Socrates' description of wisdom that caused the most
confusion. ``I don't get it,'' Lanique piped, ``he is wise and not
wise, but wiser than other people and still ignorant. That doesn't seem
very wise to me.'' ``Look closely at the passage in front of you,'' I
said, ``what do you think Socrates is trying to say?''
Gabriel spoke up, ``I think he is saying that you're not wise if
you think you know something that you don't know. It's like a person
who knows a lot about one subject and just because of that he thinks he
knows about everything.'' ``So, how would you describe this definition
of wisdom?'' I followed. ``Maybe wisdom is just knowing what you don't
know,'' he replied. Laura and Genesys smiled. Now we could all remain
in the classroom and claim to be wise, just by admitting what we did
not know. Fabulous!
``But wait,'' questioned a soft voice to my left. ``Is that
enough?'' Fatoumata leaned into our seminar table. ``How can it be
enough to just say you don't know? Don't we have to do more? Don't we
have to figure out how we could learn about a subject?'' The class
found its rhythm and my students, drawing deeply from their reading of
Socrates, debated the contours of wisdom, knowledge, and learning for
the greater part of an hour. The morning ended with our own working
definition of wisdom that we would try to apply to our future classes,
``Wisdom is being upfront about what you don't know and then carefully,
ploddingly, figuring out how you would learn more about it.''
As the summer progressed, the questions and the wonder continued.
``Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains,'' read Mystery but
``Why does Rousseau think we are born free? Is anyone really born
free?'' My students pounced; everyone had a contribution. That day
their comments didn't just come from the text, they came from them.
They talked about the challenges of living with a parent suffering from
drug addiction, the insecurity they felt in foster care, and the daily
hardships of poverty.
That summer we didn't just discuss freedom as an abstract concept;
we discussed what that word meant to us as individuals, as members of
families, and as citizens of our shared country.
At the end of class, after a particularly harrowing conversation
about all of the challenges my students faced, Heebong sighed and
voiced our collective sense of defeat, ``but what can we do about these
issues. They are so . . . big.''
We could have ended there. If I were alone, I probably would have.
But we were in a classroom and we had started with Socrates. ``We need
to get wise,'' said Fatoumata, at first quietly and then emboldened by
a chorus of her peers, ``We need to get wise.'' These extraordinary
students then started designing a plan of study, a course of
intellectual action to learn how to tackle the problems they had faced.
Their plan of action required knowledge produced by biologists,
physicians, psychologists, philosophers, politicians, and sociologists,
to name only a few. These students understood that the great human
problems of their generation were at once structural and personal. To
solve them, they needed an education in the sciences and the
humanities.
When Professor Montas reflects on the purpose of a humanities
education he explains, ``In most disciplines, the subject to be learned
is at the center. . . . In this field of study, the student, the
individual as a living growing entity, is at the center.'' Today, I ask
you to support programs like this one. Programs that don't only give
students content but actually help them understand the purpose and
meaning of that content.
My students came to this course because it was a means to an end--
college. They left the course almost embarrassed by the
shortsightedness of that goal. As one student put it ``Now I want to go
to college not just to get there but to really learn something, so that
I can give back; it's not just about me and my success but about what I
can do with it.'' This is exactly why we have to support the
humanities. It is courses like these that turn us from students of a
topic into citizens of our great country.
This is just one of the many programs that provide rich humanities
content to underserved populations across the country, paving the way
for personal achievement and civic engagement. The National Endowment
for the Humanities has been a leader in supporting many of these
programs. By way of the State humanities councils, the Endowment has
long supported Clemente Courses in the Humanities, which provides a
rigorous education in literature, philosophy, American history, art
history, and critical thinking and writing for adults facing economic
hardship. Students receive credit from Bard College, and the course
strives to create a bridge to higher education by developing the
skills, confidence, and motivation necessary to succeed in that
context. Other programs include literacy initiatives for low-income
families; research and teaching grants to community colleges, tribal
colleges, historically black colleges and universities, and Hispanic
serving institutions; and with fiscal year 2016 funding, grants to
museums, libraries and cultural organizations that reach at-risk
audiences.
In the past few years, the Endowment has focused particularly on
supporting veterans in their transition to civilian life. Since 2013,
NEH has awarded grants to the Warrior-Scholar Project, which offers a
two-week ``humanities boot camp'' to aid in veterans transition from
the military to college. Currently hosted at three universities and--
thanks to support from NEH--will be offered to an additional eight
campuses in the summer of 2015. Through small grants to all of the
State councils, the Endowment has also enabled reading and discussion
programs for veterans in VA hospitals, community centers, and public
libraries using great works of literature and public performances for
and involving veterans that draw on timeless themes from classical
Greek dramas of soldiers returning home from war. As noted in the
agency's appropriation's request, expanding these programs is one of
the Endowment's key goals for fiscal year 2016.
To ensure that programs such as these continue to reach underserved
communities--and that the humanities research, K-16 teaching, and
historical preservation that underpins them continues as well--I ask
you to support full funding for the National Endowment for the
Humanities. Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit this
testimony.
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 Freedom and Citizenship Program at Columbia University enrolls
low-income rising high school seniors from New York City schools in a
rigorous college-level summer seminar. They read major works of
political and moral philosophy from the ancient world to the present
and explore the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. In the
ensuing academic year, the students collaborate on a project that
allows them to apply themes and ideas they explored in the summer to an
issue in contemporary public life. Since it was founding in 2009, 100
percent of its participants have attended college.
______
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
provided leadership in the development of public policy that supports
tribal self-determination in child welfare and children's mental health
systems for over 30 years. This testimony will provide recommendations
for programs administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the
Department of the Interior.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Fiscal Recommended
Program Title Authorizing Statute Year 2015 Fiscal Year
(million) 2016 (million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian Child Protection & Family Violence
Prevention Act:
Indian Child Abuse Treatment Grant 25 USC Sec. 3208 ($10m)....... $0 $10
Program.
Indian Child Protection and Family 25 USC Sec. 3210 ($30m)....... 0 30
Violence Prevention Grant Program.
Indian Child Resource and Family Service 25 USC Sec. 3209 ($3m)........ 0 3
Center Program.
Indian Child Welfare Act:
ICWA on-reservation program.............. 25 USC Sec. 1931.............. 15.6 18.1
ICWA off-reservation program............. 25 USC Sec. 1932.............. 0 5
ICWA self-governance funds............... 25 USC Sec. 1931/25 USC Sec. 8.5 11
458cc.
General Welfare.............................. 25 USC Sec. 13................ 74.8 80
Social Services.............................. 25 USC Sec. 13................ 40.8 46.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has unequivocally recognized that there is nothing ``more
vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than
their children.'' (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901[3] [2006]). Congress must
promulgate a budget that empowers tribes to provide the programs and
services necessary to safeguard their children and strengthen their
families. A recent report from the Attorney General's Advisory
Committee on American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence
emphasized this very point:
Congress and the executive branch shall direct sufficient funds
to AI/AN tribes to bring funding for tribal criminal and civil
justice systems and tribal protection systems into parity with
the rest of the United States and shall remove barriers that
currently impede the ability of AI/AN nations to effectively
address violence in their communities. The Advisory Committee
believes that treaties, existing law, and trust
responsibilities are not discretionary and demand this
action.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2014). Attorney
General's Advisory Committee on American Indian/Alaska Native Children
Exposed to Violence: Ending violence so children can thrive (p. 51).
Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/
defendingchildhood/pages/attachments/2014/11/18/finalaianreport.pdf.
As this recommendation suggests, Congress must prioritize the
safety and well-being of all children. According to the advisory
committee, ``AI/AN children are generally served best when tribes have
the opportunity to take ownership of the programs and resources they
provide.'' \2\ The recommendations below suggest funding increases that
will provide tribes with sufficient child welfare funding and avoid
unnecessary restraint on tribal decisionmaking. We urge Congress, as
they make budgetary decisions for fiscal year 2016, to not forget AI/AN
children and families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
priority program recommendation
Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
Recommendation.--Appropriate for the first time $43 million for the
three grant programs under this law--$10 million for the Indian Child
Abuse Treatment Grant Program, $30 million for the Indian Child
Protection and Family Violence Prevention Grant Program, and $3 million
for the Indian Child Resource and Family Service Centers Program to
protect AI/AN children from child abuse and neglect.
The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
(ICPFVPA), Public Law No. 101-630 (1991), was enacted to fill gaps in
tribal child welfare services--specifically child protection and child
abuse treatment--and to ensure better coordination between child
welfare and domestic violence programs. The act authorizes funding for
two tribal programs: (1) the Indian Child Protection and Family
Violence Prevention Program, which funds prevention programming and
supports investigations of family violence and emergency shelter
services; and (2) the Treatment of Victims of Child Abuse and Neglect
program, which funds treatment programs for victims of child abuse. It
also authorizes funding to create Indian Child Resource and Family
Service Centers at each of the BIA regional offices.
Child abuse prevention funding is vital to the well-being and
financial stability of AI/AN communities. Beyond the emotional trauma
that maltreatment inflicts, victims of child maltreatment are more
likely to require special education services, more likely to be
involved in the juvenile and criminal justice systems, more likely to
have long-term mental health needs, and have lower earning potential
than their peers.\3\ Financially, child maltreatment costs tribal
communities and the United States $210,012 per victim.\4\ Child abuse
prevention funding is essential, therefore, to the well-being of
families and the social and economic development of tribal communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fang, X., Brown, D. S., Florence, C. S., & Mercy, J. A. (2012).
The economic burden of child maltreatment in the United States and
implications for prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 156-65. doi:
10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.10.006.
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, tribes, like States, need adequate resources to
effectively prevent and respond to family violence in their
communities. However, unlike States, tribes do not have access to the
key Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) child protection
programs, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) Basic
Funding Program and the Social Services Block Grant (Title XX). The
programs authorized under ICPFVPA were created to fill this gap but,
without appropriation, tribes are left without funding for child
protection and child abuse prevention services.
other program recommendations
ICWA Funding Recommendation.--Increase the ICWA On or Near
Reservation Program appropriations by $2.5 million and the Self-
Governance and Consolidated Tribal Government ICWA On or Near
Reservation appropriations by $2.5 million, for a total increase of $5
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.
As the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on American Indian/
Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence recently stated ``If AI/AN
children today are to be provided with a reliable safety net, the
letter and spirit of [the Indian Child Welfare Act] must be enforced.''
\5\ ICWA provides protections to AI/AN families in State child welfare
and judicial systems. It also recognizes the sovereign authority of
tribal nations to provide child welfare services and adjudicate child
welfare matters. To effectuate these provisions, ICWA authorized grant
programs to fund child welfare services on or near reservations and for
ICWA support in off-reservation, urban Indian programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2014). Attorney
General's Advisory Committee on American Indian/Alaska Native Children
Exposed to Violence: Ending violence so children can thrive (p. 75).
Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/
defendingchildhood/pages/attachments/2014/11/18/finalaianreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICWA funding is the foundation of most tribal child welfare
programs. Compliance with the letter and spirit of ICWA necessitates
adequate funding so that tribal child welfare programs can monitor
State court proceedings and provide community-based, culturally
appropriate services to children and families. At the time that ICWA
was passed in 1978, Congress estimated that between $26 million--$62
million would be required to fully fund tribal child welfare programs
on or near reservations (S. Rep. No. 95-597, p. 19 (1977)). Even after
an important fiscal year 2015 increase, for which we thank Congress,
current funding levels fall far short of this estimate--especially
after adjusting for inflation. Funding must be increased by an
additional $5 million dollars, $2.5 to the On-Reservation program and
$2.5 million for the Tribal Priority Allocation.
According to the 2010 Census, 67 percent of AI/AN people lived off-
reservation. These children and families are best served when State
child welfare systems are not only working with the child's tribe, but
also with urban Indian child welfare programs. These programs provide
assistance to States and the child's tribe, and provide culturally
appropriate child welfare services. For this reason, ICWA authorizes
child welfare funding for urban Indian programs. When funded (until
1996), off-reservation programs provided important services such as
recruitment of Native foster care homes, child abuse prevention
efforts, and culturally appropriate case management and wraparound
services. When funding stopped, the majority of these programs
disintegrated even as the population of AI/AN children off-reservation
increased. This funding must be reinstated. We recommend a $5 million
appropriation for this program.
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: (1) general assistance, (2) child
assistance, (3) non-medical institution or custodial care of adults,
(4) burial assistance, and (5) emergency assistance. These programs
often provide the assistance necessary to help a family make ends meet,
prevent neglect, and keep their children safely in the home. Currently
the need far exceeds the funding provided by this program.
AI/AN adults on reservations--including parents and kinship
caregivers--are unemployed at a rate more than two times the
unemployment rate for the total population.\6\ 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.\7\ AI/AN families
live much closer to financial crisis than the average American family.
AI/AN child welfare programs and social service agencies need to have
the resources necessary to support families in times of crisis and
uncertainty to promote stability and prevent abuse. In light of these
identified needs and current underfunding, funds should be increased by
$5 million to provide tribal governments the resources they need to
support families and children in crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Stegman, E. & Ebarb, A. (2010). Sequestering opportunity for
American Indians/Alaska Natives. Center for American Progress. (Para.
1). Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/
news/2013/11/26/80056/sequestering-opportunity-for-american-indians-
and-alaska-natives/.
\7\ U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources
and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau. (2013).
Child health USA 2012 (p. 9). Rockville, MD: Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Services Recommendation.--Increase funding by $6 million as
recommended by the President's proposed Tiwahe Initiative for a total
appropriation of $47 million so that child social services programs and
families in Indian Country can be strengthened.
The BIA Social Services Grant Program provides a wide array of
family support services filling many funding gaps for tribal programs,
and ensuring Federal staff and technical assistance for these programs.
These funds are desperately needed. A recent assessment of BIA social
services found that, in large part due to inadequate funding:
BIA and tribal social services staff prepare, authorize, and
document various social services activities as part of their
daily activities. Some tribes reported frequent vacancies and
staff turnover in social services programs and mentioned a need
for BIA to provide basic guidance and supporting materials to
ensure continuity of services throughout tribal communities . .
. Technical support is one area where roles and
responsibilities remain unclear, as demonstrated by BIA's
social services contracts with tribes. The contracts, or annual
funding agreements, State that BIA will provide technical
support with social services issues as needed. Contrary to
these agreements, we uncovered reports of insufficient or
nonexistent technical support. In some cases, tribes could wait
up to three weeks before receiving a response, or they might
receive no response at all.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General.
(2012). Management of social services in BIA: Opportunity for action
(Report No. WR-EV-BIA-0001-2012). (pp. 5-6) Retrieved from http://
www.doi.gov/oig/reports/upload/WR-EV-BIA-0001-2012Public.pdf.
As this assessment describes, the program is drastically
underfunded, and tribal programs, families, and children suffer as a
result. In fiscal year 2015 this program saw a $5 million increase.
This is to be commended and the momentum must continue. Another $6
million must be appropriated for this program, as suggested in the
President's budget to support the Tiwahe (family) Initiative--children
and families depend on it.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources
Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
I am Sharon Megdal, Director of the University of Arizona Water
Resources Research Center. Thank you for this opportunity to submit
this testimony on behalf of the National Institutes for Water Resources
(NIWR) in support of the Water Resources Research Act program, a
program funded as part of the U.S. Geological Survey's budget. I
specifically want to thank you for this subcommittee's strong
continuing support for the Water Resources Research Act.
The Water Resources Research Act, enacted in 1964, is designed to
expand and provide more effective coordination of the Nation's water
research. The Act establishes water resources research institutes
(Institutes) at lead institutions in each State, as well as for
Washington D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Federated
States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
and American Samoa.
Congress created the Institutes to fulfill three main objectives:
--Develop, through research, new technology and more efficient
methods for resolving local, State and national water resources
challenges;
--Train water scientists and engineers through on-the-job
participation in research; and
--Facilitate water research coordination and the application of
research results through the dissemination of information and
technology transfers.
Since 1964, the Water Resources Research Institutes have fulfilled
these three objectives in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey.
The Institutes, managed by a director in each State, promote water-
related research, education, and technology transfer at the national,
State, and local level through grants and sponsored projects. The
program is the only federally mandated research network that focuses on
applied water resource research, education, training, and outreach.
The Water Resources Research Institutes program is a State-based
network dedicated to solving problems of water quantity (supply) and
quality in partnership with universities, local governments, the water
industry, and the general public. Each State contributes a minimum of a
2:1 match, thus ensuring that local and regional priorities are
addressed and the impact of Federal dollars is maximized. The
Institutes are a direct, vital link between Federal water interests and
needs and the expertise located within the States' research
universities.
The Water Resources Research Institutes program also provides a
mechanism for ensuring State, regional, and national coordination of
water resources research, future water professionals' education, and
dissemination and utilization of results and outcomes. In fact, the
Institutes collaborated with 150 State agencies, 180 Federal agencies,
and more than 165 local and municipal offices.
There are two grant components of the USGS Water Resources Research
Institutes program. The first component is the base grant program,
which is divided equally among the Institutes. Institutes use these
funds to leverage research and/or student training through a statewide
competitive grants process. NIWR requests the subcommittee provide
continued funding for the base grant program, which supports research
focused on water supply and quality, technology transfer, education,
and outreach to the water-user community by the Institutes. 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 2014 this program received 68
applications, which underwent rigorous peer review from a national
panel. The national review panel selected a total of 4 grants. The
agency awarded grants for research addressing water supply and quality
issues facing our Nation to Purdue University, the University of Iowa,
the University of Maryland, and the University of Nebraska.
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 program's greatest
strengths is that the research funded by each Institute is tailored to
that State's needs, based on priorities set through consultation with
an advisory panel. While these projects usually focus on State needs,
they also address water issues relevant to our Nation. The following
are five examples of research conducted by Institutes across the
country.
My Institute, the University of Arizona Water Resources Research
Center (WRRC), is an Extension and research unit in the College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences. Groundwater has been and continues to be
a critical water resource for Arizona and the Nation. Over the years,
Water Resources Research Act (WRRA) funding has supported considerable
work on groundwater quantity and quality. Projects have looked at
specific contaminants to determine their potential distribution and
impacts, to then develop innovative and affordable methods of
remediation.
--A 2013 project continued development and testing of a novel
approach that uses multiple models to quantify uncertainty in
future hydrologic conditions, along with economic cost models
to quantify the risk associated with water resource scarcity.
--A 2014-2015 project investigates groundwater governance practices
in order to examine how they contribute to improved groundwater
management. For this project, WRRA funding, which was highly
leveraged by considerable State funding, supported case study
research by a graduate student, who also helped prepare the
journal article, ``Groundwater Governance in the United States:
Common Priorities and Challenges''.
--In addition, WRRA funding is critical to the University of Arizona
Water Resources Research Center's highly regarded information
transfer activities, which focus on making water resources
science and information accessible to stakeholders in Arizona,
nationally, and beyond.
In 2015, the Alaska Water Center sponsored the first comprehensive
effort to assess stream temperature regimes across Southeast Alaska. In
a project funded through the University of Alaska--Fairbanks Water and
Environmental Research Center, a team of researchers at the University
of Alaska Southeast will install 50 monitoring sites to evaluate stream
temperatures under varying land use, geologic, hydrologic and climatic
conditions. As the reproductive success of Pacific salmon is highly
sensitive to stream temperature in the spawning grounds, understanding
the factors impacting Southeast Alaska stream temperatures will promote
more effective fisheries planning and management in the future.
For decades, the New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute has
played an instrumental role in helping to design water policy and
manage resources in the State. Recently, the Institute began developing
New Mexico's first comprehensive integrated statewide water assessment
that will be used to address the State's water scarcity problems, help
with the State's planning and management efforts, and inform the
State's water policy decisions. The Institute will also soon be
providing information supporting the development of groundwater flow
and hydrochemical models that assist in water-resource planning along
the New Mexico/Texas/Mexico border region.
The California Water Center is working with fruit and wine growers
to help maximize crop yields with a minimum amount of irrigation. As
this subcommittee knows, competition for water resources in California
is increasing between urban and agricultural entities, necessitating
the need for more accurate information on the water requirements of
important crops. Knowledge of a crop's water footprint allows for
informed irrigation management decisions. The research funded by WRRA
investigates the drought responses, water footprint, and wine quality
through the imposition of water deficits to increase understanding of
water use and fruit quality for specific cultivars, therefore allowing
growers to apply a minimum amount of irrigation water to sustain
profitable production levels.
Recently, the Tennessee Water Resources Research Center supported a
project at the University of Tennessee aimed at developing planning
tools to prioritize locations for stream restoration projects. The work
will especially assist smaller municipalities to plan and implement
stormwater controls and stream improvements. Stream restoration is a
billion-dollar industry that results in healthier waterways within
communities as evidenced by improved water quality and greater
biodiversity.
For five decades the Institutes, in partnership with USGS, have
provided significant research results and services to our Nation and
proven successful at bringing new water professionals into the work
force. The National Institutes for Water Resources recommends the
subcommittee provide $8,800,000 to the USGS for the Water Resources
Research Institute program for fiscal year 2016. We respectfully submit
that, even in times of fiscal challenges, investing in programs at USGS
focused on data collection and the reliability and quality of water
supplies is critically important to the health, safety, quality of
life, and economic vitality of communities across the Nation.
Thank you, on behalf of all the Institute directors, for the
opportunity to submit testimony and for the subcommittee's strong
support of the Water Resources Research Institutes program.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Onsite Wastewater Recycling
Association
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony
regarding the proposed Environmental Protection Agency fiscal year 2016
budget. My name is Tom Fritts and I am the vice president of
Residential Sewage Treatment Company of Grandview Missouri, near Kansas
City. I am also the past president of the National Onsite Wastewater
Recycling Association. The purpose of my testimony is to request
increased funding for our industry from the Environmental Protection
Agency, specifically from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program
and from the EPA Office of Wastewater.
I would first like to describe what the onsite industry is. It is
the segment of the wastewater industry which provides sewage treatment
when there is no conventional sewer available to do so. The most widely
known onsite systems within our industry are septic tanks; however, it
encompasses a wide range of technologies which are designed to serve
individual homes, a cluster of homes, a subdivision or small community,
as well as commercial and industrial complexes. While there are slight
differences in definition, onsite systems are also called decentralized
or distributed wastewater treatment systems.
Regardless of the type of system, they all share a common trait.
They take advantage of the vast capacity of soil to remove or transform
pollutants that are in the effluent as it percolates through the soil,
thereby avoiding point discharges to surface waters and maintaining the
quality and quantity of our groundwater.
By definition, onsite wastewater management systems are a ``green
technology'' because treated effluent recharges local aquifers. A new
innovation in decentralized wastewater management is the reuse or
recycling of treated effluent. With appropriate safeguards, local
regulations or bylaws may allow the treated water to be used for
irrigation, toilet and urinal flushing or make-up water for commercial
boilers. These applications reduce the demand for potable water and aid
in the protection and preservation of the available water sources.
Ours is a growing and evolving industry supported by small
businesses across the country. In fact, our organization estimates that
the onsite wastewater industry employs as many as 150,000 people,
virtually all of whom work for small businesses in the private sector.
These include not only the companies which manufacture the components
of the onsite system, but also the engineers who design the systems and
the contractors who install, operate, and maintain them.
More than 65 years ago, my father-in-law who started the family
business (which is now in the 3rd generation) would talk about
installers who would dig septic tank excavations with a shovel. Most
anyone with a strong back could be in the business. Today it takes
someone with a strong mind, an entrepreneurial spirit and a knack for
running a small business.
In my lifetime I have seen the humble back yard septic tank evolve
into a range of sophisticated wastewater treatment solutions that lets
families live wherever they want and lets businesses locate nearby to
serve them, and even provides entire communities with options for
treating wastewater so they don't have to automatically default to an
expensive and disruptive sewer project. In fact, I have even begun to
see utilities start to utilize decentralized treatment systems as
distributed infrastructure within their utility service area.
Onsite and decentralized wastewater treatment systems are an
effective solution to protecting water quality. They are a valuable
component of watershed management plans and sustainable development
programs. Onsite and decentralized wastewater treatment systems can
benefit both urban and rural areas by providing affordable solutions
and reducing risk to the environment in unusual situations and
difficult locations. These systems can provide optimal water management
to homes, businesses and industrial centers. Their recycling capability
can support water resource management goals in many arid areas of the
country.
Their use can support municipal wastewater treatment infrastructure
by providing options for pretreatment and sewer mining, thus offering
an alternative when centralized plants have reached or exceeded
capacity. In addition, increasing numbers of utilities are viewing
decentralized wastewater treatment as a critical component of their
future growth strategies, because they add sustainability and
resilience to their infrastructure while providing them with a modular,
and cost-effective growth option that reduces their reliance on
traditional centralized treatment facilities. As society demands more
efficient use of financial resources and environmentally sustainable
wastewater management, the use of managed decentralized wastewater
treatment systems can be an effective solution which satisfies both
imperatives.
For smaller communities, decentralized and onsite systems can
usually be built and maintained for less money than a centralized
sewage treatment facility. Virtually any treatment technology employed
in a centralized sewage treatment plan can be found in onsite
wastewater treatment systems. In fact, onsite systems can be designed
to provide equal or better levels of treatment as compared to
conventional sewage treatment plants.
There is one other very important benefit . . . they safely help
replenish our dwindling underground aquifers through recharge of
treated water onsite. While homeowners and many centralized sewage
treatment systems draw their drinking water from underground aquifers,
only onsite systems are designed to replenish aquifers. Most
centralized sewage treatment systems discharge their treated water
directly to rivers or streams where it ultimately ends up in an ocean.
Using U.S. Census numbers from 2010 it can be estimated that onsite
wastewater systems discharge an average of 9.9 billion gallons of water
per day back to the soil. That is more than 3.5 trillion gallons per
year.
Nearly 85 million Americans--more than 25 percent of the country--
are being served by the onsite industry and that number is growing.
Because of this, technology has exploded. It sometimes reminds me of
the computer industry of 30 years ago. There are many new decentralized
technologies which have come online which treat wastewater in ways
which are cheaper and more efficient and effective.
In fact, nearly two decades ago the Environmental Protection Agency
endorsed onsite wastewater systems. Their 1997 Report to Congress on
Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems stated that this
technology is a viable solution to treating and dispersing wastewater.
Sadly, despite EPA's recognition that onsite wastewater treatment
systems are a permanent part of our Nation's wastewater infrastructure,
EPA has largely ignored the myriad challenges faced by our industry.
Among these challenges are homeowner education, technical support, lack
of support for research, replacement of failing systems and
professional education.
If I have convinced you that we are an important part of the
solution to aquifer depletion, small business growth, infrastructure
development and protection of public health and the environment, I'm
sure you are curious to hear how much money we want . . . We don't want
any. . . . At least we don't want any new money.
We have two requests. Currently more than 99.5 percent of the EPA
Clean Water State Revolving Fund goes to municipal wastewater and
stormwater projects. Less than \1/2\ of 1 percent goes to onsite
wastewater activities--in spite of the fact that more than 25 percent
of the country is served by these systems. This pattern of funding has
been consistent all the way back to the start of SRF funding in the
early 1990s. We believe it is fundamentally unfair that for more than
two decades, the 85 million taxpayers who use onsite systems have been
subsidizing the government-owned treatment plants that serve the rest
of the country. The challenges faced by our industry are no less
important or urgent than those faced by municipal utilities.
The fact that they require a different set of solutions does not
diminish the need to address them.
For fiscal year 2016 and beyond we request that at least 20 percent
of EPA's annual contribution to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund be
specifically designated to fund projects related to the construction,
management or remediation of onsite and decentralized wastewater
treatment systems and the 85 million taxpayers who use them. We further
request that those funds be designated for disbursement and
distribution by the authority in each State which has direct regulatory
oversight and enforcement authority over residential onsite wastewater
treatment plants.
Second, EPA has exactly one full-time employee (FTE) who focuses on
Decentralized Wastewater. We would like to see at least 20 percent of
the Office of Wastewater's funding be dedicated to increasing staffing
and resources for the Office of Decentralized Wastewater. Among the
specific requests:
--Place at least one FTE in each EPA regional office to specifically
support State and regional initiatives involving decentralized
wastewater treatment.
--Add at least one ``circuit rider'' with expertise in decentralized
wastewater to each region to support decentralized wastewater
project planning and implementation, regardless of the funding
source (i.e. USDA, HUD, etc.).
--Designate a specialist in the EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Branch to assist State funding authorities in revising policies
and project scoring systems to ensure fair inclusion of onsite/
decentralized systems.
--Designate a second specialist in the EPA Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Branch to proactively assist communities seeking
funding for decentralized projects in navigating the often
confusing maze of rules and regulations surrounding CWSRF and
other sources of Federal funds.
--Significantly expand EPA's training of industry professionals
through grants to entities which exclusively specialize in
decentralized training.
--Provide increased direct financial support to the National
Environmental Service Center and the Small Flows clearinghouse
so that homeowners, business owners and industry professionals
have an up-to-date source of information related to onsite and
decentralized technology.
--Provide funding for EPA's Septic Smart program so that its
materials can be more easily distributed to homeowners.
--Provide direct financial and staff support to State onsite
wastewater regulators to facilitate increased training of
industry regulators and mechanisms to support better
enforcement of State onsite regulations.
--Expand research grants and onsite wastewater training centers and
demonstration projects to help local decision-makers and design
engineers better understand the benefits of onsite and
decentralized wastewater treatment systems and technologies.
On behalf of the National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association
and the onsite industry we thank you for your time.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Opera Center of America (OPERA
America)
Ms. 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 in the Committee on Appropriations to
designate a total of $155 million to the National Endowment for the
Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2016. 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 132
professional company members representing 41 States. Sixty-six percent
of these companies were established after 1970 and over 46 percent were
established since 1980, indicating the growth of opera throughout
America over the last 45 years.
In the 2013-2014 season, OPERA America members were involved with
37 world premieres. Since 1900, 950 new operatic works have been
produced by professional opera companies in North America. Of that, 478
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 extend the civic reach of opera
companies as they introduce children to a 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 2014, totaling more than $100 million in appropriated funds. These
grants 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 4.3 percent (or $699 billion) of current-
dollar GDP in 2012. Additionally, the nonprofit performing arts
industry generates $135.2 billion annually in economic activity,
supports more than 4.13 million full-time equivalent jobs in the arts,
and returns $9.59 billion in Federal taxes.
On average each NEA grant leverages at least $9 from other State,
local, and private sources. 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 dollars. In 2012,
2.2 million people volunteered 210 million hours with arts and cultural
organizations, totaling an estimated value of $5.2 billion--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.
The NEA awarded nearly 2,000 grants last year through its largest
grant programs, to nonprofit arts organizations for projects that
encourage artistic creativity and that bring the arts to millions of
Americans. In a striking example of Federal/State partnership, 40
percent of NEA's program dollars are granted to State arts agencies,
conditional on each State devoting its own appropriated funds. These
grants, combined with State legislative appropriations and other
dollars, are distributed widely to strengthen arts infrastructures and
ensure broad access to arts.
The following are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on
opera programs from the NEA's 2014 and 2015 Art Works Program:
Santa Fe Opera
$75,000
Santa Fe, New Mexico
To support the world premiere of Cold Mountain by composer Jennifer
Higdon and librettist Gene Scheer. Initially inspired by Homer's
Ulysses, Charles Frazier's novel, Cold Mountain, tells the story of a
Confederate soldier who is wounded, deserts the army, and returns home
to reunite with the woman he left behind when he enlisted to fight in
the Civil War. Performances will be presented at the John Crosby
Theatre.
Opera Memphis
$30,000
Memphis, Tennessee
To support ``30 Days of Opera.'' Launched in 2012 as an outreach
initiative with the goal of breaking down barriers that prevent new
audiences from attending opera, the festival has successfully reached
more than 50,000 people with more than 100 performances in at least 80
different locations. The project includes admission-free concerts,
opera performances for schools, an original children's opera, pop-up or
guerilla opera performances, and a family day at the opera.
Lyric Opera of Kansas City
$35,000
Kansas City, Missouri
To support the regional premiere of Silent Night by composer Kevin
Puts and librettist Mark Campbell. Adapted from Christian Carion's
screenplay for the film, Joyeux Noel (2005), the Pulitzer Prize-winning
opera is based on a true story that occurred during one of the
bloodiest wars in human history. On Christmas Eve, 1914, along the
western front, peace broke out when the Scottish, French, and German
troops engaged in combat near the French border, defied their superior
officers, and agreed amongst themselves to a cease-fire in order to
celebrate the holiday and bury their dead. Performances took place at
the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts in February and March.
New Orleans Opera Association
$12,000
New Orleans, Louisiana
To support Verdi's Falstaff. Outreach activities will include an
artist roundtable, free ``Nuts and Bolts'' opera lectures prior to each
performance, and multimedia study guides that will be distributed to
public, private, and charter schools in the region. The production will
make use of video projection technology for scenic design.
Long Beach Opera
$30,000
Long Beach, California
To support the U.S. premier of Marilyn Forever by composer Gavin
Bryars and librettist Marilyn Bowering. Based on Bowering's book of
poetry, Anyone Can See That I Love You, the work explores the life and
myth of Marilyn Monroe. The opera will go beyond the American icon's
persona to reveal a portrait of an intelligent woman filled with
conflicting emotions and ambitions. The semi-classical composition
pairs orchestral music with a jazz trio.
Over 50 million people experienced opera on stage, via radio and
TV, in cinemas, and at stadiums, parks and alternative venues through
one of OPERA America's Professional Company Members in the 2012-2013
season. The collective expenses of member opera companies totaled over
$1 billion. Total government support, including city, county, State,
and Federal, amounted to $118 million, representing 10 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 16.
On behalf of OPERA America, thank you for considering this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association
Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on
behalf of National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). Founded in
1919, NPCA is the leading national, independent voice for protecting
and enhancing America's National Park System for present and future
generations. On behalf of our one million members and supporters from
every State in the union, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to
provide our views regarding the National Park Service budget for the
System's centennial year.
NPCA requests for fiscal year 2016 appropriated funding for the
National Park Service of $3,047,707,000, which is equal to the
President's appropriated request, but rejecting his request to reduce
National Heritage Area funding by $9,737,000. This includes NPCA's
priorities this year of meeting the President's request for:
--$239 million in restored funding for park operations;
--$113 million in restored funding for construction; and
--a $40 million increase in appropriated funds for the Centennial
Challenge.
This is a critical time for our National Park System and the
National Park Service, which celebrate their 100th birthday next year.
Our parks, though beloved by Americans from all walks of life and
celebrated worldwide, are under significant financial strain. The
centennial of this national treasure is a time to redouble our
commitment to our national parks, local economies, and to the future
generations for whom we hold them in trust.
We are hopeful that Congress will be able to address this year's
budget and appropriations cycle through a more orderly and reasonable
process than has too frequently been the case in recent years, yet are
fearful that the Interior bill could once again face challenges. We
acknowledge the tremendous challenge the subcommittee faces in setting
thoughtful spending priorities for the varied Federal agencies and
programs under its jurisdiction, and are grateful for your consistent
support for national parks given the constraints you face. NPCA
believes the allocation provided to the subcommittee in recent years
has been insufficient and emblematic of the unfortunate squeeze that is
being forced on domestic discretionary funding in general. NPCA will
continue to be a leader in calling for that to change. We are grateful
to the full committee for helping to ensure the subcommittee had the
resources to cover programs like Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) in
fiscal year 2015, which was essential to the modest increase you were
able to provide our parks. That said, we believe:
--the sequester must be repealed and, at a minimum, the original
Budget Control Act (BCA) caps restored;
--the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act should be enacted; and
--the Interior subcommittee allocation is unlikely to ever be
sufficient to meet the full needs of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF), the National Park System backlog, or
the Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Secure Rural Schools
(SRS) programs, which should receive mandatory support outside
of the Interior bill.
Although the subcommittee clearly is facing challenges, we believe
our request is modest. To mark the 50th anniversary of the National
Park System in 1966, President Eisenhower initiated ``Mission 66,''
which invested over $1 billion in national park enhancements and
improvements to visitor facilities throughout the system--$7.2 billion
in today's dollars. By comparison, the Obama administration's proposed
new 3-year investment for the centennial is worth \1/7\ of that amount,
and the $433 million portion they request from this subcommittee for
fiscal year 2016 is equivalent to 6 percent of what Mission 66
provided. Adjusted for inflation, the proposed $239 million increase
for park operations and $113 million increase for construction
essentially restores park budgets to fiscal year 2010 levels.
Visitation to our national parks can fluctuate, but rose 7 percent
from 2013 to 2014, to 292 million people. Joshua Tree, Rocky Mountain,
Grand Teton and Glacier National Parks saw record-breaking visitation
in 2014. Visitation is expected to continue to grow with increased
visibility of our parks for their Centennial, which has obvious
implications for National Park Service funding needs.
For many years now, NPCA has shared with the subcommittee the
impacts of compounded budget cuts on the National Park Service and the
impacts of those cuts to visitors and communities surrounding national
parks. We applaud efforts of the subcommittee in fiscal year 2015 in
securing a $39 million increase in park operations funding, as well as
a $10 million reinvestment in the Centennial Challenge, first proposed
by the President George W. Bush administration, and now by President
Obama, to leverage private donations with Federal dollars.
However, even with those modest increases, the budget to operate
our national parks has been cut by nearly 7 percent in today's dollars
compared to 5 years ago. The National Park Service has experienced
operations shortfalls ranging from estimates of $500 million to as much
as $800 million annually. The investment in operations in fiscal year
2015 provided some relief by addressing fixed cost increases such as
cost-of-living adjustments for staff, rent, fuel, utility, and
healthcare benefits. Park managers continue to do the best they can
with reduced levels of funding to operate and maintain our national
treasures and saving from employee attrition. However, park managers
will share with you that operating a park with insufficient staff has
started to compromise their ability to protect resources from damages
and provide adequate visitor services. The result of chronic funding
deficiencies, particularly due to the sequester but not limited to it,
have been:
--fewer park rangers and other staff providing day-to-day maintenance
of parks;
--parks and park facilities opening later and closing earlier or more
frequently;
--visitor centers operating with fewer rangers or closing altogether
due to lack of staff;
--compromised science and resource protection and decreased day-to-
day maintenance;
--fewer backcountry patrols to ensure visitor safety and prevent
poaching and looting; and
--other impacts that compromise resources and public enjoyment and
safety.
Additionally, over the past decade, the National Park Service
construction budget has been cut by over $227 million, or 62 percent in
today's dollars, contributing to the now $11.5 billion deferred
maintenance backlog. Deficiencies in operations and transportation
funding have also contributed to the maintenance backlog, with the
parks receiving about $350 million less than necessary each year to
keep the backlog from growing.
Polling we have shared with this subcommittee several times
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 strong 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. The broad support for our national parks is reflected in the
membership of the National Park Second Century Action Coalition, which
NPCA chairs and includes the active membership of a broad cross-section
of the travel and outdoor industries, historic preservation and
conservation interests, national park friends groups and other
philanthropic organizations, park concessioners, and other national
park supporters.
NPCA and the coalition advocated, and the Obama administration has
proposed a multi-year centennial initiative that builds on the one
proposed by the George W. Bush administration. The administration
proposes to reinvest in national parks and to begin addressing the
maintenance backlog both through discretionary and mandatory funding
approaches. The fact that Presidents Bush and Obama both have supported
strong centennial efforts provides further evidence of broad,
nonpartisan support for the parks, which I know this subcommittee
shares. The question now is: what will Congress do? We sincerely hope
this subcommittee and your colleagues outside this subcommittee will
seize this moment to produce a legacy that will be looked upon fondly
both now and 50-to-100 years from now.
The proposed $239 million increase for park operations focuses
predominantly on enhancing cyclic maintenance funding, while also
enhancing the visitor experience, better connecting young people with
their natural and cultural heritage, improving the NPS focus on the
important impacts of the civil rights movement, and helping to ensure
that park visitors can find a park ranger when they need one. The
proposed increase of $113 million for the construction account will
help address the deferred maintenance backlog by supporting the
replacement and repair of water systems essential to public health and
the visiting experience, the repair of visitor facilities and trails,
and the removal of some excess, dilapidated structures.
Under current allocations established by the BCA and sequester, it
is difficult to see how this subcommittee will ever be able to address
the $11.5 billion backlog. So, the administration again proposes, and
we support, enacting legislation to begin reducing the backlog through
a mandatory account. An initiative that attacks the backlog would
produce needed construction jobs while restoring America's treasures. A
flaw in the administration's proposal, however, is that their budget
completely ignores the transportation-related half of the backlog.
Ironically, Mission 66 occurred in the context of investments in the
Interstate Highway System. Yet, so far, neither the administration nor
congressional proposals attempt to improve the current $240 million
allocation for national parks under the transportation bill and reduce
the backlog.
On the other hand, the administration was correct to propose
enacting and funding the Bush administration-proposed Centennial
Challenge. As we seek to enact legislation to authorize this innovative
program, we hope the subcommittee is in the position again this year to
invest discretionary resources to get the Challenge off the ground. By
building on last year's $10 million investment with the additional $40
million the administration proposes, the subcommittee can leverage
scarce Federal dollars to produce even greater non-Federal investments
for signature projects at parks throughout the country.
We also support the administration's request of $178 million for
the National Park Service's portion of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, a critical tool for protecting our national parks. Park Service
LWCF funding has declined from $126 million in fiscal year 2010 to less
than $100 million in fiscal year 2015, a decline of more than 20
percent. The administration proposes partially funding LWCF with
mandatory funds in fiscal year 2016 and providing full funding with
mandatory funding starting in fiscal year 2017. The acquisition of
inholdings is directly related to better managing the places in which
our Nation already has made a significant investment. LWCF boosts
access and the recreation economy; reduces administrative and
management costs; reduces the threat of fire and invasive species
introduction; and has many other benefits.
We are grateful that this subcommittee has supported two extensions
of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), which has
currently been extended through the end of fiscal year 2016. If not
reauthorized, public lands could lose over $300 million annually to
support maintenance, education, and other priority projects, with
national parks making up about \2/3\ of that amount. The administration
proposes an extension to September 30, 2017 until a long term
reauthorization can occur. As NPCA continue to advocate for a long-term
reauthorization of FLREA with the respective authorizing committees, we
hope the subcommittee will continue to support annual extensions, as
necessary. Currently, without reauthorization by September 30, 2015,
the agencies will lose their authority to issue the annual pass.
Finally, we reject the administration's request to cut the National
Heritage Area funding by 50 percent, or $9,737,000, as well as
specifically realign $650,000 of program budget from the Blackstone
River Valley National Heritage Corridor to the general National Park
Service operations account.
Overall, the budget for the National Park Service constitutes less
than \1/15\ of 1 percent of the Federal budget, and our research shows
that the average American household pays roughly as much in income
taxes for their national parks as it would cost to buy a cup of coffee.
Now is the time to reinvest in our national parks and prepare them for
another hundred years of service. Every member of this subcommittee
understands the deep affection the American people feel for our
national parks. With the Centennial upon us, it is time to make taking
care of the national parks a priority. We thank this subcommittee for
your leadership and are eager to work with you to build on the
investments made last year, and ensure that our national parks are
protected for generations to come.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit written testimony. I
am happy to respond to any questions you may have.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Parks Second Century Action
Coalition
Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall:
Next year, Americans will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the
creation of the modern National Park System. We, the members of the
National Parks Second Century Action Coalition, write in support of
increasing the Nation's commitment to our national parks for their
centennial year in the Fiscal Year 2016 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Specifically, we support:
--A $239 million increase in the operating budget for the National
Park Service over fiscal year 2015 levels to restore funds lost
over the last several years;
--A $113 million increase in the construction budget for the National
Park Service over fiscal year 2015 levels to help address the
deferred maintenance backlog;
--A $40 million increase for the Centennial Challenge program to
continue to leverage Federal funding with private donations to
help restore and modernize our parks;
--The temporary extension of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement
Act until a longer term reauthorization can occur; and
--The continued support for legislation to address the financial
impacts of wildfire suppression on the Department of the
Interior budget.
The National Parks Second Century Action Coalition is made up of
organizations supporting conservation, recreation, outdoor industry,
travel and tourism and historic preservation that are dedicated to
promoting the protection, restoration, and operation of the National
Park System to benefit the health and well-being of current and future
generations.
We are grateful for the real, though modest, reinvestment in park
operations funding in fiscal year 2015 and we support an additional
investment of $239 million in fiscal year 2016 so parks can address
fixed costs, ensure day-to-day maintenance, advance urban youth
education initiatives, preserve the Civil Rights Movement, and restore
lost park ranger positions that maintain, restore and interpret parks.
In addition, an increased investment of $113 million in the
construction account will help address the $11.5 billion deferred
maintenance backlog. These requested amounts return the operations and
construction budgets to fiscal year 2010 levels prior to the harmful
sequester.
An increased investment of the Centennial Challenge program by $40
million will encourage friends groups, foundations, businesses and
other non-Federal institutions to help restore our parks. An initial
Federal investment of $40 million several years ago generated $50
million in donations.
We ask for continued support to extend the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act until a longer term reauthorization can occur. This
will allow the National Park Service and other Federal land management
agencies to retain and use nearly $300 million in critically needed fee
revenue annually.
Additionally, we urge your support for the reintroduced Wildfire
Disaster Funding Act. Passage would provide some necessary funding
relief to the National Park Service and other Interior agency budgets
while relieving the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest
Service of the many challenges and inefficiencies with ``fire
borrowing.''
As a final note, we recognize that a more substantial investment is
needed in our national parks as the System turns 100, and thus are
urging Congress to support the President's request to provide mandatory
funding to support the Centennial Challenge and address the deferred
maintenance backlog.
We recognize and thank you for your ongoing efforts to balance
limited resources in a difficult fiscal climate. With the National Park
System Centennial approaching, we ask you to restore funding to our
national parks to ensure enjoyment for future generations. Our cultural
and natural heritage, recreational resources, American families who
love to visit our national parks, and the economies of park-reliant
communities will all benefit from your commitment to our national parks
and their gateway communities.
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Association for Partners for Public Lands
American Forests
American Hiking Society
American Recreation Coalition
Appalachian Trail Conservancy
Coalition of National Park Service Retirees
Conservancy for Cuyahoga Valley National Park
The Corps Network
Destination Marketing Association International
Friends of Acadia
Friends of Big Bend National Park
Friends of Dyke Marsh
Friends of the Oregon Caves and Chateau
Friends of Saguaro National Park
Friends of Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge
GirlTrek
Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy
Grand Canyon Association
Hispanic Access Fund
Mount Rushmore Society
National Council on Public History
National Military Family Association
National Parks Conservation Association
National Park Hospitality Association
National Trust for Historic Preservation
National Tour Association
NatureBridge
Nature Fund for National Parks
Outdoor Industry Association
Public Lands Service Coalition
Receptive Services Association of America
The Shenandoah National Park Trust
Student & Youth Travel Association
Travel Professionals of Color
U.S. Travel Association
U.S. Tour Operators Association
Western National Parks Association
Western States Tourism Policy Council
Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts
______
Prepared Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association
Thank you Chairwoman Murkowski, Senator Udall, 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 2016 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 2016 LWCF
appropriations to the State Assistance Program;
--Continuing the innovative, ``Outdoor Recreation Legacy
Partnership'' (ORLP) competitive grant program in the amount of
$5 million;
--Allocating up to $25 million in funding for UPARR out of total
fiscal year 2016 LWCF appropriations; and
--Ensuring that any amount allocated to either the ORLP or UPARR
program is not done at the expense of the existing core formula
grants distributed to the States for conservation and active
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 48,000 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 dedicated funding source--namely oil
and gas leasing revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Over
$9 billion was provided through these leases in 2013, with a small
fraction provided to the LWCF. Unfortunately an even more miniscule
amount 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 12 percent of total LWCF funding
going to the State Assistance Program since 1998. More recently, 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. 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 and fiscal year 2015--pre-
sequestration levels of $45 million, which includes the innovative $3
million ``Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership'' competitive grant
program. However, even with these increases, State Assistance continues
to receive less than 15 percent of overall LWCF appropriations.
What we find has gotten lost in the ongoing discussion over the
reauthorization of the LWCF is, first and foremost, the issue of
fairness in how LWCF dollars are being distributed. For nearly 50 years
the bulk of the work to carry out the purpose of the Act has fallen on
local communities to handle alone. While four-out-of-five Americans
live in larger metropolitan areas, the LWCF is now only providing about
13 percent of overall funding to the very program--State Assistance--
which impacts people where they live, and recreate, the most. Urban
communities, in particular, suffer from the severe lack of resources
currently provided through the State Assistance program.
The State Assistance Program is consistently listed as a key tenant
of the overall LWCF program. We value preserving and providing access
to our national treasures for all to enjoy, but we want to remind you
that many treasured areas are NOT located on Federal property.
We'd like to specifically note that the administration's fiscal
year 2016 budget request includes a total of $400 million in
discretionary funding for the LWCF with the current $50 million (12.5
percent) being allocated for the State Assistance Program continuing
the pattern of falling well short of a fair and equitable percentage
being made available for State and local outdoor recreation. We note
that it would take $160 million of overall LWCF appropriations to State
Assistance to achieve the 40 percent threshold.
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 2016.
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.\1\ 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.\2\ There is no doubt, that it is the LWCF State
Assistance Program that provides the vast majority of places, spaces,
and opportunities for outdoor recreation which stimulates the outdoor
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Outdoor Industry Association, ``The Outdoor Recreation Economy
Report 2012''.
\2\ 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. The majority of our country's public places, spaces, and
opportunities for outdoor recreation are provided through the State
Assistance program, with more than 42,000 grant projects covering
nearly every county across America.
The LWCF State Assistance Program is the only Federal investment
tool dedicated to ensuring that Americans have access to close-to-home
public recreation opportunities. Because the program develops and
provides local outdoor recreation, millions of Americans, of all ages
and abilities have places where they can regularly connect with nature,
be physically active and simply enjoy the outdoors. It is a means by
which this committee can provide investment to critically important
local park infrastructure, including: a new soccer field at Sisterhood
Park in Anchorage, Alaska; enhancements at Bluewater Lake State Park
near Perwitt, New Mexico; and an accessible playground at Fall Creek
Falls State Park in Spencer, Tennessee. Each of the aforementioned
communities benefited from State Assistance grant funding since 2013.
LWCF State Assistance Provides Health and Environmental Benefits
In addition to creating jobs and ensuring access for all, the LWCF
State Assistance Program delivers tangible health benefits,
contributing to the overall health and well-being of Americans. The
National Park Service recognizes this through its Healthy Parks Healthy
People U.S. initiative, which aims to increase public recognition of
parks and public lands (including State, local, and regional park and
trail systems) as places for the promotion of physical, mental, and
social health. The CDC reports that childhood obesity has tripled in
the last 30 years, less than 25 percent of adults engage in recommended
levels of physical activity, and that obesity is a leading cause of
chronic disease. As noted by the CDC, increased access to parks, green
space, and recreation opportunities is essential to becoming a
healthier Nation and reducing unsustainable healthcare costs.
The LWCF State Assistance Program also significantly contributes to
protecting the environment and promoting environmental stewardship.
LWCF State Assistance projects have a historical record of contributing
to reduced and delayed storm water runoff volumes, enhanced groundwater
recharge, storm water pollutant reductions, reduced sewer overflow
events, increased carbon sequestration, urban heat island mitigation
and reduced energy demands, resulting in improved air quality,
increased wildlife habitat, and increased land values on the local
level.
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 2016 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 work to make their
communities 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 Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Competitive Grant
Program
The 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
to have worked with NPS to help craft this pilot initiative and
believes the first set of grantees will prove successful in
highlighting the innovative projects and partnerships the State
Assistance Program provides across America. We support the continuation
of what is now called, the ``Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership''
(ORLP) program, provided the funds allocated are not done at the
expense of the existing core formula grants distributed to the States
for public recreation.
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, few programs can
address so many national priorities as effectively as the LWCF State
Assistance Program and UPARR, 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 ORLP
grant program, and address the need for improved infrastructure in
urban areas by allocating a portion of the total LWCF funding to UPARR.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share NRPA's recommendations
and your consideration of our request.
[This statement was submitted by Kevin O'Hara, Vice President for
Urban and Government Affairs.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Tigers for Tigers Coalition
Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee:
On behalf of the National Tigers for Tigers Coalition (T4T), I am
submitting testimony on behalf of critically important conservation
programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Thank you for
your continued support for USFWS-International Affairs Office and its
role in protecting international wildlife. We sincerely appreciate the
opportunity to respectfully request the following appropriations for
fiscal year 2016:
--$14.7 million to the FWS International Affairs Office (IA);
--$11.1 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Funds
(MSCFs);
--$75.4 million to support the FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE).
Tigers for Tigers is a student-led national organization dedicated
to engaging students and fans of universities with tiger mascots in the
protection of our majestic and endangered team emblem. Currently active
in 12 universities across the Nation, T4T is quickly expanding. Our
goal is to eventually engage all 56 tiger mascot universities
nationwide--reaching more than 450,000 enrolled college students who
self identify with their tiger mascot. T4T amplifies this amazing
school spirit and empowers students and fans to save tigers from the
loss and fragmentation of habitat and from increasing levels of illegal
poaching and trafficking.
Compared to a century ago, tiger habitat has declined by 93 percent
and tiger populations have plummeted by 97 percent. As a result of such
crippling losses, it is estimated that only 3,200 tigers remain in the
wild--mainly in India, Russia and Sumatra. Prized for their beauty and
admired for their strength, tigers are poached for a variety of
purposes, including, but not limited to: traditional medicine,
clothing, food, wine and decoration. Protecting tigers from poachers
and reducing the demand for tiger parts is critical for their survival.
The wildlife trafficking and trade crisis is an immediate threat to
global biodiversity and is an issue of U.S. national security that must
be addressed without delay. Highly organized and sophisticated crime
networks around the world are starting to take advantage of this
lucrative business, which generates an estimated $10 billion annually.
The resulting revenue is used to support the illegal trafficking of
both humans and drugs and to fund terrorist activities. Reducing the
demand for wildlife parts would not only benefit conservation efforts,
but would also decrease the funds available to crime networks to
support trafficking and terrorist activities.
In July 2013, President Obama announced the National Strategy for
Combating Wildlife Trafficking as part of Executive Order 13684. In
February 2015, the Presidential Task Force announced the Implementation
Plan for the National Strategy to focus on strengthening law
enforcement, reducing demand for illegal wildlife products, and
increasing cooperation through public and private partnerships. The
Implementation Plan contains forward-thinking solutions to halt the
loss of tiger habitat and populations, and we request robust funding to
support the Executive Order.
FWS--Office of International Affairs (IA)--$14.7 million requested
The FWS International Affairs Office is responsible for protecting
and supporting our world's rich biodiversity, flora and fauna through
landscape conservation programs and the implementation of roughly 40
international treaties and conventions. The IA office administers an
extensive grant program and works to conserve species at risk through
regulation of international wildlife trade.
Two programs administered under the IA, Wildlife Without Borders
(WWB) Global and Wildlife Without Borders Regional Programs, support
groundbreaking conservation programs and foster partnerships with
governments, agencies, local organizations, and community stakeholders.
The WWB Global Programs focus on international treaties, partnership
and grant programs like the Critically Endangered Animals Conservation
Fund and the Amphibians in Decline Fund. WWB Regional Programs foster
collaborative efforts with multiple stakeholders to conduct shared
conservation initiatives abroad in Africa, East Asia, Latin America,
Russia and Mexico. T4T has been working directly with WWB Global
Programs Office to promote the Save Vanishing Species postage stamp on
our tiger mascot campuses. With support from the Global office and
Clemson University, T4T produced a 25-second public service
announcement video that was displayed on the jumbo-tron at all home
football games in 2013 within a stadium of 80,000 cheering tiger fans.
The U.S. is the second largest consumer of illegal wildlife
products in the world behind China. In November 2013, FWS hosted an
Ivory Crush and destroyed 6 tons of confiscated elephant ivory to show
the international community that the U.S. does not support or condone
illegal wildlife trade. Immediately after the event, other countries,
including China, followed the U.S.'s lead and destroyed their
stockpiles of elephant ivory. To continue taking a leading role on the
international stage, the U.S. must continue improving our local
enforcement policies and supporting international conservation
programs.
We respectively request the subcommittee to support the President's
request of $14.7 million for fiscal year 2016 for the FWS's Office of
International Affairs.
Multinational Species Conservation Funds--$11.1 million request
The Multinational Species Conservation Funds (MSCFs) of the FWS
provide crucial funding to support conversation projects for tigers,
elephants, rhinos, great apes, and marine turtles. These funds finance
anti-poaching efforts to combat illegal wildlife trafficking, educate
and incentivize local communities, and finance projects to protect
critical habitat.
In fiscal year 2015 Congress allocated $9.1 million to support
MSCFs. This year, we respectively ask the subcommittee to support an
$11.1 million budget, an increase in $2 million allocated at the
President's request to support the African Elephant Conservation Fund
and the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Fund.
--The African Elephant Conservation Fund promotes conservation,
research, and habitat management for African elephants. At the
current rate of 35,000 elephants poached annually for their
ivory, the population of 470,000 to 690,000 will face imminent
extinction within the next decade.
--The Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, established in 1994,
provides funding for education, research and management of
species with the objective of conserving rhinos and tigers and
decreasing demand for illegal trade of animal parts. In 2014,
the FWS funded over 40 projects for $3.2 million, which was
leveraged by $5.5 million in additional funds.
--In Asia, rhino populations are dwindling with fewer than 50 Javan
rhinos and 400 Sumatran rhinos remaining in the wild. Every
poached one-horned rhino has a significant impact on the
remaining populations.
--The Conservation Fund has improved recovery programs for the
3,200 remaining tigers in the wild by helping implement
consumer demand reduction strategies and expand wildlife
enforcement networks. T4T has worked directly on reducing
human-tiger conflicts by funding groups that train female
forest guards in Central India to educate their communities
about wildlife laws and how to mitigate human-wildlife
conflicts.
In addition to funding landscape conservation projects,
Multinational Species Conservation Funds also stimulate local
economies, build long-lasting partnerships between stakeholders and
provide a growing constituency for international wildlife. Between 2007
and 2013, $77 million has been appropriated to support MSCFs and
establish partnerships in more than 54 countries. The more than 2,000
grants awarded have leveraged $115 million in private and in-kind
donations.
MSCFs have consistently received bi-partisan support in Congress
and the administrations since the program began in the 1990s and we
request allocation of the President's request of $11.1 million.
Office of Law Enforcement--$75.4 million request
The FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) is involved in all aspects
of the agency's efforts to manage eco-systems and promote international
conservation efforts. The 261 special agents and 140 wildlife
inspectors are highly involved in combating illegal wildlife
trafficking, training foreign law enforcement officers, and solving
wildlife crimes through their forensic labs. Yet despite its proven
track record of addressing international wildlife crimes, the OLE is
extremely under-funded and under-staffed and lacks the capacity to stem
the tide of illegal wildlife products imported into the U.S. through
shipping ports such as Miami, Los Angles, or New York.
We commend the international efforts and global operation of
Operation Cobra 2 in late 2013 that resulted in over 400 arrests and
350 wildlife seizures in Africa and Asia. We have seen similar success
in the domestic operation--Operation Crash--conducted in conjunction
with the Department of Justice. Last year, the FWS in coordination with
the State Department placed FWS experts in U.S. embassies in Bangkok
and Dar es Salaam to support wildlife enforcement capacity and to
coordinate wildlife trafficking investigations with local authorities.
The fiscal year 2016 Presidential budget proposes to add four more law
enforcement experts in additional countries, including China.
It is critical that we continue to fund and support the OLE's
efforts to catch and disrupt the import, distribution and export of
illegal wildlife products. The National Strategy to Combat Wildlife
Trafficking seeks to strengthen legal authorities and enforcement
capacity, strengthen investigative efforts abroad, increase
collaboration across agencies, and reduce demand for illegal wildlife
products. Therefore we respectfully request $75.4 million to support
the OLE in fiscal year 2016.
The President has also requested an additional $8 million within
his fiscal year 2016 budget to be allocated to the FWS to address the
wildlife trafficking crisis. Most of this funding would be part of the
$75.4 million for the OLE to fund the expansion of the Fish & Wildlife
Service's ability to process incoming forensic evidence and prosecute
the criminal violations of wildlife protection laws.
Members of the subcommittee, we sincerely appreciate the
opportunity to provide our written testimony to advocate for the
successful programs of FWS and our Nation's commitment to international
conservation efforts. Only by investing now in international
conservation efforts to establish a healthy wild tiger population can
we ensure that future generations will be able to fully appreciate the
magnificent power of wild tigers--whatever the mascot of their favorite
team.
And as a recent Clemson University Alumnus, I'd like to add--Go
Tigers!
______
Prepared Statement of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
Coalition
My name is Lloyd Miller and I am a partner in the law firm of
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller and Munson, LLP. I appear here today
as counsel to the National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition. The
Coalition is comprised of 21 tribes and tribal organizations situated
in 11 States. Collectively, they operate contracts to administer almost
$500 million in IHS and BIA programs and services on behalf of over 250
Native American tribes.\1\ The NTCSC Coalition was created to assure
that the Federal Government honors the United States' contractual
obligation to add full contract support cost funding to every contract
and compact awarded under the Indian Self-Determination Act. I also
litigated the Supreme Court Cherokee and Arctic Slope cases, and co-
litigated the Ramah case, all of which held that IHS and BIA contracts
with Indian tribes are true, binding contracts which must be paid in
full no less than any other government contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NTCSCC is comprised of the: Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium (Alaska), Arctic Slope Native Association (Alaska), Central
Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes (Alaska), Cherokee Nation
(Oklahoma), Chickasaw Nation, Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's
Reservation (Montana), Choctaw Nation (Oklahoma), Confederated Salish
and Kootenai Tribes (Montana), Copper River Native Association
(Alaska), Forest County Potawatomi Community (Wisconsin), Kodiak Area
Native Association (Alaska), Little River Band of Ottawa Indians
(Michigan), Pueblo of Zuni (New Mexico), Riverside-San Bernardino
County Indian Health (California), Shoshone Bannock Tribes (Idaho),
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes (Idaho, Nevada), Southeast Alaska Regional
Health Consortium (Alaska), Spirit Lake Tribe (North Dakota), Tanana
Chiefs Conference (Alaska), Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation
(Alaska), and Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board (43 Tribes in
Idaho, Washington, Oregon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every year I recall for this subcommittee that no single enactment
has had a more profound impact on tribal communities than has the
Indian Self-Determination Act. In just three decades tribes and inter-
tribal organizations have taken control of vast portions of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service, including services
previously provided by the Federal Government in the areas of
healthcare, education, law enforcement and land and natural resource
protection. Today, not a single tribe in the United States is without
at least one self-determination contract with the IHS or the BIA, and
collectively the tribes administer nearly $3 billion in essential
Federal Government functions employing an estimated 35,000 people.
Under all of these contracts, the tribes must cover contract support
costs--essentially overhead--to responsibly manage their programs. They
have to make payroll. They have to manage their finances and their
information technology systems. They have to buy insurance. They have
to procure goods and services. All of the same things the government
has to do, the tribes have to do--and even more: the tribes must
complete costly annual audits, negotiate indirect cost rates, and
comply with a raft of Federal mandates.
These costs are fixed, and they must be paid. Otherwise, they are
paid out of program funds or paid out of tribal trust funds. Thus, full
payment of contract support costs is essential to keeping faith with
the Government's contractual commitments, honoring the Government's
trust responsibility, and permitting the tribes to prudently carry out
the contracted programs, from law enforcement to range management to
full-on hospital operations.
Four years ago this committee explained its views on contract
support costs:
The Committee believes that both the Bureau [of Indian
Affairs] and the Indian Health Service should pay all contract
support costs for which it has contractually agreed and directs
the Service to include the full cost of the contract support
obligations in its fiscal year 2013 budget submission.
H.R. Rep. No. 112-151, at 98 (2011). See also id. at 42 (addressing
the BIA). The Committee was remarkably prescient in its assessment of
the government's liability: the very next year the Supreme Court ruled
that ``[c]onsistent with longstanding principles of Government
contracting law, we hold that the Government must pay each tribe's
contract support costs in full.'' Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 132
S. Ct. 2181, 2186 (2012). The Supreme Court emphasized that ``the
Government's obligation to pay contract support costs should be treated
as an ordinary contract promise.'' Id. at 2188. Two months later the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied the Ramah ruling
to the Indian Health Service, concluding that ``[t]he Secretary [was]
obligated to pay all of ASNA's contract support costs for fiscal years
1999 and 2000.'' Arctic Slope Native Ass'n, Ltd. v. Sebelius, No. 2010-
1013, Order at 6, 2012 WL 3599217 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2012), on remand
from 133 S. Ct. 22 (2012).
Today it is beyond any debate that the payment of contract support
costs is a binding contractual obligation owed to all tribes that
operate BIA and IHS contracts. The only issue remaining has been how to
meet that obligation.
Thanks to this subcommittee's vision and decisive action, fiscal
year 2014 was the first year in which contract support costs were paid
in full through the ordinary appropriations process. For the agencies,
particularly IHS, it was a rocky start, as early mistaken estimates
gave way to the reality that the agency has missed the mark by millions
of dollars. A major reprogramming action was necessary to make tribes
whole, but the agency weathered the storm with a minimum of disruption
to direct service operations, and all contracts were paid in full.
Last year's appropriation followed a crooked path to final
enactment. But an unintended benefit of the delayed fiscal year 2015
appropriations cycle was that this subcommittee, the agencies and
tribal advocates (including this Coalition) were able to compare notes
last December and this subcommittee was able to adjust the fiscal year
2015 final appropriation levels to assure that all tribes will be paid
in full for carrying out their government contracts--and this time,
without any disruption to ongoing program or agency operations. We are
truly in a new era.
Fiscal Year 2016
For fiscal year 2016 the administration has proposed contract
support costs payment levels of $718 million for IHS and $272 million
for the BIA. Based upon actual experiences in fiscal year 2014, there
is every reason to believe these amounts will be sufficient to cover
all contract requirements next year. The National Tribal Contract
Support Cost Coalition fully supports the President's proposed fiscal
year 2016 funding levels, reflecting a full administration commitment
to tribal self-determination and self-governance.
Fiscal Year 2017 and Beyond
Going forward, the administration has proposed a 3-year mandatory
appropriation at stated dollar amounts for each agency, with up to 2
percent of the sums so designated to be available for agency
administration. The National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition
deeply appreciates the President's effort to find a solution to the
multi-decade underfunding of contract support costs, and agrees that
the long-term solution lies in a mandatory appropriation. A mandatory
appropriation is an effective answer to the dilemma posed by locating a
legally binding obligation within an appropriation structured to
address discretionary requirements. It protects the discretionary side
of the ledger while assuring that tribal contractors and compactors
will be paid in full for services duly rendered to the United States.
But care in this area must be taken, and a half measure could be
more disruptive than no measure at all. A time-limited mandatory
appropriation is ill-suited to paying a permanent obligation, because
each renewal is subject to the vagaries of the political process. The
best example of those vagaries is reflected in the history of the time-
limited mandatory appropriation enacted for the Special Diabetes
Program for Indians (SDPI).\2\ This instability is orders of magnitude
more destabilizing when it comes to the payment of contract support
costs for the delivery of core governmental functions, including the
annual operation of police departments, schools and entire hospitals
and clinics serving many of the Nation's most vulnerable populations.
It is one thing for a discrete program to end; it is quite another
thing for an entire hospital or police department to close or be cut
back by a third because contract support cost payments suddenly cease.
One can imagine the grave instability that would ensue if by March
2019, Congress had not yet renewed the measure and yet the Budget
Committee was developing its discretionary caps for the coming year and
this subcommittee was holding these hearings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Public Law No. 105-33, Sec. 4922, 111 Stat. 251 (1997) (5
years); Public Law No. 107-360, Sec. 1(b), 116 Stat. 3019 (2002) (6
years); Public Law No. 110-173, Sec. 302(b), 121 Stat. 2492, 2515
(2007) (one year); Public Law No. 110-275, Sec. 303(b), 122 Stat. 2494,
2594 (2008) (2 years); Public Law No. 111-309, Sec. 112(2), 124 Stat.
3285, 3289 (2010) (2 years); Public Law No. 112-240, Sec. 625(b), 126
Stat. 2313, 2352-53(2014) (1 year); Public Law No. 113-93, Sec. 204(b),
128 Stat. 1040, 1046 (2014) (1 year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these practical considerations, the Coalition respectfully
urges all members of this subcommittee to build upon the President's
proposal by supporting a permanent mandatory appropriation.
The Coalition also respectfully urges this subcommittee's members
to support a mandatory appropriation which only appropriates what is
needed, and not a penny more.\3\ In recent listening sessions the
agencies have explained that the specific sums requested are somewhat
higher than the sums each agency projects it will actually need. This
makes no sense to us, and will only drive up the cost of any measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1305 (appropriating ``such amounts as may be
necessary'' for specified purposes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent the higher amounts are designed to make available up
to 2 percent of the designated sums for agency overhead, the Coalition
strongly opposes those amounts. A flat 2 percent would authorize IHS to
spend over $20 million on overhead costs to pay tribal contractors, 10
to 20 times what the agency currently spends on this activity out of
its discretionary appropriation. No explanation has been offered for
such excessive sums, and IHS has readily acknowledged that far lesser
sums would be sufficient.
The Coalition appreciates that the agencies would each benefit from
additional resources to administer their obligations under the law to
pay full contract support costs. But before increasing existing sums,
the subcommittee should direct the BIA and IHS to perform an assessment
to determine their exact staffing needs and associated funding
requirements. Whatever sum is necessary for agency overhead, those
costs should be left within each agency's discretionary appropriation,
where the appropriations committees can continue to monitor and respond
on an annual basis to agency and tribal concerns. No reason has been
offered by anyone for transferring such sums to a mandatory
appropriation.
On an issue closely related to agency overhead, the Coalition
respectfully requests that the subcommittee caution the agencies
against developing any new initiatives that would leave contract
support cost accounts open for 5 years. IHS is already moving in this
direction, which would be both unprecedented and directly at odds with
standard grant practices, including IHS's own grant programs. Contracts
should be closed out within 60 days of the close of the fiscal year,
and both agencies should be directed to develop initiatives which make
contract implementation and close-out more efficient and speedier, not
more complex. Multi-year arrangements for fixed rates, or fixed lump-
sum amounts subject to inflationary adjustments, should be strongly
encouraged as an efficient alternative to lengthy annual recalculations
and reconciliations.
Finally, the Coalition respectfully urges the subcommittee to amend
the Appropriations Act's language to require that contract support
costs be added to program funds covering the domestic violence
prevention initiative (DVPI) and methamphetamine and suicide prevention
initiative (MSPI). A recent Federal court confirmed that such funds are
subject to the Indian Self-Determination Act, consistent with IHS's
position since 2010. But this past year, just when full CSC funding
finally became a reality, IHS unilaterally--and without any
consultation whatsoever--changed position, announcing that hereinafter
tribes must divert their domestic violence and methamphetamine and
suicide prevention program dollars to cover all overhead costs. On
average, this will reduce the program funding amounts nationwide by 25
percent. Congress should not tolerate this irrational change to these
programs.
It is a privilege to appear before this subcommittee once again. On
behalf of the over 250 federally recognized tribes represented by the
National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition, I thank the
subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2016
budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
Madame Chairman, Senator Udall, and members of the subcommittee, I
appreciate this opportunity to present the National Trust for Historic
Preservation's recommendations for fiscal year 2016 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.
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, Madame Chairman, as you address the ongoing needs for investments
to sustain our Nation's rich heritage of cultural and historic
resources.
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, project review
required by the National Historic Preservation Act and for the Federal
Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC). The HTC is the largest
Federal investment in historic preservation. It has leveraged nearly
$117.6 billion in private investment, created 2.4 million jobs and
adapted more than 40,300 buildings for new and productive uses.
The National Trust applauds the administration's request of $89.9
million for the HPF. Most of the $33.5 million increase is associated
with the Civil Rights Initiative, including a new $30 million
competitive grants program to document, interpret, and preserve the
stories and sites associated with the Civil Rights Movement and the
African-American experience, and $2.5 million in grants for
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The request would
continue for a third year the $500,000 competitive grants program 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.
The request also includes a much needed increase of $1 million over
fiscal year 2015 enacted for THPOs. This modest increase in funding
would address an increase in participation among THPOs from 154 tribes
in fiscal year 2015 to potentially 160 tribes in fiscal year 2016. We
were disappointed that the administration did not request any funding
increase to the SHPOs. We urge the subcommittee to provide the much
needed increases for SHPOs and THPOs to provide their essential
preservation services.
National Park Service: Civil Rights Initiative.--The National Trust
strongly supports President Obama's $50 million Civil Rights Initiative
in this 50th anniversary year of the Voting Rights Act. In addition to
the new competitive grant programs funded through the HPF, the request
includes $17.5 million in funding for sites within the National Park
System, including the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail, the
Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site and the Martin
Luther King Jr. National Historic Site.
National Park Service: Operation of the National Park System and
Cultural Resources Stewardship.--The National Park Service (NPS) is
responsible for 407 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 20 years, more than 40 new parks have been added to the park
system, many of which preserve historic places and themes that have
been underrepresented within the system.
We support the President's budget proposal of $239 million above
the fiscal year 2015 enacted level for National Park Service
Operations. The increase includes several Centennial Initiative
requests of great importance to the preservation community, including
increases of $66.7 million for repair and rehabilitation projects, $64
million for cyclic maintenance, $13.5 million for new responsibilities
and critical needs, $5.5 million for the documentation and preservation
of Civil Rights history in the National Park System and $3 million for
the Cultural Resource Challenge.
Repair and Rehabilitation.--The Repair and Rehabilitation Program
is a part of the overall service wide deferred maintenance strategy
that directs funds to high priority mission critical and mission
dependent assets with deferred maintenance projects less than $1
million. Approximately $4.5 billion of the overall deferred maintenance
backlog is for the 27,000 properties listed on the National Register of
Historic Places within National Park units.
Cyclic Maintenance.--Investing in cyclic maintenance required to
maintain historic structures is essential to abate the continued growth
of the deferred maintenance backlog. The kind of projects addressed by
cyclic maintenance funding includes roofing of buildings, re-pointing
masonry walls, painting, sealing and stabilizing archaeological sites.
Leasing Historic Structures in National Parks.--In recent years,
the subcommittee has repeatedly included report language encouraging
the NPS to utilize leases as a means to mitigate the maintenance
backlog of historic structures. The Service is slow to implement the
policy changes necessary to facilitate more leasing and catalyze even
broader use of this important authority. We recommend that the
subcommittee request the NPS to create a pilot project to catalyze such
leases and report on any statutory or regulatory barriers that inhibit
the expansion of this public-private approach to bring private
investment into the parks.
Visitor Services: New Responsibilities and Critical Needs.--We
support the requested $13.5 million increase to support the operations
of newly established units of the National Park System including the
recently established Pullman National Monument in Illinois and
Honouliuli National Monument in Hawaii. The requested increase would
also support the critical operating needs of parks with Civil Rights
stories, including the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail and
the Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site.
Visitor Services: Increase Volunteer Capacity and Engaging the Next
Generation.--We support the administration's $2 million request to
increase increased volunteer capacity through partner organizations. In
conjunction with funding enacted in the fiscal year 2015, this would
fund increased partnership opportunities with conservation corps to
support an additional 70 volunteer coordinator positions, for a total
of 140 positions.
As part of our commitment to advancing the goals of the 21st
Century Conservation Service Corps, and assist the NPS reduce the
maintenance backlog of historic properties, the National Trust launched
the HOPE (Hands-On Preservation Experience) Crew initiative in 2014 to
train young adults in preservation skills while helping protect and
restore historic sites. Youth and veterans are trained in the
preservation skills necessary to perform preservation work in the parks
and other Federal lands through a cooperative agreement between the
NPS, other Federal land management agencies, and several NGOs including
the Student Conservation Association and The Corps Network. In the
first year, nearly 100 Corpsmembers spent 20,000 hours completing 15
projects, including rehabilitation of properties at Shenandoah National
Park, LBJ National Historical Park, FDR National Historical Site and
Little Big Horn Battlefield National Monument. Projects like this can
reduce the maintenance backlog while also providing job skills and
education for the next generation of stewards of America's most
important historic sites.
National Park Service: Construction.--We support the requested
increase of $91 million over fiscal year 2015 enacted for Line Item
Construction. This account addresses the deferred maintenance for the
NPS' highest priority non-transportation assets with projects larger
than $1 million. 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. Of the 6,735 highest
priority non-transportation assets approximately 4,000 have deferred
maintenance needs. Examples of these needs include critical health and
safety issues in the lobby of the Many Glacier Hotel in Glacier
National Park; the rehabilitation of historic cottages, and reroofing
Ebenezer Church and seven historic houses at Martin Luther King, Jr.
National Historic Site; and the rehabilitation of the Lincoln Memorial
to provide accessible spaces, restrooms and pathways.
National Park Service: National Heritage Areas.--We recommend
funding for National Heritage Areas (NHAs) at the fiscal year 2015
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 most likely
have the exact opposite effect by rendering many NHAs not self-
sufficient, but rather unable to function. National Park Service
Director Jon Jarvis has described National Heritage Areas as ``places
where small investments pay huge dividends.'' We agree.
National Park Service: Centennial Challenge.--We support the $10
million Centennial Challenge to provide dedicated Federal funding to
match donations for signature National Park Service projects and
programs. This funding will allow the NPS to leverage private
contributions to enhance visitor services and improve cultural and
natural resources across the parks in the Service.
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 as well as the museum collections and data associated with them,
including 10 million artifacts and specimens, 366,232 documented
cultural sites, 3,965 monitored archaeological sites, 431 maintained
historic structures and 108 properties listed on the National Register
of Historic Places. This program funds National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) section 106 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. Since fiscal year 2003 this program has lost
19 FTEs while the demand for section 106 compliance has remained even
or increased. The loss of personnel has diminished the BLM's ability to
review land proposals like transmission lines, energy development and
recreation permits.
We support the administration's fiscal year 2016 request of $17.2
million, a modest increase of $2.075 million above fiscal year 2015
enacted. The increased support is necessary to fulfill BLM's statutory
requirements for section 106 reviews of land use proposals, and NHPA's
section 110 requirements for inventory and protection cultural
resources. The increase would support 60 on-the-ground surveys of
sensitive areas, site protection and stabilization projects for
priority sites vulnerable to unauthorized activities and damage due to
fire, erosion and changing water levels. Projects will also update
predictive modeling and data analysis to enhance the BLM's ability to
address large-scale, cross jurisdictional land-use projects.
Bureau of Land Management: National Landscape Conservation
System.--The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) National Landscape
Conservation System (National Conservation Lands) includes 30 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 2016 request of $81.079
million, a $11.181 million increase over fiscal year 2015 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.
Land and Water Conservation Fund.--The National Trust supports
robust funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Many of the
Nation's most significant historic and cultural landscapes have been
permanently protected through LWCF investments, including 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 2016 request include Cedar
Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park (Virginia), Pecos
National Historical Park (New Mexico), Gettysburg National Military
Park (Pennsylvania) and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National
Historic Trail (District of Columbia/Delaware/Maryland/Virginia). We
strongly support the administration's request for the American
Battlefield Protection Program Grants.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the National Trust's
recommendations for the fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Refuge Association
Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee:
On behalf of the National Wildlife Refuge Association and its
membership of current and former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) 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
2015. We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal
year 2016 Interior Appropriations bill and respectfully request:
--$508.2 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
$173.8 million allocated for the FWS, including $10 million for
Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area (Florida); $3
million for Silvio O. Conte NFWR (Connecticut, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts); $3 million for Cache River NWR
(Arizona); $3 million for Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area
(Kansas); $2 million for Bear River Watershed Conservation Area
(Wyoming, Idaho, Utah); $3.4 million for Blackwater NWR
(Maryland); and $1 million for the Clarks River NWR (Kentucky);
--$60 million for the Refuge Fund;
--$75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
--$14 million for the FWS Coastal Program;
--$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
(under DOI);
--$70 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
--$50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
--$5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund; and
--$11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund.
We understand our Nation's challenging fiscal constraints but
cutting funding to programs that are economic drivers and job creators
in local communities only exacerbates an 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. Unfortunately, just when
these public lands and programs could return economic output to
communities and help them through the recession, funding fell
dramatically. 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. The Refuge System is
approximately $72 million below what would be needed to keep pace with
inflation relative to the fiscal year 2010 level ($545.8 million
inflation-adjusted).
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 and 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 and over
400 million acres of national marine monuments, yet it is currently
funded at roughly half that amount--at less than $1 per acre. The
Refuge System cannot fulfill its obligation to the American public, our
wildlife, and 47 million annual visitors without increases in
maintenance and operation funds.
Funding for the Refuge System has declined substantially from a
funding level of $503 million in fiscal year 2010 to its current $474.2
million--$72 million below what it needs to keep pace with inflation.
This has forced the Service to cut back on programs and create
efficiencies whenever possible. Because of these hard decisions, the
Service has cut their maintenance backlog in half from $2.7 billion to
$1.3 billion in less than 5 years. But budget cuts also led to the loss
of 430 positions since fiscal year 2011 and thus an increase in the
operations backlog, now at $735 million. Because most refuge lands and
waters are highly managed, this deterioration in staffing has had a
dramatic impact resulting in significant declines in habitat
preservation and management, hunting, fishing, volunteerism and
scientific research.
For instance, visitor services staff has declined by 15 percent,
forcing a reduction in public programs and hours of operation. Hunting
visits are down by 5 percent since fiscal year 2011 and fishing visits
are down 7 percent. Overall, there are fewer opportunities for the
public to recreate, yet the desire for such programs is still high and
visitation to all refuges since fiscal year 2011 has actually increased
by 2.6 percent.
Reductions in visitor services can be extremely troubling to
constituencies who want to visit. Take the Midway Atoll NWR in the
Hawaiian Islands. In November of 2013, due to sequestration cuts, the
Service suspended the visitors services program at Midway. Although in
the 5 years prior to this suspension, the refuge saw only about 300
annual visitors, those visitors were passionate about their reasons for
visiting. Some wanted to view more than 3.5 million birds and some
wanted to visit the Battle of Midway National Memorial. Whatever their
reason, they wanted to have one of the most unique refuge experiences
in the entire System. Congress has asked for a GAO investigation on why
the Service suspended its program; yet it's clear that when you cut the
budget and loose several positions including a permanent Wildlife
Biologist, Park Ranger, and Law Enforcement Officer, there will be
ramifications.
Equally troubling is a 15 percent drop in the number of volunteers
since fiscal year 2011. At a time when record numbers of Americans are
retiring and have the capability to give back, the Service's ability to
oversee their efforts has been curtailed. Volunteers provide an
additional 20 percent of work on our national wildlife refuges, yet
they are being turned away when the System needs them the most.
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 2013,
shows that even during the worst recession since the Great Depression,
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.
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. Some in Congress have argued that public lands
like the Refuge System can't manage what they have and thus, all land
acquisition should end. However, in the past 20 years, lands contained
within the Refuge System have only grown by 5.6 percent, while at the
same time, visitation has grown by 30 percent. The real cause of rising
operations and maintenance costs is that the public is hungry for more
opportunities to recreate.
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. 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 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 that require specific habitat conditions, such as beaches for sea
turtles 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 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 $173.8 million provided in fiscal year 2016 to
the FWS for conservation easements and refuge in-holdings, including
the following projects and those advocated by refuge Friends:
--Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area (Florida)--$10
million;
--Cache River NWR (Arizona)--$3 million;
--Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut)--$3 million;
--Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas)--$3 million;
--Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah)--$2
million;
--Blackwater NWR (Maryland)--$3.4 million; and
--Clarks River NWR (Kentucky)--$1 million.
Commitment to Refuge Communities--Refuge Fund
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
Fund 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 $60 million for the Refuge
Fund and thanks Chairman Calvert for his leadership in fiscal year 2015
to pursue a much-needed increase. NWRA also calls for a review of the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 as amended, and consideration of
conversion to a Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program to be
consistent with other Federal land management agencies and to provide
refuge communities with more equitable payments.
Partnerships
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 2016.
Such a funding level would result in an additional $400 million worth
of conservation across the Nation.
The Partners Program provides a bridge between private and public
conservation efforts that has been instrumental in the success of large
landscape partnerships from Montana to Florida, and is playing a key
role in conserving greater sage-grouse habitat in the intermountain
west. To this end, we request an additional $78 million for the
Interior agencies to implement sagebrush steppe habitat conservation
and monitoring efforts that will leverage $300 million in Department of
Agriculture investments across the west.
Sharing Lessons and Protecting Global Species
Wildlife species know no international boundaries, therefore
conservation must happen globally to ensure populations survive. Many
international wildlife agencies look to the Refuge System as the world
leader in wildlife and fish conservation. The Service's Wildlife
Without Borders Program and Multinational Species Conservation Funds
together support global partnerships to protect marine turtles, tigers
and rhinos, great apes and elephants and other iconic species. These
programs are particularly important as wildlife face a poaching crisis
that is leading species such as rhinos to the brink of extinction. The
Refuge Association and student-led Tigers 4 Tigers Coalition request
$11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund in fiscal
year 2016.
We believe that with sound conservation policy, adequate funding,
and the power of more than 40,000 dedicated volunteers, the Refuge
System can fulfill its mission to provide wildlife dependent recreation
for Americans and protect the habitat for more than 700 species of
birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species and
more than 1,000 species of fish.
We look forward to working with Congress in 2015 to accomplish this
goal.
[This statement was submitted by Desiree Sorenson-Groves, Vice
President, Government Affairs.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Natural Science Collections Alliance
The Natural Science Collections Alliance appreciates the
opportunity to provide testimony in support of fiscal year 2016
appropriations for the Department of the Interior (DOI). We encourage
Congress to provide the DOI Working Capital Fund with at least $74.5
million in fiscal year 2016. We also encourage Congress to provide
adequate funding for the scientific collections maintained by the
United States Geological Survey, National Park Service, Bureau of Land
Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service. These collections are used
to inform resource management and support law enforcement efforts.
The Natural Science Collections Alliance is a non-profit
association that supports natural science collections, their human
resources, the institutions that house them, and their research
activities for the benefit of science and society. Our membership
consists of institutions which are part of an international community
of museums, botanical gardens, herbaria, universities, and other
institutions that contain natural science collections and use them in
research, exhibitions, academic and informal science education, and
outreach activities.
Scientific collections are a vital component of our Nation's
research infrastructure. Whether held at a museum, government managed
laboratory or archive, or in a university science department, these
scientific resources contain genetic, tissue, organismal, and
environmental samples that constitute a unique and irreplaceable
library of the Earth's history. The specimens and their associated data
drive cutting edge research on significant challenges facing modern
society, such as improving human health, enhancing food security, and
understanding and responding to environmental change. Collections also
inspire novel interdisciplinary research that drives innovation and
addresses some of the most fundamental questions related to
biodiversity.
The institutions that care for scientific collections are important
research centers that enable scientists to study the basic data of
life, conduct modern biological, geological, and environmental
research, and provide undergraduate and graduate students with hands-on
training opportunities.
According to the Federal Interagency Working Group on Scientific
Collections, ``scientific collections are essential to supporting
agency missions and are thus vital to supporting the global research
enterprise.'' In recognition of the importance of collections, the
Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a memo in 2010 that
directed Federal agencies to budget for the proper care of collections.
``Agencies should ensure that their collections' necessary costs are
properly assessed and realistically projected in agency budgets, so
that collections are not compromised.''
Preservation of specimens is not only in the best interest of
science, it is also in the best interest of taxpayers. Proper care of
existing scientific collections is typically more cost effective than
recollecting the information. Moreover, preservation of specimens and
associated data allows for integration into new research. Specimens
that were collected decades or centuries ago are often used in cutting
edge research in the fields of genetics, biodiversity, and human
health.
We are pleased to see that DOI has included an increase of $1.0
million in its budget request for the Cultural and Scientific
Collections Management initiative. Interior is an important caretaker
of museum collections; the Department has an estimated 146 million
items, which is second in size to the Smithsonian Institution. Although
many of the department's collections are located in bureau facilities,
artifacts and specimens are also housed by non-governmental facilities,
such as museums and universities.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) plans to maintain its
efforts to preserve, inventory, and digitize geological scientific
collections, such as rock and ice cores, fossils, and samples of oil,
gas, and water. The National Geological and Geophysical Data
Preservation program helps States with collections management, improves
accessibility of collections data, and expands digitization of
specimens. We are grateful to Congress for awarding additional funds
for this program in fiscal year 2014. USGS plans to maintain the
expanded program in fiscal year 2016.
Another USGS program is supporting public access to biodiversity
information. The Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation system is
the only Web-based Federal resource for finding species in the United
States and contains 168 million records. It also serves as the U.S.
connection to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility.
The National Park Service is planning to continue its investments
in scientific collections. The proposed budget would support plans to
catalog an additional two million museum objects in fiscal year 2016.
Additionally, several parks will address planning, environmental,
storage, security, and fire protection deficiencies in museum
collections.
conclusion
Scientific collections are an important part of our Nation's
research enterprise. Research specimens connect us to the past, are
used to solve current societal problems, and are helping to predict
future environmental changes. Sustained investments in scientific
collections are critical for our Nation's continued scientific
leadership. Please support the budget request for the Department of the
Interior's Capital Working Fund, which will support Interior's efforts
to preserve scientific collections--a truly irreplaceable resource.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.
[This statement was submitted by Larry Page, Ph.D., President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the The Nature Conservancy
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit recommendations
for fiscal year 2016 appropriations. The Nature Conservancy 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 2016 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 2015 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 in most cases with fiscal year 2015 funding
levels or, in rare instances, 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, the Payment in
Lieu of Taxes Program and Secure Rural Schools. The Conservancy is
concerned about the increasing impacts of wildfire suppression funding
on Interior funding levels and urges the subcommittee to adopt the
bipartisan and widely supported Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (H.R.
167; S. 235). 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. We also strongly
support the emphasis on funding for sage-grouse conservation in the
fiscal year 2016 budget request.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--The fiscal year 2016
President's budget again 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 $400 million for LWCF
activities through ``current authority'' or discretionary
appropriations and then an additional $500 million in ``permanent
authority'' or mandatory funding for LWCF. The budget then proposes to
reach the $900 million funding level in fiscal year 2016 through this
blend of current and permanent funding. The Conservancy supports this
phased shift to mandatory funding for the LWCF Program. However,
consistent with prior years 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 balanced approach in the budget on both
``core'' and ``collaborative'' LWCF projects. Projects in the Upper Rio
Grande landscape in Colorado and New Mexico, Rivers of the Chesapeake
in Maryland and Virginia, and the Island Forests at Risk landscapes of
Hawaii will benefit greatly from the collaborative emphasis. Our core
priorities this year include the Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire/
Vermont/Connecticut/Massachusetts) and the working ranches and
agricultural production areas of Florida's Everglades Headwaters NWR &
Conservation Area, North Dakota and South Dakota's Dakota Grasslands
Conservation Area, Utah, Idaho and Wyoming's Bear River Watershed
Conservation Area and Kansas' Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area.
Forest Legacy.--We support a minimum of $61 million for the Forest
Legacy Program in current discretionary funding and the $39 million in
permanent funding (with our aforementioned caveats).
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 for
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 $1.46 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 continues to support the
Western Governors' Association's (WGA) and this subcommittee's efforts
to recommend Federal land management agencies 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.
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.--The Conservancy supports the
fiscal year 2016 funding level--$70 million--for this program. Strong
Federal investments are essential to ensure strategic actions are
undertaken by State, tribal and Federal agencies and the conservation
community to conserve wildlife populations and their habitats.
Wildlife Conservation Programs.--The variety of wildlife
conservation programs conducted by FWS continue a long and successful
tradition of supporting collaborative conservation in the U.S. 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 2016 request for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and
the requested funding for Cooperative Landscape Conservation and
Adaptive Science ($17.87 million). The latter will help support DOI's
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.
Resilience.--The Conservancy wishes to highlight three components
of the President's budget focused on resilience: $50 million for a DOI
competitive grant program modeled after the Hurricane Sandy Competitive
Grant Program to expand the footprint of healthy ecosystems that
deliver valuable ecosystem services, including flood attenuation and
storm risk reduction, to nearby communities; $89 million for DOI's
WaterSMART program, which promotes water conservation initiatives and
technological breakthroughs; and $20 million to continue expanding and
improving the recently-released online Climate Resilience Toolkit,
which provides scientific tools and information to help tribes,
communities, citizens, businesses, planners, and others understand and
manage their climate-related risks and opportunities, and improve their
resilience to extreme weather events. The Conservancy supports these
requests.
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 fiscal
year 2016 levels for these programs remain equivalent to fiscal year
2015 levels at a minimum.
National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Conservancy supports the
President's budget request of $508.2 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 Wildfire Disaster Funding
Act (WDFA) must be approved prior to an fiscal year 2016 appropriations
package to adequately fund suppression and provide flexibility for
activities that reduce fire risk and long-term suppression costs in
fiscal year 2016. The Conservancy greatly appreciates the
subcommittee's support of this much-needed fire funding fix.
Hazardous Fuels and Restoration.--The Conservancy also 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 through 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 WUI
and wildland settings. The Conservancy appreciates the subcommittee's
support of the Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) pilot with the
expectation of increased restoration. The Conservancy recommends
continuing the IRR pilot for another year. We recommend $86 million for
the State Fire Assistance program. 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.
Roads and Trails.--The National Forests have a legacy of unneeded
roads that erode into streams and fragment wildlife habitat. Road
maintenance and decommissioning is an essential restoration action that
improves the health of lands and waters, while providing jobs. The
Conservancy recommends the Legacy Roads and Trails program be funded at
$45 million. Additionally, the Conservancy recommends report language
that directs the agency to prioritize road and trail (construction,
reconstruction, maintenance, and decommissioning) projects that would
improve stream crossings for aquatic organisms and other important
multiple benefits, such as flood mitigation.
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. 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 and Rangeland Research, the Conservancy
requests the fiscal year 2012 level of $304 million, separate from a
request of $83 million for Forest Inventory and Analysis.
Sage-Grouse Conservation.--This budget includes a much-needed
infusion of funding toward the ongoing efforts to restore and conserve
sagebrush habitat and the greater sage-grouse through the inclusion of
$78 million for Interior agencies ($68.3 million--BLM, $5 million--FWS,
$4.8 million--USGS) to implement BLM plans and to support the
partnership and science necessary for effective conservation. The
budget also contains $62.6 million for LWCF sage-steppe related
conservation projects and $30 million in funding for the a new
Resilient Landscapes program within the Office of Wildland Fire that
the Department anticipates will support resilience work in the
sagebrush ecosystem. This funding, combined with support for agency
core budgets and partnership programs such as the State and Tribal
Wildlife Grant Program and section 6 Cooperative Endangered Species
Grant Program, resembles a ramped up effort by this administration to
work in a more coordinated fashion with States and non-Federal partners
toward on-the-ground conservation.
BLM Landscape Approaches to Land Management and Renewable Energy
Development.--The Conservancy supports the administration's recommended
fiscal year 2016 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--($11.2 million); Resource
Management Planning program ($59.34 million); Wildlife and Fisheries
management ($89.38 million request); and Threatened and Endangered
species management ($21.6 million request). Additionally, the
Conservancy supports continued funding for BLM's renewable energy
development program at $29.3 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 strong funding
for these programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit The Nature Conservancy's
recommendations for the fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
Prepared Statement of the New England Forest Policy Group
Madam 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 102 conservation, forestry,
and recreation interests listed at the end of my testimony.
We respectfully request an increase in overall funding for the Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to the Authorized level of $900
million, including $100 million for the Forest Legacy Program, $556.879
million for the Federal LWCF, $100.121 million for the State Grants
Program, and $25 million for the Urban Park and Recreation Fund in the
fiscal year 2016 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, $70 million for the State and
Tribal Wildlife Grants Program, $10 million for the Recreational Trails
Conservation Assistance Program, $31 million for Urban and Community
Forestry, $48 million for the Cooperative Forest Health Program, and
$29 million for the Forest Stewardship Program.
These levels are based upon the established needs of the New
England States and in consideration of the demands these Programs face
across the Nation. These conservation and forestry programs provide
great benefit to communities that depend upon our region's forests and
to the Nation as a whole. Anything less than the requested funding will
further impact these Programs' effectiveness, especially in light of
notable funding declines over the past decade. Inscrutably, America is
under-investing in its natural resources despite the clear economic,
ecologic, and cultural value to our health, well-being, and future.
The New England Forest Policy Group is an informal coalition of
forestry, recreation, and conservation organizations and businesses
united by 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 they provide other
services of incalculable value including clean 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. New England's
forests are 80 percent privately owned, mostly in relatively small
parcels, and landowners are facing profound challenges from rising land
prices, escalating development pressures, climate change, and
associated threats that will significantly diminish this irreplaceable
landscape without the support of the programs we list here.
As the subcommittee crafts its Interior and 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. For 50 years, LWCF has protected our Nation's natural and
historic treasures and is a vital tool for conserving working forests,
wildlife habitat, and supporting State and local parks. It is paid for
by a portion of receipts from offshore oil and gas drilling; it is not
funded from taxpayer dollars. All six New England States will receive
funding for critically important LWCF and Forest Legacy projects if the
requested level of $900 million is provided in fiscal year 2016. But
more than half of New England's fiscal year 2016 Forest Legacy projects
are not likely to succeed unless full funding is appropriated.
2. New England Needs for Federal Land Acquisition under LWCF.--In
fiscal year 2016, New England's proposed Federal LWCF projects are
found in the ``Discretionary'' sections of the administration's
proposed budget; however if the full $400 million ``Discretionary''
funding level is not funded, it is likely several of these important
projects will not be completed.
a. National Park Service LWCF Acquisitions--New England
National Scenic Trail in Massachusetts at $875,000, part of the
Collaborative Landscape Proposal for the National Trails
landscape (#17, Discretionary).--The proposed fiscal year 2016
LWCF funds are necessary for conserving and expanding the New
England National Scenic Trail. New England's outdoor recreation
economy is worth approximately $43 billion each year and
supports more than 330,000 jobs, according to the Outdoor
Industry Association.
b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LWCF Acquisitions--The
Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge at $2 million
(#11, Discretionary).--Securing protection of these
ecologically rich watersheds and habitat corridors is a top
regional priority. The Conte Refuge encompasses the spectacular
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 $2.476 million (#17, Discretionary).--Acadia National
Park contributed $221.8 million to Maine's economy in 2014 and
supported more than 3,485 jobs. This project will secure an
inholding that provides high priority access and protection to
the paddling gem, Round Pond.
3. LWCF State Grants Program--$100.21 million (Programmatic,
Discretionary and Mandatory).--The LWCF State assistance program
provides matching grants to help States and local communities protect
parks and recreation resources. This is the primary Federal investment
tool to ensure that families have easy access to parks and open space,
hiking and riding trails, and neighborhood recreation facilities.
4. US Forest Service Programs of Special Importance to New
England--USFS Forest Legacy and USFS Community Forest Programs.--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 Program (FLP) needs full $100 million
Appropriation to meet New England's needs.--The FLP has
protected more than one million acres of forestland in New
England since its establishment in the 1990 Farm Bill.
Originally created to help address needs in New England and New
York, this program has expanded to 53 States and Territories
while funding levels remain static. New England has an
outstanding group of FLP projects in the proposed fiscal year
2016 budget, including 2 of the top 15 projects nationally. FLP
must receive the full $100 million requested to ensure that all
of New England's projects are funded. New England's full fiscal
year 2016 interests include:
-- $3.8 million for Big Six Forest in Maine (#6, Discretionary);
$1.43 million for Whip-Poor-Will Woods in Connecticut (#12,
Discretionary).
-- $4 million for the Worcester Woods in Vermont (#20,
Mandatory); $1.35 million for Groton Forest Legacy
Initiative projects in Vermont (#28, Mandatory), $510,000
for Oliverian Valley in New Hampshire (#32, Mandatory), and
$820,000 for Arcadia Woodlands in Rhode Island (#41,
Mandatory).
b. USFS Community Forest Program needs a minimum of $5
million.--The Community Forest Program (CFP) 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. In the
fiscal year 2014 round of CFP grants, project partners
leveraged $2.3 million in Federal funds to secure $4.9 million
in non-Federal funding. In our region, CFP grants have been
awarded for economically important community forest projects in
Barre and Dorset, Vermont; and in Easton, New Hampshire.
Funding the Community Forest Program at the $5 million level
will much better match demand than the administration's
proposed level. This program is critical to New England's
community character and economic vitality.
5. North American Wetland Conservation Act (NAWCA) at $34.145
million.--The Nation's premier conservation program for wetland habitat
protection and restoration is critical to New England. Our remarkable
marshes and coastal and estuarine habitats support commercial and sport
fisheries and myriad wildlife species. These lands are also important
for protecting coastal communities--a high regional priority given
recent devastating events like Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy.
6. State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (SWG) at $70 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 and provides core funding for research,
habitat restoration, and monitoring under the State Wildlife Action
Plans. $70 million will reinvigorate the program and benefit landowners
by keeping species off the Endangered Species list.
7. Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) at $10
million.--RTCA partners with communities 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 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. This program is of high value to the
populous New England States.
8. 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
private forestlands as endorsed by the National Association of State
Foresters. The programs provide educational services to landowners and
communities, and help ensure that our forested landscape remains
healthy, resilient, and economically viable. Levels lower than those
recommended will result in curtailing of vital services that help New
England's family forest landowners sustainably manage their land.
9. Urban Park and Recreation Fund (UPARR) at $25 million.--The
President's budget proposes that UPARR, which provides matching grants
and technical assistance to urban communities, be included within the
LWCF umbrella and the proposal for full funding. It helps provide
Federal assistance for rehabilitation of critically needed recreation
facilities and for recreation planning in many New England communities.
10. Wildfire Disaster Funding at $2.118 billion.--This funds
wildfire suppression to protect the Nation's forest resources from
wildfires. Our request reflects the modeled levels of suppression
through the Interior bill and the wildfire budget cap adjustment to
meet suppression needs in fiscal year 2016. Current spending levels for
the suppression and FLAME accounts will not be sufficient for fiscal
year 2016 and fighting fires will end up coming at the expense of other
already constrained programs. We appreciate the subcommittee's support
of the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (WDFA--H.R. 167; S.
235) and respectfully request that the language be highlighted in the
bill.
In closing, we thank the subcommittee for your continuing
leadership on Federal land conservation and forest viability matters
and for the opportunity to provide this testimony. Signatory
organizations represented by this testimony:
Androscoggin Land Trust (Maine)
Appalachian Mountain Club
Appalachian Trail Conservancy
Aspetuck Land Trust (Connecticut)
Audubon Connecticut
Audubon Society of New Hampshire
Audubon Society of Rhode Island
Audubon Vermont
Bear-Paw Regional Greenways (New Hampshire)
Boxford Trails Association/Boxford Open Land Trust (Massachusetts)
Cold Hollow to Canada (Vermont)
The Compact of Cape Cod Conservation Trusts (Massachusetts)
Connecticut Forest and Park Association
Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Save the Sound
Connecticut Land Conservation Council
Connecticut River Watershed Council (New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Connecticut)
Conservation Collaboratives, LLC
Conservation Law Foundation
Cornwall Conservation Trust (Connecticut)
East Haddam Land Trust (Connecticut)
East Quabbin Land Trust (Massachusetts)
Environmental League of Massachusetts
Essex County Greenbelt Association (Massachusetts)
Fairfield County Regional Conservation Partnership (Connecticut)
Forest*Care (Vermont)
Forest Society of Maine
Franklin Land Trust (Massachusetts)
Friends of Acadia National Park (Maine)
Friends of Minuteman National Park (Massachusetts)
Friends of the Moshassuck (Rhode Island)
Friends of Pondicherry (New Hampshire)
Friends of the Rachel Carson NWR (Maine)
Friends of the Silvio O. Conte NWR (New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Connecticut)
Greater Lovell Land Trust (Maine)
Green Mountain Club (Vermont)
Harris Center for Environmental Studies (New Hampshire)
High Peaks Alliance (Maine)
Highstead Foundation
Housatonic Valley Association (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York)
Ipswich River Watershed Association
Kennebec Estuary Land Trust (Maine)
Kestrel Land Trust (Massachusetts)
Land Conservancy of Ridgefield (Connecticut)
Litchfield Hills Greenprint Collaborative (Connecticut)
Littleton Conservation Trust (Massachusetts)
Loon Echo Land Trust (Maine)
Lyme Timber Company
Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust
Maine Coast Heritage Trust
Maine Wilderness Guides Organization
Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions
Mass Audubon
Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition
Massachusetts Rivers Alliance
MassConn Sustainable Forest Partnership (Massachusetts, Connecticut)
Massachusetts Woodlands Institute
Middlesex Land Trust (Connecticut)
Mill River Greenway Initiative (Massachusetts)
Monadnock Conservancy (New Hampshire)
Mount Grace Land Conservation Trust (Massachusetts)
Mt. Agamenticus to the Sea Conservation Initiative (Maine)
National Audubon Society
The Nature Conservancy
Natural Resources Council of Maine
New England Farmers Union
New England Forestry Foundation
New England Wild Flower Society
New Hampshire Recreation and Parks Association
Newtown Forest Association (Connecticut)
North Woods Resource Group, Inc.
Northeast Wilderness Trust
Northern Forest Canoe Trail
Northern Forest Center
Northland Forest Products, Inc.
Opacum Land Trust (Massachusetts)
Open Space Institute
Quabbin to Cardigan Partnership (New Hampshire, Massachusetts)
Randolph Community Forest (New Hampshire)
Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust (Maine)
Redding Conservation Commission (Connecticut)
Rensselaer Plateau Alliance (New York)
Rhode Island Forest Conservators Organization
Rhode Island Woodland Partnership
Ridgefield, Connecticut Conservation Commission
Salisbury Association Land Trust (Connecticut)
Sandy River Land Trust (Maine)
Sharon Land Trust (Connecticut)
Shelburne Trails Club (New Hampshire)
Sierra Club, Massachusetts Chapter
Sierra Club, Vermont Chapter
Society of American Foresters, Green Mountain Division
Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests
Southeastern Massachusetts Pine Barrens Association
The Conservation Fund
The Trust for Public Land
The Wilderness Society
Upper Valley Land Trust (New Hampshire, Vermont)
Vermont Land Trust
Vermont Natural Resources Council
Vermont River Conservancy
Vermont Woodlands Association
Wildlands Trust (Massachusetts)
______
Prepared Statement of the New York State Assembly
Dear Senator Murkowski:
The Great Lakes are a vast natural resource, larger in area than
the U.S. States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
Massachusetts. Vermont, and New Hampshire combined. This international
resource represents a massive economic engine generating nearly $35
billion/year and is responsible for 75,000 jobs in fishing, tourism and
related industries. Several independent sources estimate $7.0 billion/
year is directly attributable to Great Lakes fisheries alone. The
highest quality science possible is required to inform wise management
decisions concerning conservation, water management, and fisheries
resources throughout the Great Lakes Basin.
Much of Lake Erie's coast is located in the 149th assembly
district, the district I represent in the New York State Assembly. My
district strongly supports the U.S. Geological Survey's Great Lakes
Science Center (USGS GLSC) fisheries science because the products they
develop are foundational to management decisionmaking on Great Lakes
fisheries. The USGS GLSC conducts impartial, high-quality science
essential to Federal, State, tribal, and provincial management programs
throughout all five of the Great Lakes and in all eight Great Lakes
States. Great Lakes management jurisdictions depend on the USGS GLSC
Deepwater and Invasive Species Programs to provide data critical to
understanding the long-term condition of the fish communities, and to
development of tools and technologies needed to combat invasive species
like the sea lamprey that threaten the valuable sport and commercial
fisheries.
USGS GLSC scientific research capabilities have been hit hard by
back-to-back years of budget erosion, and worsened by a 6 percent cut
from sequestration in 2013. Their budget in 2014 was at the same level
it was 5 years ago in 2009. The ongoing budget impacts have led to an
accumulation of more than 15 unfilled scientific/technical positions
distributed throughout the Great Lakes Region. For several years now,
USGS GLSC has been improvising to address the unfilled positions, but
their capacity to deliver critical scientific information in a timely
manner is in jeopardy. This high quality, impartial scientific
information from USGS GLSC is absolutely essential for wise management
of the fisheries and to protect them from invasive species. Now. for
the first time since the President was elected, his 2016 budget
highlights two areas where the USGS GLSC programs would experience
relatively small budget increases. The President proposes: (1) a
$250,000 increase for the Great Lakes Deepwater Assessments: and (2) a
bureau-wide $2.0 million increase for Invasive Species which would
likely result in a portion of those funds being directed to USGS GLSC.
The language for the proposed funds for Great Lakes Fisheries
Assessments (pg. C-52) and for New and Emerging Invasive Species (pg.C-
26) can be found in the fiscal year 2016 USGS Budget Justification at:
http://www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2016/upload/
FY2016_USGS_Greenbook.pdf.
Representing the 149th district, I greatly appreciate the
subcommittees' ongoing support for programs that sustain and restore
the Great Lakes. Herein, I join the Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Council of Lake Committees in supporting $17.5 million in fiscal year
2016 appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey's Great Lakes
Science Center. Currently, the USGS GLSC receives approximately $8.5
million in appropriated funding to support science programs critical to
the management of these incredibly valuable resources. Compared to
economic returns generated from the Great Lakes, this funding level
only represents about 1.2 percent of the annual fisheries related
revenue and less than 0.03 percent of the revenue attributable to
closely related industries. Our request for $17.5 million in fiscal
2016 appropriations represents an $8.75 million increase above the
President's fiscal year 2016 request. The President's fiscal year 2016
request for $250,000, combined with our requested increase of $8.75
million, and the $8.5 million annual appropriation allocated to the
GLSC reaches the $17.5 million, and reflects long-standing, well
recognized needs for this chronically underfunded science program.
These needs were previously detailed in a March 2010 bi-partisan letter
authored by nine U.S. Senators and 21 U.S. House members wrote to their
congressional appropriation leadership to request a total science
budget of $15.0 million; and again 2 years later in April 2012, by the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies describing the importance of
the USGS programs to regional management decisions, and recommending an
appropriated science budget of $15.0 million. The current requested
increase to $17.5 million will address uncontrollable costs over the
past 5 years and boost investments in advanced technology. Investments
in technologies to assess the fishery have fallen well behind marine
programs. GLSC scientists need to have access to 21st Century
innovations like autonomous samplers that can provide critical resource
information with greater spatial and seasonal coverage, and less
overall cost than traditional hands-on measurements.
The importance of the USGS information and the risks posed by
budget cuts to their science has been well documented. The USGS
scientific workforce has been particularly hard hit with unfilled
permanent scientific/technical positions throughout the Great Lakes
Region. The USGS has been improvising for several years to address the
unfilled positions, but their capacity to deliver the critical and high
quality scientific information in a timely manner is now in jeopardy.
We urge you to embrace these requests in the President's budget;
and respectfully ask you to increase these additions by $8.75 million
for a total increase of $9.0 million for the USGS GLSC Deepwater
Assessments.
[This statement was submitted by Sean M. Ryan, Member of New York
State Assembly.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribe
The Nez Perce Tribe would like to provide the following testimony
to this subcommittee as it evaluates and prioritizes the appropriations
for the Indian Health Service (IHS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Forest Service and the Fish
and Wildlife Service in relation to the needs of tribal nations for
fiscal year 2016.
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 preserves 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 with a satellite facility 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 2014 was
$13,942,622. Our Purchased/Referred Care costs for outpatient services
for fiscal year 2014 was $4,125,475.
Although the Nez Perce Tribe supports the proposed $460.6 million
increase in funding over the fiscal year 2015 levels proposed by the
President, it is important to note that this increase still lags far
behind where funding should be to offset the growing needs of the
programs and medical inflation which is estimated to be another $297.2
million. Also, the tribe supports the recommendation of a $50 million
dollar increase in funding proposed for purchased and referred care,
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. The
National Congress of American Indians actually recommends an increase
of 198.2 million. Additionally, the tribe supports $718 million to be
allocated for Contract Support Costs.
Because full funding of these obligations is so important to Indian
Country, the tribe supports the administration's innovative proposal to
reclassify contract support costs for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
the Indian Health Service beginning in fiscal year 2017 but this
reclassification should be permanent and not just for 3-year periods.
Also, such a change in funding should not be accomplished or be off-set
by reducing other funding for these agencies that would adversely
affect services or programs. Nor should this funding be unnecessarily
reduced by excessive set-asides for administration. The tribe also
supports funding of the Special Diabetes Program at $150 million as
that funding is set to expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
bureau of indian affairs
The tribe supports the $277 million dollars for contract support
costs proposed in the President's budget and the reclassification of
these costs from discretionary to mandatory as well as the 12 percent
increase in overall funding 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 and created uncertainty over the status of lands. This
uncertainty will only stifle and impede economic development in Indian
Country. A legislative amendment to restore the sovereign status of
these lands is needed now.
In relation to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Public Safety and
Justice budget, the tribe advocates for at least the $364.4 million
dollars in funding proposed in the President's budget. The Nez Perce
Reservation covers 1,200 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 $1,497,626 per year to cover the shortfall in BIA funding for the
tribe's law enforcement, $408,821 for judicial services/probation,
$319,649 for prosecutorial services, $87,072 for public defender
services and $400,000 for prisoner boarding. This funding comes from
tribal taxes 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 $89.1 million for tribal colleges that would support institutions
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 recently 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 funded
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
implementation monies are critical to support the exercise of treaty
reserved off-reservation hunting and fishing for tribes like the Nez
Perce and it should be funded at $52 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 tribe also supports funding for the BIA Wildlife and Parks
Tribal Priority Allocations of $3.3 million dollars and $6.5 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 States of Oregon, Washington and Idaho directly
benefit from this work as well through 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 and 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 five 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 five grants under this program totaling
$1 million based on the quality of our research work. Funding for these
grants was reduced in previous fiscal years. The tribe strongly urges
this subcommittee 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.
Related to forest management, the tribe supports wildfire disaster
funding legislation that treats wildfires like other natural disasters
and emergencies to help prevent funds from having to be diverted from
forest management. The tribe also supports increasing BIA Forestry
funding (TPA and Forestry Projects) by $25 million to an fiscal year
2016 total of $76.9 million as a first step toward providing the $100
million the BIA needs as minimum annual funding to achieve parity with
other Federal forestry programs.
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
Tribe supports a budget of $75 million for these grants because of the
importance of these funds for tribal governance. 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 surveying fish consumption rates
which is an important tool in efforts to protect the health of tribal
members. Funding for this work is important. The tribe also relies
heavily on contract support dollars for our water resource programs
such as storage tank remediation and watershed restoration.
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. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the North American Association of Food Equipment
Manufacturers
The North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers
(NAFEM) is a trade association comprised of more than 525 foodservice
equipment and supplies manufacturers. The association's members
constantly seek opportunities to improve equipment, both in response to
market demands and as an innovative means of product improvement.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NAFEM members helped develop and actively participate in ENERGY
STAR in recognition of the role of voluntary, market-driven incentives
for improving the efficiency of commercial foodservice equipment and
supplies. NAFEM and its members support measures to limit the impact of
ozone depleting substances and efforts to increase the energy
efficiency of commercial foodservice equipment while continuing to
provide the products, performance and reliability expected in the
marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA SNAP Rule: Negative Policy Consequences
The Environmental Protection Agency released a proposed rule on
August 6, 2014 under its Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
(SNAP), under which various HFC's and HFC-containing blends that were
previously listed as acceptable alternatives to ozone-depleting
substances will have their status changed to ``unacceptable'' as
refrigerants for commercial refrigeration and foam blowing agents used
in commercial refrigeration applications. The EPA believes that a
limited number of new substitutes pose a lower risk overall to human
health and the environment.
The proposal and the assumptions made by EPA reveal a rulemaking
process that fails to consider the technological and economic
challenges of introducing these refrigerants into the North American
market. The agency does not address the changes in manufacturing
processes that will be required, the time period in which such changes
can be made, the ability of current technology to utilize the proposed
alternatives, and the safety issues raised by their application.
Furthermore, the proposed delisting of currently acceptable
refrigerants of January 1, 2016 will threaten the energy efficiency and
performance of refrigeration products, as well as compromise the health
and safety of employees involved in the manufacturing, distribution,
service and end-user markets of commercial refrigeration. These dangers
also could extend to the public at large as flammable refrigerants are
introduced for certain market applications. In all applications, EPA's
proposal does not provide adequate time to research, design, test,
train and certify these commercial refrigeration products reliant on
new alternative refrigerants.
EPA's proposal also directly conflicts with recently promulgated
energy efficiency standards established by the Department of Energy
(DOE), which rely on some of the very refrigerants that EPA now
proposes to ban. Manufacturers are finding that it is neither
technologically nor economically feasible for them to develop products
that meet both the energy conservation standards and also utilize
acceptable alternatives to existing refrigerants and blowing agents.\2\
In fact, the proposed alternative refrigerants are less energy
efficient than the ones being banned. If less efficient refrigerants
and insulation blowing agents are required by EPA, commercial
refrigeration manufacturers face an impossible situation--manufacture
more efficient products pursuant to DOE regulations using less
efficient refrigerants pursuant to EPA regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See DOE dockets affecting automatic commercial ice makers
(EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037), commercial refrigeration equipment (EERE-2010-
BT-STD-003), and walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers (EERE-2008-BT-
STD-0015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA SNAP Rule: Flawed Rulemaking Making Policies
EPA's SNAP proposal violates the principles set out in Executive
Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, Executive
Order 13610, Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens, and Executive
Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011, found at 76 F.R.
3821 (January 21, 2011), Executive Order 13610 of May 10, 2012, found
at 77 F.R. 28469 (May 14, 2012, and Executive Order 12866 of September
30, 1993, found at 58 F.R. 51735 (October 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The value and strength of established principles of rulemaking
addressed in these executive orders are in their actual application in
active rulemaking and their ability to influence final rules. We find,
however, that they are often ignored and given only a pro forma
acknowledgement, rather than revealing themselves as elements that
contribute to the agency's dialogue with stakeholders, influence the
development of regulatory proposals and yield actual outcomes by way of
final rulemaking.
The SNAP rule as proposed is a prime example.\4\ The current
proposal limits commercial refrigeration equipment to four refrigerant
options: Ammonia, CO2, Isobutene and Propane,
notwithstanding the known toxicity, flammability, and costs of these
alternatives and the greater energy efficiency potential of the HFCs in
use today. Furthermore, EPA's proposed timeline fails to take into full
consideration the time and investments needed to retrofit manufacturing
plants and processes and market dislocation that will occur. When
compared to the resulting global warming benefit that EPA itself
calculates, we believe the proposal violates the very core principles
of American policymaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See NAFEM comments recently filed with EPA in the matter of
``Improving EPA Regulations'' (EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an example, meaningful input prior to publication of a proposed
rule was lacking. For example, regarding the listing of substitutes for
refrigeration, NAFEM member Hoshizaki America has questioned the test
method used in assessing flammability and fire safety and also points
out the need to test and evaluate the venting of flammable
refrigerants.\5\ NAFEM member Traulsen questioned EPA's assumption that
a trained service network will exist for flammable refrigerants and
believes EPA's reliance on fire extinguishers in settings where such
equipment will be in use is inappropriate and unrealistic.\6\ If taken
up in dialogue with stakeholders prior to developing the proposal, such
information gathering could result in more realistic and potentially
more achievable proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Comment submitted by Stephen Schaefer, Administrator
Engineering Group, Team Leader, Hoshizaki America, Inc. at http://
www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748 and
identification number RIN 2060-AS04.
\6\ See Comment submitted by Mary Dane-Greenhow, Agency Approval
Engineer, Traulsen--ITW Food Group, LLC at http://www.regulations.gov
under docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748 and identification number RIN
2060-AS04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Coordination between Agencies; No Consideration of Cumulative
Regulatory Burden
Executive Order 13563 acknowledges that the regulated community is
subject to rules from various agencies and establishes the principle
that agencies should seek to harmonize their rules and otherwise
coordinate with each other in their rulemaking.\7\ Executive Order
13610 further calls on agencies to simplify and harmonize regulations
that impact small businesses. This order also emphasizes a hallmark of
Executive Order 12866, calling on agencies to consider the cumulative
effects of their regulations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Section 3, Integration and Innovation, Executive Order
13563 (January 18, 2011): Some sectors and industries face a
significant number of regulatory requirements, some of which may be
redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping. Greater coordination across
agencies could reduce these requirements, thus reducing costs and
simplifying and harmonizing rules. In developing regulatory actions and
identifying appropriate approaches, each agency shall attempt to
promote such coordination, simplification, and harmonization. Each
agency shall also seek to identify, as appropriate, means to achieve
regulatory goals that are designed to promote innovation.
\8\ See Section 3, Setting Priorities, Executive Order 13610 (May
10, 2012): Consistent with Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), agencies
shall give consideration to the cumulative effects of their own
regulations, including cumulative burdens, and shall to the extent
practicable and consistent with law give priority to reforms that would
make significant progress in reducing those burdens while protecting
public health, welfare, safety, and our environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAFEM believes this coordination includes intentional dialogue and
communication among agencies. We believe this principle covers not only
a review of existing regulations that may have over time become
redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping, but also covers pending
proposals, implementation timelines of rules already promulgated, and
elements of an agency's regulatory agenda.
EPA and DOE are simultaneously involved in imposing new
requirements on manufacturers of certain types of refrigeration
equipment that have significant cost, productivity and competitiveness
consequences. Both agencies make assumptions about technology
applications in the same equipment, independent of each other and
towards different regulatory goals, despite the fact that manufacturers
and their vendors have repeatedly told both agencies that the gains
expected are not achievable.
EPA should coordinate its current and planned regulatory agenda
with DOE where the availability of HFC refrigerants plays a significant
role in the regulatory propositions and conclusions made in multiple
DOE proceedings. When raised by NAFEM within the public comment period
for proposed energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and
freezers, consider DOE's response in June 2014:
[NAFEM] requested that DOE incorporate the phase out of HFCs in
its analysis. NAFEM stated that alternative refrigerants could
add to overall engineering costs and reduce energy savings . .
. The use of alternative refrigerants is not a direct result of
this rule and is not included in this analysis. Furthermore,
there is no regulatory requirement to use alternative
refrigerants at this time. DOE does not include the impacts of
pending legislation or regulatory proposals in its analysis, as
any impact would be speculative. For this final rule, DOE does
not include the impact of alternative refrigerants in its
analysis.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 79 F.R. 32050 at 32092 (June 3, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Conclusion
The unrealistic timeline proposed by EPA for the application of
alternative refrigerants in commercial refrigeration reveals a failed
rulemaking process that ignores the negative impacts on the very public
policy goals intended. The principle of coordination among agencies
overseeing various regulatory regimes and rulemaking efforts, and its
corollary principle of harmonizing regulations among the various
agencies, cry out for an active dialogue of review, planning, and
rollout of proposals, promulgation and implementation between EPA and
DOE relative to allowable refrigerants and energy efficiency standards.
Where a rulemaking agency fails to follow accepted principles of
policymaking, Congress has an important role to play in its oversight
and funding responsibilities.
[This statement was submitted by Charlie Souhrada, CFSP, Director,
Member Services.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) is comprised of
the 20 tribes that are party to the United States v. Washington \1\
(U.S. v. Washington). To meet the many natural resources management
responsibilities required of the tribes, I submit the following
requests for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United States v. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed
Western Washington Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
summary of fiscal year 2016 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 $4.5 million for Climate Change.
--Provide $6.582 million for Fish Hatchery Maintenance.
--Provide $3.796 million for Fish Hatchery Operations.
--Provide $272.0 million for Contract Support.
--Provide $30.355 million for Tribal Climate Resilience.
--Provide $830,000 for Watershed Restoration.
Environmental Protection Agency
--Provide $96.4 million for General Assistance Program.
--Provide $50.0 million for Puget Sound.
--Provide $5.0 million for Beyond GAP.
We are generally pleased with the President's fiscal year 2016
budget request, which includes and builds on many of the subcommittee's
actions from the past few years. It contains funding to support the
tribal treaty right, including research and analysis for sustainable
management of our natural resources and climate adaptation. The treaty-
reserved rights are at grave risk today as the resources they are
dependent on are disappearing and the reason the western Washington
treaty tribes brought to the Federal Government our Treaty Rights at
Risk Initiative. On behalf of our 20 member tribes, I am here today to
speak specifically to our fiscal year 2016 natural resources management
and environmental program funding requests for the BIA and the EPA.
justification of requests
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Rights Protection Implementation Subactivity
The 41 tribes in the Great Lakes and Pacific Northwest with similar
treaty-reserved rights have collectively identified that no less than
$52.0 million for Rights Protection Implementation (RPI) is necessary
for essential tribal treaty rights management. The President's fiscal
year 2016 budget includes $40.138 million for RPI, an increase of
$4.718 million over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $35.420
million. A summary of the accounts of interest to us within RPI are
further identified below. However, a breakdown of these accounts in the
BIA's Greenbook is not provided for fiscal year 2016.
Provide $17.146 million for BIA Western Washington Fisheries
Management.--We respectfully request $17.146 million, an increase of
$8.614 million over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $8.532
million. Funding for this program allows for continued treaty harvest
management, population assessment, habitat protection and data
gathering for finfish, shellfish, groundfish, wildlife and other
natural resource management needs. Funds provide the necessary capacity
for the treaty tribes to co-manage the resources with the State of
Washington and to continue to meet court mandates and legal
responsibilities.
Provide $3.082 million for BIA Washington State Timber-Fish-
Wildlife.--We respectfully request $3.082 million, an increase of
$346,000 over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $2.736 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 $564,000 over
the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $4.28 million. The Pacific Salmon
Treaty (PST) Act of 1985 charges the United States Section of the
Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) 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 bilateral PST
process.
Provide $2.4 million for BIA Salmon Marking.--We respectfully
request $2.4 million, an increase of $1.328 million over the fiscal
year 2015 enacted level 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.
Provide $4.5 million for BIA Climate Change.--We respectfully
request $4.5 million for Climate Change for our member tribes, an
increase of $3.109 million over our fiscal year 2015 allocation. The
fiscal year 2015 appropriations provided a total of $3.224 million, of
which our member tribes received $1.391 million. Funding for this
program will provide tribes the capacity to identify, respond and adapt
to the impacts of our changing climate. There is a glaring need to
assess the potential impacts to resources in the face of climate
change, which brings different challenges for every tribal community.
It is important that tribes be provided the maximum flexibility to
develop specific science-based activities to meet their particular
needs.
Fish, Wildlife and Parks Projects
Provide $6.582 million for BIA Fish Hatchery Maintenance.--We
respectfully request $6.582 million, an increase of $82,000 over the
fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $6.5 million. Tribal fish hatcheries
in western Washington are part of the largest fish hatchery system in
the world. Funding for this program is provided to tribes nationwide
based on the ranking of annual maintenance project proposals.
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 need of over $48.0 million
in necessary hatchery maintenance and rehabilitation costs.
Provide $3.796 million for BIA Fish Hatchery Operations.--We
respectfully request $3.796 million, an increase of $1.939 million over
the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $1.857 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 in the U.S. and Canada. 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 lose their most basic ceremonial and subsistence fisheries that
are central to our tribal culture.
Other Subactivities and Accounts
Provide $272.0 million for BIA Contract Support.--We support the
President's request of $272.0 million, an increase of $26.0 million
over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $246.0 million. We also
support the President's legislative proposal to reclassify CSC as
mandatory funding beginning in fiscal year 2017. 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.
Provide $30.355 million for BIA Tribal Climate Resilience.--We
support the President's request of $30.355 million, an increase of
$20.407 million over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $9.948
million. Funding for this program will contribute to the tribal
capacity needed to participate and provide input on climate change
issues. It will assist tribes in being able to provide their
perspective on climate change adaptation in the form of traditional
ecological knowledge necessary to protect their treaty rights.
Provide $830,000 for BIA Watershed Restoration.--We respectfully
request $830,000, an increase of $455,000 over the fiscal year 2015
operating plan. The fiscal year 2015 operating plan provided a total of
$375,000 to western Washington treaty tribes. Funding is contained in
the Forestry Subactivity--Forestry Projects--Watershed Restoration
account and supports our Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and
Assessment Program. This provides environmental data management,
analysis, and reporting support and maintains on-going efforts to
develop information sharing and exchange tools. It also supports 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, an increase of
$30.924 million over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level of $65.476
million. This funding has built essential tribal capacities and remains
critical to the tribes' ability to sustain their important
environmental protection programs. Funding for this program continues
to provide the base capacity for tribal environmental protection
programs nationwide.
Provide $50.0 million for EPA Puget Sound.--We respectfully request
$50.0 million, an increase of $20.0 million over the President's
request of $30.0 million. The fiscal year 2015 appropriations provided
a total of $28.4 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.
Provide $5.0 million for EPA Beyond GAP.--We respectfully request
$5.0 million. The President's fiscal year 2016 budget did not include
any proposed funding for this new initiative. We request an annual
increase to the EPA CWA 104 budget for a water pollution implementation
program. Increasing the tribal allocation will allow for an immediate
expansion and response to specific implementation needs. This will
provide targeted funds to our member tribes for implementation of
Federal environmental programs and to initiate our ``Beyond GAP''
request. This initiative would move the EPA/tribal partnership from
capacity building and limited programmatic support to a more
comprehensive and consistent funding to achieve fully functional tribal
environmental programs capable of implementing a broad range of
necessary environmental activities.
conclusion
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.
[This statement was submitted by Lorraine Loomis, Chairwoman.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Norton Sound Health Corporation
The requests of the Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC) for the
fiscal year 2016 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows:
--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 $12.5 million to VBC
leases.
--Shield the IHS from sequestration in fiscal year 2016 and beyond.
--Place contract support costs on a mandatory funding basis.
--Funding for built-in costs.
--Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis.
--Construction of clinics at Gambell and Savoonga on St. Lawrence
Island, at a cost of $8.6 million, and clarify to IHS that
Village Built Clinics are eligible for IHS construction funds.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. This is a huge issue.
Senator Murkowski noted in her hearing on the fiscal year 2016 IHS
budget that when she is in rural Alaska she hears as much or more about
this issue than any other.
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.
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 fiscal year 2016, we urge that an additional $12.5 million be
appropriated to more fully fund VBC leases. We also ask that IHS in its
budget recommendations: (1) identify the amount needed to fully fund
VBCs; (2) request that amount in a separate line in the IHS budget; and
(3) allocate that amount to the VBC lease program.
Protect the IHS from Sequestration.--As you are well aware, the IHS
was subject to a fiscal year 2013 sequestration of roughly 5 percent of
the IHS's overall budget even though other health programs--notably the
Veterans Administration, State Medicaid grants and most of Medicare--
were exempted. We are heartened by comments made in Interior
Appropriations hearings this year and last that the sequestration of
IHS funds should not have taken place and a number of members--
including our delegation--are committed to protecting the IHS from
future sequestration. We are grateful that Congress took action to
avert a sequestration in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, but, of course, we
are faced with the prospects of it in fiscal year 2016 and beyond.
We thus strongly urge the Congress to fully exempt the IHS from any
future sequestration, just as the VA and other health programs are
exempt.
Contract Support Costs Mandatory Funding.--We support the
administration's proposal to fund Contract Support Costs (CSC) on a
mandatory basis, although we urge, along with many other tribes and
tribal organizations, that Congress enable it to become effective with
fiscal year 2016. The administration's proposal differs from our and
others in Indian Country proposal that CSC be funded indefinitely and
not capped, but we gratefully acknowledge this proposal as a huge step
for the administration. We are hopeful that the $718 million proposed
for CSC funds for IHS will be sufficient for full funding for fiscal
year 2016--a lot of work has gone into the estimated calculation and
that should bode well for future estimates as well.
We so appreciate your support for full funding of CSC and your
blunt statement accompanying the Fiscal Year 2014 Appropriations Act
that the legal obligation to fully fund CSC had put the House and
Senate Committees in the ``untenable position of appropriating
discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract
support costs.''
We ask for your active help in working with the Budget Committee on
this proposal for mandatory CSC funding. You have had a great deal of
experience in talking with Indian and Alaska Native leaders about the
frustrations and the inequity of tribes and tribal organizations who
contract to assume administration of Federal programs not being paid
for the costs to administer them. We know that member-to-member
communications are of the utmost importance and you have much to offer
others in Congress who will weigh in on this issue.
Funding for Built-in Costs.--We appreciate the administration's
fiscal year 2016 request of $147.3 million for built-in costs
consisting of $71.2 million for medical inflation at a 3.8 percent
rate; $19.4 million for a 1.3 percent pay raise; and $56.7 million to
partially fund population growth ($70.3 million needed for full funding
according to IHS) and urge Congress to fund this request.
Built-in costs are often sacrificed in the budget negotiation
process, but lack of them impacts all programs. Inflation--medical and
non-medical; required pay raises, and population growth are real facts
of life and affect our ability to provide sufficient healthcare
services.
While for fiscal year 2015 the administration requested $63 million
for medical inflation and $2.6 million to partially fund pay raises,
the final bill provided only $2.6 million for pay raises (estimated
cost is $20 million) but no other built-in costs. For fiscal year 2014
the only IHS built-in costs provided was $35 million for medical
inflation for the Purchased/Referred Care program. In fiscal years
2011-2013, appropriations for built-in costs were minimal.
IHS Advance Appropriations.--As with our testimony last year, we
ask that the IHS budget be transitioned to an advance appropriations
basis. We know you are sympathetic to our frustrations caused by the
funding of IHS and other Federal agencies via a series of start and
stop Continuing Resolutions. We are appreciative of Representative Don
Young's introduction of H.R. 395 to authorize IHS advance
appropriations and for our entire Alaska delegation in the 113th
Congress for introducing the same legislation.
The current (fiscal year 2015) fiscal year funding was enacted 2\1/
2\ months after the beginning of the fiscal year; in fiscal years 2013
and 2014 it was 6 months and 3\1/2\ months, respectively, after the
beginning of the fiscal year. Following enactment, there is a couple
month process of clearance through the agency and the OMB and then
allotment to the Area Offices and finally to the tribes. Both the
tribal and IHS programs suffer under this situation. We want to do the
best job possible in planning, decisionmaking and administering
programs but are limited by not knowing how much funding will be
available or when it will be available. It also requires constant re-
working of our budget, resources better devoted to providing healthcare
services.
Congress has provided the authority for the Veterans Administration
(VA) medical accounts to receive funding on an advance basis and the
Budget and Appropriations Committees have provided the necessary
support for that authority. We are struck by the justification in the
proposed fiscal year 2016 budget (fiscal year 2017 advance
appropriations) for the VA and we ask for parity:
For 2017, the budget requests $63.3 billion in advance
appropriations for the three medical care appropriations:
Medical Services, Medical Support and Compliance, and Medical
Facilities. This request for advance appropriations fulfills
the administration's commitment to provide reliable and timely
resources to support the delivery of accessible and high-
quality medical services for veterans. This funding enables
timely and predictable funding for VA's medical care to prevent
our Nation's veterans from being adversely affected by budget
delays, and provides opportunities to more effectively use
resources in a constrained fiscal environment. (Appendix,
Budget of the U.S. Government, p. 1058).
Clinic Construction.--The NSHC has completed the final designs for
replacement of the Village Built Clinics at Gambell and Savoonga on St.
Lawrence Island. We are requesting $8.6 million in IHS construction
funds for this purpose. The IHS does not have a definitive response to
the question of VBC eligibility for construction funds and we ask that
Congress clarify that they are eligible for these funds. There is no
prohibition on it, and the VBCs are serving IHS beneficiaries the same
as though those clinics in rural areas in the lower 48.
We would like you to know what we have done thus far on this
project. Working with Bettisworth North Architects (BNA) and the
communities, we modified a prototype village clinic design BNA
developed for the Maniilaq Association several years ago which was
successfully constructed throughout the NANA region. The clinics are
5,200 square feet with the floor plan having been slightly modified
from the prototypical starting point in order to provide specific
health programs delivered by NSHC in Gambell and Savoonga. The
adaptation of the existing Maniilaq prototype design was cost effective
with respect to design fees--totaling $400,000. The Denali Commission
is supportive of our effort and contributed $120,479 under Project
Authorization 1174-J.
The NSHC Board is investing in the development of this project and
plans to make it ``shovel ready'' this summer, having approved $1.4
million from its 2015 Capitol Budget to complete site and foundation
work
Thank you for the consideration of the concerns and requests of the
Norton Sound Health Corporation.
[This statement was submitted by Angie Gorn, President and CEO.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) is concerned about
continued reductions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program (CWSRF) and is
requesting that appropriations for this program be increased to at
least $2 billion in fiscal year 2016. The CWSRF is an effective loan
program that addresses critical water infrastructure needs while
benefitting the environment, local communities, and the economy.
However, OWRC is also concerned about efforts by EPA to increase
regulatory authority and we urge the subcommittee to direct funding
towards the CWSRF program and not towards implementing the
controversial ``Waters of the U.S.'' rule drafted by EPA and the Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE). EPA's actions to increase its regulatory
authority over water resources planning 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 \1/3\ 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 2016 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 2014
appropriations for the CWSRF program was approximately $2.021 billion
and declined to $1.448 billion in fiscal year 2015. The President's
fiscal year 2016 budget proposes only $1.116 billion for the CWRSF
program; a $332 million reduction from fiscal year 2015 levels. We are
concerned as we see this negative downward trend continuing while the
infrastructure needs only become more critical.
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. It is important that climate issues are addressed
through programs like the CWSRF, and to date, despite a direct
connection to water infrastructure the CWSRF funding continues to
diminish. In fact, 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,'' 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 types of 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 two
priority watersheds eligible for funding through the National Water
Quality Initiative in 2014 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 2016 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 2015,'' lists 14 projects in need of a total of
$144,926,822 in Oregon alone. The Federal capitalization grant funding
awarded fiscal year 2014 will total $15,839,000, which is wholly
inadequate to address and complete these much needed projects.
Unfortunately, due to recent cutbacks and lack of availability of
funds, only one water improvement district submitted an application for
funding in 2015, Rock Creek District Improvement Company. Rock Creek
requested $270,786 for the design and construction of HDPE piping along
1.76 miles of main canal, and qualifies for water efficiency green
project reserve funding. OWRC is hopeful that with an increase in money
available, more 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 increase regulatory
authority under the Clean Water Act without appropriate public process
or legislative oversight. The proposed ``Waters of the U.S.'' rule
would greatly broaden EPA authority and illustrates an apparent desire
to dictate watershed planning methods for the Nation using a top-down
regulatory approach from a desk in Washington DC. This regulatory
overreach will lead to uncertainty for landowners and water users,
increased litigation and destroy collaborative efforts (including CWSRF
projects) already underway in Oregon and across the Nation. OWRC would
like to reiterate our request made in formal comment that the ACOE
Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL 07-02 from July 4th, 2007) be codified
in the final rule which would provide our members with better clarity
about how and when the rule would be used in relation to district
facilities.
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 2016.
[This statement was submitted by April Snell, Executive Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of Partners for Conservation
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and members of the
Appropriations Subcommittee: On behalf of myself and Partners for
Conservation (PFC), thank you for the opportunity to provide comments
on the fiscal year 2016 Interior appropriations bill. I am a rancher
and consulting wildlife biologist from eastern Washington. PFC is a
landowner-led non-profit organization for which I serve as a board
member. As ranchers and farmers working cooperatively with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, we respectfully request that the
subcommittee support the following funding allocations for fiscal year
2016:
--Funding of $75 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program;
--Funding of $50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation
Fund;
--Funding of $18.6 million for the Habitat Joint Ventures within the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan Program;
--Full funding of $900 million authorized for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund; and
--Funding of $70 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
Program.
As a board member of PFC, I want to share with you some background
on the organization. We operate under the following principles:
Collaboration gets work done; Local lessons have national impact;
Voluntary and incentive-based programs create trust and foster success;
and Sustainability is achieved by balancing ecological and economic
needs.
PFC is growing with the goal of landowner representation in all 50
States. We currently have board member representation in States
extending from Montana and South Dakota to New Mexico and from
California to Florida. In 2013, under a partnership agreement with the
National Wildlife Refuge Association, PFC hired an executive director
to coordinate our efforts. We are also working hard to develop
effective working relationships with Federal and State agencies, non-
government conservation organizations and like-minded landowners
nationwide. As an example, PFC annually hosts a Private Lands Partners
Day event, this year set for late September in North Platte, Nebraska.
As noted previously, I live and work in eastern Washington. My wife
and I own and operate a ranch near Spokane, Washington where we raise
cattle and sheep. Our goal is to sustain the livestock operation and
enhance wildlife habitat on our property. In 2004, we voluntarily
enrolled a portion of our ranch in a permanent conservation easement
under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).
partners for fish and wildlife program ($75 million)
So what motivates me to be involved with PFC and why am I writing
in support of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife and other Federal
programs named above? The simple answer is public and private partners
need to work cooperatively to focus our energy and available funding on
cost-effective programs to sustain agriculture while conserving our
natural resources on private lands. This concept also recognizes the
need to balance conservation programs with economics at the local
community level. It is my firm belief that there is a ``sweet spot'' in
which we can focus our collective efforts and leverage financial
resources to sustain working agricultural lands while conserving our
valuable natural resources. These objectives naturally fit together and
PFC is all about getting it done through voluntary landowner support
and working collaboratively with partners, including Federal Government
agencies. In my area of eastern Washington, over 75 percent of the land
is privately owned, so the Federal agencies cannot do the job of
conserving fish and wildlife without willing landowner support. I think
this model for voluntary, cooperative conservation on working
agricultural lands is the best example of how the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service can leverage the funding you and your colleagues in
Congress provide on behalf of your constituents.
I want to share my story with you. Our ranch lies in what is known
as the Channeled Scablands Wetland Focus Area. We are on the east side
of the Columbia Basin, an area of continental significance for
migratory birds and other wildlife. The ranch is adjacent to the 18,000
acre National Wildlife Refuge. Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
staff assigned to the refuge helped me complete a wetlands restoration
project by providing technical assistance and native plants to enhance
the wildlife habitat values within our wetlands and adjacent upland
habitats. We were successful in integrating and leveraging the basic
WRP conservation easement through USDA-NRCS with engineering by Ducks
Unlimited, habitat restoration expertise by the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program and technical assistance by the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife. It is that level of cooperative conservation
which, I think, makes the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program work
extremely well for landowners. Success was the result of voluntary
partnerships.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program biologists have also helped
several of my neighboring ranchers with wetlands restoration projects
by cutting through the red tape involved in permitting processes,
finding additional funding sources, including NRCS Farm Bill Programs,
and developing restoration and management plans designed to achieve
both ranching and natural resource conservation goals. In the last 25
years, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has helped more than
45,000 landowners restore and enhance over 1 million acres of wetlands,
3 million acres of uplands and 11,000 miles of streams nationwide. It
has leveraged each dollar of appropriated funds to generate over $8 in
total project spending and over $15 in overall economic returns. The
Program is supported by landowners as highly cost-effective.
north american wetlands conservation act ($50 million); and habitat
joint ventures ($18.6 million)
So why link the PFC and my request as a rancher increased funding
of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to a request for
additional funding for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
(NAWCA) and Habitat Joint Ventures (JVs)? Simply stated, because they
can be used as integrated tools to achieve voluntary conservation
program goals on private lands in an efficient and cost-effective
manner.
I support funding for NAWCA at $50 million to help increase wetland
restoration on private lands as an important tool in priority areas,
including the Columbia Basin of eastern Washington. Wetlands are one of
the most important habitats for fish and wildlife, but their abundance
and quality has been greatly reduced by a number of factors. The highly
competitive cost-share grant program provided under NAWCA is extremely
valuable to government agencies, tribes, non-government conservation
organizations and private landowners nationwide. It is just one of the
tools the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program biologists use to
leverage resources to accomplish landscape level cooperative
conservation on private lands.
With respect to the Habitat Joint Ventures (JV's), I support full
funding of $18.6 million. Although the base funding for the JVs is
provided through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's budget, these
public-private partnerships are extremely effective in leveraging
funding and staff resources specifically to conserve priority habitats
for birds and other wildlife. I have experience working with the
Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) with a footprint of nearly 500
million acres in all or parts of 11 Western States. In general, the JVs
are self-directed and guided by management boards made up of diverse
interests including representatives of government agencies, non-
government conservation organizations, industries and private
landowners. The JVs are extremely effective in collaborating with
government agencies and, in my experience, very efficient in delivering
habitat conservation programs on private lands in cooperation with the
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Together, the IWJV and Partners
for Fish and Wildlife Program staff focus their efforts on Strategic
Habitat Conservation, which means they focus their time and energy in
priority fish and wildlife habitats, including those on private lands.
I serve as the IWJV Washington Conservation Partners Coordinator and
have seen first-hand how the ``Joint Venture Model'' can leverage
funding for habitat conservation at a ratio of 5:1 or greater. Coupled
with the Partners Program, JVs are very beneficial to ranchers and
farmers not only in Washington, but throughout the Country.
land and water conservation fund ($900 million); and state and tribal
wildlife grants ($70 million)
On behalf of PFC and myself, I respectively request full funding of
$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). It can be
used to match and leverage other conservation funding, and it is very
valuable to cooperative conservation partners nationwide in conserving
priority fish and wildlife habitats on a large landscape scale.
Conservation easements take advantage of willing partners entering into
mutually beneficial agreements to sustain natural resources and
maintain existing agricultural land uses. A number of PFC Board members
have first-hand experience from California to Florida and South Dakota
to Kansas with extremely effective use of LWCF as a critical source of
funding for voluntary large-scale conservation easement programs on
private lands. With much of the most productive fish and wildlife
habitat on private lands, flexible tools are needed to sustain these
valuable resources while avoiding the need for the Federal Government
to acquire fee title to land. By keeping these lands in private
ownership, productive and contributing to local property tax bases, we
can also support local economies and sustain both working agricultural
operations and fish and wildlife populations in priority areas.
Finally, I respectfully request funding of $70 million for the
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program. Along with the LWCF, the
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program provides cost-shared grants to
implement the State Wildlife Action Plans designed to keep common
species common and help avoid the need to list species under the
Endangered Species Act. This proactive approach combined with voluntary
and incentive based conservation programs leverage Federal, State and
private landowner funds to conserve fish and wildlife on working
ranches nationwide.
I thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.. We
recognize the challenges you and your colleagues face in your decisions
regarding the fiscal year 2016 budget. We also realize the value of
sharing with you on-the-ground experiences using the proven and cost-
effective programs in the Fish and Wildlife Service which work best for
landowners willing to help conserve our natural resources while
sustaining working agricultural lands nationwide.
Board members of PFC welcome you to visit any of our ranches to see
first-hand how voluntary and incentives based conservation programs can
work to benefit ranchers and farmers as well local economies
nationwide. In light of the significant fiscal challenges you and your
colleagues in Congress face, we need to set priorities and support
programs which return the greatest benefits to the American people. We
need your leadership and support by investing in community based
landscape conservation through partnerships with private landowners.
Government agencies cannot do it alone, and PFC stands ready to help.
Chairman Murkowski and subcommittee members, thank you for your
consideration of this request.
[This statement was submitted by Terry Mansfield, Landowner and
Board Member of Partners for Conservation.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Partnership for the National Trails System
Madam Chairwoman 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 2016 through these
appropriations:
--National Park Service: $16.073 million for administration of 23
trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails program
by the Washington office. Construction: $673,000 for the Ice
Age Trail and $200,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail.
--USDA Forest Service: $7.996 million to administer 6 trails and $1.3
million to manage parts of 16 trails administered by the NPS or
BLM. $700,000 for Iditarod Trail construction.
--Bureau of Land Management: $1.83 million to administer three trails
and for coordination of the National Trails program and $7.14
million to manage 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, $300,000 for the Iditarod
Trail, and $50,000 for the Nez Perce 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 $66,038,500 from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund for the acquisition of 48 tracts along six 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: $13,916,500 million.
--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $12,060,000 million.
--U.S. Forest Service: $8,382,000 million
--National Park Service: $31,680,000 million.
national park service
The $16.073 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. Increases of $172,000 for the Park Service to
implement the New England Trail's Trail Management Blueprint and
$369,000 for the Washington-Rochambeau Trail are included.
We request an increase of $660,000 to expand Park Service efforts
to protect cultural landscapes at more than 200 sites along the Santa
Fe Trail, to develop GIS mapping, and to fund public educational
outreach programs of the Santa Fe Trail Association. An increase of
$780,000 for the Trail of Tears will enable the Park Service to work
with the Trail of Tears Association to develop a GIS to map the Trail's
historical and cultural heritage sites to protect them and to develop
interpretation of them for visitors. We request an increase of $346,000
to $879,000 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
$1,020,000 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 $554,000 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 $673,000 for the Ice
Age 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 2016 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 $7.996 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 and Clark, California, Iditarod, Mormon Pioneer, Old
Spanish, Oregon, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express, Trail of Tears and
Santa Fe Trails, we ask you to appropriate $1.3 million specifically
for these trails.
The Partnership's request of $7.996 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 $7.996 million request also includes $2.1 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 $700,000
of additional funding for construction and $100,000 for maintenance of
sections of the Iditarod Trail.
bureau of land management
Although considerably more money is needed to fully administer the
National Conservation Lands System and protect its resources, we
request that you appropriate $69.809 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, $1,000,000
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 thirteen other
national scenic and historic trails. To maintain these trails we
request: Pacific Crest Trail--$300,000, Iditarod Trail--$300,000, Nez
Perce Trail--$50,000. We also 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 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 2015 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 2016. 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 $400 million from discretionary sources and $500
million in mandatory funds for the component programs funded under
LWCF. Within this amount we request that you appropriate $66,038,500
for the National Trails System Collaborative Landscape Planning
proposal to acquire 48 parcels along 14 national scenic and historic
trails detailed here:
Bureau of Land Management
$13,916,500 million
17 parcels
16,779 acres
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (New Mexico): $2,300,000
to close the largest critical trail gap in New Mexico.
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (Montana): $6,000,000 for
trail, landscape, habitat and recreation protection along the Upper
Missouri National Wild and Scenic River.
Nez Perce National Historic Trail (Idaho): $3,100,000 for trail and
resource conservation at one of the last remaining working ranches at
Henry's Lake.
Oregon National Historic Trail (Idaho): $144,000 to acquire land
for trail development along historic trail route.
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (Oregon, California):
$1,872,500 for trail and resource protection within the Cascade
Siskiyou National Monument in Southern Oregon and in the Mojave Desert
in Southern California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
$12,060,000 million
3 parcels
3,763 acres
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Pennsylvania): $4,000,000 to
connect conservation habitats along the Kittatinny Ridge.
California National Historic Trail (Idaho): $2,500,000 to protect
the largest breeding concentration of Sandhill Cranes, as well as, a
haven for other waterfowl from a current farming threat.
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (Virginia):
$5,560,000 to protect the Bower's Parcel that includes migratory
wildlife habitat, priority wetlands, forest and uplands and a
historical site.
U.S. Forest Service
$8,382,000 million
8 parcels
3,024 acres
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (North Carolina): $1,100,000 to
complete the acquisition of the Grassy Ridge ecosystem.
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Montana): $255,000 to
achieve uninterrupted trail corridor enabling wildlife migration and
human recreation.
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (California, Washington):
$7,027,000 to provide critical scenic protection to the hiker
experience, improve trail location and protect wildlife habitats,
including Donner Summit in California.
National Park Service
$31,680,000 million
20 parcels
7,565 acres
Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (Hawaii): $4,750,000 to protect
endangered species, preserve 26 cultural sites and ensure undisturbed
view sheds, soundscapes, and wilderness for users of the trail in an
area with prehistoric lava flows.
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (New York, Massachusetts):
$2,940,000 to extinguish the threat of imminent development, ensure
connectivity of forested habitats and improve route away from
threatened species.
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (Virginia):
$6,000,000 to permanently protect and open for public education a
nationally significant American Indian site, and to continue public
archaeological research.
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Colorado, New Mexico):
$5,608,000 to remove motorized use of the trail and restore habitat, to
acquire the last unprotected portion of the trail in New Mexico and to
protect significant cultural sites.
Ice Age National Scenic Trail (Wisconsin): $3,930,000 to provide
urban access to the trail in the city of St. Croix, protect critical
view sheds, provide interpretative opportunities of unique geological-
cultural features and close gaps in the trail.
New England National Scenic Trail (Connecticut, Massachusetts):
$1,875,000 to protect ecosystem, historic and cultural resources, in
addition to, enhancing users recreational experience.
Nez Perce National Historic Trail (Oregon): $355,000 to provide a
better interpretative site and visitor proximity to Clearwater
Battlefield.
North Country National Scenic Trail (Michigan, Pennsylvania):
$2,892,000 to connect Moraine and McConnell's Mill State Parks in
Pennsylvania and protect riparian habitats in Southern Michigan.
Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail (Tennessee): $330,000
to protect the historically significant Shelving Rock Encampment site.
Washington Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail
(New York): $3,000,000 to protect the Revolutionary War's single
largest cemetery from destruction.
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 2014 the trail organizations fostered 1,053,896
hours of documented volunteer labor valued at $23,765,355 to help
sustain the national scenic and historic trails. The organizations also
raised private sector contributions of $11,228,029 for the trails.
[This statement was submitted by Gary Werner, Executive Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year 2016 appropriations
for American Indian and Alaskan Native programs. My name is David Z.
Bean, Tribal Council Member for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. The
Puyallup Tribe is an independent sovereign nation having historically
negotiated with several foreign nations including the United States in
the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854. This relationship is rooted in
Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, Federal laws
and numerous Executive orders. The governing body of the Puyallup Tribe
of Indians is the Puyallup Tribal Council which upholds the tribe's
sovereign responsibility of self-determination and self-governance for
the benefit of the 4,875 Puyallup tribal members and the 25,000 plus
members from approximately 355 federally recognized tribes who utilize
our services. The Puyallup Reservation is located in the urbanized
Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of Washington. The 18,061 acre
reservation is a ``checkerboard'' of tribal lands, Indian-owned fee
land and non-Indian owned fee land. Our reservation land includes parts
of six different municipalities (Tacoma, Fife, Milton, Puyallup,
Edgewood and Federal Way).
The following written testimony documents the Puyallup Tribe's
views concerning the President's fiscal year 2016 Federal budget. My
written testimony will focus on the proposed budget for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). Within the
BIA budget, $2.7 billion is proposed for fiscal year 2016, an increase
of $231.4 million above the fiscal year 2015 levels. For the IHS, $5.1
billion is proposed, an increase of $460.6 million over the fiscal year
2015 enacted level. Included in both budgets the President proposes to
fully fund Contract Support Costs (CSC) in fiscal year 2016. The budget
provides $277 million for BIA CSC and $718 million for IHS CSCs. We
appreciate the increased funding being proposed for the BIA and IHS,
and funding CSCs at 100 percent. However, the years of inadequate
funding and the effects of inflation have impacted the tribe's ability
to fully exercise self-determination and self-governance. As
negotiations proceed on the fiscal year 2016 budget and future
appropriations, efforts to insure adequate funding is provided for
Indian programs will be paramount. To preserve the increased funding
levels realized in recent years and contained in the proposed fiscal
year 2016 budget for the BIA and IHS, the increases should be viewed by
Congress and the administration as new ``base funding'' amounts with
annual increases to meet actual need. Specific issues and needs are:
department of the interior--bureau of indian affairs
Public Safety and Justice: The fiscal year 2016 budget request
includes $364.4 million for BIA Public Safety and Justice. This
represents a $11.5 million increase over the fiscal year 2015 enacted
level which is fully supported by the Puyallup Tribe. The $93.3 million
for tribal and BIA detention and corrections funding is of great
importance to the Puyallup Tribe. While this increase is supported by
the Puyallup Tribe, it is of concern that there is no requested
increase for the operation of tribal detention facilities that came
online last year and that were not fully funded by fiscal year 2015
appropriations. In fiscal year 2009, the Puyallup Tribe received a
Department of Justice ARRA grant, in the amount of $7.9 million to
construct a 28 bed adult corrections facility. Construction on the
facility was completed in February 2014 and came online in May 2014.
Over the past 3 years the Puyallup Tribe has worked closely with the
BIA Office of Justice Services National and Regional staff on
identifying the operating and staffing costs associated with the
Puyallup Tribe's new adult corrections facility. The Puyallup Tribe
submitted a Public Law 93-638 contract request to the BIA for
Operations and Maintenance funding for the new facility, including Pre-
Award, Start-up, Transitional funding, Staffing and O&M funding. The
agreed upon estimated cost of operating the facility was set at $2.6
million annually. The BIA base funding offered to the tribe in fiscal
year 2015 was $704,198 or 27 percent of actual need. Due to current
budget realities, we support the President's proposed fiscal year 2016
funding of $95.3 million, for Detention and Corrections. However, we
are requesting support from the subcommittee to fund the tribe's Adult
Corrections facility at the established true cost of operations,
estimated at $2.6 million annually. Further, the Puyallup Tribe
requests the subcommittee's support to increase funding for BIA
Detention/Corrections by $32.2 million to reflect actual funding need.
In addition, we operate a Tribal Court program through a Public Law
93-638 contract with the BIA. In fiscal year 2015, our base funding was
increased from $45,000 to $194,996 and remains at this amount for
fiscal year 2016. While this increase to our Tribal Court Base funding
is appreciated, it does not equal the amount of tribal funds necessary
to fully operate the Tribal Court program. In fiscal year 2015, the
tribe has allocated $1.172 million of tribal funds for the Tribal Court
budget. Since its enactment in 1993, the Indian Tribal Justice Act has
remained unfunded. Originally authorized to provide $50 million for
base funding increases to assist with expanding judicial systems,
tribes are left with no option than to utilize tribal revenues to fully
implement legislative acts, such as the Tribal Law and Order Act and
the Violence Against Women Act. We are requesting support from the
subcommittee to fund the Indian Tribal Justice Act at $82 million.
Natural Resources Management: The Puyallup Tribe, as stewards for
land and marine waters in the Usual and Accustomed fish, shellfish, and
wildlife areas, has treaty and governmental obligations and
responsibilities to manage natural resources for uses beneficial to the
tribal membership and the regional communities. Despite our diligent
program efforts, the fisheries resource is degrading and economic
losses are incurred by Native and non-native fishermen and surrounding
communities. Our resource management responsibilities cover thousands
of square miles in the Puget Sound region of the State of Washington
with an obligation to manage production of anadromous and non-
anadromous fish, shellfish and wildlife resources. Existing levels of
support are inadequate to reverse the trend of resource/habitat
degradation. For fiscal year 2016, a minimum funding level of $8.562
million is necessary for BIA Western Washington (Bolt Decision)
Fisheries Management program, and we agree with the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) that increased funding is needed. The
increase in funding would provide new monies for shellfish, groundfish,
enforcement, habitat, wildlife and other natural resource management
needs. As the aboriginal owners and guardians of our lands and waters,
it is essential that adequate funding is provided to allow tribes to
carry-out our inherent stewardship duties.
The Puyallup Tribe continues to operate a number of salmon
hatcheries that benefit Indian and non-Indian commercial and sport
fisheries in the Pacific Northwest/Puget Sound. We work cooperatively
with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, neighboring tribes,
Federal agencies, and State fishery managers to insure the success and
sustainability of our hatchery programs. The Puyallup Tribe will
continue to advocate and secure increased funding for Fish Hatchery
Operations and Maintenance funding. We are in agreement with the NWIFC
recommendation that additional funding is necessary for the Fish
Hatchery Operations and Maintenance programs, and request the
subcommittee's support to fund fiscal year 2016 Fish Hatcheries
Operations and Fish Hatchery Maintenance at $3.35 million and $6.582
million, respectively.
The Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW) Supplemental and U.S./Canada
Pacific Salmon Treaty programs have allowed for the expansion of tribal
participation in the State forest practice rules and regulations and
participation in inter-tribal organizations to address specific
treaties and legal cases which relate to multi-national fishing rights,
harvest allocations and resource management practices. We request
subcommittee support for the funding recommendations of the NWIFC for
the fiscal year 2016 TFW Supplemental program and the U.S./Canada
Pacific Salmon Treaty program.
The Puyallup Wildlife Management program has been the lead agency
in management activities to benefit the South Rainier elk herd since
2004. The South Rainier elk herd is the primary stock of elk harvested
by the Puyallup Tribe. The tribe has not only established more reliable
methods for population monitoring, but has also been proactive in
initiating habitat enhancement projects, research and land acquisition
to ensure sustainable populations of elk for future generations. Funds
that are available to the tribe have been on a very competitive basis
with a limited amount per program via USFWS Tribal Wildlife grants and
the BIA Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights grant program. We request
subcommittee support to provide base funding to the Tribe's Wildlife
Management Program in the amount of $150,000 through the BIA Unresolved
Hunting and Fishing Rights program in fiscal year 2016.
Education: The Puyallup Tribe operates the pre-K to 12 Chief Leschi
Schools which included a verified 2014-2015 school student enrollment
of 910 + students, including ECEAP and FACE programs. With an
increasing number of pre-kindergarten enrollment, Chief Leschi Schools
will soon exceed design capacity. Additional education facility space
will be necessary to provide quality educational services to the
students and tribal community. In addition, the cost of operation and
maintenance of the Chief Leschi Schools' facilities continues to
increase in the areas of supplies, energy and student transportation
costs. The fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE) is $904 million, an increase of $93.9 million over the
fiscal year 2015 enacted level. While this increase is appreciated,
once again the funding level does not meet the actual operational needs
of tribal education programs. The tribe will continue to work with
Congress, BIE and the National Congress of American Indians to increase
funding in fiscal year 2016, including; Tribal Grant Support Cost for
Tribally Operated Schools--$73 million; Student Transportation--$73
million; School Facilities Accounts--$109 million in facilities
operations and $76 million in facilities maintenance; and Indian School
Equalization Formula (ISEF)--$431 million.
Operations of Indian Programs and Tribal Priority Allocations: The
BIA Operations of Indian Programs budget is in drastic need for
increased funding. Within the Operations of Indian Programs is the
Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA). The TPA budget functions include the
majority of funding used to support on-going services at the ``local
tribal'' level, including; natural resources management, child welfare,
other education, housing and other tribal government services. These
functions have not received adequate and consistent funding to allow
tribes the resources to fully exercise self-determination and self-
governance. Further, the small increases ``TPA'' has received over the
past few years have not been adequate to keep pace with inflation. The
Puyallup Tribe is requesting support from the subcommittee to fund the
Operation of Indian Programs at the fiscal year 2016 request of $2.7
billion, an increase of $231.4 million over the fiscal year 2015
enacted level, and TPA at $982.6 million for fiscal year 2016, an
increase of $56.2 million over the fiscal year 2015 level. We further
request support from the Subcommittee to increase funding for Indian
Child Welfare (TPA) by $45 million; Increase Urban Indian Child Welfare
programs by $15 million; and increase BIA Child Welfare Assistance by
$55 million.
department of health and human services--indian health service
The inadequate funding of the Indian Health Service is the most
substantial impediment to the current Indian Health system. The
Puyallup Tribe has been operating healthcare programs since 1976
through the Indian Self-determination Act, Public Law 93-638. The
Puyallup Tribal Health Authority (PTHA) operates a comprehensive
ambulatory care program to the Native American population in Pierce
County, Washington. The current patient load exceeds 9,000, of which
approximately 1,700 are tribal members. There are no IHS hospitals in
the Portland Area, so all specialties and hospital care have been paid
for out of our contract care allocation. The Purchased/Referred Care
(PRC) allocation to PTHA remains inadequate to meet the actual need. In
fiscal year 2004, the Puyallup Tribe subsidized PRC with a $2.8 million
dollar contribution. In fiscal year 2015, the tribal subsidy has grown
to $6.2 million. Given that the PTHA service population is only
comprised of 17 percent Puyallup tribal members, tribal budget
priorities in fiscal years 2011-2015 have made continued subsidies to
the PTHA financially difficult for the Puyallup Tribe. The fiscal year
2016 budget requests $5.1 billion in discretionary budget authority for
the IHS. This represents a $460.6 million increase over the fiscal year
2015 enacted level. For Health Services programs, the fiscal year 2016
budget requests funding for Clinical Services ($4.4 billion),
Purchased/Referred Care ($984.4 million), Medicaid/Medicare ($1
billion) and Contract Support ($718 million). The Puyallup Tribe fully
supports funding increases for existing IHS programs and will work
Congress to continue efforts to increase funding for IHS and the
critical programs administered by this Agency.
Thank you for affording the Puyallup Tribe the opportunity to
testify.
______
Prepared Statement of the PVC Pipe Association
The Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association is a not-for-profit organization
representing 95 percent of the manufacturing capacity of the North
American PVC pipe industry. Our pipe producing members operate over 90
facilities in the U.S. and our associate members (suppliers) hundreds
more. PVC pipe extrusion facilities are found in 32 States across the
United States: California has the most plants (9), followed by Texas
(6), Arizona (5) and Pennsylvania (5).
The PVC pipe industry serves a vast and complex market including
54,000 drinking water systems, 10,000 wastewater facilities and 15,000
sewer and wastewater contracting firms. PVC water and sewer pipe
producers contribute in excess of $14 billion annually to the U.S.
economy and support over 25,000 jobs.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manages taxpayer dollars
under the State Revolving Fund's (SRF's) for water and wastewater
projects in every State. It is important for all States and
municipalities receiving Federal money to use open and free bidding
processes and to consider all approved piping materials so that the
most cost effective, longest lasting and best performing piping is
used.
According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, underground pipes
represent 60 percent ($2.28 trillion) of the $3.8 trillion needed in
investments for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20
years. As a result, it is here that open procurement policies and
practices should be focused.
Since the 1970s the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural
Development Program has required that the funding it provides rural
municipalities for water and sewer projects be spent in an open and
competitive manner. It is time for the EPA to have similar
requirements.
Richard Anderson, Ph.D., Senior Advisor to U.S. Conference of
Mayors Water Council, who is also a proponent of procurement reform for
underground infrastructure, reports that water and sewer pipelines are
deteriorating faster than the rate at which they can be replaced
because of corrosion, which is the leading cause of the water main
break epidemic in North America (estimated at some 300,000 breaks
annually). According to a 2002 congressional study, corrosion is also a
drag on the economy, costing U.S. drinking water and wastewater systems
over $50.7 billion annually. As a result, any comprehensive and truly
sustainable underground infrastructure strategy must address corrosion.
Today's corrosion crisis is due to the materials used in America's
piping networks over the last 100 years. At first, cast iron was used,
with ductile iron gradually replacing it as the material of choice.
Both now suffer from corrosion. In fact, studies have shown that newer
iron pipes do not last as long as older versions because of their
thinner walls.
The burden of old technology materials is not limited to the cost
of repairing and replacing failed pipelines. It includes the cost of
losing treated water from leaking systems. Leaking pipes made from old
technology materials lose an estimated 2.6 trillion gallons of drinking
water annually, or 17 percent of all treated water pumped in the United
States.
The solution to these problems begins with sustainability,
durability and corrosion resistance, and this is why more utilities
must actively consider all approved piping materials like PVC in their
bidding processes. Increased durability means fewer leaks, better water
conservation and lower costs. As a result, any comprehensive action
plan for water and wastewater infrastructure renewal must also include
reform of municipal procurement practices that limit competition,
shackle innovation and increase costs.
We believe that to get the most efficient and sustainable use of
Federal money for water and wastewater projects, free and open
competition must be the operating standard. Federal grants provided to
municipalities should have open competition stipulations similar to
those required by the USDA Rural Development Program for water and
sewer projects. In this way Federal dollars obtain maximum value for
taxpayers. When products are excluded from bidding, taxpayers suffer as
does the efficiency of our infrastructure.
With over 2 million miles in service, PVC pipe has been celebrated
by Engineering News Record as one of the top 20 engineering
advancements of the last 125 years. A study by the American Water Works
Research Foundation recently quantified the life expectancy of PVC pipe
at more than 110 years--making it excellent for long-term asset
management and sustainability. Furthermore, PVC pipe is more efficient
to manufacture, taking four times less energy to make than concrete
pressure pipe, and half that used for iron pipe.
As well, PVC pipe is cost effective, has watertight joints and its
lightweight reduces transportation and installation costs, yielding
additional greenhouse gas reductions. It is also totally recyclable,
though most of it has yet to enter the recycling stream given its great
durability.
Numerous organizations have published studies on the need to update
procurement practices to more cost effectively finance our underground
infrastructure. Below are links to some of these reports:
--Procurement Process Improvements Yield Cost-Effective Public
Benefits
--Reforming Our Nation's Approach to the Infrastructure Crisis: How
Competition, Oversight, and Innovation Can Lower Water and
Sewer Rates in the U.S.
--Lowering Costs in Water Infrastructure through Procurement Reform:
A Strategy for State Governments
--Fixing America's Crumbling Underground Water Infrastructure:
Competitive Bidding Offers a Way Out
Also please find links to water main break rate and pipe longevity
studies by Utah State University's Buried Structures Laboratory, which
determined that PVC has the lowest break rate of all water piping
materials and the longest lifespan:
--Water Main Break Rates in the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study
--PVC Pipe Longevity Report: A Comprehensive Study on PVC Pipe
Excavations, Testing, and Life Cycle Analysis
The PVC pipe industry thanks you for letting us submit a statement
for this important hearing and we will be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
[This statement was submitted by Bruce Hollands, Executive
Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of Emily Renzel of the Baylands Conservation
Committee, Palo Alto, California
Our refuge system is vital to wildlife throughout the United
States--especially as urban development continues to crowd wildlife out
of their habitat in many areas. Recent extreme weather events make the
need for refuges even more important. Please support the refuge
system's full budget appropriation in a bill that is rider-free.
______
Prepared Statement of the Resource Development Council
Dear Chairmen Rogers and Cochran and Ranking Member Lowey and Vice
Chairwoman Mikulski:
I am writing on behalf of the Resource Development Council for
Alaska (RDC), to encourage appropriation language to limit the adverse
impacts of the administration's National Ocean Policy (Executive Order
13547) on the Alaskan and U.S. economy.
RDC is an Alaskan non-profit, membership-funded organization
founded in 1975. The RDC membership is comprised of individuals and
companies from Alaska's oil and gas, mining, timber, tourism, and
fisheries industries, as well as Alaska Native corporations, local
communities, organized labor, and industry support firms. RDC's purpose
is to link these diverse interests together to encourage a strong,
diversified private sector in Alaska and expand the State's economic
base through the responsible development of our natural resources.
Alaskans, with 34,000 miles of coastline, 3,000 rivers, and over 3
million lakes, have a significant stake in National Ocean Policy, and
will be impacted more than other States by the Policy. Coastal and
rural Alaskan communities may become financially devastated by National
Ocean Policy implementation.
With efforts soon to commence to draft legislation funding the
Federal Government for fiscal year 2016, I write to urge the inclusion
of language in all appropriations bills to help ensure that continued
implementation of the July 2010 National Ocean Policy Executive Order
does not create any additional uncertainty or result in new regulatory
hurdles.
The National Ocean Policy directs dozens of Federal entities to
participate in ``Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning'' (CMSP) across
the United States. CMSP is described as a process ``to better determine
how the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes are sustainably used and
protected,'' and the Interior Department has likened CMSP to a
``national zoning plan'' that ``will serve as an overlay'' in Federal
decisions.
Concerns are further heightened given that the geographic coverage
of CMSP includes inland bays and estuaries, and upland areas as new
``Regional Planning Bodies'' established to create these plans deem
appropriate, and since Federal entities will ``address priority . . .
ocean management issues associated with marine planning as described in
the Executive Order'' even in regions like Alaska that choose not to
participate.
In addition to CMSP, the National Ocean Policy requires the Federal
Government to implement ``Ecosystem-Based Management'' (EBM), which is
described as a ``fundamental shift'' in how the U.S. manages ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes resources. Among other things, the National
Ocean Policy requires dozens of Federal entities to ``[i]ncorporate EBM
into Federal agency environmental planning and review processes'' by
2016.
Language adopted by the Executive order states that ``effective''
National Ocean Policy implementation would ``require clear and easily
understood requirements and regulations, where appropriate, that
include enforcement as a critical component,'' and acknowledges that
the policy ``may create a level of uncertainty and anxiety among those
who rely on these resources and may generate questions about how they
align with existing processes, authorities, and budget challenges.''
In order to ensure that further implementation of the most
concerning aspects of an initiative that has not been authorized by
Congress does not create additional regulatory uncertainty, result in
new regulatory hurdles, or siphon away scarce Federal dollars from
critical and authorized activities, I respectfully request that all
appropriations bills include language stating that ``None of the funds
made available by this Act may be used to further implementation of the
coastal and marine spatial planning and ecosystem-based management
components of the National Ocean Policy developed under Executive Order
13547.''
RDC's broad and diverse membership is aligned in its concern over
the negative consequences of unchecked implementation of Executive
Order 13547. Alaska and our Federal partners have successfully managed
the diverse and important uses of marine waters without the need of the
additional layer of planning and regulatory oversight envisioned in
this Executive order. Diverse activities including: logistics and
shipping; well managed renewable fisheries which are the envy of the
world; off shore oil and gas development and mining; and remarkable
tourism and sport fishing opportunities all contribute greatly to the
economy of Alaska and our Nation.
Including this language will importantly provide Congress with an
opportunity to more closely examine the National Ocean Policy and the
full range of its potential impacts before it is fully implemented. In
closing, I appreciate your attention to this important matter and
respectfully request inclusion of the proposed language in all fiscal
year 2016 appropriations bills.
[This statement was submitted by Rick Rogers, Executive Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of Restore America's Estuaries
Restore America's Estuaries is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization that has been working since 1995 to restore our Nation's
greatest estuaries. Our mission is to restore and protect estuaries as
essential resources for our Nation. Restore America's Estuaries is an
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 2016 Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies appropriations bill, Restore America's Estuaries and
our members encourage you to provide the funding levels below within
the Department of 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)
--$50 million for Department of Interior, Coastal Resilience Fund.--
(Interior: Office of the Secretary: Departmental Operations:
Coastal Resilience Fund)
--$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 collaboratively within the
USFWS to coordinate strategic priorities and make landscape-scale
progress with other Federal, State, local, and non-governmental
partners and private landowners. 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 334,796 acres of wetland habitat; 148,160 acres of upland
habitat; and 2,176 miles of stream habitat.
--Protected more than 2 million acres of coastal habitat.
--Provided technical assistance to a diverse range of conservation
partners.
Our coastal communities and ecosystems are on the front lines of
changing and more extreme weather, and support for the USFWS Coastal
Program helps interested communities and partners address the new set
of challenges facing coastal communities. The Coastal Program has been
a key conservation delivery tool within the USFWS aimed at on-the-
ground habitat restoration and technical assistance. 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.
The Coastal Program stimulates local economies by supporting jobs
necessary to deliver habitat conservation projects; positions supported
include 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 Coastal Program estimates
that the average project supports 60 jobs and stimulates 40
businesses--this represents major local economic returns on the Federal
investment.
In Puget Sound, Washington, the Coastal Program invested $20,000 to
support a project to clean up and remove old and abandoned fishing gear
from the waters, resulting in a direct economic impact to the local
economy of $51,000 from just $20,000 in Federal funds. Around Puget
Sound abandoned gear like nets, lines, crab and shrimp traps pose many
problems for people, fish and marine animals. Just one lost net is
estimated to result in 4,400 crabs trapped which results in a lost
value to the crab fishery of $20,000. This project removed over 84
gillnets--returning an estimated value well over $1.5 million in value
to just the crab fishery.
Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support and
funding for USFWS Coastal Program and asks that you provide $15 million
for fiscal year 2016.
department of interior, coastal resilience fund
The Department of Interior's newly proposed Coastal Resilience Fund
will provide much-needed support for the restoration and conservation
of key coastal natural systems, such as beaches, dunes, and wetlands
that protect communities and infrastructure from the impacts of coastal
storms. In collaboration with State, local, and tribal governments,
non-government organizations, universities or other stakeholders, the
program's goals are to mitigate the impacts of climate change on
coastal and inland communities from storm wave velocity, erosion,
flooding, sea-level rise and associated natural threats; to strengthen
the ecological integrity and functionality of coastal and inland
ecosystems to protect communities; and to enhance the ability of
Federal lands to support important recreational, wildlife and cultural
values.
Restore America's Estuaries urges Congress to fund the Coastal
Resilience Fund and recommends that USFWS' Coastal Program administer
the program with the Office of the Secretary to ensure the funding
leverages existing staff biologists, science capacity, and expertise
within the USFWS and further advances the mission of the agency. The
USFWS Coastal Program has experience working to strategically direct
resources for greatest impact on the landscape scale and is the best
program aligned to meet the Department's Coastal Resiliency objectives.
This proposed funding is modeled after the Department of Interior's
Hurricane Sandy Coastal Resiliency Competitive Grants Program that
Congress established after Hurricane Sandy. The previous funding
successfully provided funds to the Hurricane Sandy affected region with
great success, and should be continued and expanded before more costly
efforts are needed down the road.
In New Jersey, American Littoral Society received funding to
restore 50 acres of Delaware Bay's wetlands and 6 miles of beach in
Cape May and Cumberland Counties, New Jersey. Still in implementation,
the project will improve horseshoe crab spawning, provide shorebird
stopover area, and improve ecological and economic community
resilience. The project will also enhance the understanding of the
impacts of extreme weather events and the benefits of nature-based
infrastructure and ecosystem services, and will identify cost-
effective, resilience tools that help mitigate for future events.
We are encouraged by Congress' past support for resiliency project
funding within the Department of Interior and urge that you provide $50
million for fiscal year 2016. This will help advance resiliency efforts
in areas that still have time to prepare their coastal communities for
future extreme weather.
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 asks that you provide $27.2 million for
USEPA National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways. Within this amount
for fiscal year 2016, 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:
1. 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.
2. Leveraging Private Funding.--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.
3. 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.
We greatly appreciate you taking our requests into consideration as
you move forward in the fiscal year 2016 appropriations process, and
thank you for doing so. We stand ready to work with you and your staff
to ensure the health of our Nation's estuaries and coasts.
[This statement was submitted by Jeffrey R. Benoit, President and
CEO.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian
Health, Inc.
I am Brandie Miranda Greany and I am a member of the Pechanga Band
of Luiseno Indians and the Treasurer of Riverside-San Bernardino County
Indian Health, Inc. Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the
2016 appropriations for the Indian Health Service.
Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health is a consortium of
nine tribes located in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Our
member tribes are the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, the Cahuilla
Band of Indians, the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Ramona
Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, the
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the Agua-Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and the San
Manuel Band of Mission Indians. We operate several health centers under
a self-governance compact with the Indian Health Service and we are
very proud of the vast array of services offered at our clinics,
including medical, dental, optical, behavioral health, pharmacy,
laboratory, environmental health, community health representative, and
nutrition services.
We serve over 15,000 Native Americans and 3,000 related family
members, and experience over 100,000 patient visits each year. Our
service area includes two of the largest counties in the contiguous
United States, so our member tribes have joined together to develop a
way to economically and efficiently provide healthcare services for our
people. We also provide healthcare for three other local tribes: the
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians, and the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians. Almost two-thirds
of our patients come either from these three local tribes or from
members of other non-consortium tribes who reside in our two-county
service area.
Given the number of patients we treat, our IHS dollars can only go
so far. But we are thankful for the support of Congress and the funding
provided to ensure our people are healthy. We also cannot thank you
enough for listening to the tribal representatives that appear at these
hearings to share their experiences. We were pleased that last year's
appropriations signaled that Congress heard our voice and we hope you
will continue to pressure IHS to honor the Government's trust
responsibility to provide culturally-competent and high-quality
healthcare for Native Americans.
Mandatory Contract Support Costs (CSC) Appropriations.--Last year,
I thanked the subcommittee for its hard work in achieving full funding
for our compact with IHS. This year we have a lot more to be thankful
for due to the support of this subcommittee. Not only did Congress's
instructions to IHS ensure that our contract support costs were paid in
full, but Congress encouraged the agency to reverse the hostile
position it had taken with tribes in the past. And perhaps more
importantly, the agency has committed to working with tribal leaders to
develop long-term solutions to ensure our contracts are never
underfunded again. We are extremely appreciative of your support and
your efforts to bring about this long-overdue change.
I had hoped to report that despite extremely contentious
negotiations, we were finally able to reach a settlement of our prior
year claims against the agency. And while we did reach a tentative
settlement with the agency back in September following several rounds
of in-person negotiations, our settlement agreement has yet to be
signed by the Government. We are ready to put these claims behind us,
so we cannot understand the cause for this seemingly endless delay in
just signing our agreement.
All that said, 2014 was a truly historic year. But, our gains came
at a price, because when the agency realized it had not accurately
estimated the total contract support cost need for 2014, it was forced
to reprogram service funds to cover its obligations. This meant that
while self-governance tribes received full contract funding for the
first time ever, our brothers and sisters that receive direct services
at IHS facilities faced program reductions due to IHS's faulty
predictions. Tribes made clear that we wanted our contracts paid in
full, but not at the expense of reducing services for other tribes. And
throughout the year of consultation on long-term solutions, tribes made
clear the way to prevent this situation was with a permanent mandatory
appropriation for CSC. Only that vehicle would separate CSC payments
from the IHS services budget, protecting vital program funds, while
also ensuring our contracts are always paid in full. There really could
be no better solution to this predicament than a mandatory
appropriation.
The agency listened to tribal requests and included a proposal to
move CSC to a mandatory appropriation beginning in 2017. We believe the
details of the proposal could use some improvement, but the message is
right on--CSC must be moved to a mandatory appropriation. The Supreme
Court has already ruled that the Government must fulfill its statutory
and contractual obligation to pay CSC in full, so these amounts must be
paid regardless of the type of appropriation. A mandatory appropriation
will meet this goal and also ensure service funds are not reduced to
cover this obligation.
The agency proposed a 3-year appropriation, but we believe the
measure should actually be permanent. A permanent appropriation would
obligate the Government to fund only the amounts necessary to pay the
full requirement each year, and no more; however, if the appropriation
has a limited duration, IHS would have to estimate the total cost to
fully fund CSC each year, and like any estimates these totals will
necessarily be imprecise. Erring on the high side uses more money than
is necessary in a tight budget climate.
Lastly, the administration's proposal sets aside up to 2 percent of
the appropriation for program administration. This provision should be
eliminated. The appropriation is meant to cover CSC and provide funds
for tribes, not the agency. Additionally, if the agency adopts the
instruction from Congress to simplify CSC calculations, these changes
will reduce bureaucracy, eliminating the need for this set aside. Our
goal is to simplify this process, not build up a large monitoring
bureaucracy that requires us to devote even more administrative
resources to CSC calculations, negotiations and reconciliations.
In any event, the proposal is a historic first step. And we ask
this subcommittee to ensure this proposal becomes law--a law that will
complete the fight for CSC that tribes have been waging for decades.
Medicare-like Rates For Outpatient Services.--Our IHS dollars can
only go so far. However, they would go much farther if we were able to
pay Medicare-like rates through the Purchased and Referred Care program
(contract care) for the non-hospital outpatient and specialty services
our patients need and that we are unable to provide in our clinics. The
regulation at 42 C.F.R. 136 part D limits the amounts tribes pay for
hospital services to the amount Medicare would pay for these same
services (the Medicare-like rate provision). For years, tribes have
been fighting for the implementation of a similar provision that covers
outpatient services--the other half of the services we must send
patients out to access, such as cardiology, pain management,
nephrology, endocrinology and dialysis. Without such a provision, our
contract care dollars are drained to pay the full billed charges, which
are often several times higher than the Medicare rates.
Congress can fix this issue. Congress has already done so for the
health programs administered by the Department of Defense, and the
Department of Veterans Affairs issued a final rule to limit the amount
its health programs pay for comparable services. Similarly, this past
year IHS proposed a regulation to try and fix this issue and extend
Medicare-like rates for outpatient services. However, IHS's proposal--
while better than nothing--had some issues. First, the proposed
regulation was mandatory, meaning it may interfere with contracts that
tribes have already negotiated. Second, the proposal did not have any
flexibility, so tribes could never negotiate a higher rate in case of
emergency or the absence of providers willing to provide services at
these lower rates. While we truly appreciate the agency's willingness
to tackle this issue in response to tribal concerns, we believe a
legislative fix is necessary because only legislation can address the
enforcement mechanisms that will be needed to implement this reform.
In summary, a provision to extend Medicare-like rates for all
contracted services could increase tribal buying power between an
estimated $100 million to $340 million nationwide. For our program
alone, access to Medicare-like rates for our outpatient referrals would
save us on average 33 percent of the charges we are currently billed--
an amount which would translate into approximately $500,000 in savings
each year that could be used for additional healthcare. This
legislation would expand and enhance tribal access to care and improve
the health status of all served. It is therefore no surprise that
support for this legislation has been affirmed by a variety of
organizations that are familiar with our programs, including the IHS
California Area Office; National Congress of American Indians; National
Indian Health Board and the IHS Office of Tribal Self Governance. We
also note this change would be ``budget neutral'' to the Federal
Government, so we ask you to take action on this measure as swiftly as
possible.
YRTC Funding.--The IHS 2016 budget includes $17.8 million for
staffing and operating costs for newly-constructed facilities and Youth
Regional Treatment Centers (YRTC). In 2014, the California Area Office
finally started construction on the Southern California YRTC. That
construction is scheduled to be completed in December 2015, so full
funding for fiscal year 2016 staffing needs are essential to ensure the
facility opens on time and can serve a maximum number of patients.
Additionally, the agency plans to start construction of the Northern
California YRTC and this facility, too, will need funds for staffing
and operation. Together, these facilities will provide much-needed care
for our Native youth.
For example, when our Native children need this care we currently
have to send them out-of-State for intensive care services. These
programs are costly and we pay up to $10,000 per month for these
intensive care services. Even worse, our families are forced to travel
long distances to places like St. George, Utah for family visits. Large
distances also impact the continuity of care because there are few
opportunities for medical providers and families to interact on an
ongoing basis. The California YRTCs will provide these crucial services
locally in an environment where families and children can work
together. These opportunities will allow the whole family to heal
together.
For instance, the California YRTCs will provide residential
chemical dependency treatment for Native youth from 12 to 17. Each
facility offers comprehensive 3 to 4 month treatment programs, which
incorporate mental health services, medical care, education, aftercare
planning, and family therapy. They are also designed to respond to the
unique cultural needs of our youth. These facilities will be critical
for treating youth that are struggling, ensuring they can get back on
track and lead healthy productive lives as adults. But, our new
facilities will be meaningless without the talented professionals that
will be needed to staff them. Therefore, we ask that Congress fully
fund this line item and ensure our YRTCs live up to their potential.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear in front of this
distinguished subcommittee and share our concerns.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sac and Fox Nation
On behalf of the Sac and Fox Nation thank you for the opportunity
to present our requests for the fiscal year 2016 budgets for the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). The Sac
and Fox Nation is home of Jim Thorpe, one of the most versatile
athletes of modern sports who earned Olympic gold medals for the 1912
pentathlon and decathlon.
The Sac and Fox Nation supports and appreciates the President's
fiscal year 2016 budget proposal for an overall increase of 12 percent
for BIA over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level, the largest increase
in more than a decade (excluding Recovery Act funding). The IHS would
receive a 9 percent increase.
In general, all tribal programs including BIA and IHS line items
should be exempt from any budget recessions and discretionary funding
budget reductions. Further, the Sac and Fox Nation is extremely
concerned about the consequences of the 2013 sequestration and similar
future reductions to tribal program funding. We strongly urge Congress
to fully restore sequestration cuts from fiscal year 2013 since it
threatens the trust responsibility and reduces portions of the budget
that are not major contributors to the deficit.
tribal specific requests
I. TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUEST
$4.95 Million to Fully Fund Operations and Maintenance of the Sac
and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC)--Bureau of Indian
Affairs--Public Safety and Justice--Office of Justice Services--
Detention/Corrections Facility Operations and Maintenance Account.--The
Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) requires Department of the Interior
(DOI) Indian Affairs to develop guidelines for approving correction
centers for long term incarceration, as well as work with the
Department of Justice on a long-term plan for tribal detention centers.
In the absence of appropriations to fully fund and fully implement
TLOA, the intent of Congress and the effectiveness and benefits of TLOA
to tribal courts, law enforcement and detention programs in Indian
Country are less of a reality and more of what tribes have experienced
in the past--an unfulfilled trust obligation.
II. NATIONAL REQUESTS--BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
1. Authorize mandatory funding and fully fund Contract Support
Costs (CSC).--The President's budget request for contract support costs
is $277.0 million, an increase of $26.0 million above the fiscal year
2015 enacted level. Based on the most recent analysis, the requested
amount will fully fund 2016 tribal contract support costs. The budget
also includes--for the first time ever--a new proposal to fully fund
BIA and Indian Health Service contract support costs as mandatory
funding, beginning in fiscal year 2017.
2. Public Safety and Justice--Law and Order--Detention/
Corrections.--Fully fund all provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act
of 2010 and the Tribal Provisions in the Violence Against Women Act
Reauthorization.
3. Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($119 million) to Tribal Program
Funding.
4. + $319 million over fiscal year 2015 for Tribal Priority
Allocations Account.--We support an increase of $139 million in fiscal
year 2016 and that these increases be provided via tribal base funding
agreements.
5. 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. Authorize mandatory funding and fully fund Contract Support
Costs (CSC).--The President's fiscal year 2016 budget proposal fully
funds the estimated need for CSC at $718 million, an increase of $55
million above fiscal year 2015. The estimated increase includes funding
for new and expanded contracts and compacts. The budget also requests
that CSC be reclassified to a mandatory appropriation beginning in
fiscal year 2017;
2. Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($220 Million) to Tribal Health
Services;
3. +$368.9 million over the fiscal year 2015 President's proposal
budget for IHS Mandatory Funding (maintain current services).--
Mandatories are unavoidable and include medical and general inflation,
pay costs, contract support costs, phasing in staff for recently
constructed facilities, and population growth;
4. +$70.3 million for Purchased and Referred Care.--The
President's fiscal year 2016 budget includes $25.5 million increase, in
addition to $43.6 million in Purchased and Referred Care (PRC) medical
inflation and $1.2 million for staffing/operating costs (total PRC
increase of $70.3 million). The PRC program pays for urgent and
emergency and other critical services that are not directly available
through IHS and tribally operated health programs; and
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.
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
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 Sac and Fox 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 would allow the Sac and Fox 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.
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
Operations and Maintenance. Additional funding in the amount of $4.95
million, 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 Sac and Fox 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 intentions as the Tribal Law and Order Act Long-Term Plan
to Build and Enhance Tribal Justice Systems 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.
Thank you for allowing me to submit these requests on these fiscal
year 2016 budgets.
[This statement was submitted by Hon. George L. Thurman, Principal
Chief.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Seattle Indian Health Board
Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro and Representatives of the
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, and
Related Agencies, my name is Aren Sparck. I am the Government Affairs
Officer for the Seattle Indian Health Board (SIHB), which is a
contractor and grantee with the Indian Health Service (IHS), and one of
the largest of the 33 Subchapter IV of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act (IHCIA) funded Urban Indian Health Programs (UIHP). We
provide primary care services as a Health Resources Services
Administration 330 program, offer outpatient services on-site, and
operate the Thunderbird Treatment Facility, a 65-bed inpatient chemical
dependency treatment center. We also create, analyze, and report on
urban Indian health data through our Urban Indian Health Institute
(UIHI), the only IHS Tribal Epidemiology Center (TEC) in the country
with a national purview. We are asking for $5 million for urban
American Indian/Alaska Native (Al/AN) health research funds over 5
years.
I am requesting that the subcommittee increase their investment in
monitoring the health status of the urban Al/AN population. Since 1970,
the urban Al/AN population has grown from 45 percent \1\ of all Al/ANs
to 71 percent \2\ in 2010. The urban Al/AN health line item was less
than 1 percent \3\ of the overall IHS budget in fiscal year 2015, with
a flat increase in the President's fiscal year 2016 budget. There were
negligible allocations from other Federal trust obligation areas of
housing and education to address the needs of the urban population.
Considering this, it is easy to see that the urban Al/AN population
suffers alarmingly high rates of disparities, notably in poverty,
unemployment, a lack of health insurance, etc.\4\ Despite UIHPs and
urban Al/AN serving institutions receiving legislative authority in
Subchapter IV \5\ (formerly Title V) of the IHCIA, as amended in 2010
in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a lack of
inclusion in program and resource planning committees at the HHS level
has resulted in the majority of funds going to tribes where
approximately two out of every 10 Al/ANs live in tribal lands.\2\ The
fiscal year 2015 IHS budget urban line item was $46.3 million
dollars,\3\ again less than 1 percent of the total IHS budget, despite
7 out of every 10 Al/ANs living in urban areas.\2\ We feel that the
almost discriminatory lack of resource and administrative attention the
urban ALAN population receives can be attributed to a lack of inclusion
in program-planning at the Federal level, and a lack of quality data
for reference. This is the reason we are asking the subcommittee to
invest not just in funds, but administration-wide, so a more complete
picture of Al/AN community health can be achieved. We feel that with
increased investment from HHS, the IHS budget shortfall for the urban
population will be better addressed with sound science and data.
We recently had a conversation with the Director of the Office of
Minority Health (OMH) about the importance of increasing their
monitoring investment for urban AVANs. What we heard from the director
was, unfortunately, what we have heard from every department head in
HHS. They absolutely do understand the overrepresentation in population
and underrepresentation in research dollars allocated to the urbans,
but the resources are just not there to address the disparities.
Because the urbans receive so little attention from HHS and the
OMH, we have very little baseline data concerning where the 71 percent
of urban Al/ANs are accessing healthcare and what types of services
they are utilizing. We know that our urban Al/AN population suffers
from high rates of health disparities in multiple chronic conditions,\4
6\ but the UIHPs that are tasked with delivering healthcare to the 3.7
million Al/ANs living in urban areas are only in 19 States and 100
counties.\7\ In the UIHP catchment areas, there are one million Al/ANs
we can have potential access to,\8\ but the reality is, we see a small
fraction of that. In SIHB's catchment area of King County, the most
urban and populated county in the State of Washington, there are
approximately 40,000 Al/ANs,\9\ and we see only 3,889.
Knowing where our population is going for healthcare, and what
types of services they are utilizing pre- and post-healthcare reform
implementation will help us understand whether: (1) the quality of
national data sets, such as the Epi Data Mart, UDS and CMS data are
creating a comprehensive picture of urban Al/AN health; (2) chronic
conditions are being treated; (3) primary and preventative care are
being accessed; (4) access to the IHS, Tribal Health and UIHP (I/T/U)
system of culturally relevant care make a difference in health status;
and (5) the policy intervention the PPACA implemented is truly making a
difference in the Al/AN population.
To do this, we are asking that the subcommittee allocate $5 million
in research funds over 5 years to the OMH specifically for the analysis
of where urban Al/ANs are accessing care throughout the country and
what types of services they are utilizing. This is the baseline data
that will allow us to make better policy decisions about where research
and program funds go in Indian Country to end the high health
disparities our urban population experiences. We also ask that the
funds go to an Al/AN research organization such as the TECs that have
experience collecting and analyzing national data. This will help build
the scientific and infrastructure capacity within our Al/AN community
necessary to create a trusting partnership between HHS and Indian
Country by legitimizing quality research and data analysis for AVANs by
Al/ANs. This is preferable to seeing research dollars build the
capacity of academic institutions whose primary focus is not in Indian
Country.
Aside from the $5 million for urban Al/AN healthcare access and
service utilization analysis, we ask that funding priorities reflect
less understood and emergent issues our urban population is facing.
Because our urban population is by and large highly mobile and low-
income, social and health pressures are exerting themselves in our
urban Al/AN youth that are vulnerable to conditions of mental health
and chemical dependency problems, violence and an alarming incidence of
prostitution and human trafficking. Our youth are very susceptible to
gang violence, as the family and cultural dynamic is often disparate
and inconsistent due to a lack of any dominant Al/AN culture in the
city. A special funding emphasis needs to be made addressing dental
health and access to specialty care for our population. With these
funds, we can create coalitions between the UIHPs and Marketplace and
Medicare/Medicaid purchasers, both private and public. These coalitions
can create a system that understands that our population is in
immediate need of specialty care to stabilize chronic conditions, which
will lead to primary care use for preventative medicine purposes. With
a push towards capitation for public health purchasing, this type of
dialog is essential to eliminate health disparities in our urban Al/AN
population instead of sustaining a chronic state of health.
It is unfortunate that the urban AI/AN population finds itself
suffering from almost constant disparity. Many factors have led us
here: lack of representation (no urban voice in HHS Secretary's Tribal
Advisory Committee or the OMH's Al/AN Health Research Advisory Council;
lack of a single Federal definition of Al/AN (five different
definitions of Al/AN used in IHCIA); \10\ a general acceptance of the
Federal Government that conferring with and allocating almost entirely
to tribes is addressing the health and human service needs of the
entire Al/AN population, etc. We know that the Al/AN population is
overrepresented in urban areas, yet severely lacks access to the
Federal trust. An Al/AN does not cease to be Al/AN just because they
have left tribal lands. By geographically limiting the reach of the
Federal trust only to those Al/ANs who reside on tribal lands, we are
forcing AVANs to think they cannot keep their identity by leaving the
geographical boundaries of their tribe. Congress has acknowledged that
the Federal trust obligation does not end at the reservation
boundary.\11\ We need to follow the lead of the 1921 Snyder Act, which
gives Congress broad discretion in allocating funds for the ``care,
benefit, and assistance of Indians throughout the United States.'' \12\
That there is no tribal or geographical caveat in this legislation
proves that the Government does indeed have an obligation to all Al/AN
people, regardless of where they choose to live.
By dedicating funds to address our data needs, understanding our
healthcare access and utilization patterns, stabilizing our chronic
conditions to lead to preventative care utilization, and addressing the
emergent health and social threats, HHS can demonstrate that they are
dedicated to ending the health disparities our Al/AN population faces.
I want to be very explicit that in no way am I advocating for taking
money from the tribes to fund these urban initiatives, as they are
woefully underfunded as it is. I am asking that the subcommittee
increase their investment in Indian Country to a level that reflects
actual need, thereby fulfilling the Federal trust obligation the
Federal Government has to our Al/AN population.
----------
Endnotes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census
of Population: Subject Report--American Indians.
\2\ U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. ``Census 2010 American Indian and
Alaska Native Summary File; Table: PCT2; Urban and rural; Universe
Total Population; Population group name: American Indian and Alaska
Native alone or in combination with one or more other races.''
\3\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2016.
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Indian Health
Service Fiscal Year 2016. pgs. CJ-23, CJ-27.
\4\ Urban Indian Health Institute, Seattle Indian Health Board.
(2011) Community Health Profile: National Aggregate of Urban Indian
Health Organization Service Areas. Seattle, Washington: Urban Indian
Health Institute.
\5\ Subchapter IV of Chapter 18 of Title 25 of the United States
Code (25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1651 et seq.).
\6\ Castor ML, Smyser MS, Taualii M, Park A, Lawson SA, Forquera R.
(2006). A nationwide population-based study identifying health
disparities between American Indians/Alaska Natives and the general
populations living in select urban counties. American Journal of Public
Health, 96(8), 1478-84.
\7\ The Urban Indian Health Institute. About Urban Indian Health
Organizations. 2015. http://www.uihi.org/about-urban-indian-health-
organizations/.
\8\ Testimony of Donna Keeler, President of the National Council of
Urban Indian Health to the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Native
American Witness Day Hearing, March 25, 2015. http://docs.house.gov/
meetings/AP/AP06/20150325/102900/HHRG-114-AP06-Wstate-KeelerD-
20150325.pdf.
\9\ United States Census, 2010. 2010 Demographic Profile Data, King
County, Washington. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/
jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk.
\10\ National Indian Health Board. The Definition of ``Indian''
Under the Affordable Care Act Approved by the Tribal Technical Advisory
Workgroup. 2010.
\11\ Senate Report 100-508, Indian Health Care Improvement Act
Amendments of 1987, September 14, 1988, page 25.
\12\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 13,1921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley
Reservation
Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Lindsey Manning. I am Chairman of the
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. I am
pleased to submit testimony concerning the fiscal year 2016 budget for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
Indian Health Service (IHS). The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes are grateful
for this subcommittee's long standing support of Indian tribes and for
sharing its understanding of Indian Country with your colleagues so
that this Congress can continue to empower tribal governments and
promote the bipartisan national goals of local control and Indian self-
determination.
The Duck Valley Reservation is a large, rural reservation that
straddles the Idaho-Nevada border along the east fork of the Owyhee
River. It encompasses 450 square miles in Elko County, Nevada and
Owyhee County, Idaho. The reservation is 140 miles from Boise, Idaho,
and 100 miles from Elko, Nevada. Many of our 2000 tribal members make
their living as farmers and ranchers, though a number of them are
employed by the tribes. We assume most duties of the BIA and IHS under
self-governance compacts, although the BIA continues to provide law
enforcement and detention services on the reservation.
Building and maintaining tribal infrastructure is our greatest
challenge:
--We are replacing our administration buildings contaminated by mold;
--We have renovated a detention center to create a modern facility
that can house treatment programs and implement ``alternatives
to incarceration'' programs to reduce recidivism;
--We are undertaking road safety improvements and reconstruction of
existing roads to make our community safer;
--We are building our Cultural Resources Protection and Greenhouse/
Native Plant Programs to employ and train the next generation
of tribal members to protect cultural resources sites and, in
partnership with BLM, restore native plants indigenous to the
region following damaging wildfires;
--We are working to restore salmon to the reservation for the first
time in over 80 years; and
--We continue to look for economic development opportunities.
In too many instances, however, our success in these areas is
largely dependent on Federal appropriations which, in turn, determine
whether economic and social conditions on the Duck Valley Indian
Reservation improve or worsen. While we contribute tribal resources to
these endeavors as best we can, we look to our Federal partner for
support. As a remote reservation, we cannot turn to a nearby
jurisdiction for help in providing essential services. The tribal
government is the only local government available. If we fall short,
our members suffer. For this reason, we support the President's fiscal
year 2016 budget request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of
Land Management and Indian Health Service. Without sustained growth in
these Federal programs, we cannot meet the needs of our reservation. We
encourage this subcommittee to build on the proposed increases in the
President's budget for these essential tribal programs. Our priorities
for fiscal year 2016 include:
1. Increase funding for the BIA Public Safety and Special
Initiatives Program.--To provide alternatives to incarceration for
adult and juvenile offenders from Duck Valley and alter the ``detention
first, treatment second,'' mentality, we urge the subcommittee to build
on the President's modest $11.5 million increase (3.2 percent) for
BIA's Public Safety and Justice Programs. We receive $250,000 in
additional recurring funding to participate in a pilot program with the
BIA's Office of Justice Services (OJS) to reduce recidivism on the Duck
Valley Reservation by creating an ``alternative to incarceration''
model program. Housing shortages limit our ability to hire and place
substance abuse counselors, mental health professionals and detention
personnel on the reservation to kick start our pilot program.
For that reason, we also urge the subcommittee to expand the
greatly reduced Housing Improvement Program (HIP) above its $8 million
budget. If we can access HIP funds, it would free up other resources to
address the need for housing health and law enforcement/detention
professionals on the reservation where housing is simply not available.
I also urge the subcommittee to support the President's $4 million
increase for the BIA's ``Special Initiatives'' subaccount for fiscal
year 2016 and include statutory language to make clear that such funds
may be used for the purchase or lease of temporary trailers or modular
units to house personnel associated with law enforcement, corrections,
probation, tribal courts and other professionals serving adult and
youth offenders. For rural communities, housing is often the linchpin
that enables key personnel to locate to the reservation and make a
difference.
2. Fund the Owyhee Initiative within the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM).--The Owyhee Initiative is a joint effort by ranchers,
recreationalists, County and State officials, and the Shoshone-Paiute
Tribes to protect, manage and appropriately use public lands in Owyhee
County, Idaho. In 2009, Congress passed the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act, Public Law 111-1. In 2010, we entered into a 5-year
agreement with BLM to protect cultural resources and increase public
understanding and appreciation of these resources. Increased
recreational use and encroachment within the Owyhee River Wilderness
Area and other Federal lands place these resources under stress. This
year we seek to enter into another 5-year agreement with BLM. As the
Department has noted, urban growth and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on
public lands continues to increase and place increased demand on public
health and safety and natural and cultural resource protection
programs. We have been a good partner with BLM.
BLM funding several years ago allowed us to purchase two Cessna
planes and ATV equipment and hire one Chief Ranger and a Cultural
Resources Director to patrol public lands and report violations of
cultural and religious sites to BLM officials. We work closely with BLM
and Owyhee County officials to coordinate compatible recreation use
within BLM lands in Owyhee County, especially within the wilderness
areas where we seek to protect cultural resource sites important to our
tribes. The Ranger and Director also spot and report wildfires to BLM
officials before the fires can do great damage to sensitive, remote
areas.
We seek recurring BLM funds to continue this important work to
protect cultural sites and establish a Reserve Ranger Program to engage
tribal youth in cultural and related activities during the summer. The
Chief Ranger and Cultural Resources Director are near retirement and it
is essential that we hire and train replacement staff, including a
pilot, to continue their important work for our tribes. We seek BLM
funds to hire an Assistant Director, one adult Tribal Ranger and two
part-time Youth Rangers, train a qualified applicant as an additional
pilot, purchase two more ATVs and two camp trailers to permit tribal
personnel to remain in the field and overhaul the two Cessna planes per
FAA regulations and construct a hanger at the Owyhee Airport to
centralize our operation and increase surveillance flights over Owyhee
County. We contribute nearly 50 percent of the required budget but
cannot sustain this important program without Federal support. Our plan
requires $600,000 to fully fund the above activities.
We also support the administration's $2.0 increase for BLM Cultural
Resources Management and other BLM accounts used to manage and protect
archaeological and historic properties on public lands. Scattered
across millions of acres of high desert in southwest Idaho and northern
Nevada are the remnants of campsites, villages, hunting blinds and rock
inscriptions that tell the story of the Shoshone-Paiute and other
tribes. After speaking with Shoshone-Bannock tribal officials, together
with northern tier Nevada tribes (including the Te-Moak, Battle
Mountain, South Fork and Goshute tribes), we seek BLM funds to form a
tribal cultural resources work group to spread best practices for
cultural resources management and protection that we have learned over
the last 20 years. We would be a good candidate for a BLM grant. We
request a special appropriation to create a multi-tribal task force to
propose and design strategies for on the ground protection of Native
American cultural resources for the Upper Great Basin and High Plateau
of the tri-State area of Nevada, Oregon and Idaho.
3. Telecommunications (fiber optics).--The tribes continue to need
fiber infrastructure over 5 miles for connectivity among Fish, Wildlife
and Parks, Tribal Headquarters, Juvenile Services Center, Fire Station
and the Owyhee Community Health Facility. The health center serves as
the Wide Area Network (WAN) hub for the tribes' and health center's
computer network. Connectivity among these facilities and programs
would alleviate the long-term monthly recurring cost we pay to an
Ethernet Circuit provider ($96,000 annually). We require $500,000 to
construct new fiber networks and cover construction inspection fees. We
urge the subcommittee to increase appropriations so that remote, rural
communities like Duck Valley can improve telecommunications networks
and break down communication barriers to promote education and job
opportunities for our members.
4. East Fork Owyhee Salmon Steelhead Recovery and Reintroduction
Project.--We seek to return Chinook salmon and steelhead trout to Duck
Valley and the State of Nevada through an innovative ``trap-and-haul''
program. Dam construction along the Columbia and Snake Rivers
eliminated salmon from the State of Nevada. Duck Valley is unique in
that it supports two major tributaries to the Snake River. Last year,
we financed a pilot study that found that habitat in the East Fork of
the Owyhee River may support a summer rearing capacity of between 3,300
and 43,000 juvenile steelhead trout and from 3,600 to 41,000 Chinook
salmon. With additional funding of approximately $210,000 for the next
3 years, we can complete our habitat surveys of the East Fork Owyhee
River, including obtaining data on non-summer river conditions, as well
as an assessment of the Bruneau River habitat.
We propose to transport adult fish from Lower Granite Dam or Hells
Canyon Dam and release the fish above China Dam into the East Fort
Owyhee River to spawn. Emigrating juvenile fish would later be captured
and released downstream from passage carriers on the Snake River to
complete their migration to the Pacific Ocean. Adult salmon originating
from the East Fork Owyhee River would later be captured in the lower
Snake River and transported back upstream.
We urge the subcommittee to support the President's $48 million
increase to the BIA's Trust-Natural Resources Management program
budget, including the Fish, Wildlife and Parks program. Tribes contract
a significant part of the Natural Resources program funds. An increase
to the BIA's Trust-Natural Resources budget can help us with this
innovative project to restock the reservation with salmon and steelhead
trout.
5. Quagga Mussel Issue (invasive species).--The fiscal year 2016
budget proposes to maintain funding at essentially the fiscal year 2014
funding levels for invasive species ($6.7 million). This is penny wise
and pound foolish. We seek funds to add an additional boat-washing
station at the Wildhorse Reservoir near the reservation for the boat
launch we lease. This will ensure that boaters who then transport their
boats to tributaries of the Columbia and Snake Rivers do not transfer
invasive species into those rivers. We are also working with Nevada
State officials to improve existing State laws concerning this issue.
Ignoring invasive species is only asking for trouble. Please augment
the fiscal year 2016 budget for invasive species above the President's
request.
6. Native Plant Program/Greenhouse.--In cooperation with the Idaho
Bureau of Land Management, the tribes gather, propagate and make
available seed and other native plant materials that are indigenous to
the region. Through a series of assistance agreements with BLM, we
built a greenhouse and are growing seedlings (including sagebrush and
bitterbrush seedlings) for planting on adjacent public lands. This
assists BLM and other agencies in their efforts to restore lands
damaged by wildfires and helps employ tribal members. This year, we are
completing construction of three greenhouses, plus installation of
equipment, walk-in-cooler and workshop. We plan to hire a greenhouse
manger and have tribal members collect seeds. For fiscal year 2016, we
seek funding to build a facility to house equipment to dry, clean and
store seed and hire part-time greenhouse staff to focus on marketing
and finances. We plan to have 40,000 containerized grasses and shrub
seedlings available for sale, together with willow and other riparian
plant cuttings and local vegetables for sale and distribution through
our ``Honor Our Elders'' program. We seek Interior Department
appropriations of $205,000 over the next 5 years to expand our program
and be a reliable supplier of native plants and seedlings for BLM.
7. IHS.--We fully support the President's fiscal year 2016 budget
increases to the Indian Health Service (IHS) budget, especially in the
area of clinical services, including Purchased/Referred Care and
Contract Support Costs (CSC). We also support the administration's
request to shift CSCs to a ``mandatory'' appropriation beginning in
fiscal year 2017, but would want to ensure that the shift is permanent
in nature. This funding must be paid. We are pleased to report that
after years of litigation, the tribes recently settled unpaid CSC
claims with the IHS. The settlement will allow us to augment our
available health services for the benefit of our members.
Please build on the President's budget request to meet tribal
health and safety needs that strengthen our community. Thank you for
affording me the opportunity to testify.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Historical Archaeology
Our Request.--$89.91 million for the Historic Preservation Fund
--$46.925 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs)
--$9.985 million for the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs)
--$500,000 in grants for underrepresented populations
--$30 million for the Civil Rights competitive grants initiative
--$2.5 million for competitive grants for Historically Black Colleges
and Universities (HBCUs)
These programs are funded through withdrawals from the U.S.
Department of the Interior's National Park Service Historic
Preservation Fund (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470h) (HPF).
society for historical archaeology (sha) and its members
With more than 2,300 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.
Most members are professional archaeologists who teach, work in museums
or consulting firms, or have government posts. Through SHA's close
relationship with the Advisory Council for Underwater Archaeology, our
members also include many of the world's underwater archaeologists.
funding shpos and thpos is critical 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. SHA
appreciates the administration's efforts to support preservation and
the HPF, and applauds the addition of funding for the Civil Rights
initiative; however, we ask that the subcommittee also consider
increasing funding to SHPOs and THPOs given chronic underfunding of
their activities.
The budget request does include a $1 million increase for THPOs.
THPOs are chronically underfunded; the additional $1 million is a start
to solving that challenge for tribes working to preserve and protect
their culture and history. The request also includes $30 million for
Civil Rights initiatives and $2.5 for HBCUs in recognition of the
anniversary of the Civil Rights movement. SHA supports these funding
pieces, as well, and hopes that such funds will help diversify the
sites preserved under the HPF.
conclusion
On behalf of its 2,300 members, SHA would like to thank the
subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony. SHA also thanks
the subcommittee for its commitment to historic preservation and
heritage management.
[This statement was submitted by Dr. Charles Ewen, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium
My name is Michael Douglas and I serve as the Vice-President and
Chief Legal Officer to the SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium
(SEARHC). I am honored to be here to testify before this subcommittee
about SEARHC's priorities and I thank Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking
Member Udall, and all members of the subcommittee for the opportunity
to do so.
SEARHC is an inter-tribal consortium of 15 federally recognized
tribes situated along the southeast panhandle of Alaska. Our service
area stretches over 35,000 square miles, and with no roads connecting
many of the rural communities we serve, we work hard to provide quality
health services to our communities. These services include medical,
dental, mental health, physical therapy, radiology, pharmacy,
laboratory, nutritional, audiology, optometry and respiratory therapy
services. We also provide supplemental social services, substance abuse
treatment, health promotion services, emergency medical services,
environmental health services and traditional Native healing. We
provide these services through a network of community clinics and the
Mt. Edgecumbe Hospital located in Sitka, Alaska.
The urgent healthcare needs across Indian Country are well known
and the challenges in meeting those needs are heightened in areas like
Southeast Alaska where communities are isolated and transportation and
facilities costs are high. SEARHC applauds the administration for
recognizing these needs by increasing the Indian Health Service (IHS)
budget. It is vital that these increases be preserved. But even these
increases will not be enough to allow SEARHC and other tribal
organizations to meet the healthcare needs of the people we serve. We
will meet these challenges, but to do so we will need your help.
Facilities Funding
Our greatest need is for increased facilities funding. We reported
to this subcommittee last year on this topic and another year of use
has only increased those needs. At 67 years old, the Mt. Edgecumbe
Hospital is the oldest facility in Alaska and one of the oldest in the
Nation. According to IHS's Facilities Engineering Deficiency System,
the cost to update SEARHC's facilities is $29,600,000. This results in
potential health telecommunications and electric outages, which
translates into potential interruptions in critical care services
including emergency services. Further, the funding deficiency delays
many necessary improvements, impacts physician staffing, and hurts
SEARHC's ability to expand and enhance services, such as tele-health.
And we are not unique. Estimates place IHS facilities funding needs at
$8.13 billion, a number that keeps on rising because IHS lacks
sufficient funding to maintain these facilities. We do our best to
patch the problem, but the bottom line is that without adequate
facilities, SEARHC cannot provide adequate services.
We request the subcommittee do four things.
Replace aging IHS facilities. We need a commitment from Congress to
start replacing aging IHS facilities. This will require reordering the
current facilities priority list, which was created on a first come,
first served basis. All rankings should be based on true need.
Increase facilities funding in the current budget proposal. The
President's budget contains modest funding increases for facilities
needs, totaling $179 million. While we applaud the administration for
taking this first step, it is only a first step, addressing only 2
percent of the $8.13 billion needed. Similarly, the President's budget
proposes for the first time in years, an increase in Maintenance and
Improvement funds of $35 million, for a total of $89 million in M&I
funding. That said, there is a critical maintenance backlog of $467
million. This means that $378 million of critical maintenance is not
going to be addressed. We strongly encourage the subcommittee to
increase the facilities funding in the IHS budget.
Joint Venture Projects. The JV project provides IHS funds to staff
facilities built with tribal funds. SEARHC submitted a proposal in the
most recent Joint Venture project funding round. Despite receiving a
very high score, our proposal to build a facility on Prince of Wales
Island was not selected. And in fact, of the 37 applications submitted,
only 13 were put on a list to eventually receive funding. The fact that
qualified projects were not selected is evidence of the fact that the
need for such facilities far outstrips IHS's willingness to enter into
these agreements.
Our situation is a good example. Currently, our hospital in Sitka
serves people living as far away as Klawock. Travel to Sitka requires a
lengthy combination of automobile, ferry, and airplanes and takes at
least a day and often is an overnight trip. If weather is bad, as it
often is in Southeast Alaska, it can take even longer. The only
alternative are costly air ambulance flights. We proposed to construct
a Critical Access Hospital in Klawock. This would have strengthened the
primary care service in the area, while first the first time also
offering complex diagnostic services and acute and emergency care to
one of the remotest, most rural area of the Nation. Despite the
overwhelming need for these services, our project was rejected.
In order to provide funding for this project, as well as the other
JV projects that were not selected this year, we urge this subcommittee
to direct IHS to enter into more Joint Venture Agreements.
The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) renovation program.
Finally, we recommend the subcommittee provide funding for tribally
renovated IHS buildings, pursuant to section 1634 of the IHCIA. The
IHCIA allows tribes to renovate IHS facilities and authorizes IHS to
provide staffing and equipment for the newly renovated structure,
mirroring the JV program. But Congress has never funded this program.
We strongly urge the subcommittee to realize the promise of this
program by providing $10 million to fund it. We would be delighted to
do an Alaska demonstration project for this new initiative.
Contract Support Costs
In recent years, much progress has been made on the issue of
contract support costs, thanks in large part to this subcommittee.
First, Congress's decision to fully fund contract support costs in 2014
recast the issue from one of contention to one of cooperation. And
Congress's continued support for full CSC funding has continued to
strengthen the relationships between tribal organizations and the
Federal Government.
Now we see a new opportunity for your leadership on this issue. The
President has requested that, starting in 2017, CSC be funded as a
mandatory 3-year appropriation. While SEARHC supports the idea of
mandatory CSC appropriations, we strongly believe that it should not be
limited to 3 years. As the President's budget request reflects, CSCs
are amenable to a mandatory appropriations scheme because they are
recurring every year and are required to be added to all new programs
that tribal organizations contract from the Indian Health Service (IHS)
or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Plus, mandatory appropriations
would ensure that neither IHS nor the BIA ever has to redirect funding
from direct programs to CSC funding, as the IHS did this year. All
these reasons will apply equally 5 years from now as they do today, and
there is no reason to only implement mandatory appropriations for 3
years. We therefore urge the subcommittee to work with other relevant
committees to support a permanent mandatory appropriation for CSC.
We also hope the subcommittee will address the administration's
apparent plan to now keep each tribal organization's contract open for
5 years after the end of the contract year for reconciliation purposes.
This approach is simply unworkable. Even now, IHS struggles to get
funding out on time, when it is only facing reconciling 1 year back
while also working on the current year funding issues. Trying to
reconcile 5 years of contracts plus the current year will frankly be an
unnecessary and avoidable disaster. Plus, neither IHS nor our tribal
organizations can afford the considerable time such a reconciliation
process would demand. It is in al the parties' interest to quickly
finalize the amounts needed under the last year's contract so that we
can focus on the current year. We therefore request this subcommittee
direct IHS to finalize contract support cost payments to all tribes
within 60 days of the end of each contract period.
We also urge the subcommittee to include language in the
appropriations act making clear that IHS must pay contract support
costs on the Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Initiative (MSPI)
and Domestic Violence Prevention Initiative (DVPI) program funds.
Despite years of acknowledging that CSC are due on these program funds,
IHS recently reversed course and required tribes to cover CSC costs
with program funds. This is contrary to Congress's clear directive in
the Indian Self-Determination Act and should be addressed immediately.
Rural Communities Hospital Demonstration Program
SEARHC renews our request from last year that the subcommittee
members support the extension of the Rural Community Hospital
Demonstration Program (RCHD). This program supports hospitals like Mt.
Edgecumbe that are located in rural areas but do not qualify as
critical access hospitals. Because these hospitals do not qualify as
critical access hospitals, they would generally be required to bill at
the standard Medicare and Medicaid rates. But in rural areas, the costs
of providing services are much higher than in other areas of the
country and thus the standard rates undercompensate rural providers.
The RCHD remedies this problem by allowing qualifying hospitals to use
cost-based reimbursement rates for billing Medicare and Medicaid.
Over the past 3 years, 2012 through 2014, SEARHC recovered $8
million more for inpatient services provided to Medicare-eligible
individuals. Without this program, SEARHC would lose money on inpatient
Medicare services. As a rural hospital, SEARHC is the least able to
absorb such negative margins. We already pay more in every step of the
healthcare delivery chain, from increased cost for providers, to
increased transportation costs, to increased food and shipping costs.
We simply cannot afford to subsidize treatments to Medicare-eligible
individuals.
As important as the RCHD program is, it is due to sunset at the end
of this fiscal year. It is vitally important to SEARHC, as well as many
other tribal organizations that run rural hospitals, that this program
be extended. We hope you will become advocates for this program so that
hospitals like Mt. Edgecumbe can continue to provide services in remote
areas.
Communities Health Center Funding
SEARHC also urges the subcommittee members to support adding
additional monies to the Community Health Center (CHC) Fund in 42
U.S.C. Sec. 254b-2. This Fund, which provided critical dollars to fund
CHCs, is due to run out at the end of this fiscal year.
Eleven of SEARHC's clinics are Communities Health Centers. This
program allows us to provide vital services to remote and underserved
communities. Without the CHC Fund, we will have to reduce our services
and perhaps even close some of our health centers, leaving individuals
without access to primary care in their home communities. A trip to the
doctor would mean traveling hundreds of miles by boat or plane.
Important care will be foregone, routine care will be deferred, and
health outcomes will worsen.
We therefore encourage all subcommittee members to support
appropriating more funds to the CHC Fund.
Thank you for the opportunity to present to the subcommittee on
SEARHC's priorities.
______
Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe
Good morning distinguished members of this subcommittee and special
congratulations to Congressman Derek Kilmer, a new member from the
State of Washington. On behalf of the tribal leadership and citizens of
the Squaxin Island Tribe, it is an honor to provide our funding
priorities and recommendations for the fiscal year 2016 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 sequestrations, rescissions
and disproportionate cuts.
We support the President's fiscal year 2016 proposal to fully fund
the BIA and IHS contract support costs (CSC) as a mandatory funding
line item beginning in 2017. And, for the first time ever a new
proposal in the fiscal year 2016 budget to request $277 million, which
based on the most recent analysis, will again fully fund tribal
contract support costs in 2016 which is consistent with the full
funding for CSC in both fiscal year 2014 and 2015.
THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 SQUAXIN ISLAND 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.
THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 SQUAXIN ISLAND REGIONAL REQUESTS:
1. +$4.7 Million increase for Rights Protection.
2. Fully support the budget requests from the Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Washington (ATNI) and the Northwest Portland Area Indian
Health Board (NPAIHB) and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS--BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:
1. Restore 2013 sequestered cuts ($119 million) to Tribal Program
Funding.
2. +26 percent increase for Natural Resources; $48 million over
fiscal year 2015.
3. +$139 million increase for Tribal Priority Allocations to be
provided via tribal base funding agreements.
4. Fully fund all the provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act
of 2010.
NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS--INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE:
1. Restore 2013 sequestered cuts ($220 Million) to Tribal Health
Services.
2. +$368.9 million increase for IHS Mandatory Funding (maintain
current services).
3. +$70.3 million support proposed increase for Purchased and
Referred Care (PRC).
OTHER:
Provide Funding Increases.--Office of Tribal Self-Governance (IHS)
and the Office Self-Governance (DOI) to fully staff and support the
number of tribes entering Self-Governance.
SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE BACKGROUND:
We are native people of South Puget Sound and descendants of the
maritime people who lived and prospered along these shores for untold
centuries. We are known as the People of the Water because of our
strong cultural connection to the natural beauty and bounty of Puget
Sound going back hundreds of years. The Squaxin Island Indian
Reservation is located in southeastern Mason County, Washington and the
tribe is a signatory to the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. We were one of
the first 30 federally recognized tribes to enter into a Compact of
Self-Governance with the United States.
Our treaty-designated reservation, Squaxin Island, is approximately
2.2 square miles of uninhabited forested land, surrounded by the bays
and inlets of Southern Puget Sound. Because the Island lacks fresh
water, the tribe has built its community on roughly 26 acres at
Kamilche, Washington purchased and placed into trust. The tribe also
owns 6 acres across Pickering Passage from Squaxin Island and a plot of
36 acres on Harstine Island, across Peale Passage. The total land area
including off-reservation trust lands is 1,715.46 acres. In addition,
the tribe manages roughly 500 acres of Puget Sound tidelands.
The tribal government and our economic enterprises constitute the
largest employer in 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 Tribe 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.
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 recanted!
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
On behalf of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, I am here to discuss
appropriations for fiscal year 2016. The tribe greatly appreciates the
work of this subcommittee and your efforts to address the needs of
Indian Country. Progress is being made, and your support makes a
difference in the lives of our people. At the same time, we continue to
face great challenges which cannot be met in a single appropriations
cycle. We look forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee in
seeking a better future for Indian Country.
This past year has in many ways been a remarkable year for the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and especially for our youth. In June,
several of our outstanding youth had an opportunity to meet with
President Obama and the First Lady on our reservation--as the President
and First Lady honored us with their historic trip to Standing Rock.
For these young tribal members, this was no ordinary ``meet and greet''
with a public official. Instead, it was a chance for these youth to sit
down in a private setting for a meaningful discussion with the
President and First Lady, regarding the many challenges they face
growing up on the reservation, and their hopes and dreams for the
future. Our youth told the President and First Lady about the wide
range of economic and social problems that are so prevalent in their
communities--as poverty, violence, drug use, and suicide are all too
common. Every one of these kids has faced circumstances in their
families or their neighborhoods that no child should have to endure.
And yet, each of these courageous youth had confidence and high
aspirations for the future.
The President was clearly moved by the stories of our young tribal
members--and he said he would not forget our youth. As a first step, he
invited an even larger group of Standing Rock youth to come to visit
him in the White House. This group of 18 youth came to DC this past
fall. They met with a broad range of high level Federal officials,
including spending a couple of hours with Interior Secretary Jewell.
And everywhere they went, our youth told their stories about the
realities of reservation life, the challenges they face and the vast
unmet needs on the reservation. Of course, it was not all business, as
the President and First Lady also took our youth to a pizza place for
lunch.
I was extremely proud of the courage, maturity and wisdom of these
tribal youth--and I think we all can learn from them. I mention these
events today because I believe the most important question the
subcommittee can address is this--what can we do to address the needs
of Indian youth? This is not a partisan issue--we all owe it to our
children to do all we can to see that they have positive opportunities
for the future. After meeting with our youth, the President included in
his budget proposal several key initiatives specifically regarding
Native Youth. We ask for the subcommittee's support of these
initiatives. In addition, we hope that the subcommittee will support
the full range of programs and initiatives--including education, law
enforcement and healthcare--that will enable our youth to thrive.
Native Youth.--The President's budget proposes a youth initiative
that he calls ``Generation Indigenous,''--a comprehensive approach to
addressing the barriers to success faced by Indian youth. This includes
supporting Native Youth in community development projects and
leadership training, convening a White House conference on Native Youth
and more. The Generation Indigenous initiative will raise the profile
of Native Youth issues nationwide, and will provide a framework for
supporting the good work of Native Youth in their communities. We need
to encourage a new generation of Native leaders, and Gen-I provides a
positive and thoughtful approach to doing just that.
One part of Gen-I is the President's Tiwahe initiative--which is a
program to strengthen Indian families and promote family stability--
focusing in large measure on the delivery of services to children in a
coordinated and comprehensive way. The concept is to bring together the
expertise of different agencies to provide a working partnership that
leads to more effective services.
One of the greatest needs in this regard is for more child
protection workers and child welfare workers to assist children whose
families are in crisis. Many of the children on our reservation--
including some who met with the President--face unstable situations at
home and need the support of professional social workers to ensure
their safety and well-being. Providing more funding for the Tiwahe
initiative and for social service programs affecting Native Youth will
have a lasting impact in Indian Country. We urge the subcommittee to
support these initiatives and programs, including the requested $122
million for Tiwahe, to help our Native Youth.
Education.--As the subcommittee is well aware, high quality
education is a fundamental requirement for success in today's world. To
provide our youth with the education they deserve, we must do two
things. First, we must provide the resources necessary to make quality
education possible. Indian students should no longer be housed in
crumbling and unsafe school buildings, with limited programs, outmoded
equipment and last century's technology. Let's level the playing field
and provide excellent teachers and modern programs in effective spaces
for our children. And second, we must empower tribes to decide the best
way to educate their own children. Federal dictates are not the answer.
Each tribe must be enabled to bring the richness of its culture and
local knowledge to the education of its children. Both components--
adequate resources and true tribal self-determination--are vitally
important to providing effective education in Indian Country.
Historical patterns of Indian education have not been successful.
We know that the conventional models of education have simply not
worked. The data indicates that only about 15 percent of Indian
children in the United States are reading at grade level, and the
dropout rate for Indian students is over 50 percent. These facts are
unacceptable, and they signal a need for a new direction. We all might
do well to look for an example to the Cut Wood School in Browning,
Montana, where only the Blackfoot language is spoken up to 8th Grade.
Cohort studies show that these students have a 95 percent graduation
rate from high school. The Cut Wood School shows that we can do better
for our students in Indian Country.
As far as resources needed for education in Indian Country, the
President's budget provides some much-needed increases, totaling $94
million. A portion of these funds would help tribes enhance their
educational programs, including for language immersion schools. We are
very proud of our own language immersion program at Standing Rock--and
young students from our program sang traditional songs for the
President on his visit to our reservation. The budget also includes an
increase of $4.5 million for higher education scholarships and adult
education, and an increase of $34.2 million for modern technology for
remote BIE schools--like those at Standing Rock. We urge the
subcommittee to fully fund all of these programs, which will help
provide vitally needed resources.
I believe in the fundamental principle of self-determination. But
in the area of Indian education, there remain some major impediments.
The testing associated with ``Adequate Yearly Progress'' from the
Federal No Child Left Behind statute has been imposed on tribes and we
have seen how much this adversely impacts our students. Tribes need the
flexibility to develop and implement their own learning systems, with
appropriate tribally designed measurements of progress. We know that
amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act are needed--
and we will be seeking action by Congress in this regard. But other
impediments to our goals in Indian education are found in the Interior
Appropriations Act--particularly the language that generally prohibits
tribal charter schools. We urge you to delete that language, so that
tribes can move forward to establish their own tribally run charter
schools, as a vehicle to implement true self-determination regarding
Indian education.
In seeking the best education for our children, we are asking for
your help. According to Albert White Hat, one of our esteemed elders
who recently passed away, we use the Lakota word ``Unsica'' which means
to ask someone for assistance. Each of us needs assistance in some way,
and it is an honorable thing to request assistance from one another. In
this spirit, we request your assistance regarding Indian education.
Public Safety and Justice.-- Many of the challenges faced by our
youth stem from violence and crime in our communities. We need the
resources to address these challenges--including increased law
enforcement staff and court staff, and more modern and efficient
detention facilities. We urge the subcommittee to support the
President's proposed increase of $11.5 million for public safety and
justice.
Standing Rock is a large, rural reservation in North and South
Dakota, covering 2.3 million acres. The reservation's population--about
8,500 tribal members and 2,000 non-members--resides in eight widely
scattered communities. Law enforcement staffing is simply inadequate to
address the situation. And even among the law enforcement positions
that are authorized on our reservation, more than half of the positions
are vacant--a result of our isolated location and the lack of adequate
housing. As matters stand, there are typically only 4 officers on duty
per shift--and at times, this number is reduced to 2. These officers
must cover the entire reservation. Drive times are extensive--as it
takes an hour or more to drive from one community to the next, even
when the weather is good. The result is that response times can be
lengthy, and it is all too often the case that by the time police
arrive on the scene of an incident, the suspects have fled. And, given
the lack of staff and the great distances involved, there is certainly
no opportunity for law enforcement to work with local communities on
crime prevention or community outreach. The kinds of community policing
that are the foundation of safe communities and positive police-
community relations are simply out of reach with the resources
available.
While law enforcement officers and staff do their best, we still
have rising crime patterns on the reservation. Uniform Crime Reporting
data from the BIA shows an alarming trend regarding crime--aggravated
assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft and forcible or attempted rape
have all shown significant increases over the three most recent years
for which data is available. There are significant drug and alcohol
problems on the reservation, and the vast majority of crime we face is
associated with substance abuse. We need to address these problems with
more effective law enforcement, but also with substance abuse treatment
programs, community healing resources, and a tribal judicial process
that emphasizes the cultural importance of addressing these issues. All
of this requires more robust funding.
Tribal courts also need additional resources. At Standing Rock, our
tribal court cannot carry out all the required criminal proceedings,
let alone civil cases, with the small allocation of funds we receive
from the BIA. The result is that the tribe has been forced to heavily
subsidize our tribal court with tribal funds that are so desperately
needed to address social programs and the ill effects of poverty
suffered by our people. This is not a choice we should be forced to
make. The President's budget includes additional funding under the
Tiwahi Initiative to address alternatives to incarceration and tribal
family courts. We urge the subcommittee's support.
Healthcare.--In addition to public safety, our youth need proper
healthcare to thrive. Many of our youth suffer from behavioral problems
that result from the poverty and other adverse conditions they find in
their communities. In the most extreme cases, this can lead to the
ultimate tragedy of youth suicide--something that is all too prevalent
in our communities and that must be addressed in a more comprehensive
and culturally appropriate way. The President's budget calls for the
IHS and SAMSHA to work together on a Tribal Behavioral Health
Initiative for Native Youth. This important initiative would expand a
Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Initiative, which has proven
effect where it has been implemented. We urge the subcommittee to
support full funding (a $25 million increase) for this initiative.
Providing these services more broadly throughout Indian Country would
be a compassionate and wise investment in the future of our youth.
We also urge the subcommittee to support the proposed increase of
$70 million in Purchased/Referred Care. At Standing Rock, the types of
healthcare that can be provided on the reservation in our clinics are
limited--and most healthcare must be secured off the reservation. Each
year, many of our tribal members are forced to go without needed
healthcare services because Purchased/Referred Care funds are depleted
before the fiscal year ends. Whether our tribal members receive the
health services they so desperately need should not depend upon the
time of year when those services are needed.
Contract Support Costs.--We strongly support the President's
proposal to establish a mandatory appropriation for the payment of
contract support costs. These are funds that are promised to tribes in
exercising self-determination, and they should no longer be the subject
of annual shortfalls, appropriations struggles or litigation.
Establishing a mandatory appropriation would alleviate a longstanding
problem and assure fair treatment of the tribes.
Thank you to the subcommittee for your work in addressing the needs
of Indian Country.
______
Prepared Statement of the Supporters of St. Vincent, National Wildlife
Refuge
Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee:
On behalf of the Supporters of St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge
and its membership of current and former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) 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
2015. We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal
year 2016 Interior Appropriations bill and respectfully request:
--$508.2 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
$173.8 million allocated for the FWS, including $10 million for
Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area (Florida); $3
million for Silvio O. Conte NFWR (Connecticut, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts); $3 million for Cache River NWR
(Arizona); $3 million for Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area
(Kansas); $2 million for Bear River Watershed Conservation Area
(Wyoming, Idaho, Utah); $3.4 million for Blackwater NWR
(Maryland); and $1 million for the Clarks River NWR (Kentucky);
--$60 million for the Refuge Fund;
--$75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
--$14 million for the FWS Coastal Program;
--$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
(under DOI);
--$70 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
--$50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
--$5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund;
--$11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund.
We understand our Nation's challenging fiscal constraints but
cutting funding to programs that are economic drivers and job creators
in local communities only exacerbates an 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. Unfortunately, just when
these public lands and programs could return economic output to
communities and help them through the recession, funding fell
dramatically. 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. The Refuge System is
approximately $72 million below what would be needed to keep pace with
inflation relative to the fiscal year 2010 level ($545.8 million
inflation-adjusted).
To begin bridging that gap, the Supporters of St. Vincent, NWR
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 and over
400 million acres of national marine monuments, yet it is currently
funded at roughly half that amount--at less than $1 per acre. The
Refuge System cannot fulfill its obligation to the American public, our
wildlife, and 47 million annual visitors without increases in
maintenance and operation funds.
Funding for the Refuge System has declined substantially from a
funding level of $503 million in fiscal year 2010 to its current $474.2
million--$72 million below what it needs to keep pace with inflation.
This has forced the Service to cut back on programs and create
efficiencies whenever possible. Because of these hard decisions, the
Service has cut their maintenance backlog in half from $2.7 billion to
$1.3 billion. But budget cuts also led to the loss of 430 positions
since fiscal year 2011 and thus an increase in the operations backlog,
now at $735 million. Because most refuge lands and waters are highly
managed, this deterioration in staffing has had a dramatic impact
resulting in significant declines in habitat preservation and
management, hunting, fishing, volunteerism and scientific research.
For instance, visitor services staff has declined by 15 percent,
forcing a reduction in public programs and hours of operation. Hunting
visits are down by 5 percent since fiscal year 2011 and fishing visits
are down 7 percent. Overall, there are fewer opportunities for the
public to recreate, yet the desire for such programs is still high and
visitation to all refuges since fiscal year 2011 has actually increased
by 2.6 percent.
Reductions in visitor services can be extremely troubling to
constituencies who want to visit. Take the Midway Atoll NWR in the
Hawaiian Islands. In November of 2013, due to sequestration cuts, the
Service suspended the visitors services program at Midway. Although in
the 5 years prior to this suspension, the refuge saw only about 300
annual visitors, those visitors were passionate about their reasons for
visiting. Perhaps they wanted to view the more than 3.5 million birds
that call the refuge home, or perhaps they wanted to visit the Battle
of Midway National Memorial to pay tribute to fallen U.S. soldiers from
World War II. Whatever their reason, they wanted to have one of the
most unique refuge experiences in the entire System. Congress has asked
for a GAO investigation on why the Service suspended its program; yet
it's clear that when you cut the budget and loose several positions
including a permanent Wildlife Biologist, Park Ranger, and Law
Enforcement Officer, there will be ramifications.
Equally troubling is the 15 percent drop in the number of
volunteers since fiscal year 2011. At a time when record numbers of
Americans are retiring and have the capability to give back, the
Service's ability to oversee their efforts has been curtailed.
Volunteers provide an additional 20 percent of work on our national
wildlife refuges, yet they are being turned away when the System needs
them the most.
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 2013,
shows that even during the worst recession since the Great Depression,
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.
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 Supporters of St. Vincent, NWR calls on Congress to fund LWCF
at $900 million per year, with $173.8 million provided in fiscal year
2016 to the FWS for conservation easements and refuge in-holdings,
including the following projects and those advocated by refuge Friends:
--Everglades Headwaters NWR & Conservation Area (Florida)--$10
million;
--Cache River NWR (Arizona)--$3 million;
--Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut)--$3 million;
--Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas)--$3 million;
--Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah)--$2
million;
--Blackwater NWR (Maryland)--$3.4 million;
--Clarks River NWR (Kentucky)--$1 million.
Commitment to Refuge Communities--Refuge Fund
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
Fund 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. Supporters of St. Vincent NWR request $60
million for the Refuge Fund and thanks Chairman Calvert for his
leadership in fiscal year 2015 to pursue a much-needed increase. We
also call for a review of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 as
amended, and consideration of conversion to a Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes
(PILT) program to be consistent with other Federal land management
agencies and to provide Refuge communities with more equitable
payments.
Partnerships
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
1 million acres of wetlands, 3 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 2016.
Such a funding level would result in an additional $400 million worth
of conservation across the Nation.
The Partners Program provides a bridge between private and public
conservation efforts that has been instrumental in the success of large
landscape partnerships from Montana to Florida, and is playing a key
role in conserving greater sage-grouse habitat in the intermountain
west. To this end, we request an additional $78 million for the
Interior agencies to implement sagebrush steppe habitat conservation
and monitoring efforts that will leverage $300 million in Department of
Agriculture investments across the West.
Sharing Lessons and Protecting Global Species
Wildlife species know no international boundaries; therefore
conservation must happen globally to ensure populations survive. Many
international wildlife agencies look to the Refuge System as the world
leader in wildlife and fish conservation. The Service's Wildlife
Without Borders Program and Multinational Species Conservation Funds
together support global partnerships to protect marine turtles, tigers
and rhinos, great apes and elephants and other iconic species. These
programs are particularly important as wildlife face a poaching crisis
that is leading species such as rhinos to the brink of extinction. The
Refuge Association and student-led Tigers 4 Tigers Coalition request
$11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund in fiscal
year 2016.
We believe that with sound conservation policy, adequate funding,
and the power of more than 40,000 dedicated volunteers, the Refuge
System can fulfill its mission to provide wildlife dependent recreation
for Americans and protect the habitat for more than 700 species of
birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species and
more than 1,000 species of fish. We look forward to working with
Congress in 2015 to accomplish this goal.
[This statement was submitted by Nancy Stuart, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Supporters of St. Vincent National Wildlife
Refuge
Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee:
On behalf of the Supporters of St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge
and its membership of current and former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) professionals, Refuge Friends organizations and concerned
citizens, thank you for your support for the National Wildlife Refuge
System (NWRS). We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments on the
fiscal year 2016 Interior Appropriations bill and respectfully request:
--$508.2 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
$173.8 million allocated for the FWS, including $10 million for
Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area (Florida); $3
million for Silvio O. Conte NFWR (Connecticut, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts); $3 million for Cache River NWR
(Arizona); $3 million for Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area
(Kansas); $2 million for Bear River Watershed Conservation Area
(Wyoming, Idaho, Utah); $3.4 million for Blackwater NWR
(Maryland); and $1 million for the Clarks River NWR (Kentucky);
--$60 million for the Refuge Fund;
--$75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
--$14 million for the FWS Coastal Program;
--$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
(under DOI);
--$70 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
--$50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
--$5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund;
--$11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund.
We understand our Nation's challenging fiscal constraints but
cutting funding to programs that are economic drivers and job creators
in local communities only exacerbates an 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. Unfortunately, just when
these public lands and programs could return economic output to
communities and help them through the recession, funding fell
dramatically. 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. The Refuge System is
approximately $72 million below what would be needed to keep pace with
inflation relative to the fiscal year 2010 level ($545.8 million
inflation-adjusted).
To begin bridging that gap, the Supporters of St. Vincent NWR 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 and over
400 million acres of national marine monuments, yet it is currently
funded at roughly half that amount--at less than $1 per acre. The
Refuge System cannot fulfill its obligation to the American public, our
wildlife, and 47 million annual visitors without increases in
maintenance and operation funds.
Funding for the Refuge System has declined substantially from a
funding level of $503 million in fiscal year 2010 to its current $474.2
million--$72 million below what it needs to keep pace with inflation.
This has forced the Service to cut back on programs and create
efficiencies whenever possible. Because of these hard decisions, the
Service has cut their maintenance backlog in half from $2.7 billion to
$1.3 billion. But budget cuts also led to the loss of 430 positions
since fiscal year 2011 and thus an increase in the operations backlog,
now at $735 million. Because most refuge lands and waters are highly
managed, this deterioration in staffing has had a dramatic impact
resulting in significant declines in habitat preservation and
management, hunting, fishing, volunteerism and scientific research.
For instance, visitor services staff has declined by 15 percent,
forcing a reduction in public programs and hours of operation. Hunting
visits are down by 5 percent since fiscal year 2011 and fishing visits
are down 7 percent. Overall, there are fewer opportunities for the
public to recreate, yet the desire for such programs is still high and
visitation to all refuges since fiscal year 2011 has actually increased
by 2.6 percent.
Reductions in visitor services can be extremely troubling to
constituencies who want to visit. Take the Midway Atoll NWR in the
Hawaiian Islands. In November of 2013, due to sequestration cuts, the
Service suspended the visitors services program at Midway. Although in
the 5 years prior to this suspension, the refuge saw only about 300
annual visitors, those visitors were passionate about their reasons for
visiting. Perhaps they wanted to view the more than 3.5 million birds
that call the refuge home, or perhaps they wanted to visit the Battle
of Midway National Memorial to pay tribute to fallen U.S. soldiers from
World War II. Whatever their reason, they wanted to have one of the
most unique refuge experiences in the entire System. Congress has asked
for a GAO investigation on why the Service suspended its program; yet
it's clear that when you cut the budget and loose several positions
including a permanent Wildlife Biologist, Park Ranger, and Law
Enforcement Officer, there will be ramifications.
Equally troubling is the 15 percent drop in the number of
volunteers since fiscal year 2011. At a time when record numbers of
Americans are retiring and have the capability to give back, the
Service's ability to oversee their efforts has been curtailed.
Volunteers provide an additional 20 percent of work on our national
wildlife refuges, yet they are being turned away when the System needs
them the most.
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 2013,
shows that even during the worst recession since the Great Depression,
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.
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 Supporters of St. Vincent, NWR calls on Congress to fund LWCF
at $900 million per year, with $173.8 million provided in fiscal year
2016 to the FWS for conservation easements and refuge in-holdings,
including the following projects and those advocated by refuge Friends:
--Everglades Headwaters NWR & Conservation Area (Florida)--$10
million;
--Cache River NWR (Arizona)--$3 million;
--Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut)--$3 million;
--Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas)--$3 million;
--Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah)--$2
million;
--Blackwater NWR (Maryland)--$3.4 million;
--Clarks River NWR (Kentucky)--$1 million.
Commitment to Refuge Communities--Refuge Fund
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
Fund 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. Supporters of St. Vincent NWR request $60
million for the Refuge Fund and thanks Chairman Calvert for his
leadership in fiscal year 2015 to pursue a much-needed increase. We
also call for a review of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 as
amended, and consideration of conversion to a Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes
(PILT) program to be consistent with other Federal land management
agencies and to provide Refuge communities with more equitable
payments.
Partnerships
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
1 million acres of wetlands, 3 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 2016.
Such a funding level would result in an additional $400 million worth
of conservation across the Nation.
The Partners Program provides a bridge between private and public
conservation efforts that has been instrumental in the success of large
landscape partnerships from Montana to Florida, and is playing a key
role in conserving greater sage-grouse habitat in the intermountain
west. To this end, we request an additional $78 million for the
Interior agencies to implement sagebrush steppe habitat conservation
and monitoring efforts that will leverage $300 million in Department of
Agriculture investments across the West.
Sharing Lessons and Protecting Global Species
Wildlife species know no international boundaries; therefore
conservation must happen globally to ensure populations survive. Many
international wildlife agencies look to the Refuge System as the world
leader in wildlife and fish conservation. The Service's Wildlife
Without Borders Program and Multinational Species Conservation Funds
together support global partnerships to protect marine turtles, tigers
and rhinos, great apes and elephants and other iconic species. These
programs are particularly important as wildlife face a poaching crisis
that is leading species such as rhinos to the brink of extinction. The
Refuge Association and student-led Tigers 4 Tigers Coalition request
$11 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund in fiscal
year 2016.
We believe that with sound conservation policy, adequate funding,
and the power of more than 40,000 dedicated volunteers, the Refuge
System can fulfill its mission to provide wildlife dependent recreation
for Americans and protect the habitat for more than 700 species of
birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species and
more than 1,000 species of fish.
[This statement was submitted by Lisa Johnston, Port St. Joe,
Florida.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Supporters of St. Vincent National Wildlife
Reserve (NWR)
Dear subcommittee members,
I am writing to you as a board member of the Supporters and as a
concerned citizen. I strongly urge you to not take steps to reduce the
funding to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. This agency has seen
severe budget cuts in the years past and their future is not looking so
bright at this moment. This agency works very hard to promote and
maintain our Nation's natural treasures. If it were not for a dedicated
group of volunteers, USFWS would not even come close to accomplishing
their mission. Staff reductions, budget cuts, etc. have had a profound
negative effect on the activities and opportunities that this agency
provides to our citizens.
The following is an example of what budget cuts have meant to us on
a local level. St. Vincent NWR consists mainly of a pristine,
uninhabited barrier island on the Gulf coast of the Florida panhandle.
The island is approximately 13,000 acres in size. In essence, budget
cuts have resulted in only two USFWS employees attempting to maintain
and manage this large piece of real estate. There is one other USFWS
employee affiliated with the refuge, but this person mainly attends to
administrative duties on the mainland. St. Vincent NWR is just one
example of the results of reduced funding.
For the sake of maintaining our national treasures and giving our
citizens the opportunities they deserve, please do not reduce funding
to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service! Thank you for your consideration
of my request.
[This statement was submitted by Landy Luther, Board Member.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Tanana Chiefs Conference
It is a pleasure to be back to share the Tanana Chiefs Conference's
(TCC) priorities with this subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity
to be here.
TCC is a non-profit intertribal consortium of 39 federally
recognized tribes located across Alaska's vast interior. TCC serves
approximately 13,000 Native American people in Fairbanks and the
surrounding rural villages. Our traditional territory and current
service area occupy a mostly roadless region that is nearly the size of
Texas. It stretches from Fairbanks clear up to the Brooks Range and
over to the Canadian border.
Remoteness poses many challenges, but I can assure you TCC meets
those challenges every day. When I testified last year, I had just
recently been elected president of TCC. The more I understand every
aspect of TCC's work, the more I am impressed with what TCC
accomplishes every day. Recently, our full board of directors met to
develop a new 5-year strategic plan. In the coming years, our highest
priorities will include substantially expanding medical care and public
safety services, a new emphasis on wellness and prevention, oversight
of fish and game management, ensuring responsible economic development,
and increasing employment in the villages. We welcome Congress's
partnership to help us achieve these goals.
contract support costs
It has long been known that TCC provides far better services to our
communities than the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or Indian Health
Service (IHS) ever could. Consequently, TCC contracts programs from
both the BIA and IHS. Our ability to maximize the results of our self-
governance and run robust programs depends on our receiving full
contract support costs (CSC) to support these programs.
In the past couple of years, significant strides have been made in
this area, and thanks in large part to this subcommittee we are now in
an era of full funding. We were delighted that the President's budget
estimate for CSC is a very good one. An accurate projection will help
ensure that neither the BIA nor IHS feel compelled to redirect program
funding to pay for CSC. An accurate CSC estimate is the best way to
avoid the unfortunate reprogramming actions which occurred last year.
We are very encouraged by the President's proposal to make CSC
mandatory, though we are disappointed that the request is only for 3
years. CSC funding should be a permanent mandatory appropriation. These
funds must be added to any contracted program dollars, and making it a
permanent mandatory appropriation will end all future efforts by either
Agency to avoid funding these required costs. Litigation will be over
and certainty will be the order of the day. Such a scheme will allow
TCC and the BIA and IHS to focus on the important work of providing
healthcare services, public safety services, and the myriad of other
services we provide in our communities. We therefore hope that the
subcommittee members will support a permanent mandatory appropriation
for CSC.
Finally, we ask that the subcommittee direct IHS to finalize CSC
payments within 60 days of the close of the contract year. IHS recently
developed a scheme to continue reconciling CSC payments for up to 5
years. This ridiculous plan is not only unnecessary; it will also
divert scarce resources away from service delivery. This will benefit
neither IHS nor the tribal organizations, and we therefore ask that the
subcommittee intervene to stop IHS from pursuing its current plan. All
our other grants are closed out monthly; why should IHS and BIA compact
funds be any different?
ihs budget
TCC was very pleased to see that the President's budget contains a
9 percent increase over 2015 enacted levels. These additional funds are
vital to addressing the critical need for medical services for Native
Alaskans and we hope the subcommittee is able to find the funds to meet
these targets.
Similarly, TCC is happy to report that $70 million of those
increases are targeted to Purchased and Referred Care (PRC). These
funds are used to buy healthcare when a tribal organization or IHS
cannot provide the services. As we reported to you last year, the
demand on PRC dollars has increased as healthcare costs, especially
provider fees, have increased. The increase this year will provide $44
million for inflation and $25 million for program increases. These
dollars will provide much needed relief to PRC programs across the
country and especially for TCC.
But TCC was disappointed to see that the President's budget
contains no increase for the Domestic Violence and Prevention
Initiative (DVPI). These funds support efforts to reduce the incidence
of domestic violence, which affects Native Alaskan women at a much
higher rate than other populations. The statistics are not new. The
Indian Law and Order Commission's report made clear just how bad the
situation was: Women in tribal villages and Native communities in
Alaska report rates of domestic violence up to 10 times higher than in
the rest of the United States. Physical assault victimizations rates
are 12 times higher.
TCC is encouraged that the President requested additional funding
to combat domestic violence in the Department of Justice's budget, but
in order to adequately address domestic violence in Native communities,
the DVPI program funds also need to be increased. We must do more to
help victims of domestic violence, and we need Congress's help to do
so. We request that you add funds to this very successfully and
urgently needed program.
bia budget
TCC was also pleased to see that the President's BIA budget is also
higher than the enacted 2015 levels--12 percent higher in fact. This
increase is desperately needed to address the effect of years of flat
budgets. Again, we hope this subcommittee will be able to fund these
increases.
Two of these increases came in programs that TCC highlighted last
year as requiring additional funding: Probate in Trust and Rights
Protection. Probate in Trust would receive a 7.3 percent increase, and
this will help TCC keep the process of estate distribution flowing
smoothly. This, in turn, is important for ensuring residents of our
communities are able to use their land--whether for a home or other
endeavors. This promotes self sufficiency in our communities. The
Rights Protection program would receive a 13.3 percent increase. This
program provides support to tribes in defending their trust land (such
as allotments) and other trust resources through legal actions. Like
the Probate in Trust program, this program is integral to protecting
our ability to use our land. Both of these programs are acutely in need
of additional funds and we therefore urge the subcommittee to fund the
requested increases.
TCC was disappointed to see that funding for the Environmental
Quality line remains essentially flat. In fact, the .9 percent increase
is not even enough to cover inflation and thus represents a decrease in
the effectiveness of the current appropriation. As we reported to this
subcommittee last year, these funds support archaeological
investigation and approval that is required before any development is
done on our lands. As such, these funds both help us develop our land
resources responsibly while also making sure that our cultural
resources are protected. The funding provided, however, is simply not
enough to meet the demand for these services. We encourage the
subcommittee to add funds to this program to help TCC responsibility
develop our lands.
TCC has recently embarked on a coordinated campaign to protect its
subsistence resources. These resources provide not only critical
nutritional value to our communities but also are important elements of
our culture and traditions. We were pleased to see that the President's
budget includes $40 million for Supporting Tribal Resilience in Indian
Country. This program will allow tribes and tribal organizations to
prepare for climate changes, which will impact our fish and wildlife
services. Many of these impacts will hit Alaska especially hard, and we
appreciate the additional funding to prepare for the challenges ahead.
In particular, we appreciate the increase for the Tribal Management and
Development Program, which allows tribes and tribal organizations to
manage their own fish and wildlife resources.
Finally, TCC remains committed to ensuring public safety in our
communities. As the Indian Law and Order Commission's report made
clear, there is a lot of work to be done to ensure public safety in
Alaska's rural communities. Alaska is one of six States, called Public
Law 280 States, in which jurisdiction over crimes in Native communities
rests mainly with the States. The BIA doesn't have enough funding to go
around and so it prioritizes funding public safety efforts in non
Public Law 280 States on the assumption that Public Law 280 States are
investing sufficiently in public safety and law enforcement in Native
and rural communities. But this is simply not so. The Alaska Department
of Public Safety, which has primary responsibility for providing law
enforcement in rural Alaska, provides only 1.0 to 1.4 field officers
for every one million acres. This means that at least 75 communities in
Alaska lack any law enforcement presence at all. In most Alaska
villages, the tribal courts are the only meaningful judicial voice for
anything other than the most serious and violent of crimes.
The President's budget moves in the right direction by providing
$15 million in its Supporting Indian Families and Protecting Indian
Country program. As part of this program, the President's budget
requests $4 million for Law Enforcement Special Initiatives and $5
million for tribal courts. While this is a good first step, TCC
encourages this subcommittee to substantially increase these amounts
for tribes in Public Law 280 States. In order to truly address the
issue of public safety in Native communities, we must have additional
resources.
substance abuse and mental health services administration
We also invite all members to support the Tribal Behavioral Health
Grant Program. This program is administered by the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) and would provide funds
to tribal organizations to reduce the shocking rates of substance abuse
and suicide in their communities. According to the Indian Law and Order
Commission's report, Alaska Natives experience suicide at four times
the national average, and suffer the highest rates of alcohol abuse.
The Tribal Behavioral Health Grant Program will provide desperately
needed funds to combat these problems.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on behalf of TCC.
[This statement was submitted by Victor Joseph, President and
Chairman.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Theatre Communications Group
Ms. 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 493 not-for-profit member theatres across the country
and the nearly 35 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 2016.
Indeed, the entire not-for-profit arts industry stimulates the
economy, creates jobs and attracts tourism dollars. The not-for-profit
arts generate $135.2 billion annually in economic activity, support
4.13 million jobs and return $9.59 billion in Federal income taxes. Art
museums, exhibits and festivals combine with performances of theatre,
dance, opera and music to draw tourists and their consumer dollars to
communities nationwide. Federal funding for the arts creates a
significant return, generating many more dollars in matching funds for
each Federal dollar awarded, and is clearly an investment in the
economic health of America. In an uncertain economy where corporate
donations and foundation grants to the arts are diminished, and
increased ticket prices would undermine efforts to broaden and
diversify audiences, these Federal funds simply cannot be replaced.
Maintaining the strength of the not-for-profit sector, along with the
commercial sector, will be vital to supporting the economic health of
our Nation.
Our country's not-for-profit theatres develop innovative
educational activities and outreach programs, providing millions of
young people, including ``at-risk'' youth, with important skills for
the future by expanding their creativity and developing problem-
solving, reasoning and communication abilities--preparing today's
students to become tomorrow's citizens. Our theatres present new works
and serve as catalysts for economic growth in their local communities.
These theatres also nurture--and provide artistic homes for the
development of--the current generation of acclaimed writers, actors,
directors and designers working in regional theatre, on Broadway and in
the film and television industries. At the same time, theatres have
become increasingly responsive to their communities, serving as healing
forces in difficult times, and producing work that reflects and
celebrates the strength of our Nation's diversity.
Here are some recent examples of NEA grants and their impact:
Thanks to a $20,000 grant from the NEA, Perseverance Theatre (PT)
in Douglas, Alaska, was able to present the world premiere production
of ``Rush at Everlasting'' by Alaskan playwright Arlitia Jones. The
play follows an unlikely pair of women as they plot a bank heist
against the backdrop of the Great Depression. Presented first as part
of the theater's mainstage season in Juneau, the production also
transferred to Anchorage as part of the third full season of
programming at the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts. Perseverance
Theatre has grown into Alaska's largest professional theatre, serving
over 17,000 artists, students and audiences annually. The theatre is
also enhancing its education and training programs for youth and
adults, providing learning opportunities on the Douglas stage and as
the resident theatre at the University of Alaska Southeast.
Perseverance is committed to engaging artistic work which speaks
directly to the Alaskan experience. Perseverance was born as a
grassroots organization, firmly planted in the community and State. PT
occupies a unique place in the heart of Juneau's artistic, cultural and
social life. The theatre is committed to developing artists,
volunteers, audiences, and plays reflective of the Alaskan community,
as part of living its mission. As programming continues in Anchorage,
Perseverance is becoming a truly Alaskan regional theatre.
With a $10,000 Arts Works grant from the NEA, Southern Rep will
produce Boudin: The New Orleans Music Project. This project asks music
lovers from all over the world ``How has New Orleans Music Saved Your
Soul?'' The play's dedicated Web site, boudinmusicproject.com, features
the answers to the prompt via photos, narratives, film and audio
recordings. These first-hand stories will culminate in a funny,
poignant and powerful theatre production that celebrates the music,
art, magic and history of the city. Presented in partnership with
esteemed WWOZ 90.7 FM Radio, Boudin is a mash-up of local visual art,
storytelling, live New Orleans music and real stories. The NEA funding
helps support the creation of this new work with 21 performances taking
place during the city's historic Jazz Fest and it will be seen by up to
3,000 audience members.
Oregon Children's Theatre Company received a $10,000 grant from the
NEA which enabled the theatre to present ``Timmy Failure: Mistakes Were
Made,'' an adaptation by playwright Finegan Kruckemeyer of an
illustrated comic novel by Stephan Pastis. The book tells the story of
Timmy Failure, a bumbling hero, his lazy polar bear partner, and his
detective agency--Total Failure, Inc. The stage adaptation includes
multimedia technology. The set was designed for remounting in
nontraditional spaces, to accommodate potential touring beyond the
premiere. Oregon Children's Theatre's mission is to advance growth,
development and creativity through exceptional theater experiences. The
theatre does this by presenting professional live theater for youth at
a price affordable to schools and families. By introducing young people
to the wonders of live theater, OCT enriches lives today while helping
children develop a lifetime appreciation for the arts. Oregon
Children's Theatre's audience is comprised primarily of school groups
from 17 Oregon and four Washington counties. School attendance averages
more than 75,000 annually, with ticket prices ranging from $6-$8.
Weston Playhouse Theatre in Weston, Vermont, was awarded a $20,000
NEA grant to support a production of Annie Baker's adaptation of
``Uncle Vanya.'' The theatre also offered a series of engagement and
learning opportunities, including a Teachers Workshop, performance and
curriculum guides, director's talks and audience talkbacks. The
production was a fresh take on a modern classic by Anton Chekhov and
adapted by Annie Baker. For seven decades, in the heart of Vermont's
Green Mountains, the Weston Playhouse Theatre Company has done the
improbable--created and sustained an acclaimed professional theatre in
a village of 550 people. Now, strengthened by its deep roots in Vermont
and in the American theatre landscape, the Company is taking the most
important step in its history: to create a nationally recognized center
for the development of the theatre arts. The Campaign for the Weston
Theatre will create an Incubator for the Theatre Arts in Weston--a
place where playwrights, directors, composers and librettists will come
to work on their new works in the quiet rural environment away from the
distractions of the city. The Weston Playhouse is now an award-winning
regional theatre nationally known for its multi-stage summer festival
and its year-round Education and New Works Programs.
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
2016 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 2015 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.
[This statement was submitted by Laurie Baskin, Director of
Research, Policy & Collective Action.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund
Thank you Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall and the
entire subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony in support
of fiscal year 2016 funding for the Department of Interior Historic
Preservation Fund (HPF). My name is Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., president
and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund (TMCF). The Thurgood
Marshall College Fund supports and represents more than 300,000
students attending the country's 47 publically supported Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), medical schools and law
schools. More than 80 percent of all students enrolled at HBCUs attend
TMCF schools. TMCF was established in 1987 under the leadership of Dr.
N. Joyce Payne.
As you deliberate the Department of Interior fiscal year 2016
budget, TMCF requests that the subcommittee preserve the original HBCU
designated Historic Preservation Fund and restore this account to the
fiscal year 2009 funding level. The HBCU Historic Preservation Fund
account has not received funding under the regular appropriations
process in several years. It was last funded in 2009 as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act at a level of $15 million.
The administration's fiscal year 2016 budget proposal includes $90
million for the National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund. Under
this fund, $50 million is proposed for a Civil Rights initiative to
preserve historic projects nationwide that are connected to the Civil
Rights era and the African American experience. Unfortunately, a mere
$2.5 million of the $50 million is designated for the HBCU Historic
Preservation Fund.
There are more than 100 HBCUs located primarily in the southeastern
United States, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Many HBCUs are economically fragile and have less funding and fewer
resources to address the critical rehabilitation needs of buildings on
their campuses. The HBCU Historic Preservation Fund provides assistance
to restore and rehabilitate structures on HBCU campuses considered to
be the most historically significant and physically threatened. TMCF
supports the effort to commemorate and preserve sites related to the
Civil Rights era and African American heritage, and we request that the
subcommittee simultaneously appropriate adequate funding for the HBCU
Historic Preservation Fund to stabilize and revitalize our most
precious assets on HBCU campuses.
In the event that all funding is grouped together, TMCF strongly
urges the subcommittee to allocate a minimum of $15 million as opposed
to $2.5 million for HBCUs under this newly proposed focus on restoring
sites connected to the Civil Rights era and the African American
experience.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of The Trust for Public Land
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and distinguished members
of the Interior 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 2016 appropriations process. The Trust
for Public Land (TPL) is a national nonprofit land conservation
organization working to protect land for people in communities across
the Nation. We are extremely grateful for the support members of this
subcommittee and other conservation leaders in Congress have shown for
Federal conservation programs during these challenging fiscal times. We
recognize that the subcommittee will again face enormous challenges in
meeting the broad range of priority needs in the Interior and
Environment bill this year. Our work in many of your States and
elsewhere 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 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), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS) and U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) acquisitions, NPS State and local grants, the
Forest Legacy Program, the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
Fund and the American Battlefield Protection Program--as well as the
USFWS North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the USFS Community
Forest Program.
Land and Water Conservation Fund
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) celebrated its 50th
anniversary last year and is up for reauthorization this year. Over
those 50 years, LWCF has been the cornerstone that sustains our Federal
public lands heritage. Today, it remains a compelling and urgently
needed program that we urge the subcommittee to strongly support. 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) believe 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 country, and
generates $39.9 billion in annual national tax revenue.
For these and many other reasons we strongly support the fiscal
year 2016 President's budget proposal to fully fund the Land and Water
Conservation Fund at $900 million, with $400 million from discretionary
sources and $500 million in mandatory funds, for the various component
programs funded under LWCF. In the fiscal year 2016 bill, we
respectfully request that you allocate at least $400 million in
discretionary funding as the budget proposes to support essential
community-based conservation and outdoor recreation needs. We recognize
that the mandatory funding request requires additional legislative
action, and we appreciate the support of the subcommittee as that
process moves forward. Continued annual investment in the entire suite
of LWCF programs as proposed in the budget is essential and we 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 and appreciate that in
challenging budgetary times you have maintained a commitment to this
bipartisan program.
We also support efforts to improve budgeting for forest fire
management that will provide Federal agencies the means to fight fires
without raiding other important Federal programs, like LWCF. We look
forward to working with you to that end.
LWCF's programs bring specific and complementary conservation
benefits to the American public. These key programs are:
BLM/FWS/NPS/USFS Land Acquisitions.--Every year tens of millions of
Americans, as well as visitors to our country, enjoy our Federal public
lands--national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and BLM conservation
lands. Recent data shows that National Park Service units were visited
by larger numbers than in the past 20 years. 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 2016,
including important recreation lands along the Rio Grande in New Mexico
as part of the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument, and checkerboard
properties in the Tahoe and Eldorado national forests in California.
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.
U.S. Forest Service/Forest Legacy Program.--For 25 years, the
Forest Legacy Program has been an extraordinarily effective program,
providing assistance to States and localities seeking to preserve
important working forests. It has protected nearly 2.5 million acres of
forestland and has leveraged more than the required 25 percent match.
For fiscal year 2016, 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 2016
budget proposal are numerous projects where TPL is working with States,
landowners and other partners 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 recreational
access, a municipal water supply and critical wildlife habitat near
Whitefish and Columbia Falls; a 1,533 acre property along East Moraine
Wallowa Lake in Oregon; a 6,700 acre working forest project on the
Olympic Peninsula along Puget Sound in Washington, and a 23,600 acre
working forest project in Maine that represents 24 percent of the
State's entire maple syrup production and about 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 has been critical to
communities like Riverside County, California and 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. The Recovery Land Acquisition
(RLA) program under CESCF aids species where there is no HCP and where
USFWS recovery plans lay out goals for Federal, State, local, and
private, partners.
National Park Service/State and Local Assistance grants.--Since
1965, the State and local assistance grant program has provided over $4
billion in Federal funds for more than 42,000 projects in States and
local communities for park protection and development of recreation
facilities. This program reaches deep into communities across our
Nation, supporting citizen-led efforts to conserve places of local
importance 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
discretionary request for stateside grants and that a mandatory full-
funding LWCF solution will provide much-needed additional funding for
this important program. We also strongly support the allocation of a
portion of LWCF State and local assistance funds to the nationwide
competitive grants program--the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership
Program--which was included in the fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year
2015 omnibus appropriations bills at $3 million and is proposed in the
President's fiscal year 2016 budget at $5 million. Through our Parks
for People Program, The Trust for Public Land works with local
communities to create, build, design, fund and care for parks, trails
and playgrounds. At present, there is no other dedicated source of
funding to support the desire by cities large and small, all across the
country, to improve quality of life for their residents and support
economic development. While $3 million is just a drop in the bucket
compared to overall city park needs, we are deeply appreciative of the
subcommittee's leadership in setting aside these funds and hope you
will increase that level in fiscal year 2016. The first grant round
generated substantial interest in communities across the Nation--we are
a partner with Atlanta, Georgia; Bridgeport, Connecticut; and Denver,
Colorado in using first-round grant funds--and we believe that this
funding will leverage substantial non-Federal match and make a
difference in communities across the Nation.
National Park Service/American Battlefield Protection Program.--We
applaud the subcommittee for its longstanding commitment to this
important program, which complements acquisitions of threatened Civil
War battlefield properties in national park units with non-Federal land
protection of key sites from this critical moment in our Nation's
history. Congress recently expanded the program to include protection
of non-Federal Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefield sites, so
the allocation of LWCF funds for the ABPP is needed more than ever. We
are using ABPP funds at present to protect threatened properties on
Missionary Ridge in Chattanooga, site of a critical Civil War battle.
National Park Service/Urban Park and Recreation Fund.--The
President's budget for fiscal year 2016 proposes $25 million in
mandatory funding for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program
(UPARR). Funding UPARR in fiscal year 2016 would enable the National
Park Service to issue competitive grants for improvements to parks and
playgrounds in the neediest cities throughout the country. From 1978 to
2002, UPARR grants assisted cities to make those improvements 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; Riverside County, California;
Knoxville, Tennessee; Springfield, Missouri; Meridian, Mississippi; and
Portland, Maine. The restoration of UPARR funding in the fiscal year
2016 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill would be a sound
investment in the health and well-being of our Nation's children.
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.--We respectfully request your support for program funding at the
enacted and proposed level of $34.1 million in fiscal year 2016. The
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) provides much-needed
matching grants to carry out wetlands conservation, restoration and
enhancement projects. Our most recent grant through the NAWCA program
will help ensure protection of a 215-acre property in the growing
suburbs of Portland, Maine, including a 46 acre pond that provides
habitat for waterfowl and migratory birds. NAWCA 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.--We urge your
continued support for the Community Forest Program (CFP), which
complements existing conservation programs by helping communities and
tribes identify, purchase, and manage locally important forestlands
that are threatened with development. These community forests can be
tailored to local needs, from timber revenue for municipal or county
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 21 grants to
innovative local and tribal projects that support local community
needs--including in California, Kentucky, Montana, Oregon, and
Vermont--and the program has generated significant interest from local
entities concerned about the future of their close-to-home forests.
Given the strong interest in community forests from coast to coast, we
urge you to include $5 million in the fiscal year 2016 bill for this
innovative local 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 2016 Interior, Environment and Related
Agencies bill. Thank you for your help and support, and for your
consideration of our requests.
[This statement was submitted by Kathy DeCoster, Vice President and
Director of Federal Affairs.]
______
Prepared Statement of the USGS Coalition
summary
The USGS Coalition appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony
about the fiscal year 2016 budget for the United States Geological
Survey (USGS). The USGS Coalition supports the administration's budget
request of $1.2 billion for the USGS. The requested funding would allow
the agency to sustain current efforts and make strategic 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.
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.
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 $1.2 billion for fiscal year 2016.
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.
[This statement was submitted by Dr. Robert Gropp, Chairman.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Pacific Salmon Commission
Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the subcommittee, I am Ron
Allen, the tribal commissioner and chair for the U.S. Section of the
Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC). The U.S. Section prepares an annual
budget for implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The integrated
budget details program needs and costs for tribal, Federal, and State
agencies involved in the treaty. Tribal participation in the treaty
process is funded in the Bureau of Indian Affairs 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 2015 enacted level.
The funding for tribal participation in the Pacific Salmon
Treaty is a line item in the BIA's budget under Rights
Protection Implementation.
Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs, the U.S. Section
identified needs as follows:
USFWS participation in the treaty process is funded at $379,919
for fiscal year 2015. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission's Regional Mark Center (PSMFC) receives support from
the USFWS to provide data services to the PSC process at a
level of $225,435 for fiscal year 2015. The total for the two
programs is $605,354. This represents a decrease from fiscal
year 2010 levels, which were $417,673 for USFWS and $315,000
for PSMFC, resulting in total of $732,673. The U.S. Section
recommends restoring both programs to previous funding levels,
which is an increase of $127,319. This funding level allows 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.
Funding to support activities under the Pacific Salmon Commission
comes from the Departments of Interior, State, and Commerce. The U.S.
Section will provide a cross-cut budget summary to the subcommittee.
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 PSC 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 U.S. 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. The U.S. and Canada are preparing to negotiate
revisions to the current agreements. Based on past experience, the
negotiation process will require additional meetings to reach a
successful conclusion. It is important to have adequate resources for
U.S. participants to negotiate the best outcome.
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 subcommittee
for the support that it has given the U.S. Section in the past. Please
feel free to contact me or other members of the U.S. Section 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 United Tribes Technical College
United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has for 46 years, and with
the most basic of funding, provided postsecondary career and technical
education 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
preparing our students to participate 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 providers, and administrators. 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 2016 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 $2.2 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, estimated at $22 million for five institutions.
--Place contract supports costs on a mandatory funded basis and
provide full funding for administrative costs grants for
tribally operated elementary/secondary schools.
--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 our BIE funding under an Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act agreement, and has done
so for 38 years. We appreciate that the administration is requesting a
$65,000 increase for built-in costs for UTTC for a total of $4,630,000
but our need far exceeds that amount. 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. We struggle to
maintain course offerings and services to adequately provide
educational services at the same level as our State counterparts. 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 that 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: Indeed, the ramifications of the North Dakota
Bakken oil boom are apparent as we have seen faculty and students leave
education in pursuit of jobs in the Bakken region. We saw the need for
more certified welders in relation to the oil boom and have expanded
our certified welding program in response to the workforce need. We are
now able to train students for good paying in-demand welding employment
with a focus on career rather just a job. Other courses reflect new
innovative approaches on energy auditing and Geographic Information
System Technology. UTTC is seeing increased interest in our online
programs of study and short term skill building training at the UTTC
Black Hills Learning Center, a distance learning site located at Rapid
City, South Dakota. We are also working toward the establishment of an
American Indian Specialized Health Care Training Clinic on our
established Bismarck, North Dakota campus.
Forward Funding.--We have wanted BIE forward funding for some time
and our experience with funding via Continuing Resolutions (CR) has
made this request more urgent. Even before the days of what now seems
like routine CRs, Congress placed many education programs on a forward
funded basis. We ask you to do that for us and the four other higher
education institutions that receive BIE funds to be afforded the same
consideration. Forward funding would allow us to know 9 months in
advance (assuming the appropriations bill is enacted in a timely
manner), and thus enable reasonable planning time, for these instances.
As you know, only once since 1998 has the BIA budget been enacted by
the beginning of the fiscal year.
There was an oversight in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations
process that resulted in UTTC (and Navajo Technical University (NTU))
not receiving BIE forward funding while the other tribally controlled
colleges had their funds transitioned to a forward funded basis. 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. The oversight was that the administration requested the
forward funding under the line item in the budget include all of the
tribally controlled colleges except UTTC and NTU. The administration
neglected to update the budget request to include the line item
``tribal technical colleges'' that had recently been established for
UTTC and NTC. Also left out were the BIE-administered institutions of
Haskell, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, and the Institute
of American Indian Art which are funded under other authorities. 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. This simply allows us to know 9
months in advance our funding, which is critically important when
appropriations are delayed and the Government is funded under
Continuing Resolutions.
Contract Support Costs and Administrative Cost Grants.--As
mentioned above, we administer our BIE funding through an Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act contract, and thus contract
support costs (CSC) are vital to us. We thank this subcommittee and the
administration for the recognition of the legal obligation the Federal
Government has to pay tribal contractors their full CSC. Placing CSC
funding on a mandatory basis is the logical resolution to a long-term
solution for CSC that will eventually protect the programs funded on a
discretionary basis in the BIA and Indian Health Service budgets.
We have a BIE-funded elementary school on our campus, the Theodore
Jamerson Elementary School (TJES), and thus many of our adult students
and their children are able to attend school on the same campus. The
administration proposed a budget that would fully fund estimated
administrative costs grants ($75 million, a $12.9 million increase),
which is the schools' equivalent to contract support costs. We ask for
your support for this budget request as this would greatly assist the
TJES students in completing elementary school.
Funding for United Tribes Technical College is a good investment.
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 on-line.
We have 23 Associate degree programs, 19 certificate and three
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 68 percent and a graduate placement
rate of 79 percent. Over 45 percent of our graduates move on to
4-year or advanced degree institutions.
--Students from 49 tribes; 73 percent of our undergraduate students
receive Pell Grants.
--An unduplicated count of 605 undergraduate degree-seeking students:
258 continuing education students; and 42 dual credit
enrollment students for a total of 905 for 2014-2015.
--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 again 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.
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 expanded tribal authorities under the
Tribal Law and Order Act and the Violence Against Women Act, 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 is
depending on the basic training provided by State academies to
supplement what is provided at Artesia. 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 2016 Indian Affairs budget (p. IA-PSJ-12) notes
that training initiatives for the Indian Police Academy include
developing a pre-Academy training program for candidates; developing a
mid-level manager training program; and establishing an on-line
distance learning program for recertification, among other things.
These are things that we 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 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
DOEd's Carl Perkins Act for Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career
and Technical Education were among the programs listed in the reports.
The full GAO report did not recommend defunding these programs; rather,
it posed the possibility of consolidation of these programs to save
administrative costs. We are not in disagreement about possible
consolidation of our funding sources, as long as program funds are not
cut.
BIE funds represent over half of our core operating budget. The
Perkins funds supplement, but do not duplicate, the BIE funds. It takes
both sources of funding to frugally maintain our institution. We
actively seek alternative funding to assist with academic programming,
deferred maintenance, and scholarship assistance, among other things.
The need for 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 $14.7 million in fiscal year 2015 Federal
operational funds ($7.7 million from Perkins; $6.9 million from the
BIE). That is not an excessive amount for two campus-based institutions
who offer a broad array of programs geared toward the educational and
cultural needs of their students and who teach job-producing skills.
We know members of this subcommittee have made a point to visit
places in Indian Country and we would love to be able to arrange for
you to visit United Tribes Technical College. Thank you for your
consideration of our requests.
[This statement was submitted by Leander ``Russ'' McDonald, Ph.D.,
President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Notre Dame
Dear Senator Murkowski,
I am writing to indicate my strong support of the U.S. Geological
Survey's Great Lakes Science Center (USGS GLSC). I have pursued a
number of research collaborations with scientists at the USGS Lake
Michigan Ecological Research Station (LMERS) in Porter, Indiana. As a
result, I have the privilege of helping advance scientifically sound
natural resource management, and my graduate and undergraduate students
at the University of Notre Dame have gained invaluable training to help
build their careers. I have seen the GLSC and LMERS function with
limited resources that have steadily degraded in the last several
years. I also understand how much our Great Lakes region would benefit
from increases in the GLSC budget.
The GLSC is doing important work to preserve a critical natural
resource, the Great Lakes and its associated ecosystems that the people
of the Great Lakes region depend upon. The Great Lakes are a vast
natural resource, critical to the economy and ecology of the entire
United States. This international resource is an economic engine
generating nearly tens of billions of dollars yearly in economic
activity and is responsible for tens of thousands of jobs in fishing,
tourism and related industries alone and supports the wellbeing of
millions of U.S. citizens. The highest quality science possible is
required to inform wise management decisions concerning conservation,
water management, and fisheries resources throughout the Great Lakes
basin. The practical research produced by GLSC scientists contributes
greatly to maintaining sustainability of these resources.
The USGS GLSC conducts impartial, high-quality science essential to
Federal, State, local, tribal, and provincial management of Great Lakes
basin natural resources throughout all five of the Great Lakes
watersheds and in all eight Great Lakes States. GLSC has made
significant contributions to improving the scientific basis for
managing Great Lakes ecosystems. GLSC and LMERS scientists also publish
high-quality research in scholarly journals so that the international
research community benefits from their findings.
I have had the privilege of seeing the work at the LMERS in action.
Our collaborative research on an endangered species at the Indiana
Dunes National Lakeshore, for example, is aiding a recovery team that
implements restoration and management plans on Federal, State, and
private land. My USGS colleagues and I also are working with the
National Park Service to plan for species reintroductions. This work is
serving as model of 21st century endangered species management across
the United States.
The need for USGS GLSC research is rapidly increasing because of
new climatic extremes, increased urbanization, a globalized economy
that links the Great Lakes with ecosystems around the world, and
humanity's on-going dependence on essential ecosystem services for
recreation, economic value, and quality of life. We need a robust USGS
to confront these challenges.
I understand from my USGS colleagues that research by the GLSC and
LMERS has been eroded by failures to maintain their budget, and
worsened by a 6 percent cut from sequestration in 2013. Their budget in
2014 was at the same level it was 5 years ago in 2009. The ongoing
budget impacts have led to an accumulation of more than 15 unfilled
scientific/technical positions distributed throughout the Great Lakes
Region.
High quality, impartial scientific information from USGS GLSC is
absolutely essential for wise management of the Great Lakes Region,
including the preservation of endangered species, recreation resources,
and economically valuable fisheries.
For the first time during the Obama administration, the 2016 budget
highlights two areas where the USGS GLSC programs would experience
relatively small budget increases. The President proposes: (1) a
$250,000 increase for the Great Lakes Deepwater Assessments; and (2) a
bureau-wide $2.0 million increase for Invasive Species which would
likely result in a portion of those funds being directed to USGS GLSC.
Additionally, Presidential Memorandum of June 20, 2014--Creating a
Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other
Pollinators represents recognition of the need for the Federal
Government to support research in this field that LMERS has been a
leader on within the USGS.
As an academic researcher with a stake in the success of the USGS,
I support--and will directly benefit from--$17.5 million in fiscal year
2016 appropriations for the GLSC. Currently, the USGS GLSC receives
approximately $8.5 million in appropriated funding to support science
programs critical to the management of these incredibly valuable
resources. Compared to economic returns generated from the Great Lakes,
this funding level only represents about 1.2 percent of the annual
fisheries related revenue and less than 0.03 percent of the revenue
attributable to closely related industries. Our request for $17.5
million in fiscal year 2016 appropriations represents an $8.75 million
increase above the President's fiscal year 2016 request. The
President's fiscal year 2016 request for $250,000, combined with our
requested increase of $8.75 million, and the $8.5 million annual
appropriation allocated to the GLSC reaches the $17.5 million, and
reflects long-standing, well recognized needs for this chronically
under-funded science program. These needs were previously detailed in a
March 2010 bi-partisan letter authored by nine U.S. Senators and 21
U.S. House Members wrote to their congressional appropriation
leadership to request a total science budget of $15.0 million; and
again 2 years later in April 2012, by the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies describing the importance of the USGS programs to
regional management decisions, and recommending an appropriated science
budget of $15.0 million.
I urge you to embrace these requests in the President's budget; and
respectfully ask you to increase these additions by $8.75 million for a
total increase of $9.0 million for the USGS Great Lakes Science Center.
[This statement was submitted by Jessica J. Hellmann, Associate
Professor, Department of Biological Sciences.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Western Governors' Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Western
Governors' Association (WGA) appreciates the opportunity to provide
written testimony on the appropriations and activities of the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National
Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). My name is James D. Ogsbury and I am the
Association's Executive Director. WGA is an independent, non-partisan
organization representing the Governors of 19 Western States and 3
U.S.-flag islands.
Together, the agencies within your jurisdiction wield significant
authority over vast areas of the American West. How these agencies
conduct their work has an enormous impact on individual States. The
West is the epicenter of exceptional drought conditions, pervasive
invasive species incursion and destructive wildfire. That is why the
work of this subcommittee is of such vital importance to Western
Governors: it is your efforts, as you consider appropriations levels
and policy directives, that set the stage for how these agencies will
interact with other layers of government and the public.
I recognize that there is a certain tension between State and
Federal Governments, one that is embedded in the fabric of our
Constitution. It is equally clear that these different layers of
government must have a close and productive working relationship if our
citizens are to prosper and thrive. 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.
This can be easily demonstrated by examining the work being done by
WGA's Drought Forum under the leadership of our Chairman, Governor
Brian Sandoval of Nevada. Many areas of the West are experiencing
severe and sustained drought conditions. State and Federal
cooperation--from data sharing to land management responsibilities--is
critical to our understanding and response to these devastating drought
conditions.
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 (PILT) program
administered by the Department of Interior. These appropriations do not
represent a gift to local jurisdictions; rather they represent
important compensation for the disproportionate acreage of non-taxable
Federal lands in the West.
Similarly, payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act (SRS) are critical to compensating communities
whose timber industries have been negatively impacted by actions and
acquisitions of the Federal Government. I am encouraged by the 2-year
reauthorization of SRS that was included in H.R. 2, the Medicare Access
and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, and hope that you will consider
full funding for SRS payments in fiscal year 2016.
Western Governors understand and support the need for a permanent
solution to the issues addressed by PILT and SRS. The current situation
leads to uncertainty and frustration for local governments and funding
complications each and every funding cycle. Western Governors are ready
to assist in the development and execution of solutions to these
complicated matters.
Another important responsibility of the subcommittee is species
conservation. Western States routinely invest enormous amounts of time,
money and manpower in the management of wildlife protection and habitat
conservation. It is also appropriate for Federal agencies to provide
sufficient resources for species protection, particularly on Federal
lands. When Federal lands are inadequately managed, State and local
efforts to protect habitat and species will not be sufficient to assure
the success of these efforts. Federal agencies must demonstrate their
commitment to species preservation and recovery by committing adequate
funding for conservation efforts on Federal lands.
The subcommittee knows all too well the pressing problem of ``fire
borrowing,'' by which the funding for routine Forest Service management
activities is transferred to emergency firefighting activities. This
short-sighted practice creates a dangerous cycle that must be
eliminated. By diverting funding from management activities that reduce
wildfire threats, this practice increases the fire risk on Federal
lands and all but ensures that future wildfires will be more damaging
(and costly), especially in the current drought conditions the West is
experiencing. WGA strongly supports efforts to solve the budgetary
issue of fire borrowing, and would prefer that the Federal Government
use a funding structure similar to that used by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) in its response to natural disasters.
Section 8204 of the 2014 Farm Bill allowed Governors the
opportunity to request that National Forest System lands within their
States be considered for insect and disease designation. The Farm Bill
authorized the appropriation of $200 million to accomplish the work
required under the statute. Treatment on these designations does not
automatically occur. Many States, however, are already working with
their regional foresters to start projects as soon as possible. This
work will help reduce the threat of wildfires in areas of high risk. I
am encouraged by the eagerness of the USFS to begin this effort and
request that funding be appropriated at a reasonable and sustainable
level.
Data for water management and drought response planning is critical
to Western States. I also request adequate funding levels for the
Cooperative Water Program and National Streamflow Information Program
(NSIP), both administered by the Department of Interior's U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS). The data collected by these programs is
integral to water supply management decisions for States, utilities,
reservoir operators and farmers. This information is particularly
useful as drought persists in California, Nevada, the southern Great
Plains, and other parts of the West. The data sources are also used for
flood forecasts, making them essential to risk assessment as well as
water management. These two USGS programs are important elements of a
robust water data management program in the Western States, and provide
needed support for drought mitigation efforts throughout the West.
Infrastructure management is another crucial element of drought
response. EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
(SRFs) provide the necessary support for communities to maintain and
enhance their water infrastructure. The Western Governors' 2014 policy
resolution, Water Resource Management in the West, supports adequate
funding for SRFs.
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.
Western Governors appreciate your assistance in encouraging a
positive relationship between the States and the Federal Government on
the use of wildlife data. For the past 2 years, this subcommittee has
included language in its report directing Federal land managers to use
State fish and wildlife data and analyses as principal sources to
inform land use, land planning and related natural resource decisions.
Both levels of government 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
many cases, States generate the best available wildlife science. I
encourage you to maintain this position and reiterate it in your fiscal
year 2016 report to strengthen this important operating principle.
Western Governors believe that States should be full and equal
partners in the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
should have the opportunity to participate in pre-listing and post-
listing ESA decisions. The Act 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.
ESA listing decisions can have dramatic impacts on vital State
interests, influencing a State's ability to conduct almost any
activity--from road siting to new home construction to environmental
projects. 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
(CWA), Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act--vest
the States with the role of co-regulator with the EPA.
The number of wild horses and burros on BLM lands is estimated by
the agency to be almost double the current Appropriate Management Level
(AML). Wild horse and burro populations in excess of AMLs can degrade
rangeland, causing harmful effects on wildlife and domestic livestock.
This degradation also has implications for the protection of threatened
and endangered species and other species protection efforts. WGA would
support a process to establish, monitor and adjust AMLs for wild horses
and burros that is transparent to stakeholders, supported by scientific
information (including State data), and amenable to adaptation with new
information and environmental and social change. Such a process would
address both the long-term viability of wild horse and burro
populations, and near-term concerns about the rangeland impacts of
overpopulation.
Last year, the administration unveiled a proposed rule of the EPA
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers intended to clarify the
jurisdictional reach of the CWA. 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 continues to be
concerned that States were insufficiently consulted during the
development of this proposal and played no role in the creation of the
rule.
Congress intended for the States and EPA to implement the CWA in
partnership and delegated 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 CWA or similar statutes.
States have exclusive authority over the allocation and
administration of rights to groundwater located within their borders
and are primarily responsible for protecting, managing, and otherwise
controlling the resource. The regulatory reach of the Federal
Government was not intended to, and should not, be applied to the
management and protection of groundwater resources. I encourage you not
to permit the use of appropriated funds for any activity that would
implement a directive on groundwater management. Federal agencies
should work with the States to identify ways to address their
groundwater-related needs and concerns through existing State
authorities. Such collaborative efforts will help ensure that Federal
efforts involving groundwater recognize and respect State primacy and
comply with Federal and State statutory authorities.
Western Governors and Federal land management agencies deal with a
complex web of interrelated natural resource issues. It is an enormous
challenge to judiciously balance competing needs in this environment,
and Western Governors appreciate the difficulty of the decisions this
subcommittee must make. 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.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the
content of these remarks.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wilderness Land Trust
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Reid Haughey and I am the president of the
Wilderness Land Trust. Thank you for the opportunity to submit
testimony. My testimony focuses on a very small portion of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)--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 Trust is 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.
Last year marked the 50th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964
that established our National Wilderness Preservation System. As part
of our celebration of the 50th anniversary, the Trust commissioned a
national inventory of private lands within wilderness. The results are
startling. The report determined that within the lower 48 States,
175,863 acres of private lands still remain in 2,883 parcels. There are
also 440,000 acres of State owned lands. Alaska is home to 47 percent
of the total nonFederal lands--predominantly Native corporation lands
stemming from ANCSA--comprising 693,641 acres in 686 parcels.
When the Trust started work 23 years ago, we estimated there were
400,000 acres of private land within designated wilderness in the lower
48 States. It has taken steady work to reduce that by more than half.
Large appropriations for the Inholding Accounts did not accomplish this
success--just reliable, modest funding so that lands can be purchased
when landowners want to sell. This is the level of funding we are
hoping to continue.
I am before you today to thank you for funding the Inholdings
Accounts in fiscal year 2015 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.
Our work, along with that of many other organizations and
facilitated by funding of the Inholding Accounts, aims to give the
Federal Government less work. Eliminating private inholdings within
designated wilderness:
--Saves Federal dollars,
--Solves management and resource problems,
--Helps private landowners, and
--Increases recreational access and economic development.
Saving Federal Dollars
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. While steady progress has been
made reducing private inholdings in wilderness areas in the lower 48
States, our wilderness areas remain riddled with private inholdings
that greatly threaten the wilderness that surrounds them and creates a
``Swiss cheese'' effect. While The Wilderness Act defines Wilderness as
places where ``where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,''
private landowners retain their rights to build roads, homes and other
buildings, extend utilities, extract minerals and timber, and block
public access. There are numerous cases where such inholdings have been
developed in ways that seriously degrade wilderness values on the
adjacent public lands. All of theses activities pose challenges for
Federal managers of the lands surrounding private inholdings and create
significant and costly management inefficiencies. 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.
For example, the Trust acquired a property in the Hells Canyon
Wilderness in Arizona several years ago that ended 38 years of on and
off litigation over access. This saved the agency a lot of ongoing
costs. It made the landowner happy and completed the wilderness that
surrounded it.
Further, as you are well aware, the costs associated with
firefighting on public lands are enormous. The Wilderness Land Trust
may be the only landowner within designated wilderness that can say it
has experienced both sides of reducing firefighting costs. A property
we owned in the heart of California's Yolla Bolly Wilderness burned
while we owned it. Significant resources were spent to protect the
structures on it, risking life and limb, as well as money.
On the other hand, the Trust's Hells Canyon Wilderness property in
Idaho burned one week after it was transferred to Federal ownership. No
one cared; no one came out to protect it. It burned as part of the
natural process of wilderness and firefighting efforts rightly
concentrated at the edges of the wildland-urban interface.
Specific data on firefighting expenses are difficult to get. The
Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, a State and Federal Government
partnership whose members include 23 State and Pacific Island
Foresters, 7 Western Regional Foresters, 3 Western Research Station
Directors, The Forest Products Lab Director of the USDA Forest Service,
published a report: The True Cost of Wildfire in the Western U.S. in
April 2009. Among the case studies reviewed, the lowest total cost per
acre firefighting expense was the Canyon Fire Complex in Montana
(2000). The total cost was $411 per acre. There were only six
structures involved. The highest cost per acre was the 2000 Cerro
Grande fire in New Mexico. It cost $22,634 per acre. There were 260
residences involved. This is strong evidence that the presence of
private lands and structures within public landscapes exponentially
increases the cost of firefighting.
Not all the costs of managing these isolated parcels fall on the
Federal Government. As the manager of Pitkin County, Colorado I learned
firsthand that the expenses of providing services to these isolated and
far-flung properties far exceed the tax revenues received and do not
come close to offsetting the cost of providing fire protection,
emergency services, road, school buses and general government services.
It costs more to serve these isolated single properties than the tax
revenue they generate.
Solves Management and Resource Problems
The Inholding Accounts have been used to acquire mines from private
owners, private retreats, and various properties that include the
spectrum of non--wilderness uses. We are currently readying for
transfer to Federal ownership a former mine in the Frank Church River
of No Return Wilderness. We've closed the former un-reclaimed mine on
the banks of the Wild and Scenic Salmon River. The transfer will remove
a private home and no trespassing signs on one of the few flat spots on
that stretch of river. It will be returned to the public, who can enjoy
being able to stop there and learn about past mining days, camp or fish
from land on which the abandoned and open mine is now reclaimed and
closed--no longer a threat to the public, or to the Wild and Scenic
River from its open shafts deep into the alluvium of the river.
Recent purchases funded from the Inholding Accounts have secured
access to the east side of the Ventana Wilderness in California,
secured trails through the Wabayuma Peak Wilderness in Arizona and the
Glacier Peak Wilderness in Washington and created access to a recently
designated wilderness in Idaho. More are on the way.
Helps Private Landowners
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, 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.
This is why consistent funding for the Inholding Accounts is vital.
We have learned that these lands become available about once a
generation. It has been our experience that these critical inholdings
come on the market at a steady rate as owners make decisions based on
their family or business needs. About 3 to 5 percent come on the market
every year--once a generation. If the opportunity to meet the seller's
need is missed, it averages another 20 years before the opportunity
comes again.
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.
Increases Recreational Access and Economic Development
On the east side of the Castle Crags Wilderness in California is a
wall of private land that blocks access from Interstate 5. The nearby
community of Dunsmuir is wholly supportive of transferring these lands
to Federal ownership and opening up the Crags to visitation. Dunsmuir
anticipates visitors that will come to the community and its climbing,
biking and skiing shops it is hoped will grow to replace the loss of
logging jobs. Dunsmuir has been suffering under an unemployment rate of
18 percent and looks forward to having the recreational asset of the
Crags' world class climbing only one mile off Interstate 5 and just
outside their community--rather than a 7-mile hike around the private
lands that now block access.
Finally, it is also important to recognize that wilderness
inholdings come in many shapes, sizes and prices depending on the real
estate market in a particular area. A number of projects that fall in
the agency project lists are inholdings. Thus, we ask that you give the
highest level of support possible for Federal LWCF acquisitions.
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 as much support for Federal LWCF acquisitions as
possible. 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.
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 2016 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. Modest, prudent 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 2016. Specifically,
TWS recommends:
Wilderness Management
America's National Wilderness Preservation System, now 50 years
old, is suffering from a serious 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 visitors. We recommend that each of
the agency wilderness management accounts be increased to support much
needed trails maintenance, update signage, fight invasive species,
restore watersheds, and monitor effects of climate change, among other
critical needs.
--Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wilderness.--TWS supports restoring
BLM Wilderness funding to the fiscal year 2011 level of $19.663
million. The budget proposal of $18.559 million for BLM
wilderness management is strong, but still 6 percent lower than
the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. To just keep pace with
inflation the fiscal year 2016 request would need to be $20.430
million.
--Forest Service Recreation, Wilderness and Heritage.--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. Recreation is the
most ubiquitous use of our forest lands, and accounts 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).
--National Park Service Wilderness.--We support the proposed fiscal
year 2016 funding increase for the base wilderness program to
$462,000. As the Park Service prepares for their Centennial
next year this modest increase would help address the backlog
of Wilderness Stewardship Plans, support training for
wilderness park superintendents, improve coordination with
interagency Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, and reduce the
likelihood of litigation.
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Having just celebrated 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 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 parks, 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, with a discretionary funding level of $400 million.
Full funding for LWCF will allow land management agencies to
manage our public lands more efficiently and cost-effectively.
This is in part achieved through strategic inholdings
acquisition which reduces internal boundary line surveying,
right-of-way conflicts and special use permits.
Emergency Wildfire Funding
For years the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the
Interior (DOI) have had to divert funds from vital conservation and
wildfire prevention 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
wildfire management rise from 13 percent of the agency's budget in
fiscal year 1991 to almost 50 percent today.
--TWS strongly supports the bipartisan funding request at 70 percent
of the 10 year average, and the $841 million to be made
available under the disaster funding cap adjustment. This will
eliminate the need to pillage other accounts to pay for the
worst 1 percent of wildfires, and will treat them as the
natural disasters they truly are.
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. It will
also lead to Federal lands that are fully and fairly valued for the
American people. TWS support the following administration proposed
reforms of the BLM's oil and gas program:
--A fee on onshore Federal operators to provide for a $48 million per
year inspection and enforcement program to implement
recommendations made by the GAO.
--An increase of $5.8 million in BLM to accelerate development and
completion of Master Leasing Plans to ensure proper planning
and conservation during siting and development of oil and gas
wells.
--Funds to enact royalty reforms and improve revenue collection
process to ensure that resources on Federal lands are fully and
fairly valued and delivering fair taxpayer returns.
--Funds to implement regulations to reduce methane waste from wells
on Federal lands.
Sage-Grouse Initiative
The Wilderness Society supports the administration's $45 million
increased request for the BLM's Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation
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.
--TWS strongly supports the administration's fiscal year 2016
recommendation of $81.079 million to ensure the natural,
cultural, and historical resource protection provided by the
Conservation Lands for the American public.
--TWS also supports the proposed BLM Challenge Cost Share Program
funding of $12.416 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 public lands when sited in areas screened for habitat,
resource, and cultural conflicts. Identifying and avoiding conflicts
early is essential to avoid costly fights and create allies with local
communities and the renewable energy industry. TWS hopes the Department
will continue to support a program that ensures our public lands play
an important role in supporting renewable energy infrastructure through
environmental review, suitability screening, and energy zone
identification to find suitable places for 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 2015 enacted, up to $110.4 million
total.
--Support an increase of $5 million in Cadastral, Lands, and Realty
Management program to enhance BLM's ability to designate energy
corridors to site high-voltage transmission lines, substations,
and related infrastructure in an environmentally sensitive
manner.
Implementation of Landscape Level Management
The Wilderness Society supports the Department of Interior's
philosophy of looking at development on a landscape level with proper
mitigation policies. The recently released draft of the Desert
Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in the California Desert is a prime
example. It is crucial that the Department is fully funded to put in
place processes that designates areas for energy development, both
traditional and renewable, at the same time setting aside important
areas for wildlife, cultural, and recreational values.
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 $508.2
million.
National Forest Restoration
The Legacy Roads and Trails (LRT) and Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration (CFLR) programs provide essential funding to
restore watersheds, improve recreational access, protect aquatic
species and advance collaborative restoration projects. LRT funding was
slashed 50 percent in fiscal year 2011 and 22 percent in fiscal year
2014. Given the recent evaluation of the Integrated Resource
Restoration (IRR) program we recommend that LRT be removed from IRR, to
enable it to operate as a complementary program to IRR, similar to
CFLR. We also do not recommend that the IRR pilot program be expanded
until the test regions have proven that IRR can improve restoration
without a loss of transparency and accountability. Specifically, TWS
recommends that Congress:
--Restore Legacy Roads and Trails funding to $45 million and fully
fund the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program at
$60 million
Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring and Planning
The Inventory and Monitoring Program is integral to forest
planning. 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 reduce
risks to water quality and quantity, wildlife, and recreation. TWS
recommends that Congress:
--Support Inventory and Monitoring and Planning by restoring funding
to the running 10-year average of $162,060,500 and $45,712,600,
respectively.
National Forest Roads
Forest Service roads funding has been cut by 41 percent since 2010,
adding even more strain to a severely under-maintained road system. The
road system enables management, recreation and restoration on our
national forests and grasslands. It is also one of the most significant
stressors on watersheds and ecosystems, contributing to water pollution
and declining fish populations. Adequate funding is needed to create a
sustainable, safe road system that minimizes negative impacts of roads,
provides high quality recreational access, and to stormproof roads
against anticipated severe flood flows resulting from climate change.
--We urge Congress to fund Capital Improvement and Maintenance Roads
at the running 10-year average of $201,702,200 in fiscal year
2016.
National Forest Trails
There are 158,000 miles of trails in the National Forest System.
These trails provide 50 million visitor days of outdoor recreational
use each year. Annual visitor days have grown 376 percent since 1977,
and the total mileage of trails has grown 56.9 percent to accommodate
this. Unfortunately, the trails maintenance and reconstruction line
item has remained essentially flat since 1980, after adjusting for
inflation. In fiscal year 2015 the trails budget was cut 9 percent
compared to fiscal year 2010, despite the fact that GAO has reported a
$500 million trail maintenance backlog. Currently, the Forest Service
is only able to maintain a quarter of its trail miles to a minimum
standard condition.
--We urge Congress to fund Capital Improvement and Maintenance Trails
at its fiscal year 2010 level of $85,381,000 in fiscal year
2016.
[This statement was submitted by Alan Rowsome, Senior Director of
Government Relations for Lands.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Conservation Society
Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, members of the
subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on
fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act. 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 manages 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.
Internationally, by supporting conservation, the US 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. The illegal trade in elephant ivory, rhino horns, tiger skins
and other illegal wildlife products is worth at least an estimated $8
to $10 billion annually. 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.
u.s. ivory ban
The Federal Government recently presented a plan to implement its
National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking (National
Strategy), which is designed to provide a framework for a whole-of-
government approach to addressing the crisis. Several programs within
this bill form the base upon which that strategy is built, but a key
piece of the overall National Strategy that has been of some concern to
some members of the subcommittee--the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(FWS) announcement to change its current Federal rule to further
restrict the commercial sale of ivory--should be addressed first.
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. A study published by WCS
found that in 2012 alone, 35,000 African elephants were killed for
their ivory--that is an average of 96 elephants per day or one killed
every 15 minutes. This finding is supported by a subsequent study that
found that 100,000 elephants were poached between 2011 and 2013. Both
studies show that conditions are dire for the subspecies of African
forest elephants, which has declined by about two-thirds in a little
more than a decade. Continued poaching at this rate may mean the
extinction of forest elephants in the wild within the next 10 years and
the potential loss of all African elephant species in the wild in our
lifetimes. Action must be taken now to prevent this catastrophe from
occurring.
There is little question that China is the largest market for
illegal ivory. However, the United States is also one of the larger
destinations, both for domestic consumption and as a transshipment hub
for Asia. As part of Operation Crash, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and Department of Justice have successfully arrested criminals
and prosecuted cases in several States over the last 18 months--
including Texas, New York, Florida and New Jersey--involving millions
of dollars illegal ivory and rhino horn. These busts are strong
evidence that there is a domestic problem with illegal ivory, all of
which is smuggled in from overseas and which frequently crosses State
lines, placing it firmly under Federal jurisdiction.
The problem with ivory is that you cannot differentiate legal ivory
antiques from illegal ivory without lab tests, which are costly and can
damage the piece. Once raw or worked ivory from recently poached
elephants is smuggled into the United States, it can easily be placed
in the marketplace right alongside genuine antiques. A survey conducted
in 2008 of 24,000 pieces of ivory being sold in antique stores in 16
cities in the United States and Canada concluded exactly this point,
finding that more than 7,000 of these items were potentially illegal.
The system, as it was, was fundamentally flawed.
Recognizing it does not have the resources to test and verify this
many pieces of ivory, FWS is in the process of revising its rules
regarding African elephant ivory to bring them more in line with the
underlying statutes. FWS had initially indicated its intent to publish
a proposed rule last summer, but after consulting with stakeholders
from all sides, the agency appears to have taken the time to craft a
rule that seeks to accommodate as many of these stakeholders as it can
while still making meaningful changes that stop the domestic sale of
illegal ivory.
Last year's Interior bill in the House contained a provision that
would have blocked FWS from proceeding on any rule related to ivory,
forcing the continuation of a system that we know does not work and has
been a contributing factor in the poaching of 100,000 elephants over
the past 3 years. WCS understands that a preliminary rule is very close
to being released. We would encourage the subcommittee to allow this
process to continue so that the public can see the proposal and have a
substantive debate on the actual content of the rule rather than the
current arguments from both sides, which are based entirely on
speculation about what the rule might contain.
u.s. fish and wildlife service
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF): There is much more
to the Federal effort to combat wildlife trafficking than the ivory
ban, much of which is under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. 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 two to four times as much in
matching funds. This program has been level-funded for the last 3
fiscal years, and WCS requests that $11 million--equal to the
President's request--be appropriated for the MSCF for fiscal year 2016.
WCS has had great success on projects using funds from the MSCF.
One grant we receive through the African Elephant Conservation Fund
supports the longest running study of African forest elephants at
Dzanga Bai in the Central African Republic. Despite political turmoil
and instability in the country, the area remains an important habitat
and gathering site for large numbers of elephants. Funds support
ongoing surveillance and monitoring of the site, collection of baseline
data, and collaboration with local anti-poaching efforts.
FWS International Affairs: The FWS International Affairs (IA)
program supports efforts to conserve our planet's rich wildlife
diversity by protecting habitat and species, combating illegal wildlife
trade, and building capacity for landscape-level wildlife conservation.
The program 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. Within IA, the Wildlife
Without Borders program seeks to address grassroots wildlife
conservation problems from a broad, landscape perspective--building
regional expertise and capacity while strengthening local institutions.
WCS encourages supporting the President's request for $14.7 million.
Office of Law Enforcement: The United States 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 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 $75.4 million. The additional
funding requested for this year would allow OLE to expand its approach
to target and stop illicit trade; ensure sustainable legal trade
through the CITIES; place enforcement officers in transit hubs
overseas; reduce demand for illegal products in consumer countries;
and, provide technical assistance and grants to other nations to build
local enforcement capabilities.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation: Many of the domestic
conservation programs in this bill provide funding to States to
implement their conservation goals. But wildlife does not recognize
political boundaries, and scarce conservation dollars can best be spent
when effective planning and coordination takes place across entire
ecosystems. The Cooperative Landscape Conservation Program funds a
network of 22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) in the United
States and Canada, which use a collaborative approach between Federal,
State, tribal and local partners to identify landscape scale
conservation solutions and work collaboratively to meet unfilled
conservation needs, develop decision support tools, share data and
knowledge, and facilitate and foster conservation partnerships. Funding
will support landscape planning and design that will improve the
condition of wildlife habitat and improve resilience of U.S.
communities. WCS encourages the subcommittee to meet the President's
request for $17.9 million for this program.
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 strong and continued support
for fiscal year 2016 at levels at or above fiscal year 2015
appropriations for the program.
u.s. forest service
International Programs: The U.S. economy has lost approximately $1
billion per year and over 200,000 jobs due to illegal logging, which is
responsible for 15-30 percent of all timber by volume. The Forest
Service International Program (FSIP) works to level the playing field
by reducing illegal logging and improving the sustainability and
legality of timber management overseas, translating to less underpriced
timber undercutting U.S. producers. Through partnerships with USAID and
the Department of State, FSIP helps to improve the resource management
in countries of strategic importance to U.S. security.
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. 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.
FSIP has been level-funded for several years. Given the economic
benefits to U.S. timber producers and the program's excellent history
of leveraging four additional dollars in matching funds for each
Federal dollar invested, WCS encourages the subcommittee to appropriate
$9 million for the program, an increase of $1 million from fiscal year
2015. With additional appropriated funding, FSIP would expand a number
of activities, including developing new technologies, protecting
habitat for migratory species and endangered wildlife, promoting
community forestry, supporting policy formulation, and strengthening
law enforcement.
u.s. national park service
Office of International Affairs: Since the establishment of the
Office of International Affairs (OIA) in 1961, the U.S. Government has
been facilitating 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. 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 2016.
In conclusion, WCS appreciates the opportunity to share its
perspectives and make a case for increased investment in conservation
in the fiscal year 2016 Interior, the Environment and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act. Conservation of public lands is an American
tradition and, as far back as 1909, Theodore Roosevelt recognized that
the management of our natural resources requires coordination between
all nations. Continued investment in conservation will reaffirm our
global position as a conservation leader, while improving our national
security and building capacity and good governance in developing
countries.
______
Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society
The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide
testimony on the fiscal year 2016 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 9,000 professional wildlife biologists
and managers. Our mission is to inspire, empower, and enable wildlife
professionals to sustain wildlife populations and habitats through
science-based management and conservation.
u.s. fish and wildlife service
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program is the only Federal
program that supports States in preventing wildlife from becoming
endangered. It is also the primary program supporting implementation of
State Wildlife Action Plans, which detail 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. We are
appreciative of the increase in funding recommended in the President's
budget, to $70 million in fiscal year 2016. We recommend Congress
appropriate at least $70 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
in fiscal year 2016. 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 $508.2 million for fiscal year 2016. 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 2016.
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 increase funding for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act to $4.16 million in fiscal year 2016.
For fiscal year 2016, the FWS proposes to restructure the budget
for all endangered species work 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 $38 million for
Listing, $108.9 million for Planning and Consultation, and $126.3
million for Conservation and Restoration in fiscal year 2016.
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 2016 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 $14.7 million in support of FWS
International Affairs in fiscal year 2016.
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 $89.4 million for BLM Wildlife Management in fiscal year
2016. 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 $37 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 2016.
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 $3 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 22,500 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 $80.6 million should
be provided to BLM if they continue removing excess horses from the
range at a reasonable rate and focus additional resources on habitat
restoration.
u.s. geological survey
The basic, objective, and interdisciplinary scientific research
that is supported by the USGS is necessary for understanding the
complex environmental issues facing our Nation today. This science will
play an essential role in the decisionmaking processes of natural
resource managers, and it will help protect our water supply and
conserve endangered species. More investment is needed to strengthen
USGS partnerships, improve monitoring, produce high-quality geospatial
data, and deliver the best science to address critical environmental
and societal challenges. The Wildlife Society supports funding of at
least $1.2 billion for USGS in fiscal year 2016.
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 $176 million for USGS's Ecosystems Department in fiscal year
2016. Within Ecosystems, we support the request of $46.7 million for
the Wildlife Program.
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 2016 budget
for the CFWRUs should be increased to $20 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 National Climate Change and Wildlife Science 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, we recommend that Congress fund the National
Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center at the requested $37.4
million in fiscal year 2016.
u.s. forest service
Our national forests and grasslands are essential to the
conservation of our Nation's wildlife and habitat, and are home to
about 425 threatened and endangered 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. Although we
have some reservations about this merger, because it makes
accountability to stakeholders and Congress more difficult, we urge
Congress to support the request of $822.1 million for the Integrated
Resource Restoration program in fiscal year 2016.
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
$292 million in fiscal year 2016 for Forest and Rangelands to support
this high-quality research.
wildfire disaster funding act
We appreciate the subcommittee's support of the Wildfire Disaster
Funding Act (H.R. 167) and request it be included in this bill. It
would provide 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, and
provide the USFS and DOI with a funding structure similar to that used
by other agencies who respond to natural disaster emergencies.
Thank you for considering the recommendations of wildlife
professionals.